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 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 28, Hidden Bay Subdivision, Martin County, Florida. On July 19, 1990, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a dredge and fill permit to construct on the wetland portion of his lot a single family dwelling on stilts, a garage, and a connecting driveway to an existing roadway. The application also seeks a permit to retain a roadway that was constructed on the property before the Respondent asserted jurisdiction over the property. The existing roadway is 25 feet wide and 510 feet long and remained in existence at the time of the formal hearing. The connecting driveway on the wetlands portion of the property would require 40 cubic yards of fill. The following, taken from the Notice of Permit Denial entered by Respondent, accurately describes the proposed project: The proposed project will entail the temporary placement of 500 cubit yards of clean fill in order to set piles for a proposed stilt house. Additional fill (40 cubic yards) is proposed for a driveway to access a proposed garage. Riprap is proposed along the east slope of the driveway and along the northwest slope under the proposed stilt house. In addition, 186 cubic yards of the existing unauthorized fill road is proposed to remain. Total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. Petitioner's lot fronts Bessey Creek and is located in Section 1, Township 38 South, Range 40 East, in Palm City. Petitioner's lot is located approximately 2,200 feet south of the C-23 Canal on Bessey Creek. Bessey Creek is designated a Class III water. Bessey Creek combines with other tributaries and ultimately discharges into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water. Petitioner's lot consists of 1.82 acres. Respondent has asserted jurisdiction over approximately 1.3 acres of Petitioner's lot on the grounds that it is a fresh water wetland. Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's asserted jurisdiction in this proceeding. The Respondent has jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities conducted on the portion of Petitioner's lot that is at issue in this proceeding. This project is not exempt from permitting procedures. A dredge and fill permit is required for the proposed construction. Prior to applying for this permit, Petitioner contacted James McElheny, a landscape architect, who assisted Petitioner in drawing up the plans for the house, the driveway, and the garage that Petitioner desired to construct on the property. Without being aware that a permit from the Respondent would be required, Petitioner constructed a driveway on a portion of his property that was within the permitting jurisdiction of Respondent. This driveway extended to the landward end of a boardwalk that terminated as a dock in Bessey Creek. After Petitioner became aware of the need for a permit, he removed the filled driveway to a point that Martin County and Respondent agreed was appropriate. A portion of the driveway remained on property within the permitting jurisdiction of the Respondent at the time of the formal hearing. The plan prepared by Mr. McElheny also depicted this existing, unauthorized roadway. Petitioner's application seeks, in part, a permit to retain this driveway. On June 10, 1991, Respondent issued its Notice of Permit Denial based on the Respondent's conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to provide the required assurances in Sections 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Permit Denial provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: This project is expected to have both short and long term impacts to biological resources and water quality. The total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. In addition, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to 403.919, F.S. which gives the Department the authority to examine secondary impacts, the Department has concerns about additional wetland resource and water quality impacts that may result from this project. Floodplain areas are essential to the river system and provide important functions for the environment. The floodplain serves as a buffer system in high tide and storm events. It also serves as a source of detrital input which supports the freshwater and estuarine food chains. In addition, these areas act to improve water quality by stabilizing sediment and filtering upland runoff. Long-term effects of the proposed project would include a decrease in the productivity of the system, as well as a decrease in the filtering and stabilizing capabilities of the system. Water quality degradation is also expected to occur with upland runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, sewerage and petroleum products. Floodplain wetlands also provide a habitat for a wide variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, crustaceans and mammals. This would eliminate this wetland habitat. This project is expected to be in violation of the following Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules: 403.918 Criteria for granting or denying permits 17-312.080 Standards for Issuance or Denial of Permit 17-312.300(3) Mitigation Intent 17-302.560 Criteria: Class III waters The Department has determined that the following changes to the project make the project permittable. Modify the project to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impact by: Removing the unauthorized fill road from water of the state. Relocate the proposed house to utilize as much upland area on the property as possible. Relocate the garage and access driveway to an upland area [and] eliminate or modify the garage and access road to reduce impacts. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, provides the following permitting criteria pertinent to this proceeding: A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. . . . A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. . . . (a) In determining whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others . . . the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitat; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Respondent is entitled to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project pursuant to Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: The department, in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider: The impact of the project for which the permit is sought. The impact of projects which are existing or under construction or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought. The impact of projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations. The residence that Petitioner proposes to build on the wetland portion of the property will be constructed on pilings so that the underside of the house will be 12 feet above the ground. There will be a total of 12 pilings, with each piling being 10 inches square. The "footprint" of the house will be 1,654 