The Issue Has the applicant, Grove Isle, Ltd. provided reasonable assurances and affirmatively demonstrated that its proposed marina is clearly in the public interest and will not lower the existing ambient water quality of Biscayne Bay, a designated outstanding Florida water?
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 1978 an application was made to DER for a water quality control permit to construct a wet-slip marina on the west side of Grove Isle, formerly known as Fair Isle and Sailboat Key. The original plan for the marina, which was initially objected to by the Department of Environmental Regulation, was modified to protect a bed of seagrasses extending about 30 feet wide in a band along the west side of the island. While the plans were being modified and consultations with other government permitting agencies were in progress, the application was "deactivated" from September 27, 1978 until March 30, 1979. As a result of its investigation and review, DER on October 23, 1979, issued a letter of intent to grant the permit to Grove Isle, Inc. The permit if granted, would allow the applicant to construct six concrete fixed piers, five "T" shaped, one "L" shaped, with a boat docking capacity of 90 pleasure boats. The piers will extend a maximum of 165 feet offshore from an existing concrete bulkhead. The width of the piers will be 8 feet from the bulkhead to a point 41 feet offshore, and then increased to a width of 10 feet. A sewage pump-out facility is also proposed. Attached to that letter of intent were the following conditions: Adequate control shall be taken during the construction so that turbidity levels outside a 50 foot radius of the work area do not exceed 50 J.C.U's, as per Section 24-11, of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. During construction, turbidity samples shall be collected at a mid-depth twice daily at a point 50 feet up stream and at a point 50 feet down stream from the work area. The contractor shall arrange to have turbidity sample results reported to him within one hour of collection. Turbidity monitoring reports shall be submitted weekly to DER and to the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management (MDCERM) If turbidity exceeds 50 J.C.U's beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area, turbidity curtains shall be placed around the work area and MDCERM notified immediately. Turbidity samples shall be collected according to condition two above, no later than one hour after the installation of the turbidity curtain. It turbidity levels do not drop below 50 J.C.U's within one hour of installation of the curtain all construction shall be halted. Construction shall not be resumed until the contractor has received authorization from MDCERM. No live-a-board vessels (permanent or transient) shall be docked at this facility unless direct sewage pump-out connections are provided at each live-a-board slip. A permanent pump-out station shall be installed and maintained for further removal of sewage and waste from the vessels using this facility. Compliance with this requirement will entail the applicant's contacting the Plan Review Section of MDCERM for details concerning connection to an approved disposal system. Boat traffic in the shallow 30 foot wide dense seagrass area which parallels the shoreline shall be restricted by the placement of wood piles on 6 foot centers along the entire shoreline facing the marina. The channel from this marina to deeper water in Biscayne Bay shall be marked to prevent boats from straying into adjacent shallow areas. This will prevent habitat destruction. A chemical monitoring program shall be established to determine the effect of this marina on the water quality of this section of Biscayne Bay. Surface and mid-depth samples shall be collected at three points in the project area and at one background station. Parameters shall include, but not be limited to dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, temperature, total coliform and fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, and turbidity. Background samples shall be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. In addition to the chemical monitoring program, a benthic community monitoring program is to be established. Samples of the benthic seagrass community within and adjacent to the project area are to be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. Should either monitoring program detect dissimilar changes at its monitoring and control stations, DER and MDCERM shall be notified of the results. The monitoring programs shall be reviewed and approved by DER and MDCERM prior to implementation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to DER and MDCERM and the United States Corps of Engineers on regular basis. Warning signs shall be posted in the marina area to advise marina users that manatees frequent the area and caution should be taken to avoid collisions with them. With the foregoing conditions imposed, the Department concluded that no significant immediate or long term negative biological impact is anticipated and state water quality standards should not be violated as a result of the proposed construction. Grove Isle, Inc., has agreed to comply with all the conditions established by the DER letter of intent to grant the permit. Grove Isle is a spoil bank in Biscayne Bay located approximately 700 feet east of the Florida mainland. It is linked to the mainland by a two-lane concrete bridge. The island is currently under development for a 510 unit condominium community with associated facilities such as a restaurant, hotel, and the proposed marina. The island is surrounded by a concrete bulkhead constructed many years ago. No changes in the bulkhead line are proposed. Grove Isle, Inc., proposes constructing the marina on concrete piles driven into the Bay bottom from a shallow draft barge. During construction there would be some turbidity caused from the disruption of the Bay sediment. This can however be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. The construction will not require any dredging or filling. In the immediate marina site the most significant biota are a 30 foot wide bed of seagrasses. There are no other important biota because at one time the area was extensively dredged to create the island. There are no oyster or clam beds nearby. While lobsters may have once frequented the area, they too are no longer present. The water depth in the area ranges from 1 foot near the island bulkhead to 12 feet offshore to the west of the island. This particular seagrass bed consist primarily of turtle grass (thalassia, testudinum) with some Cuban Shoal Weed (Halodule, Wrightii). Protection for these grasses will be provided by a buffer zone between the island and the boat slips. The grassy zone will be bordered by a row of dolphin piles to exclude boat traffic. Because the grass requires sunlight for photosynthesis and therefore life, the six piers will have grated walkways where they pass over the grass. This will allow sunlight to reach below. In addition to the small grass bed on the west of the island there are extensive beds to the northeast, east and south of the island that extend several hundred yards from the island in water depths of three to ten feet. If boat traffic in the vicinity is markedly increased due to the existence of the marina, it is conceivable that the number of propeller scars in these shallow beds could increase. At the present time the beds are already traversed by boats, some of which are owned by Petitioner's members. There are already for example, approximately 50 crafts which operate from the nearby mainland or from Pelican Canal directly to the north of the island. Propeller scars take up to fifteen years to heal yet the number of scars in the Grove Isle area is insignificant and even a tripling of them from an additional 90 boats would still be de minimus. Potential damage to the seagrasses on the north side of the island will be minimized by the planned installation of navigation markers by Grove Isle. These markers will channel boats into water of a navigable depth and lessen the number of groundings and near groundings which cause the scarring. There is evidence that pleasure boats by their very existence and operation in the water are potential pollution sources. For instance, various maintenance chemicals such as anti-fouling bottom paint and wood cleaner have the ability, if used in sufficient quantity, to harm marine life. The fueling of engines and sewage discharge from boats are additional pollution sources. There was however, no showing that the location of up to 90 pleasure and sport fishing craft at the proposed marina site would in any way cause a degradation of water quality below the acceptable standards for Class III waters. At the present time, the marina site has adequate flushing to disburse those pollutants which may be generated by the marina operations. While a hydrographic survey was not requested by DER or provided by Grove Isle at the time the permit application was made, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht at the time of the Hearing provided adequate assurances respecting the hydrographic characteristics of the proposed site. The proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities. No live-a-board craft will be allowed at the marina. Both Mr. Wm. Cleare Filer and David A. Doheny live close to Grove Isle. Mr. Doheny's residence is on the mainland facing the proposed marina site and Mr. Filer's house is on Pelican Canal. They use the waters of Biscayne Bay around Grove Isle for recreation. If the quality of the water in the proposed marina site were lessened their substantial interest would be affected. Biscayne Bay is classified as a Class III water and is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Careful considerations has been given to each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. To the extent that they are not contained in this Order, they are rejected as being either not supported by competent evidence or as immaterial and irrelevant to the issues determined here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, determining that the requested water quality control permit and certification be issued subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and that the Relief requested by the Petitioners be denied and their Petitions be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Doheny, Esquire 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Wm. Cleare Filer 3095 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Joel Jaffer 2479 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33145 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry S. Stewart, Esquire Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richmond & Greer One Biscayne Tower 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION BAYSHORE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2186 79-2324 STATE OF FLORIDA, 79-2354 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and GROVE ISLE, LIMITED, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-10.041(3)(d) of the South Florida Water Management District (“the District”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Conservancy is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Naples, Florida. It has 6,200 members residing in Southwest Florida. The mission of the Conservancy is to protect the environment and natural resources of Southwest Florida. The Caloosahatchee River is an important focus of the Conservancy’s organizational activities and objectives. A substantial number of the members of the Conservancy use the Caloosahatchee River for drinking water, boating, fishing, wildlife observation, and scientific research. The proposed rules create a prospective reservation of water in the not-yet-operational Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Reservoir “for fish and wildlife.” The Conservancy’s interests would be substantially affected by the proposed reservation. The District is a regional water management agency created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2013). It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida. Proposed rule 40E-10.041(3) states: (3) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir: All surface water contained within and released, via operation, from the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is reserved from allocation. The water reserved under this paragraph will be available for fish and wildlife upon a formal determination of the Governing Board, pursuant to state and federal law, that the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is operational. The reservation contained within this subsection and the criteria contained in section 3.11.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-2.091, F.A.C., shall be revised in light of changed conditions or new information prior to the approval described in paragraph (3)(b) above. Pursuant to subsection 373.223(4), F.S., presently existing legal uses for the duration of a permit existing on [RULE ADOPTION DATE] are not contrary to the public interest. The Conservancy challenges only paragraph (3)(d), contending that it modifies or contravenes the implementing statute, section 373.223(4).
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina is entitled to be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection for its project application submitted July 29, 1992, and revised November 15, 1993, to enlarge an existing marina and add new slips.