square feet. If the project is permitted, best management practice will require that a silt screen be erected around the construction site during construction to prevent silt runoff. The proposed site for the house is located in a natural clearing that would require minimal clearing. If the project is to be permitted in this wetland, the site selected by Petitioner is the best site with the least impact on the wetland. Petitioner would be required to remove up to two laurel oaks and seven red maple trees. These are relatively small trees, and both species are common. Petitioner would also be required to remove shrub of no particular unique value. Petitioner proposes to mitigate the removal of the trees by replanting on the property trees that were removed in a 2-1 ratio, so that 6 laurel oaks and 14 red maples would be replanted. Petitioner also proposes to revegetate the area beneath the residence, with the exception of the area required by the pilings. There are invasive, exotic plants on the property, such as Brazilian pepper, that would be removed by Petitioner and replaced by native plants. Ms. Jacqueline Kelly, the environmental specialist who reviewed this project for Respondent, visited the property approximately four times for a total of eight hours. Ms. Kelly is of the opinion that no dredge and fill activity should be permitted on jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Kelly testified that she observed several species of birds while she was on the property, including a wood stork, a great blue heron, a little blue heron, a tricolored heron, an osprey, bluejays, woodpeckers, and grackles. The wood stork is an endangered species and the little blue heron, the tricolored heron, and the osprey are species of special concern. These birds do not nest on the subject property, and they were not observed in the area of the wetland on which the proposed construction would occur. There was no testimony upon which it can be concluded that the proposed construction will stop these species from coming on to the property. Because of the slope of the terrain, the upland portion of the Petitioner's property drains away from the wetland while the portion on which the proposed construction would occur drains toward the wetland. At the formal hearing, Petitioner suggested that any concerns as to drainage from the roof of the proposed residence could be discharged onto the upland portion of the lot by gutters. In his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner proposes that a condition of the permit be that "[a] roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project." The permitting requirement contained in Section 403.918(6), Florida Statutes, pertaining to historical or archaeological resources was not at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Kelly concluded that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as to each of the remaining permitting criteria. The rationale given by Ms. Kelly for her conclusions is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence is that all reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, that were at issue in this proceeding have been provided as it pertains to the construction of the residence. The existing roadway was filled using shell rock which has stabilized. The mere existence of the roadway on the wetland property was not shown to violate any permitting criteria since this roadway does not violate water quality standards and is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner did not, however, provide reasonable assurances that the utilization of this existing roadway as either a driveway or a parking area would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that such use would not be contrary to the public interest or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that the construction of the garage or the extension of the driveway on these wetlands would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. John Meyer was of the opinion that the project should be denied because of the possible precedent that the permitting of this project may establish for other owners of wetland properties. There was no factual or legal basis established for this opinion. The permitting of this project has no value as a precedent for other projects. There was no evidence that there were other permit applications pending for other projects in wetlands, and Mr. Meyer could only recall one or two such applications ever having been filed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that speculative cumulative impacts of this project does not prohibit the permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 409.919(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order which permits Petitioner to construct the residence on stilts with the following conditions: That silt screens be erected during the actual construction to prevent silt runoff from the construction from reaching Bessey Creek. That a roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project. That Petitioner be required to mitigate for the removal of laurel oaks and red maple by replanting on the property two laurel oaks for each laurel oak removed and by replanting on the property two red maples for each red maple removed. That Petitioner be required to revegetate with native plants the area under the house except for the areas required for the stilts. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny a permit to construct a garage or extend the existing roadway. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent permit Petitioner to retain the existing roadway on the condition that the roadway not be utilized as either a driveway or as a parking area for motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January 1994.
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 Applicant/Respondents, Melvin and Mary Thayer have applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a "dredge and fill permit" seeking authorization to remove an existing 32-foot wooden fence and install in its place a chain-link fence, which as originally applied for would not extend more than 32 feet waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake as marked by the waterward end of the existing wooden fence. The fence proposed would be five feet high and would possess a gate at its landward end which would permit pedestrian passage in both directions around the near-shore area of the lake. The project site is located approximately 400 feet south of U.S. 441-192 and adjacent to Alligator Lake, lying one mile west from Bay Lake within Section 10, Township 26 South, Range 31 East in Osceola County, Florida. As clarified and amended prior to hearing, the application now requests the permit to authorize, instead, a 26-foot fence extending that distance waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. The Department has permitting jurisdiction under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes as well as Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. There is no dispute that the Department has jurisdiction of the permitting of the subject fence inasmuch as the fence would be constructed waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation or the "high pool" level of Alligator Lake in Class III waters of the state. Additionally, the area of the project waterward of the 64- foot mean sea level elevation lies on sovereign lands of the State of Florida under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. That Department, as yet, has not issued a permit for use of sovereign land for the intended purpose as envisioned by Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. Ed Edmunson was tendered by both Respondents as an expert witness and was accepted as to his expertise in biological assessment of dredge and fill construction projects. It was thus established that the construction and installation of the fence and removal of the existing fence would cause no Class III water quality violations. Additionally, it was established that no navigational impediment would result from the fence as presently proposed which only involves a 26-foot fence extending from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation waterward in a perpendicular direction from the shore and near-shore of Alligator Lake. Parenthetically it should be noted that the original proposal involved extending the fence 32-feet waterward and then installing a right angle section parallel to the shoreline for an indeterminate distance. The right angle portion of the fence has been deleted from the permit application and the portion perpendicular to the shoreline has been amended from 32 feet down to 26 feet from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. In that connection, it was established by witness Walter, accepted as an expert in the field of engineering, that on January 7, 1985, the water line of Alligator Lake was at 62.4 feet mean sea level elevation and the end of the existing 32-foot wooden fence was 16 feet from the then existing waterline of the lake. If the water in the lake was at the 64 feet mean sea level elevation or "high pool" stage, which has occurred on the average of once every three years, the water at the end of the fence would still be only .9 feet in depth at the waterward extreme end of the proposed 26-foot fence. Indeed, it was established with- out contradiction by the Applicant, Melvin Thayer, that in the 17 or 18 years he has observed the project site, that only "seven or eight inches of water is the most depth he has seen at the end of the fence." Thus, the fence as proposed to be installed, will pose no impediment or hazard to the navigation of fishing boats, skiing boats or other craft, and, in that regard, a dock in close proximity to the site of the proposed fence extends approximately 90 feet waterward at the present time. In view of the Petitioner's other objection to the fence concerning their feared loss of access to walk around the near-shore area of the lake to visit friends and the like, the permit applicants have agreed to install a gate for public access anywhere specified by the Department along the extent of the proposed fence. The testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, including a representative of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, consists largely of objections to the precedent of permitting a private fence to be constructed in the waters of the state and on state water bodies, but no impediment to navigation has been established especially since the neighboring dock and numerous other docks around the shoreline of the lake extend waterward much farther than will the proposed fence. No degradation to water quality has been established to result from the proposed project. The fence has not been shown to be contrary to the public interest since it will not interfere with wildlife habitat or natural resources, nor impede navigation in any way, and was shown not to impede any public use of the lake or the near-shore area of the lake, in view of the access gate to be provided in the fence. In short, reasonable assurances have been provided that all permitting criteria within the Department's jurisdiction at issue in this proceeding will be complied with, although a permit from the Department of Natural Resources authorizing use of the state lands involved has not been issued as yet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Melvin and Mary Thayer for authority to remove an existing fence and to install a fence extending 26 feet waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake with an attendant public access gate installed therein be GRANTED upon satisfaction of the above-stated condition. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia M. Hoover, MSM Consultant 5366 East Space Coast Parkway St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Norman J. Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 B. J. Owens, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner is entitled to an environmental resource permit and modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the construction of commercial marinas and related structures at Petitioners property in Lee County, Florida. PRELIMARY STATEMENT On October 23, 2006, Petitioner applied to the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) for an environmental resource permit (“ERP”). Petitioner also sought modification of its sovereignty submerged land lease ("Lease") from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees). On September 28, 2007, the District issued a Staff Report recommending that the ERP and Lease be denied. The Governing Board of the District adopted the staff’s recommendation on October 11, 2007. On October 12, 2007, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing challenging the agency action. The District referred the petition to DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The case was abated for an extended period of time during which the parties attempted to settle their disputes. In October 2009, Intervenors' petition to intervene was granted. Intervenors were subsequently granted leave to amend their petition. Following notice from the parties that they were unable to settle their disputes, a final hearing was scheduled. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of: Michael Morris, Jr.; David Depew; and Hans Wilson, accepted as an expert in ocean engineering, environmental sciences and navigation. Petitioner presented the testimony of Anita Bain through the introduction of her deposition. Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 8, 9, 14 through 16, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30, 34, 35, 40 through 43, 46 through 50, 52, and 56 through 58, were admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 35 was accepted as a proffer. The District presented the testimony of: Holly Bauer- Windhorst, accepted as an expert in environmental biology; Melinda Parrott, accepted as an expert in marine biology and environmental impact analysis; Anita Bain, accepted as an expert in biology and environmental impact assessments; Robert Brantly, a professional engineer and Director of the Department's Bureau of Coastal Engineering; and Mary Duncan, accepted as an expert in biology and manatee impact assessment. The testimony of Peter Eckenrode was presented through his deposition. The District's Exhibits 5, 10, 12, and 14 through 18 were admitted into evidence. Intervenors presented the testimony of: Leonardo Nero, accepted as an expert in marine biology, seagrass conservation, oceanography, navigation, and vessel operation and maintenance; Gary Shelton; Sally Eastman; and Christine Desjarlais-Leuth. Intervenors' Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 14 were admitted into evidence. The two-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH. The parties filed proposed recommended orders. Petitioner filed revised pages to its proposed recommended order to correct scrivener's errors. Petitioner moved to strike an issue that was raised for the first time in the District and Intervenors' Joint Proposed Recommended Order. The motion to strike is granted as discussed in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Highpoint Tower Technology, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its mailing address at 800 South Osprey Avenue, Building B, Sarasota, Florida 34246. Petitioner is the owner of property located in Section 25, Township 45 South, Range 22 East, in Lee County, Florida, consisting of approximately eight acres. The property is on Bokeelia Island, on the northern tip of Pine Island. Petitioner is the applicant for the ERP and Lease which is the subject of this proceeding. The District is a regional water management agency with powers and duties established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Its principal office is located at 3301 Gun Club Road in West Palm Beach. The District regulates certain construction activities in waters of the state pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E. The District has also been delegated authority from the Board of Trustees to process applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities on or over sovereignty submerged lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051. Intervenor Sally Eastman resides on property adjacent to the proposed project. Intervenors, Christine Desjarlias-Leuth and Ron Leuth, own and reside on riparian property approximately 400 feet from the proposed project. Intervenor Gary Shelton owns and resides on riparian property near the proposed project. All Intervenors use the waters of Charlotte Harbor for water-based recreational activities, including fishing, swimming, boating, wading, and nature observation. The Affected Waterbodies The north side of Petitioner's property is adjacent to Charlotte Harbor. The south side of the property is adjacent to Back Bay. Both waterbodies are within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. The aquatic preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water. Aquatic preserves are so designated because they have exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. It is the intent of the Legislature that aquatic preserves be set aside forever as sanctuaries for the benefit of the public. See § 258.36, Fla. Stat. Aquatic preserves were established for the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.001(1). Charlotte Harbor in this location is a large expanse of open water with 10 to 12 miles of fetch to the north, making it subject to high winds and waves during storms. The water bottom of Charlotte Harbor is sandy. There are many areas of Charlotte Harbor with "prop scars," which are caused when boats travel in shallow waters and impact the bottom with boat motor propellers. There are seagrasses growing in the vicinity of Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, mostly Thallasia testudinum (turtle grass) and Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass). Healthy turtle grass beds are growing near the proposed marina structures in Charlotte Harbor. There was some dispute about whether the turtle grass is 12 inches or 18 inches in length. The more persuasive evidence is that mature turtle grass is 18 inches in length. If there is turtle grass of shorter length in the area of the proposed project, it will eventually mature to a length of 18 inches. These seagrass communities qualify as a Resource Protection Area ("RPA") 1, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(54) as "[a]reas in aquatic preserves which have resources of the highest quality and condition for that area." There is also small patch of soft whip coral offshore, as well as some sea lettuce and interstitial algae on the sandy bottom. No water quality data for this area of Charlotte Harbor was presented by Petitioner. West Indian manatees are known to forage and move in the area near Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, as well as in Back Bay. The manatee is a "listed" species. Back Bay is a small, semi-enclosed bay. It is shallow, averaging around four feet in depth at mean low water. A narrow passage known as Jug Creek leads out of Back Bay to Pine Island Sound. There are no seagrasses along Petitioner's shoreline on Back Bay, but there are seagrasses elsewhere in Back Bay. There are many prop scars in the shallower areas of Back Bay. The water bottom in Back Bay is silty and organic. It can be easily stirred up by boats and propeller action. No water quality data for Back was presented by Petitioner. Existing Structures A public access fishing pier extends about 400 feet from Petitioner's property into Charlotte Harbor, generally forming a "T." The pier has existed for decades and was one of the first landing and offloading piers in the region for commercial fishing activities, with fish houses on the adjacent uplands. The riparian owner obtained title to the submerged lands beneath the fishing pier by operation of the Butler Act, which vests title in the riparian upland owner to submerged lands if structures were erected over or upon the submerged lands before 1951. Therefore, a submerged land lease from the Board of Trustees is not required for the fishing pier. However, Petitioner obtained a submerged lands lease in 2000 for two recreational boat slips along the east side of the pier. There is a seawall along Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline. Petitioner's upland was formerly occupied by approximately 120 mobile homes, which were served by septic tanks. The mobile homes were removed two or three years ago and Petitioner obtained a separate environmental resource permit from the District in May 2006 for a proposed new residential and commercial development on the uplands called Bokeelia Harbor Resort. Construction