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1992, Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina (Respondent Jupiter Hills) submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) for a permit to enlarge an existing dock facility to 488 feet and to increase the existing 6 slips to 48 new slips. Respondent Jupiter Hills is located 0.7 miles north of Martin County Line Road, on U. S. Highway One, Indian River Lagoon, Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, more particularly described as Martin County, Section 19, Township 40 South, Range 43 East, Indian River Lagoon Class III Waters. On November 15, 1993, Respondent Jupiter Hills amended its application at the request of Respondent DEP. The revised proposed project increases the dock facility from 6 slips to 18 slips, restricting 12 of the 18 slips for sailboat use; and proposes a new 149 foot long T-shaped pier from the existing pier, creating a total dimension of 180 feet by 60 feet. Further, Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to remove four existing finger piers and 10 existing mooring pilings, to add eight finger piers and 34 new mooring pilings, and to place riprap along the existing seawall and new pier. The proposed project is located in an Outstanding Florida Water (a designated aquatic preserve), the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, which is a part of the Indian River Preserve. Significant water quality parameters for this proposed project include coliform bacteria, heavy metals, and oil and grease. Water quality standards for oil and grease are not being currently met. However, to address this noncompliance, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to include, as part of this project, the installation of an exfiltration trench to trap grease coming from the uplands. This trench will improve water quality, causing a net improvement of water quality in the proposed project area. Stormwater from the area, including a portion of U. S. Highway One and parking areas within U. S. Highway One right-of-way, discharge directly into Respondent Jupiter Hills. This stormwater then drains directly into tidal waters. The exfiltration trench is designed to intercept up to three-fourths of an inch of the stormwater flow currently draining into the basin. The owners of Respondent Jupiter Hills will maintain the exfiltration trench. They have signed a long-term agreement with Respondent DEP for the maintenance of the trench, and the agreement is included in Respondent DEP's Intent to Issue. Water quality standards for fecal coliform are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills has proposed a sewage pump-out station which is not currently in the area and which will encourage boaters to pump boat sewage into the city treatment area instead of dumping the sewage into the water. The pump-out station will be connected to the central sewage system, but boaters will not be required to use the sewage pump-out station. However, since liveaboards are more likely to cause fecal coliform violations, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed that no liveaboards will be permitted in the proposed project. Water quality standards for heavy metals are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to use construction materials which have not been treated by heavy metals. Also, because the proposed project area flushes in one tidal cycle, any additional metals from the boats themselves would be swept away quickly. The proposed project will not adversely impact or affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met, continue to be met, and not violated. As a result, the public health and safety are protected. The proposed pump-out facility will reduce the incidences of illegal head discharges into the Jupiter Sound. Thus, this facility will benefit the health and safety of swimmers or others participating in water-related activities in the Jupiter Sound. The proposed project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to several measures designed to reduce any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and the measures have been incorporated into the Intent to Issue. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to not allow new power boats to dock at the proposed facility, which will prevent adverse affects on the manatee population in the area. Additionally, the proposed pump-out facility will improve the water quality, resulting in a benefit to fish and wildlife, including the Benthic habitat and seagrasses. Respondent Jupiter Hills has further agreed to install navigational signs, directing boaters away from manatees, and no wake signs, indicating the presence of manatees; these signs do not presently exist. Furthermore, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to post signs directing boaters away from any seagrasses located in the proposed project area. Whether seagrasses in the proposed project area will be adversely affected is also a factor to be considered. Inspections and surveys of the proposed project area in December 1992 and mid-March 1993 revealed one patch of Halophila decipiens and Halophila johnsonii at the 100 foot contour but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. A survey of the area in late April 1994 revealed some seagrasses in the proposed project area but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. In September 1995, an examination of the area revealed Halophila decipiens just waterward of the existing slips down to the southern property boundaries 20 to 30 feet wide and revealed sparse seagrasses approximately 300 to 500 feet from the shoreline. Halophila decipiens is more abundant and thick in the summer and tends to die off and at its thinnest in the winter. Neither Halophila decipiens nor Halophila johnsonii are threatened or endangered species of seagrasses. The seagrasses provide a significant environmental benefit. The benefits include nutrient recycling in the area and providing habitat for Benthic invertebrates, such as crabs, which are at the bottom of the food chain. Also, other plants grow on the seagrasses, such as algae, and the other plants provide food for other organisms. Manatees eat several seagrasses, including Halophia decipiens but it is not one of the manatees preferred seagrasses. Seagrasses can be adversely affected in two ways. One way is that prop dredging could scar the seagrasses. However, as to the proposed project, the depth of the water in the area of the seagrasses will prevent any adverse affects from prop dredging. The second way that seagrasses can, and will, be adversely affected is being shaded by the proposed dock or by boats tied-up to the dock. The density of the seagrass, pertaining to this proposed project, is thin and low and approximately one percent of actual coverage. In determining whether the proposed project is clearly in the public interest, Respondent DEP uses a balancing test which consists of taking the public interest criteria and weighing the pros and cons of the proposed project. Balancing the adverse impacts on the seagrasses and the positive effects of the public interest criteria, the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. The slips in the proposed project will increase by 12; however, the slips can only be used by sailboats. Since sailboats move slowly, the manatees in the area will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Neither navigation nor the flow of water will be adversely affected by the proposed project. Further, no harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the proposed project. Adequate depths are off of the end of the dock for boats to safely navigate. Shoaling is not a potential problem, and therefore, any potential shoaling which may develop will not adversely affect navigation. The proposed dock will not impact navigation into the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) because the dock will not extend into the ICW and because Respondent Jupiter Hills will provide navigational aids to guide boaters to access the Atlantic ICW. Furthermore, there is sufficient depth for navigation between the end of the proposed dock and the sandbar where the seagrasses are located. Boat traffic coming from the south will primarily originate from the residences to the south. The proposed dock will force these boaters 200 feet offshore where the natural channel is located. Additionally, the dock will keep boaters further offshore from the riparian land owners to the north, including the Petitioners. To improve the public interest aspects of the project, Respondent DEP proposed that Respondent Jupiter Hills install riprap, which Respondent Jupiter Hills agreed to do. Installation of the riprap will be 367 feet along the perimeter of the proposed dock and in a 10 by 50 foot area along the bulkhead north of the dock. Some shoaling will result but will not affect navigation. The riprap will provide substrate and shelter for marine life. The fishing or recreational values or marine productivity will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Marine productivity will increase because the sewage pump-out station will improve the water quality which will benefit the Benthic community. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature. Significant historical and archaeological resources will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. The Department of State, which is responsible for historical and archaeological resources, reviewed the Notice of Intent and has no objection to the proposed project. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project will be increased and, therefore, benefited. No cumulative impacts are associated with the proposed project. The proposed project is not in an area of pristine shoreline; the area is highly developed. Approximately 1,200 feet to the south of the proposed project is a 270 foot dock with about 50 slips. When considered with the other docks in the area, the extension of the dock in the proposed project will not significantly or measurably further violate the water quality. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order issuing Permit No. 432170499 to Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. See, conclusion of law 43. Also, partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27, 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. Also, see finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8, 9, and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. See, conclusion of law 46. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29 and 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejectd as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Respondent Jupiter Hills' Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29, 30 and 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4, 5, 8, and 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5, 8, and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9, 14, 15, and 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18, 24, and 27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33 Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 27 and 41. Respondent DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35 Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. NOTE: Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainer has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the evidence presented, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. Jurgens, Esquire Post Office Box 1178 Winter Park, Florida 32790-1178 Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire Sears and Manuel, P.A. 1218 Mount Vernon Street Orlando, Florida 32803 M.Tracy Biagiotti, Esquire Scott Hawkins, Esquire Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (Attorney for Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina) Lynette L. Ciardulli Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Douglas MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner owns property which is adjacent to Lake Serena in Putnam County, Florida. Through his application to the Respondent, the Petitioner is seeking to dredge an area waterward of the ordinary high water line of Lake Serena, and to place the dredged material on another area waterward of the ordinary high water line. The purpose of the proposed dredging and filling is to create a more gradual shoreline sloping from the Petitioner's residence to the shore of Lake Serena. Petitioner proposes to cover the filled area with white sand. He proposes to use the area as a sandy swimming beach. The area which the Petitioner is proposing to dredge and fill is presently dominated by wetlands vegetation, which would be removed by the dredging activity. The Petitioner originally commenced his project without receiving any permit from the Respondent. A large amount of the wetlands vegetation has already been removed. Lake Serena is a relatively pollution-free lake. Much of the littoral or transitional zone vegetation surrounding the lake has been replaced by sandy swimming beaches. Only approximately forty percent of the shoreline is now an aquatic vegetated littoral zone. Aquatic vegetation in the littoral zone surrounding Lake Serena serves an important natural function in preserving the water quality in the lake, and in preserving the natural resources of the lake, including fish and wildlife. The