of the new development, which would include single-family homes, multi-family buildings, a swimming facility, and a restaurant, has not yet begun. In Back Bay, Petitioner's shoreline has a seawall and a number of finger piers extending off the seawall. Petitioner has two submerged land leases in Back Bay, one that authorizes 50 boat slips and another that authorizes 10 slips. Only about a dozen boats have been using these slips in recent years. There are two boat ramps on Petitioner's property for access to Back Bay. The record evidence leaves unclear whether the ramps were for the exclusive use of the former mobile home residents or were used by the general public. The historical and current use of the boat ramps, in terms of the average number of launches per month or year, was not established in the record. There is a man-made, seawalled canal or basin on Petitioner's property that connects to Back Bay. There are piers and slips in the canal, which Petitioner claims could accommodate about 30 boats. Aerial photographs of the canal indicate that 20 to 25 boats is a more reasonable estimate. The water bottom of the canal is privately owned and, therefore, does not require a submerged lands lease. Petitioner presented inconsistent information about the number of existing boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner claimed that there are as many as 108 slips in Back Bay. That number seems impossible, given that only 60 slips are authorized by the two submerged land leases. There was no exhibit presented to show where the 108 slips are located. The Department of Community Affairs determined that 85 slips in Back Bay were "vested" for purposes of the development of regional impact review program in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which means the slips were constructed before July 1, 1973. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission thinks there are now 82 boat slips in Back Bay. The Department of Environmental Protection thinks there are 80. Petitioner had a motive to exaggerate the number of existing slips. The unsupported testimony of Petitioner's witness that there are 108 slips in Back Bay was not substantial evidence.1/ It is found that Petitioner currently has approximately 82 boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner is not currently controlling the use of the slips in Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay, such as by limiting the size or draft of vessels. There are no signs that inform boaters about seagrasses or manatees. There are currently no sewage pump-out facilities. Petitioner is not currently controlling boaters' uses of fuel or other chemicals. However, no evidence was presented to show the extent of any past or current polluting activities. Petitioner sought to show that the septic tanks that had been removed from the upland property were a source of nutrients and other pollutants to Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors objected to this evidence as irrelevant because the ERP and Lease applications do not involve the removal of the septic tanks and their replacement with a central sewage collection system, and because Petitioner removed the septic tanks some years ago as part of its re-development of the uplands. The objection was sustained, but Petitioner was allowed to make a proffer that the removal of the septic tanks improved the water quality of the adjacent waterbodies. The issue was one of relevancy alone, because it was apparently undisputed that the removal of the septic tanks resulted in some unquantified improvement in the water quality of adjacent waterbodies.2/ The Proposed Project Petitioner proposes to construct new commercial docks and related structures (marinas) in both Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay. The Charlotte Harbor marina would have 24 boat slips, which is 22 more slips than currently exist. The Back Bay marina would have 43 slips, which is 39 fewer slips than currently exist. Overall, the proposed project would result in a reduction of about 17 slips. Petitioner would make all boat slips in the marinas available to the public on a “first come - first served” basis. Some slips would be leased on an annual basis. An unspecified number of slips would be for day rental, primarily to accommodate patrons of the restaurant on the uplands. In Charlotte Harbor, a long pier would extend to a dock configuration that forms a marina basin, with concrete panels on three sides extending from above the water line to below the sandy bottom to act as a breakwater. The opening into the marina basin for ingress and egress by boaters would be to the southeast. On the west side of the marina basin would be a 1500 square foot fishing platform. Slips 1 through 5 would be along the east side of the pier and would have boat hoists to raise the boats out of the water. Because seagrasses are growing near slips 1 through 5, Petitioner agreed to limit the draft of boats using these slips to 30 inches. Slips 6 through 24 would be within the protected marina basin. These slips are intended to accommodate larger boats than the kinds of boats that can safely navigate in the shallow waters of Back Bay. However, boats using slips 6 through 24 would not be allowed to have drafts greater than five feet. These slips would not have hoists. All the new slips in Back Bay are designed for a maximum boat length of 30 feet, but the slips vary with regard to maximum allowed draft, from 16 inches to three feet, depending on the depth of the adjacent waters. The Charlotte Harbor marina would extend about 100 feet more waterward so that it would be 500 feet from the shoreline, which is the maximum extension allowed under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1. No boats slips or mooring would be allowed beyond the 500-foot limit. The canal connected to Back Bay would be filled in, and three additional residential units would be placed on the uplands created by the filling. Petitioner suggested that the canal has poor water quality, such as low dissolved oxygen, and that elimination of the canal would be a benefit for the water quality of Back Bay. Petitioner presented no water quality data to support this allegation, but the elimination of the canal would more likely than not have some small water quality benefit for Back Bay. The boat ramps on the upland would be removed. A new seawall would be installed along Petitioner's Back Bay shoreline and approximately 400 reef balls would be placed in the water along the face of the seawall. The reef balls are three feet tall and four feet wide, made of cement, and have openings. It is expected that oysters and barnacles would colonize the reef balls. Because there are oysters, barnacles, and other filter feeders in Back Bay, that expectation is a reasonable one. Fish are likely to be attracted to the reef balls. Petitioner contends that the reef balls, after they are colonized by oysters, will provide