aquatic vegetation serves to filter run-off from uplands areas by assimilating nutrients that are in the run-off. A nutrient scale has been devised for identifying the amount of nutrients in a lake. An oligotrophic lake is low in nutrients. A mezotrophic lake has a moderate amount of nutrients. A eutrophic lake is high in nutrients. In the natural process of aging, water bodies progress from oligotrophic to a eutrophic state. This is a very long natural process taking thousands of years. Lake Serena is an oligotrophic lake. Aquatic vegetation in the littoral zone surrounding Lake Serena serves to maintain this condition. If too much aquatic vegetation is removed from the littoral zone, a buildup of nutrients would result. This buildup of nutrients would cause an algal bloom, or a buildup of algae plants on top of the lake. A buildup of algae on the lake would drastically decrease the oxygen level of the lake. This is because algae itself uses oxygen, because algae kills oxygen producing plants which thrive on the bottom of the lake due to light being cut off, and because, as the algae dies, it sinks and decomposes using up more oxygen. An algal bloom, and the resulting reduction of oxygen levels in a lake would constitute pollution. Removal of aquatic plants in Lake Serena's littoral zone would serve to diminish fish and wildlife populations in the lake. Small fish use such an area as a nursery ground where they can hide from predators. Without such a nursery ground, the cycle of survival for aquatic wildlife would be cut off. The area from which the Petitioner has already removed considerable wetlands vegetation, and proposes to remove more, is a viable part of the littoral zone of Lake Serena. The area serves the beneficial purposes set out in Paragraph 2 above. It cannot be determined with any degree of certainty that the Petitioner's proposed project would have any finitely measurable impact upon water quality or wildlife resources in Lake Serena. Certainly removal of all such littoral zones would drastically change the ecology of the lake and render it polluted. Sixty percent of Lake Serena's shoreline has already been denuded of vegetation. Although it cannot be determined precisely how much more such action the lake will tolerate, it is clear that there is a limit. If the Petitioner's project were granted, other similar projects would also be justified. Inevitably the lake's oligotrophic nature would be destroyed. The only effect that the Petitioner's project could have upon the water quality and natural resources of Lake Serene is negative. No evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be determined that the Petitioner's proposed project would not have an adverse impact upon the water quality and natural resources of Lake Serene. In its notice of intent to deny, Respondent asserted that the proposed project would be expected to degrade the water quality of Lake Serena, and to violate water quality standards because turbidity levels would exceed permissible limits. Respondent is contending that during the pendency of the project turbidity levels will be too high. At the present time the water level of Lake Serena is two to three feet below the ordinary high water line. The area Petitioner proposes to dredge and the area he proposes to fill, while below the ordinary high water line, are above the present water line. From the evidence it appears that steps could be taken so that the proposed project could be accomplished without exceeding permissible turbidity levels. The only purpose that would be served by the Petitioner's proposed project is to provide Petitioner with a sandy swimming beach rather than a natural shoreline.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should grant a dredge and fill permit which has been requested by the Respondent, William R. Cullen (Applicant). That proposed permit has been opposed by the Petitioners (who will be referred to collectively as Petitioners for convenience sake).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to issue permits pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, William R. Cullen, filed an application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a slip marina on June 4, 1985. The original request was subsequently amended to seek approval for a forty-two slip commercial marina. The project site for the Applicant's marina is located at Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The site is within Buttonwood Sound, Florida Bay. The property is owned by Mr. Cullen and his family. All of the proposed improvements will be constructed on submerged lands or uplands owned or controlled by the Cullen family. The project site is located within a commercial area of Key Largo and contains frontage on both the water, Buttonwood Sound, and the highway, U.S. Highway 1. The project site has a basin which was created by the excavation of materials used for road construction from the shoreline and the installation of an L-shaped rock jetty which runs roughly perpendicular and then parallel to the shoreline. This jetty was installed during the late 1960s. The water depths within the basin range from 3 feet to approximately 14 feet. The water within the basin is subject to the same tidal considerations as the waters within Buttonwood Sound. There is no interruption of the flow of water in and out of the basin from those waters of the Sound. The water within this basin is within an Outstanding Florida Water as defined in Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant's plan calls for the excavation of appproximately 30,170 square feet of upland area and the dredging of the existing basin for approximately 18,460 dredged square feet. During the construction phases, the Applicant proposes to install turbidity curtains to limit the adverse effects expected during that time. The improvements are intended to be a permanent alteration to the basin design and will permanently modify the marine life habitat within that basin. The Applicant proposes to remove portions of the existing jetty to allow additional water to flow through the basin unimpeded by the jetty walls. The removal of the jetty walls will expedite the dilution and flushing of potential pollutants from the basin on a tidal frequency. That flushing is purported to assure that the water quality within the basin will not be diminished. However, such pollutants will be flushed into Buttonwood Sound. Stormwater accumulating on the upland project is to flow toward a lower upland area and should not to be dumped into the basin. The proposed marina is to have fueling facilities and the Applicant has agreed to design that system to limit inadvertent spillage. Further, as a condition of the permit, the Applicant has agreed to abide by the Department of Natural Resources' spill contingency plan requirements. The proposed marina is designed to provide portable sewage pumpout facilities for each slip. A permanent pumpout facilities will also be available. The Applicant seeks to attract boats in the range of 30 to 50 feet in length at this facility. While there are a number of other marinas in other areas of Key Largo which might accomodate that size boat, the marinas in the immediate vicinity of this project site are designed for smaller craft. The area within the basin consists of unvegetated bottom, submerged rip-rap, sea grasses, and hardbottom/algae communities--the predominant classifications being the latter two. The deeper hardbottom areas are to be filled and portions of the sea grasses will be dredged in order to configure the proposed docks. Additionally, other sea grass areas will be shaded, and thereby disturbed, by the construction of the docks. There are no historical or archaeological features relevant to the proposed site. The area has not been designated as a critical manatee area, however, manatees do frequent the project vicinity and have been observed feeding immediately adjacent to the basin. The permit proposed for this project requires a water quality monitoring plan. In addition to sampling for coliform, diesel by-products, oils, greases, detergents, oxygen, copper, lead and zinc, the plan requires sampling for aluminum, cadmium, and chromium. The monitoring stations are to be located both within the basin (2 stations) and outside the basin (2 stations). Liveaboards or others continuously docked at the marina will create additional shading which will disrupt and adversely affect the sea grass system. In order to provide access to the marina, the Applicant intends to dredge a channel in an area containing sea grass which is undisputedly within the Outstanding Florida Waters. The Department deemed the subject application was complete on February 23, 1988. The Department did not apply the Keys Rule found in Rule 17-312.400, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. The Department also did not apply the Mitigation Rule found in Rule 17-312.300, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. Michael Dentzau has personally reviewed and processed 250-300 dredge and fill permits during his tenure with the Department. Of those projects he has reviewed, he has not recommended that dense sea grass beds of the type located within this project site be dredged in order to construct a commercial marina. Phillip Edwards was responsible for executing the Intent to Issue in this case. In determining that this project had provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated, Mr. Edwards weighed the public interests criteria set forth in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. Because he received letters purportedly from elected officials, Mr. Edwards presumed that the project was in the public interest. That assumption of fact has not been established by this record. According to Mr. Edwards, the adverse effects expected by this project could be adequately addressed by the permit conditions when weighed against the public interest in favor of the project. Since Mr. Edwards' assumptions as to the public interest in this project have not been established, his conclusion regarding the weight that interest should receive can be given little consideration. The project as proposed by the Applicant will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project as proposed by the Applicant will adversely affect fishing or marine productivity within the basin since it will permanently alter the basin biologically by destroying sea grass. The increased boat traffic within the Sound will also detract from the present recreational uses enjoyed by area residents. According to Mr. Edwards, it is very unusual for the Department to issue a permit when sea grasses will be adversely affected. In the 17 years in which he has reviewed permits, only two occasions merited approval when the destruction of sea grasses to the extent in this case would result. Neither of those cases were factually similar to the case at issue. In those cases, however, elected officials advised Mr. Edwards, as he presumed they had here, that there was a public need for the permit. Increased boat traffic will result in increased manatee mortality due to collisions. In order to assure water quality will not be degraded within a marina, the project should have a short flushing time comparable to healthy natural embayments. In this case, the flushing proposed by the Applicant is dependent, in part, on winds which may be inconsistent or relatively minimal during the summer months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by the Applicant. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-3779 et seq. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS: The first three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, it is accepted that the Department deemed the application complete on February 23, 1988; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that the habitat within the basin is the same as the habitat throughout Florida Bay and that the basin is not "enclosed" hydrologically; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as argument, conclusions of law, or comment. The paragraphs do not recite facts pertinent to this case. Paragraphs 13, 14, and the first two sentences of paragraph 15 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph IS is rejected as argument. The first two sentences of paragraph 16 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as argument. To the extent that paragraph 19 accurately describes Van de Kreeke's assessment of the report it is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record. The report upon which comment is directed was not offered in this cause to prove its truth/accuracy. Paragraphs 20 through 22 are rejected as comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record-- see comment to paragraph 19 above. Paragraphs 23 through 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as argument, comment, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as hearsay, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are accepted. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted but is comment. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraph 50 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. The first three sentences of paragraph 52 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The first sentence and that portion of the second sentence of paragraph 53 that ends with the word "authenticity" is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 54 and 55 are accepted. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. Paragraph 57 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 58 is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 59 through 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 69 and 70 are accepted. Paragraph 71 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 72 is rejected as argument. The first sentence of paragraph 73 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 74 is accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 77 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are accepted. Paragraph 80 is rejected as repetitive. With the inclusion of the words "and hardbottom and algae" paragraph 81 is accepted. Paragraph 82 is accepted. Paragraph 83 is accepted. Paragraph 84 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 5l. Paragraphs 85 through 89 are accepted. With the substitution of the word "not" for the word "ever" in the last sentence of paragraph 90, it is accepted. Paragraphs 91 through 94 are accepted. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 96 through 100 are accepted. Paragraph 101 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 102 through 106 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The waters within the basin are of the same origin as they were prior to the creation of the jetty; no artificial body of water was created. With regard to paragraph 3 it is accepted that the jetty was constructed in the late 1960s. Paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that that is the applicants proposal no conclusion as to the likelihood of that is reached. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Inevitably, however, spills will occur and must be considered as an adverse affect of the project. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by competent evidence or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is inadequate to offset the adverse affects to manatees. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is inadequate to limit the adverse affects to sea grass. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through the first sentence of paragraph 6 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 7 through Il are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13 through the first sentence of paragraph 17 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraphs 21 through 26 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 28 is accepted, the remainder rejected as speculative, comment, or unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 29 is accepted, the remainder rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted; however, sea grasses not disturbed by dredging will still suffer adverse affects from shading and silting. Paragraph 36 is accepted but see comment to paragraph 35 above. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 45 is accepted but it should be noted that is not the extent of the proposal. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Presnell Garvin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles Lee Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Robert Routa P.O. Box 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Linda McMullen McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether ADR of Pensacola should be issued a wetland resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization allowing the construction of a 30-slip docking facility on Big Lagoon, Escambia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Petitioner, Michael L. Guttmann, who lives less than one mile from the project site, has challenged the proposed issuance by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), of a Wetland Resource Permit (permit) and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization (authorization) which would allow Respondent, ADR of Pensacola (applicant), to construct a 30-slip docking facility on Big Lagoon, Escambia County, Florida. The facility will be part of a condominium project to be constructed on the upland portion of the property. As grounds for contesting the permit, Petitioner contended that the Department failed to consider "the long term health of Big Lagoon," navigational hazards created by the project, or public safety; failed to impose an adequate "monitoring program"; did not provide for a "contingency plan for hurricane activity"; failed to consider that the activity will degrade a nearby Outstanding Florida Water [OFW]; and failed to take into account "existing unused marina slips close by." The petition further alleged that the foregoing concerns constituted violations of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes (2000), and Rules 62-4.242, 62-302.300, 62-302.700, and 62- 312.080, Florida Administrative Code. The cited statute identifies "additional criteria" for issuing a permit while the first three rules pertain to OFWs. The last rule contains general standards for the issuance or denial of a permit. Petitioner raised no issues concerning the issuance of the authorization in his initial pleading. Until April 2000, the upland property was owned by the applicant. It was then sold to Harbour Pointe of Pensacola, Inc., which has subsequently entered into an agreement with the applicant allowing the applicant to construct the dock, operate the permit, and purchase a condominium unit. If the application is approved, applicant intends to construct a 442 feet x 4 feet access pier with seventeen 30 feet x 1.5 feet finger piers, thirteen 40 feet x 1.5 feet finger piers, and a 74 feet x 1.5 feet terminal platform, to form a 30-slip docking facility at 10901 Gulf Beach Highway on Big Lagoon, a Class III water in Escambia County, Florida. Approval to use the submerged lands is found in the authorization. The dock will be located in a "fairly pristine area" in Big Lagoon a few miles southwest of Pensacola, Florida. That body of water is six miles in length and is separated from the Gulf of Mexico by a slender coastal barrier island known as Perdido Key, which lies approximately one statute mile south of the project. Continuing west along the shoreline next to the project site are a string of single-family homes with small dock facilities, most of which are less than 1,000 square feet in size and thus exempt from Department permitting requirements. To the east of the undeveloped property are more undeveloped lots and a private yacht club with extensive docking facilities. The facility being challenged here will not be a public marina; rather, it will serve the residents of a proposed upland condominium (consisting of two buildings) to be constructed at the same location. The project is more commonly referred to as the Harbour Pointe Marina. It is fair to infer that Petitioner and adjoining property owners object not only to the dock, but also to the condominium project. The application and project When the application was originally filed with the Department in July 1995, it contained plans for a longer dock and more slips. Due to a reduction in the length of the pier and number of slips to conform to Department rules, other technical changes, and various requests by the Department for additional information, the draft permit was not issued by the Department until May 2000. The Department considers this a "major project" with "major [hydrographic and water quality] issues connected with it." In reviewing the application, the Department considered whether reasonable assurance had been given by the applicant that water quality standards would not be violated, and whether the additional criteria in Section 373.414(1)(a)1.-7., Florida Statutes (2000), had been satisfied. The Department concluded that water quality standards would not be degraded, and that the project, as designed and permitted, was not contrary to the public interest. In making the public interest determination, the Department typically assigns a plus, minus, or neutral score to each of the seven statutory factors. In this case, a neutral score was given to historical and archaeological resources [paragraph 373.414(1)(a)6.] since there were none, while the permanent nature of the project [paragraph 373.414(1)(a)5.] caused it to be rated "a little bit on the minus side"; all other factors were given a plus. Department witness Athnos then concluded that on balance the project "was a plus because it will not adversely affect any of these things." The access pier (dock) runs perpendicular from the shoreline and stretches out some 442 feet to where the water reaches a depth of seventeen feet, which is the deepest point in Big Lagoon. The unusual length of the dock is required so that the boat slips will begin past the seagrass colony (which lies closer to the shore), to prevent boat propeller blades from cutting the top of the seagrass, and to reduce the amount of sedimentation stirred up by the boat propellers. Aerial photographs confirm that when completed, the dock will probably be the largest in Big Lagoon, and much larger than the neighboring docks to the west. The use of boat slips will be limited to condominium owners. Only 19 slips will be constructed initially, since the applicant has secured approval at this time for only the first phase of the condominium project. When approval for the second phase is secured, the applicant intends to add an additional 11 slips. Water quality In his initial pleading, Petitioner made a general allegation that the Department failed to consider "the long term health of Big Lagoon"; there were no specific allegations regarding water quality standards. In his Proposed Recommended Order, however, he argues that the [a]pplicant failed to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated." Assuming arguendo that the issue has been properly raised, Petitioner has still failed to substantiate his allegation. That portion of Big Lagoon where the project will be located is a Class III water of the State. Studies on metals, greases, oils, and the like submitted by the applicant reflected that the "water quality [in that area] did not exceed the standards in Rule 62-302." To provide further reasonable assurance regarding water quality standards, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to use concrete piling and aluminum docks. Unlike wooden piling and docks, these types of materials do not leach toxic substances such as arsenic, copper, and acromiom into the water. In addition, special permit conditions require that sewage pumpout equipment be located at the site so that boats will not discharge raw sewage into the waters. Liveaboards are prohibited, and fueling will not be available at the facility. Finally, the cleaning of fish is not allowed, and boat owners cannot scrape their boat bottoms while docked at the facility. All of these conditions are designed to ensure that water quality standards will not be violated. Enforcement mechanisms for the above conditions are found in either the permit itself or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Also, one of the conditions in the draft permit expressly states that the applicant is not relieved of liability for harm or injury to humans, plants, or property caused by the construction of the dock. However, if a permit is issued, Condition 9 of the permit should be modified to require that trained personnel be available twenty-four hours per day, rather than just during standard business hours, to assist boaters with, and ensure that they use, the sewage pumpout equipment. Any permit issued should also require that boats be placed on lifts while using the docking facilities. This will prevent any leaching of paint from the boat bottoms into the waters. Otherwise, the paint would cause a degradation of the water. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, with the additional conditions, reasonable assurance has been given that the state water quality standards applicable to Class III waters will not be violated. Outstanding Florida Waters In his complaint, Petitioner has contended that "the proposed activity will degrade an [OFW] as a result of its close proximity to the Gulf Islands National Seashore," and that the"[D]epartment has made no analysis of this project['s] impact on the [OFW] which is adjacent to the proposed activity." The record discloses that the southern portion of Big Lagoon has been designated as an OFW. This area includes the waters around Gulf Islands National Seashore and Big Lagoon State Park; they begin approximately 650 to 700 feet south of the end of the dock. As noted earlier, the project is located within Class III waters. Because the Department found that no violation of state water quality standards in those waters would occur, it likewise concluded, properly in this case, that the project would have no impact on any OFW, even though such waters begin some 650 or 700 feet away. Under these circumstances, there would be no reason to assess the water quality in the OFWs or the projected impacts on those waters, as Petitioner suggests. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that the project will not adversely impact an OFW. Hydrographic characteristics If a dock has more than ten boat slips, the Department routinely conducts a hydrographic (flushing) study to determine whether the structure will adversely affect the flow of the water in the area or cause erosion or shoaling on adjacent properties. In the summer of 1999, a Department engineer conducted a hydrographic study using a dye tracer and concluded that flushing characteristics were excellent and that there would be no adverse effects caused by the project. This conclusion has not been credibly contradicted. Therefore, it is found that the dock will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Navigational issues In his initial pleading, Petitioner raised a contention that the project will create "navigational hazards" because the dock "extends nearly into a navigation channel which routinely carries commercial towboats transporting hazardous material, the spill of which would adversely affect Big Lagoon." He also alleges that the rupture of a vessel could impact public safety. Channel markers placed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Intracoastal Waterway (of which Big Lagoon is a part) define a navigational channel for boats approximately 400- 500 feet south of the end of the proposed dock. That channel is used by both recreational and commercial traffic, including barges and other large watercraft which regularly haul oil, chemicals, and other products through the Intracoastal Waterway to and from Pensacola, Panama City, and St. Marks, Florida. The water in the marked channel is only thirteen feet deep. Because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the maintenance of the marked channel, the Department defers to that entity's judgment in determining whether a proposed structure will impede navigation in the marked channel. The proposed dock ends near the deepest part of the natural channel where the water reaches a depth of seventeen feet. Because of the deeper water to the north, which allows the boat captain to "get better steerage," the commercial boat traffic sometimes tends to follow the natural channel, rather than the marked channel formed by the navigational aids. When they do so, however, they are straying from the so-called "legal" channel. Petitioner's expert, a retired tugboat captain, opined that in a storm or squall, a commercial boat using the natural rather than the marked navigational channel might be blown extremely close to the dock or even strike it, thus causing a hazardous situation. He acknowledged, however, that he was not predicting more accidents because of the construction of the dock; he also admitted that the dock would not cause ships to "sudden[ly] have problems navigating that Big Lagoon." The location of the proposed dock was shown to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Marine Patrol, and there were no adverse comments regarding this issue by either agency. In the absence of any negative comments by those agencies, and the acknowledgement by Petitioner's own witness that the dock will not cause accidents or create navigational problems for other boaters, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the project will not adversely affect navigation or public safety in Big Lagoon. Seagrass and monitoring Petitioner has alleged that Big Lagoon "is the healthiest body of water in Escambia County with a white sand bottom and abundant seagrass," and that the proposed project will adversely affect its "long term health." He also alleges that the Department has failed to provide a "remedy or punishment should the results [of the Department's monitoring plan] indicate that the seagrass has been harmed"; that the Department's monitoring plan is not "of sufficient duration to reasonably report the long-term effect of concentrated mooring and traffic" or "sufficiently specific to insure usable data"; and that the data relied upon by the Department [such as photographs] were not "sufficient" to determine the existing health of the seagrass. The evidence reflects that a "nice, healthy seagrass community" is found in the area where the dock will be constructed. It stretches out several hundred feet from the shoreline to where the water reaches a depth of around six feet. The Department considers seagrass to be a "most important resource" which should be protected. This is because seagrass is essential for "binding" the shoreline and stabilizing the sediments, and it serves as a nursery area for juvenile fish and shellfish. Indeed, due to these beneficial effects, far more species of shellfish are found in areas where seagrass thrives than in areas where no seagrass exists. To protect the seagrass, the dock has been extended out 442 feet from the shoreline so that the first boat slip begins at a depth of seven feet, or just past where the seagrass ends. This will prevent the scarring of the grass by boat propellers and reduce turbidity that is typically caused by propeller dredging and boat wakes. Thus, at least theoretically, no boat activity by condominium owners is contemplated in waters of less than seven feet. Because seagrass requires as much light as possible to survive, educational signs will be posted in the area to warn boaters that seagrass is found closer to the shoreline, and that mooring in that area is prohibited. There is, however, no enforcement mechanism to ensure that condominium owners or nonresidents comply with these warnings. Under the draft permit, the Department is allowed to access the premises at reasonable times for sampling or monitoring purposes. A special section of the draft permit includes a number of requirements pertaining to the monitoring of turbidity levels during dock construction while another section requires the applicant to take photographs of the existing seagrass beds at numerous locations before, during, and after construction of the dock. Condition 14 requires that the permittee maintain "records of monitoring information" for at least three years. The evidence supports a finding that if a permit is issued, a mapping of the seagrass should be made prior to construction of the dock and during the height of the growing season (September and October). When the photographing of the area is performed, the applicant should use a sampling protocol that is based on a scientifically determined method. Also, both affected and unaffected areas should be monitored to compare the effect of the additional boat traffic on the seagrass after the dock is constructed. All of these conditions should be incorporated into any issued permit. According to Dr. Heck, a marine biologist who specializes in the study of seagrass and testified as an expert on behalf of Petitioner, seagrass beds in Big Lagoon have been "shallowing up" or thinning out in recent years due to decreasing water clarity. In other words, as the water becomes cloudier from more and more boat activity, the sunlight cannot penetrate and the seagrass will not thrive. The seagrasses most susceptible to disappearing are those that are found at the deepest depth. Doctor Heck attributed the decline in seagrass to increased human activity in the area. This activity is related not only to the existing homeowners in the area, but also to the non-resident boaters (both recreational and commercial) who use the waters in that area. A Department study conducted in 1995 confirmed that the only seagrass area in North Florida "significantly affected" by propeller scarring was an area in Big Lagoon known as Scallop Cove, near Spanish Point. This study is consistent with those studies performed by Dr. Heck in the late 1990's, and one as recently as last year, that support a finding that seagrass in Big Lagoon is on the decline due to both propeller scarring and increased turbidity caused by wakes from larger recreational boats. For this reason, Dr. Heck concluded that the addition of thirty boats at the project site, some of which would be as large as 30 feet or so, would have a "negative effect" on the seagrass colony. This in turn will cause a negative effect on the marine productivity in the area, as well as the conservation of fish and their habitat. Doctor Heck's testimony on this issue is found to be the most persuasive. Other concerns Petitioner further contends that the Department failed to provide a "meaningful contingency plan for hurricane activity." This matter, however, is beyond the permitting jurisdiction of the Department. Petitioner has also contended that the Department failed to take into account "existing unused marina slips close by" which could be used by the condominium owners. Like the prior issue, this matter is not a consideration in the permitting scheme. Another issue raised by Petitioner, albeit untimely, was that the construction of this dock could lead to further development in Big Lagoon. There was, however, no evidentiary support for this contention. Indeed, there is no evidence that future permit applications with impacts similar to this application can reasonably be expected in the area. At hearing, Petitioner raised for the first time a contention that the applicant no longer owns the upland property and thus a permit/authorization cannot be issued to that entity. Aside from this issue being untimely, the fact that a permit holder does not own the upland property is not unusual. If this occurs, permits and authorizations (leases) are routinely transferred to the new owner once the Department receives the necessary title information. It is not a ground to defeat the application. Petitioner also raised for the first time at hearing a contention that the site plan approval for the condominium has expired under a provision of the Escambia County Land Development Code and therefore the permit should be denied. Again, the issue is untimely; more importantly, it should be addressed in another forum since the Department has no jurisdiction over this issue. Likewise, a legitimate concern by an adjoining property owner, witness Hobgood, and an area realtor, that Hobgood's single-family property would probably decline in value if the project is built is nonetheless beyond the Department's jurisdiction. Finally, a contention that the Department improperly calculated the maximum number of boat slips for an 88-unit condominium project has been rejected. The record contains a lengthy explanation by witness Athnos which shows that the Department's calculation under Rule 18-21.004(4)1., Florida Administrative Code, was correct. Those calculations are also detailed in Respondents' Exhibit 14.
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 the application of ADR of Pensacola for a wetland resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 28th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael L. Guttmann, Esquire 314 South Baylen Street, Suite 201 Pensacola, Florida 32501-5949 Charles T. Collette, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David A. Sapp, Esquire 1017 North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501-3306 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should grant the application of Respondent, Leland Egland, for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), Number 44-01700257-001-ES, to fill an illegally-dredged trench or channel in mangrove wetlands between Florida Bay and what was a land-locked lake, to restore preexisting conditions.
Findings Of Fact Since 1988, Applicant, Leland Egland, has resided in a home built on property he purchased in Buccaneer Point Estates in Key Largo, Florida, in 1986--namely, Lots 14 and 15, Block 2, plus the "southerly contiguous 50 feet." A 1975 plat of Buccaneer Point shows this "southerly contiguous 50 feet" as a channel between Florida Bay to the west and a lake or pond to the east; it also shows a 800-foot linear canal extending from the lake or pond to the north. Egland's Lot 14 borders Florida Bay to the west; his lot 15 borders the lake or pond to the east; the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" is between Egland's lots 14 and 15 and property farther south owned by another developer. See Finding 10, infra. Buccaneer Point lots in Blocks 1 (to the east) and 2 (to the west) surround the lake or pond and canal. The developer of Buccaneer Point applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1977 for a permit to dredge a channel, characterized as a flushing channel for the lake or pond, which was characterized as a tidal pond with replanted red mangroves. (There was no evidence as to the character of this pond before the 1977 permit application or if it even existed.) DER denied the permit application because the: proposal . . . to open a pond to Florida Bay . . . will connect an 800 linear foot dead-end canal. The pond and canal will act as a sink for marl and organic debris which will increase Biological Oxygen Demand and lower Dissolved Oxygen. The project is expected to result in substances which settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge deposits and floating debris, oil scum, and other materials, in amounts sufficient to be deleterious. Based on the above, degradation of local water quality is expected. * * * Furthermore, your project will result in the following effects to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest and the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes: Interference with the conservation of fish, marine life and wildlife, and other natural resources. Destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life. Reduction in the capability of habitat to support a well-balanced fish and wildlife population. Impairment of the management or feasibility of management of fish and wildlife resources. As a result, the proposed channel to Florida Bay was not dredged (although some of the lake side of the proposed channel apparently was dredged before the project was abandoned); the building lots surrounding the lake or pond (now known as South Lake) and canal were sold as waterfront lots on a land-locked lake without access to Florida Bay; and the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" was included with the conveyance to Egland, along with the Lots 14 and 15 of Block 2. The evidence was not clear as to the characteristics of the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" in 1977, or earlier. When Egland purchased his property in 1986, it was a mature mangrove slough with some tidal exchange between the lake and Florida Bay, especially during high tides and stormy weather. Some witnesses characterized the area of mangroves as a shallow creek in that general time frame (from about 1984 through 1988). According to Vince Easevoli, at least under certain conditions, a rowboat could be maneuvered between the lake and Florida Bay using a pole "like a gondola effect." But Egland testified to seeing Easevoli drag a shallow-draft boat through this area in this general time frame, and the greater weight of the evidence was that the mangrove slough was not regularly navigable channel at the time. During this general time frame (the mid-to-late 1980's) several Petitioners (namely, Stanley Dominick, John and Katherine Easevoli, and their son, Vince Easevoli) purchased property on South Lake. All but Vince built homes and resided there; Vince did not reside there until after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but he sometimes stayed at the residence on his parents' property during this general time frame. In the early 1990's, the slough or creek became somewhat deeper, making it increasingly more easily passable by boat. Large storms such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the "storm of the century" in 1993 may have contributed to these changes, but human intervention seems to have been primarily responsible. In 1994, Egland added a swimming pool south of the residence on his lots. During construction, some illegal filling took place. Several witnesses testified that the illegal fill occurred to the north of the creek, which was not affected. Vince Easevoli's lay interpretation of several surveys in evidence led him to maintain that illegal fill was placed in the mangrove slough and that the creek became narrower by approximately four feet and, eventually, deeper. But no surveyor testified to explain the surveys in evidence, which do not seem to clearly support Easevoli's position, and the greater weight of the evidence was that illegal fill was not added to the creek in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." At some point in time, hand tools were used to deepen the slough or creek and trim mangroves without a permit to enable a small boat to get through more easily. As boats were maneuvered through, the creek got deeper. Eventually, propeller-driven boats of increasing size were used to "prop- dredge" the creek even deeper. According to Petitioner, Tom Hodges, when he and his wife purchased their lot on the lake in 1994, it was possible to navigate the creek in a 22-foot Mako boat (at least under certain conditions), and their lot was sold to them as having limited access to Florida Bay. (There was evidence that access to Florida Bay could increase the price of these lots by a factor of three.) Petitioners Martha Scott and Marianne Delfino also purchased their property on the lake in 1994. Tom Hodges claimed to have seen manatees in the lake as early as 1994, but no other witnesses claimed sightings earlier than 1997, and the accuracy of this estimate is questionable. Even if manatees were in the lake during this time frame or earlier, it is possible that they used an access point other than the creek. At the southeast corner of South Lake in Buccaneer Point, there is a possible connection to a body of water farther south, which is part of a condominium development called Landings of Largo and leads still farther south to access to Florida Bay near a dock owned by Landings of Largo. While this connection is shallow, it may have been deep enough under certain conditions to allow manatees to pass through. Apparently not with manatees but rather with boaters from the lake in Buccaneer Point in mind, Landings of Largo has attempted to close this access point by placement of rebar; Landings of Largo also has placed rip-rap under its dock farther south to prevent boats from passing under the dock. However, there are gaps in the rip-rap, some possibly large enough for manatees to pass. In approximately 1995 or 1996, Egland observed Vince Easevoli and his father, John Easevoli, digging a trench through the mangrove slough with a shovel and cutting mangrove trees with a saw in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." Others were standing by, watching. Egland told them to stop and leave.6 These actions made the creek even deeper and more easily navigable by boat, which continued to further excavate the trench by such methods as "prop dredging." In 1997 Hany Haroun purchased property adjacent to South Lake where he lives with his wife, Christine. By this time, Florida Bay was easily accessible by boat from the lake, and Haroun paid $260,000 for the property. He estimated that his property would be worth about $150,000 less without boat access to Florida Bay. In approximately 1997, manatees began to appear in South Lake year round from time to time, especially in the winter months. In 1997, the Hodgeses saw one they thought may have been in distress and telephoned the Save Our Manatee Club and Dolphin Research for advice. Following the advice given, they used lettuce to coax the manatee over to their dock to check its condition and videotape the event. The manatee appeared healthy and eventually departed the lake. On subsequent visits, manatees have been seen and videotaped resting and cavorting with and without calves and possibly mating in the lake. Groups of as many as seven to eight manatees have been seen at one time in the lake. Tom Hodges, Vince Easevoli, and Hany Haroun testified that they have enjoyed watching manatees in the lake since 1997. It can be inferred from the evidence that Elaine Hodges also has enjoyed watching manatees in the lake. There was no evidence as to the extent to which other Petitioners enjoy watching manatees in the lake. In 1997, the ACOE began an investigation of the illegal dredging of Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." According to Egland, he was in communication with ACOE; presumably, he told ACOE what he knew about the illegal dredging on his property. According to Egland, ACOE advised him to place posts in the dredged channel to keep boats out. When he did so, Tom Hodges removed the posts. Egland replaced the posts, and Hodges removed them again. When Egland told ACOE what was happening, ACOE asked him to try reinstalling the posts and screwing plywood to the posts to achieve a stronger, fence-like barrier. Hodges also removed these barriers, and Egland did not replace the posts or plywood barrier again. In 1998, ACOE mailed Egland a Cease and Desist Order accusing him of illegal dredging in his "southerly contiguous 50 feet" and demanding that he restore the mangrove slough to its previous conditions. Egland was angry at being blamed for the dredging and initially disputed ACOE's charges and demands. But ACOE and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which accepted the role of lead federal enforcement agency on December 18, 1998, was seeking monetary civil penalties. In addition, Egland received legal advice that, if restoration were delayed, he could be sued for damages by someone purchasing property on the lake or canal in the meantime upon the mistaken belief that there was boat access to Florida Bay. For these reasons, Egland agreed to comply with the Cease and Desist Order. However, ACOE and EPA informed Egland that he might have to obtain a permit from DEP to fill the dredged channel in compliance with the Cease and Desist Order. On May 22, 2000, Egland applied to DEP for an ERP to restore a trench about 100 feet long varying from seven to ten feet in width that was illegally dredged on his property. He estimated that a total of 160 cubic yards of fill would be required, to be spread over approximately 900 square feet. He assured DEP that rip-rap would be used to contain the fill and that turbidity screens would be used during construction. During processing of Egland's application, DEP requested additional information, which Egland provided, and DEP's Environmental Manager, Edward Barham, visited the project site in October 2000. Based on all the evidence available to him at that point in time, Barham viewed Egland's proposed fill project as a simple restoration project to correct illegal dredging and return the mangrove slough to its preexisting condition. For that reason, Barham recommended that DEP process the application as a de minimis exemption and not charge a permit application fee. Subsequently, some Petitioners brought it to DEP's attention that manatees were accessing South Lake through the channel Egland wanted to fill. DEP saw no need to verify the accuracy of Petitioners' information or obtain additional information about the manatees use of the lake because DEP still viewed it as a restoration project. However, DEP decided that it would be necessary to include specific conditions in any ERP issued to Egland to ensure that no manatees would be trapped in the lake or otherwise injured as a result of filling the channel. Primarily due to the need for these conditions, and also because of anticipated opposition from Petitioners, DEP decided to charge Egland a permit application fee and not process the application as a de minimis exemption. DEP staff visited the mangrove slough on numerous occasions between October 2000, and final hearing and observed that the trench continued to get deeper over time as a result of continued prop-dredging and digging. In early August 2001, Tom Hodges observed a man walking back and forth with a wheel barrow between a storage shed on Egland's property and the channel. (Hodges was on his property across South Lake but use of binoculars enabled him to see this.) The next day, Hany Haroun discovered a poured- concrete slab forming a plug or dam in the channel on the lake side. Haroun reported his discovery to Tom Hodges, who investigated with his wife, who took photographs of the structure. At some point, the Hodgeses realized that a manatee was trapped in the lake. The manatee did not, and appeared unable to, use the other possible access point towards Landings of Largo to escape. See Finding 10, supra. The Hodgeses telephoned Barham at DEP to report the situation and complain. Tom Hodges then proceeded to break up the concrete, remove the resulting rubble, and place it on the path to the storage shed, freeing the manatee. The incident was reported in the newspaper the next day and prompted Petitioners to file their Motion to Dismiss and for Other Relief on August 9, 2001. See Preliminary Statement. The evidence was inconclusive as to who poured the concrete, or had it poured, and why. Egland testified that he was in Egypt on an extended trip at the time and denied any knowledge of the concrete plug until he saw the rubble on his property upon his return from Egypt. Egland testified that he saw no "aggregate" in the concrete, which would make it relatively easy to break up, and he suspected that Petitioners were responsible for pouring the concrete in order to publicly make false accusations against Egland. Petitioners denied Egland's accusation. Vince testified that the concrete contained rebar for strength. The evidence was inconclusive as to who was responsible for this incident. As pointed out by Petitioners, DEP did not investigate and does not know whether there is any freshwater upwelling in the lake, whether manatees have mated in the lake, or whether calves have been birthed in the lake. DEP also did not investigate and does not know whether South Lake is unlike other manatee habitat in the area. DEP did not investigate or obtain any information as to how many manatees use the lake, or what manatees use the lake for, in addition to the information provided by Petitioners. Carol Knox, an Environmental Specialist III with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, testified as a manatee expert based on her knowledge of manatees and manatee habitat in the area, as well as the information known to DEP. It was her opinion that, regardless what South Lake might offer manatees in the way of habitat, closing the channel (with the specific conditions required by DEP to protect manatees during the filling itself) would have no adverse impact on manatees because it did not appear that manatees made use of the lake before the channel was dug in 1996 or 1997, and ample other manatee habitat of various kinds continued to be available in the area.7 Based on the testimony of Knox and Barham, and the totality of the evidence in this case, it is found that Egland provided reasonable assurance that his proposed restoration project will not harm or adversely affect manatees or their habitats. Petitioners also questioned Egland's assurances as to water quality. Vince Easevoli, Stanley Dominick, and Hany Haroun testified to their concerns that water quality in the lake will decline if the channel is closed. As Petitioners point out, DEP did not require Egland to provide any water quality measurements. This was because the proposal is reasonably expected to reverse the effects of the illegal dredging on water quality and to return both the water in the lake and canal and the water in Florida Bay to the quality that existed prior to the illegal dredging. Without requiring any water quality measurements, it is reasonably expected that the water quality in Florida Bay would not decline in any respect; to the contrary, if anything, Florida Bay's water quality would be expected to improve by reduction of contributions from the lake and canal. Conversely, water quality in the lake and canal would be expected to decline but not below what it was before the illegal dredging. Petitioners also question DEP's failure to require Egland to provide a survey or stake the area to be filled, so as to ensure against filling too much of the mangrove slough. But the proposed ERP contains a specific condition: "The final fill elevation of the fill shall be at the elevation of the substrate within the adjacent mangrove wetlands." Barham testified persuasively that this specific condition is adequate to provide reasonable assurance. Compliance can be ascertained by simply viewing the site after completion of the restoration project, and compliance can be enforced by requiring removal of excess fill as necessary. The proposed ERP also contains a general condition that the permit does not convey or create any property right, or any interest in real property, or authorize any entrances upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by Egland.