water quality benefits, because oysters filter the water when feeding. Although there was some support in the record for this general proposition, there was no evidence presented about the types of pollutants that can be removed from the water by oysters, or the level of water quality improvement that reasonably could be expected. Reef balls have been used at another marina in the region and were determined by the regulatory agencies to provide some public benefit, but Intervenors' expert, Leonard Nero, believes that the value of reef balls is exaggerated. It is his opinion that reef balls do not function like a natural habitat because there is no primary food production or sustainable biological interrelationships. It is found that the proposed reef balls would provide some small environmental benefits to the Back Bay ecosystem. In Back Bay, there are currently no channel markers except in Jug Creek. Petitioner proposes to provide channel markers so that boats entering and leaving the marina would be guided away from shallower waters and away from seagrasses. Petitioner prepared a Marina Management Plan to govern the operation of the marinas, including the use of the slips. The management plan requires waste receptacles and restricts the use and storage of fuel and other chemicals. The plan also includes an education program to inform marina users about water quality and habitat protection. A harbor master would be employed to oversee the operation of the marinas. The harbor master would be responsible for assuring compliance with the requirements in the Marina Management Plan, including maximum boat drafts, fuel spill prevention and clean-up, proper use of sewage pump-out facilities, prevention of hull cleaning and use of deleterious boat cleaning products, and proper disposal of fish cleaning wastes. The harbor master's office would be located on the docks over Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors are not impressed with Petitioner's proposal to employ a harbor master to control marina activities because the harbor master would not be at the marinas 24 hours a day and could not be present at both marinas at the same time. However, the employment of a harbor master would strengthen the use and enforcement of the Marina Management Plan. There would be educational signs for boaters with information about manatees and seagrasses. Petitioner proposes to install sewage pump-out facilities at both marinas that would be connected to the sewage collection system that will serve the upland development. The proposed project includes modifying the proposed upland residential development to add three residential units and a cul de sac, and enlarging a stormwater retention area to accommodate the associated stormwater impacts. Project Impacts Seagrasses It is usually difficult and sometimes impossible for seagrasses to re-colonize an area that has been prop-scarred. Seagrasses are the primary food of manatees, so an adverse impact to seagrasses is an adverse impact to manatees. The seagrasses to the east of the entrance of the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina are subject to disturbance from boats entering and leaving the marina. Boats approaching or departing from slips 1 through 5 are likely to cross these seagrasses from time to time. The water depth in the area of slips 1 and 2 is about minus five feet (mean low water) at the shallowest. For any seagrasses growing at minus five feet, and assuming the seagrasses are 18 inches in length, the clearance between the bottom of a boat with a 30-inch draft and the top of seagrasses would be 12 inches at mean low water. District and Intervenors are also concerned about the potential impacts to the seagrasses near the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina from large boats using slips 6 through 24, which could have a draft of five feet. About 260 feet to the east of Petitioner's pier is another pier, known as Captain Mac's Pier. There are seagrasses between the two piers. Boaters wanting to reach slips 6 through 24 would have to navigate past Petitioner's marina basin, into the area between Petitioner's pier and Cap'n Mac's pier, and then make nearly a 180 degree turn to enter the marina basin. The more persuasive record evidence indicates that this maneuver would sometimes be difficult for inexperienced or inattentive boaters even in relatively calm conditions. In windy and storm conditions, the maneuver would be difficult even for experienced boaters. If there are tethered buoys marking the limits of the seagrasses, as proposed by Petitioner, the buoys would add to the navigational challenge. The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that it is likely that boaters in vessels with drafts greater than 30 inches, when entering or leaving the marina basin, would sometimes cross the seagrasses and do damage to the seagrasses and other submerged resources. Another potential adverse impact to seagrasses is shading caused by structures. Shading caused by the existing fishing pier in Charlotte Harbor appears to have impeded the growth of seagrasses in some areas near the pier. The proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina presents a relatively unique shading issue. Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that shading from the proposed structures in Charlotte Harbor would not adversely affect seagrasses. The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would also cause adverse impacts to seagrasses in Back Bay. However, because Petitioner has reduced the numbers of slips in Back Bay and eliminated the boat ramps, the boat traffic in Back Bay should be reduced. Furthermore, Petitioner would restrict boat drafts and mark a channel to guide boaters to deeper waters and away from seagrasses. Therefore, the proposed project would likely reduce the risk of damage to seagrasses and other submerged resources in Back Bay. The District and Intervenors describe Petitioner's proposal to install channel markers in Back Bay as too "tentative" because there is another developer that has proposed to install channel markers and Petitioner's proposal is to install the markers if the other developer does not. However, the details of the channel marking are in evidence. If the channel marking is made a condition for construction of the proposed project, it can be considered a part of the reasonable assurance of compliance with relevant permitting criteria. No specific evidence regarding the general health and value of the seagrasses in Back Bay was presented. The seagrasses in Back Bay are not designated as an RPA. There was no evidence presented that there is soft coral or other submerged resources in Back Bay. Therefore, the reduced risk of harm to the seagrasses in Back Bay does not offset the potential harm that the proposed project would cause to the seagrasses and other submerged resources in Charlotte Harbor. Manatees Petitioner agreed to comply with all