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, enter a final order granting the application of Leland Egland and issuing ERP Number 44- 01700257-001-ES. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Procedural History This matter has a long history. The full itinerary of this matter's arduous journey through the Administrative Procedure Act and the appellate courts may be glimpsed from the opinions of the District Court of Appeal in Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., 418 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., 442 So.2d 966, reh. granted, 442 So.2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and Grove Isle, Ltd. v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 454 So.2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). These cases may be referred to as Grove Isle I, Grove Isle II, and Grove Isle III, respectively. In 1978 Grove Isle submitted its initial application to DER for construction of the marina which is now the subject matter of this proceeding. Grove Isle's initial application was challenged by the same Petitioners who now challenge Grove Isle's "reapplication." In the first case the hearing officer, applying Class III standards for water quality, entered an order on February 22, 1980, recommending that the permit be issued. DER remanded the case to the hearing officer to determine whether the standards of the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) rule, Rule 17- 4.242(1)(a), F.A.C., should apply, and if so, whether Grove Isle had satisfied those requirements. On remand, the hearing officer entered a recommended order finding that the OFW rule did apply, that Grove Isle had provided reasonable assurances that the proposed marina would not lower existing ambient water quality, and that the proposed marina was not clearly in the public interest. Accordingly, the hearing officer recommended that the permit be denied. On December 29, 1980, DER entered a final order denying the permit because the project was not "clearly in the public interest" and it was uncertain whether ambient water quality would be lowered. DER found that, unless a "restricted mixing zone" was applied for, ambient water quality was to be measured within the project site, not in the small cove in which the marina was to be located as found by the hearing officer. On appeal, the court affirmed DER's denial of the permit. While DER's denial was affirmed because Grove Isle had failed to establish that the project was "clearly in the public interest," the court found that DER had failed to establish a record foundation which would permit it to substitute its conclusion that ambient water quality should be measured within the project site, as opposed to the small cove as found by the hearing officer. Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Bayshore Homeowners Association, Inc., supra. On May 18, 1981, while Grove Isle I was pending in the appellate court, Grove Isle filed the "reapplication" which is the subject matter of this case. The design and location of the marina were identical to Grove Isle's initial application. However, in an effort to satisfy the OFW rule Grove Isle proposed to add riprap and plant mangrove seedlings in an effort to satisfy the public interest criteria, and requested a mixing zone in conformity with DER's final order in Grove Isle I. DER initially entered a final order denying the application because: This project was reviewed previously... and was determined not to be clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. No further evidence, upon resubmittal, has been provided to clearly demonstrate that this project is in the public interest. Furthermore, the requested mixing zone exceeds that allowable pursuant to Section 17-4.244,F.A.C., and can be applied only during the con- struction period, pursuant to Section 17.4.242, F.A.C. During the operation of this facility ambient water quality is expected to be degraded in violation of Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. Thereupon, Grove Isle filed a petition for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Fla.Stat., and sought a default permit. The hearing officer entered a recommended order that the default permit issue, and DER entered a final order granting the default permit. On appeal the court reversed and remanded the case to DER for further proceedings. The predicate for its remand was: Even though Grove Isle was not entitled to a default permit, it does not follow that DER was justified in entering its earlier ... (order denying the applica- tion) ... without first informing Grove Isle that it had found its application to be deficient, specifying such deficiencies and allowing time for corrections.... Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., supra, at 975. Appellant Doheny had asserted that Grove Isle's reapplication could not be further considered by reason of the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by judgment. This was, essentially, DER's position in its denial of the "reapplication." The court held, however: Inasmuch as this Court affirmed the denial of Grove Isle's first application on the grounds of the applicant's failure to show that the proposal was clearly in the public interest and since it was determined that the first application was properly denied even though the applicant satisfied the other criterion regarding ambient water quality, it would appear that the reapplication should be denied unless the applicant could demonstrate some change or modification which would show that the project was clearly in the public interest. However ... I am of the view that it would be premature for us to hold that Grove Isle's second application is barred by either doctrine. Whether Grove Isle, after a Rule 17-4.07(2) notification by DER as contemplated above, would be able to remedy the existing deficiency in its present application remains to be seen. New facts, changed conditions or additional submissions by the applicant may materially affect the ultimate applicability of res judicata or estoppel by judgment. Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., supra, at 975. While Grove Isle's "reapplication was pending on remand before DER, Grove Isle filed a rule challenge contesting the validity of Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C. The hearing officer upheld the validity of the rule, but the appellate court held that the "public interest" requirement was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Grove Isle, Ltd. v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, supra. Following the decision of Grove Isle III, Grove Isle's attorney, by letter dated March 21, 1984, responded anew to DER's June 18, 1981, completeness summary. That letter provided, in pertinent part: With regard to water quality, that issue has been determined in a prior proceeding and is res judicata on the parties. In response to your request for additional information the enclosed information is submitted. Permit application DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order of February 22, 1980 DOAH Hearing Officer's Recommended Order on Remand of November 20, 1980 DER's Final Order of December 29, 1980 Decision in Grove Isle v. Bayshore Homeowners Associ- ation, 418 So.2d 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) The decision in David A. Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., and the State of Fla., DER, Case NO. AM476 This submittal contains the necessary information on which to determine com- pliance with the applicable water quality standards and criteria. On June 25, 1984, DER issued its Notice of Intent to Issue the permit. The notice provided, in pertinent part: The Department intends to issue the permit for the following reasons: No significant immediate or long term negative biological impact is anticipated and State water quality standards should not be violated as a result of the pro- posed construction. This intent is based on information supplied by the applicant that the proposed project will not violate existing ambient water quality standards and on the cases of Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Bayshore Homeowners Association, 418 So.2d 1046(Fla. 1st DCA 1982) and Doheny v. Grove Isle, Ltd., 442 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(sic). Petitioners timely filed their Petition for Administrative Hearing pursuant to Sections 120.57(1), Fla.Stat. The petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 84-2639. The Marina The permit sought by Grove Isle would allow it to construct six concrete fixed piers, five "T" shaped, one "L" shaped, with a boat docking capacity of 90 pleasure boats. The piers will extend a maximum of 165 feet offshore from an existing concrete bulkhead on the west side of Grove Isle. The width of the piers will be eight feet from the bulkhead to a point 41 feet offshore, and then increase to a width of 10 feet. A sewage pumpout facility is also proposed. DER's June 25, 1984, Letter of Intent proposed to issue the permit subject to the following conditions: Adequate control shall be taken during construction so that turbidity levels beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area do not exceed 50 J.C.U.'s as per Sec- tion 24-11 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. During construction, tur- bidity samples shall be collected at mid-depth twice daily 50 feet upstream and 50 feet downstream of the work area. The contractor shall arrange to have turbidity sample results reported to him within one hour of collection. Turbidity monitoring reports shall be sub- mitted weekly to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management (MDCERM). If turbidity exceeds 50 J.C.U.'s beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area, turbidity curtains shall be placed around the work area and MDCERM notified immediately. Tur- bidity samples shall be collected as per specific Conditions No. 2 no later than one hour after the installation of the turbidity cur- tains. If turbidity levels do not drop below 50 J.C.U.'s within one hour after installation of the curtain, all construction shall be halted. Construction shall not be resumed until the contractor has received authorization from MDCERM. No liveaboard vessels (per- manent or transient) shall be docked at this facility unless direct sewage pumpout connections are pro- vided at each liveaboard slip. A permanent pumpout station shall be installed and maintained for the removal of sewage and wastes from the vessels using this facility. Compliance with this requirement will entail the applicant contacting the Plan Review Section of MDCERM for details con- cerning connection to an approved sewage disposal system. Boat traffic to the shallow 30 foot wide dense seagrass area which parallels the shoreline shall be restricted by the placement of wooden piles on six foot centers along the entire shoreline facing the marina. The channel from this marina to deeper water in Biscayne Bay shall be marked to prevent boats from straying into adjacent shallow areas. This will prevent habitat destruction. A chemical monitoring program shall be established to determine the affect of this marina on the water quality of this section of Biscayne Bay. Surface and mid-depth samples shall be collected at three points in the project area and at one back- ground station. Parameters shall include, but not be limited to, dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, tempera- ture, total coliform and fecal coliform, and fecal streptococci bacteria, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand and turbidity. Background samples shall be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. In addition to the chemical monitoring program, a bethnic community monitoring program is to be established. Samples of the bethnic seagrass community within and adjacent to the project area are to be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. Should either monitoring program detect dissimilar changes at its monitoring and control stations, DER and MDCERM shall be notified and the results of the programs(s) evaluated. The monitoring program shall be reviewed and approved by the DER and the MDCERM prior to implementation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the DER and the MDCERM and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on a regular basis. Warning signs shall be posted in the marina area advising marina users that manatees frequent the area and caution should be taken to avoid collisions with them. Issuance of this permit does not relieve the applicant from securing all applicable construction permits including, but not limited to, general construction, electrical, plumbing, etc. The planting of mangroves and the placement of boulder riprap shall be generally constructed as outlined in report number THI-004-005/84 by Melvin S. Brown for Grove Isle, Inc. The mangrove/ riprap site shall be staked by the appli- cant and approved by the Department or MDCERM. Such construction shall not take place in areas vegetated by sea- grasses. Mangrove seedlings (four leaf stage or older) shall be planted with a density of approximately one plant per-square meter. Seedlings shall be replaced in order to maintain 80 percent survival until such time as the Department determines that establishment of the mangroves is reasonably assured (approximately two years). At that time the Department shall notify the permittee of the termination of the revegetation respon- sibilities. Grove Isle has agreed to comply with all the conditions established by the DER Letter of Intent and, additionally, agreed at final hearing to employ a full-time dock master, prohibit the pumping of bilges and sewage from boats docked at the marina, make the sewage pumpout facility available to the public, limit the ownership and use of the boat slips to condominium owners at Grove Isle, and provide additional channel markings from the Grove Isle marina to the Deering Channel. The location and design of the proposed marina has not changed since Grove Isle's initial application. The conditions attached to DER's Letter of Intent, with the exception of Conditions 11 and 12, are the same as previously applied to Grove Isle. The Marina Site Grove Isle is a spoil bank in Biscayne Bay located approximately 700 feet east of the Florida mainland. It is linked to the mainland by a two-lane concrete bridge. The island is currently under development for a 510-unit condominium community with associated facilities such as a restaurant, hotel, and the proposed marina. The island is surrounded by a concrete bulkhead constructed many years ago. No changes in the bulkhead line are proposed. Grove Isle proposes constructing the marina on concrete piles driven in the bay bottom from a shallow draft barge. During construction there would be some turbidity caused from the disruption of the Bay sediment. This can, however, be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. The construction will not require any filling. In the immediate marina site the most significant biota are a 20-30 foot wide bed of seagrasses running parallel to the seawall. There are no other important biota because at one time the area was extensively dredged to create the island. There are no oyster or clam beds nearby. The water depth in the area ranges from one foot near the island bulkhead to 12 feet offshore to the west of the island. This particular seagrass bed consists primarily of turtle grass (thalassia testudinum) with some Cuban Shoal Weed (Halodule Wrightii). Protection for these grasses will be provided by a buffer zone between the island and the boat slips. The grassy zone will be bordered by a row of dolphin piles to exclude boat traffic. Because the grass requires sunlight for photosynthesis and therefore life, the six piers will have grated walkways where they pass over the grass. This will allow sunlight to reach below. In addition to the small grass bed on the west of the island, there are extensive beds to the northeast, east and south of the island that extend several hundred yards from the island in water depths of three to ten feet. If boat traffic in the vicinity is markedly increased due to the existence of the marina, it is conceivable that the number of propeller scars in these shallow beds could increase. At the present time the beds are already traversed by boats, some of which are owned by Petitioners' members. There are already, for example, approximately 50 craft which operate from the nearby mainland or from Pelican Canal directly across from the island. Grove Isle's assurance that ownership and use of the boat slips at the marina will be limited to those persons who own condominium units at Grove Isle will assure that boat traffic generated by the marina will be no different in kind nor more frequent than that generated by existing craft in the area. Potential damage, from existing craft and those which will occupy the marina, to the seagrasses on the north, east, and south of the island will be eliminated or minimized by the planned installation of navigation markers by Grove Isle. These markers will channel boats into water of a navigable depth and lessen the number of groundings and near groundings which cause the scarring. There is evidence that boats by their very existence and operation are potential pollution sources. Anti-fouling bottom paints by their very nature leach minute amounts of metals such as copper or tin into the waters. These deposits, however, would not be measurable. Further, the marina site has adequate flushing to disperse any pollutants which may be generated by the marina operation. Petitioners also suggest that turbidity, caused by the operation of the marina, could cause a degradation of water quality and affect the biota in the area. Petitioners' assertion must be rejected for two reasons. First, this question was raised and rejected in Grove Isle I. No changed conditions or new facts which were not available at the time of final hearing in Grove Isle I were presented. Second, in the four years that have intervened since the first hearing, these waters have been extensively used by the public, including Petitioners, for such activities as waterskiing and fishing. In that time period there has been no degradation of water quality, or harm to the biota. In fact, the biota have expanded. The fueling of boats and sewage discharge are additional pollution sources generally associated with marinas. However, the proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities, and all craft docked at the marina will be prohibited from pumping bilges and sewage into the waters. The foregoing findings of fact are, without significant exception, identical to those in Grove Isle I. Grove Isle IV Only three areas of inquiry were present in this case which may not have existed in Grove Isle I. First, Petitioner asserted that Grove Isle's application was incomplete because of its failure to secure the approval of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for use of the bay bottom, and that, therefore, Part VIII, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, the "Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984" (Wetlands Act) was applicable to these proceedings. Contrary to Petitioner's assertion, Grove Isle secured and exhibited its consent to use the submerged lands in question. Grove Isle received the requisite consent from DNR in connection with its first application. Pursuant to Rule 16Q-18.03(2), F.A.C., that consent to use remains binding. Further, DNR was noticed of Grove Isle's "reapplication" and evidenced no intention to withdraw its previous consent to use. Grove Isle complied with Section 253.77, Fla.Stat. Consequently, Grove Isle's application was complete prior to October 1, 1984, and the Wetlands Act is not applicable to this case. The second issue presented in this case which Petitioners assert was not present in Grove Isle I, is Grove Isle's request for a mixing zone. Although its "reapplication" did request a mixing zone in accordance with DER's Final Order of December 29, 1980, Grove Isle objected to its necessity since the proper geographic area within which to measure ambient water quality, according to it, was a subject matter of the pending appeal in Grove Isle I. The mixing zone applied for in its "reapplication" was somewhat smaller, but did not significantly differ from the area adopted by the hearing officer in Grove Isle I. In Grove Isle I the parties had differed with regard to the proper geographic area within which to measure ambient water quality. The hearing officer adopted as the appropriate geographic area that part of Biscayne Bay to the west of Grove Isle, to the north of the Grove Isle bridge, to the east of the Miami mainland, and to the immediate south of the Mercy Hospital landing facing Grove Isle. DER's Final Order of December 29, 1980, rejected the hearing officer's conclusion because Determination of compliance with water quality standards is made within the project area itself unless a mixing zone is applied for and granted by the Department. Section 17-4.242(1) (a)2b, Florida Administrative Code, specifically states that ambient water quality standards may not be lowered unless such a lowering is temporary in nature (i.e., not more than 30 days) or unless the "lowered water quality would occur only within a restricted mixing zone approved by the Department..." (EmphasisSupplied.) The record does not show that a "restricted mixing zone" was applied for by the applicant or granted by the Department. Therefore, the hearing officer was not at liberty to apply a mixing zone in this case. In Grove Isle I DER's witness, Larry O'Donnell-- Supervisor of the Dredge and Fill Section of DER's West Palm Beach office--testified that ambient water quality was to be measured within the project site--the specific area occupied by the marina circumscribed by the bulkhead line and out the length of the piers (165 feet). On appeal, the court held that DER erred in rejecting the hearing officer's conclusion, and stated DER offered no expert testimony or evidence, other than conclusory allegations, that ambient water quality must be measured within the project site rather than within the reasonably contiguous area used by the hearing officer. Absent such record foundation, DER is not free to substitute its conclusions for those of the hearing officer. Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Bayshore Homeowners' Assoc., Inc., supra, at 1049. In the instant case the testimony of Mr. O'Donnell was clear that DER accepted the opinion of Grove Isle I as demonstrating satisfaction of ambient water quality under the OFW rule. Consequently, DER has acceded that ambient water quality is to be measured not only within the project site but also within a reasonably contiguous area of the project site, as found by the hearing officer in Grove Isle I. Petitioners took exception to DER's decision. To support their position, Petitioners offered the testimony of Suzanne Walker, DER's Chief of Permitting. Ms. Walker's opinion was that ambient water quality had to be satisfied everywhere, including the marina site proper, and that a mixing zone, except on a temporary basis during construction, was not permitted under Rule 17-4.242, F.A.C. Accordingly, the question of where ambient water quality is to be measured is presented anew. Ambient water quality is to be measured within the area established by the hearing officer in Grove Isle I for three reasons. First, the issue was presented in Grove Isle I and the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by judgment bars relitigation of this same issue. Second, the testimony of Ms. Walker was of no greater substance than that rejected by the court in Grove Isle I. Finally, Ms. Walker's opinion is questionable since she also testified that a mixing zone, except on a temporary basis during construction, was not permissible in Outstanding Florida Waters. The OFW rule, Rule 17- 4.242(1)(a)2.b, F.A.C., clearly contemplates and authorizes a mixing zone for purposes other than construction. The record is silent as to whether DER granted Grove Isle's request for a mixing zone. It is clear, however, that DER accepted the geographic area established in Grove Isle I as the proper area within which to measure ambient water quality. Accordingly, it is not necessary to pass on Grove Isle's request for a mixing zone. The final matters not litigated in Grove Isle I concern Grove Isle's agreement to (1) add riprap and plant mangrove seedlings, (2) employ a full-time dock master to provide additional assurance that operation of the marina will be ecologically sound, (3) prohibit the pumping of bilges and sewage from boats moored at the marina, (4) make the pumpout facility available to the public, (5) limit the ownership and use of the boat slips to the owners of the condominium units at Grove Isle, and (6) mark a channel from Grove Isle to the Deering Channel so that a deep water channel to open waters will be available. While these additional assurances were not presented in Grove Isle I, and consequently did not affect the hearing officer's recommendation that the permit be granted, each of these matters are of positive benefit to the ecology, and demonstrate Grove Isle's commitment to sound marina design and operation.