of the conditions recommended by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission related to the protection of manatees: In order [to] ensure a minimum clearance of 12 inches above the top of seagrass so as to avoid damage located in the project ingress/egress route, the maximum draft, including propeller(s), for vessels associated with slips 1-5 in Charlotte Harbor shall be 30 inches. The Standard Manatee Conditions for In- Water Work (revision 2009) shall be followed for all in-water activity. Handrails shall be constructed and maintained along the access pier and the landward side of the terminal platform to prevent mooring outside of the designated slip areas. The Permittee shall develop and implement a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-approved marina educational program prior to slip occupancy. The Permittee shall develop this educational program with the assistance of FWC, and FWC shall approve this education plan prior to its implementation. The program may include (at a minimum) the posting of permanent manatee educational signs and the display of brochures in a prominent location. The educational program must be maintained for the life of the facility. The [Permittee] shall install and maintain seagrass marker buoys as depicted in the site plan for the docks in Charlotte Harbor. The buoys must be permitted by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Boating and Waterways Section, and maintained for the life of the project. The [P]ermittee shall provide bins for the disposal of or recycling of monofilament line or other used fishing gear. The [P]ermittee shall also provide educational signs encouraging the use of these bins. Larger boats are generally more lethal in collisions with manatees because there is usually more momentum involved. Greater momentum generally causes deeper propeller cuts and other serious physical injury. Slips 6 through 24 in the Charlotte Harbor marina would accommodate boats of greater size (up to five-foot draft) than would have used the slips that would be eliminated in Back Bay, creating some small, unquantified additional risk of increased injury or death to manatees in Charlotte Harbor and other area waters. Lee County reviewed the proposed project against the Lee County Manatee Protection Plan and scored the project as "Preferred." The factors that the County considered in scoring the project were not explained. The reduction of boat traffic in Back Bay that would result from the eliminating boat slips and removing the boat ramps, and the marking of a channel away from seagrasses in Back Bay, would reduce the current risk to manatees using Back Bay. However, that reduction of risk is offset by the increased risk of injury to manatees associated with the addition of 17 larger slips in the Charlotte Harbor marina, the potential for collisions with any manatees foraging in the seagrass near the Charlotte Harbor marina, and the potential loss of seagrasses from boat impacts and shading. The overall effect of the proposed project on manatees would probably be negative. Water Quality The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would cause additional pollution associated with boating activity and, therefore, would violate the water quality standard applicable in Outstanding Florida Waters that ambient water quality cannot be degraded. However, Petitioner would reduce the total number of boats that could operate out of the marinas and would implement a number of prohibitions and other management practices that would reduce the potential for pollution when compared to the current situation. There was no evidence presented to quantify the pollution that might now be occurring as a result of the absence of pump-out facilities at the marinas, or the presence of related pollution in Charlotte Harbor or Back Bay. However, it was undisputed that the availability of pump-out facilities is generally a benefit for water quality. Petitioner has not indicated where the sewage pump-out facilities would be located. Although this is a relatively minor issue, the location of these facilities can affect the potential for pollution and, therefore, it is reasonable for the District to require this information before the ERP can be approved. Although the District and Intervenors contend that insufficient information was presented regarding flushing characteristics in Charlotte Harbor, that contention is inconsistent with their claim that strong winds, waves, and tidal forces that occur in this area of Charlotte Harbor would cause shoaling and scour at the breakwater. There is sufficient evidence that the Charlotte Harbor marina would be well flushed. An issue was also raised about the potential for turbidity problems in Back Bay caused by disturbance of the silty bottom by boats using the Back Bay slips. However, the reduction of the number of boats that would operate out of the Back Bay marina, the marina management proposals, and the channel marking would likely reduce such incidents in Back Bay. As discussed above, some small water quality benefits to Back Bay would be realized by the reef balls and the elimination of the canal. The overall effect of the proposed project would be to reduce the potential water quality impacts associated with the marinas, resulting in some small net improvement to the ambient water quality of the Pine Island Aquatic Preserve. Shoaling and Scour Shoaling is generally the accumulation of unconsolidated sediments that occur because of their movement by hydrodynamic forces of water flow, waves and currents. Scour is a type of erosion that occurs when current forces, when moving around a structure, push sediments away. Petitioner's expert, Hans Wilson, testified that it would take a relatively extreme amount of wave energy to create scour at the bottom of the breakwater. He said that the proposed breakwater was similar to one used at Royal Palm Yacht Club in Charlotte Harbor, which has not caused shoaling or scour. Robert Brantly, of the Department of Environmental Protection, believes that the proposed breakwater could cause shoaling and scour. While not agreeing with Mr. Brantly's concern, Petitioner offered to place reef balls at the base of the breakwater to further dissipate wave energy. Petitioner's evidence on this issue lacked much detail, but the evidence offered by the District was speculation -- Mr. Brantly thought there might be a problem and wanted to see more information. The District failed to rebut Petitioner's prima facie case that the breakwater would not cause shoaling or scour. Public Uses The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would reduce access by the general public to the aquatic preserve because the boat ramps would be eliminated and the fishing platform would be smaller than the area now available to the public on the fishing pier. The evidence shows some small reduction in public access to the aquatic preserve would likely result from the proposed project. Fill The District and Intervenors claimed for the first time in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order that the proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina is prohibited fill. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(1)(c) prohibits "filling waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line." "Fill" is defined in Rule 18-20.003(27): "Fill" means materials from any source, deposited by any means onto sovereignty lands, either for the purpose of creating new uplands or for any other purpose, including the spoiling of dredged materials. For the purpose of this rule, the placement of pilings or riprap shall not be considered to be filling. The District claims that the breakwater is "clearly prohibited" and that no additional factual evidence needs to be presented to determine the issue. However, although it is clear that the rule prohibits the deposition of fill materials such as dirt or sand into the water, it is not clear what other activities are prohibited by the rule.3/ Docks and marinas are clearly allowed by the aquatic preserve rules. Whether the breakwater is a piling structure is not answered by the record evidence. Evidence regarding the practices of the Board of Trustees, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the District in the interpretation and application of the rule is also absent from the record. Therefore, even if the issue had been timely raised by the District and Intervenors, the record evidence is insufficient to prove their claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District deny the ERP and Lease requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether DER properly asserts jurisdiction over the site in question, and whether Petitioner (Vatalaro) is entitled to a permit to fill that site.
Findings Of Fact Sometime in 1986, Billie Vatalaro purchased approximately eleven acres within an approximately 20-acre wetland contiguous to Lake Rouse in east Orange County, Florida. Approximately five acres of the Vatalaro parcel are in the lake itself. In June 1987, personnel from Orange County's planning department and environmental protection department visited the site in response to reports of illegal filling. Correspondence ensued, and meetings were held among Mrs. Vatalaro and her sons and the staff from Orange County. In the meantime, some activity on the site continued, including clearing of trees and vegetation and sometime in January 1988, Mrs. Vatalaro obtained from the Orange County building department building permits and septic tank permits for two houses on approximately 1/2 acre of the property. In early February 1988, the Orange County Environmental Protection Department requested the involvement of DER. Jurisdiction Pamela Thomas is an environmental specialist with DER in the Orlando office. She first visited the site on February 8, 1988, with DER's enforcement officer, a staff person from Orange County, Mrs. Vatalaro, and Mrs. Vatalaro's sons, Russ and Ron Vatalaro. She performed a jurisdictional determination on the occasion of that visit, and returned for subsequent visits on July 20, 1988 and February 22, 1989. Jurisdictional determinations were made pursuant to Rule 17-4.022 F.A.C. (Since renumbered as 17-3.022). This required locating the water body of the state, Lake Rouse, and a determination of whether there is a connection of the water body to the adjacent wetlands. The vegetation is then examined to determine whether canopy, sub-canopy or ground cover will be analyzed. Within the rule are two tests, one used when submerged species predominate, the other used when the wetland vegetation is more transitional. Ms. Thomas located Lake Rouse and found no berms or other barriers between the lake and the wetlands. She also performed transects, visually sampling segments of the area and determined there was continuity between the lake and landward to the site in question. She found a full mature canopy in the uncleared area and loblolly bay, a submerged species, dominated. This area, between the lake and cleared site met the first ("A") test in Rule 17-4.022, F.A.C. The submerged plus transitional species were greater than 50 percent of the vegetation, the submerged species was greater than 10 percent and exceeded the upland species present. Because a portion of the area had been cleared, it was necessary to attempt to reconstruct what vegetation had existed prior to clearing. The cleared area included tall spindly pine trees spaced to indicate that other trees had been growing between them. The pine trees which did not have fill next to them were sitting on hummocks, a common phenomena in wetlands. Within the disturbed area Ms. Thomas found two bore holes where previous soil borings had been done. She and the DER enforcement officer determined by examining those holes that substantial fill had been placed in the cleared area. Root mat was more than ten inches below the surface and water was standing in the bottom of the holes. In order to reconstruct what vegetation had been present in the cleared area, Ms. Thomas completed a series of three feet by ten feet visual transects fanning out into the thicket from the cleared area. The dominant species were Ioblolly bay (gordonia), sweet bay and dahoon, all submerged species. It was apparent that the predominance of trees that had been removed were submerged species, mainly Ioblolly bays. As reconstructed, the biomass in a transect would have been greater than the sum of the biomass of the pine trees. This reconstruction was further validated on subsequent visits to the site when juvenile loblolly bay trees were found seeded and thriving in the disturbed area, but no pine seedlings were found, even though there was adequate time for that to occur. DER staff also viewed aerial photographs provided by the Valataros, taken in 1984, prior to major clearing and in 1987, after the clearing. The photographs are on a scale of 1 to 300 and do not indicate a drastic change in the area that would reflect that the cleared area had been mostly pine trees. The photographs are not of such quality that a conclusive determination can be made on them alone. David Kriz is an area resource soil scientist with the U. S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. He visited the site with representatives of DER and Mrs. Vatalaro on July 20, 1988, at the request of DER. He performed three soil borings, the first in an area of bay trees outside the area cleared for the house. This boring revealed Samsula muck, a hydric soil, indicative of being saturated or flooded. The second boring was taken within the area designated for the house pad. This yielded about fifteen inches of fill, then St. Johns soil, an organic sandy layer, which can be hydric if inundated for more than thirty days in a year. It was impossible to determine whether this specimen was hydric, because this surface had been disturbed and filled. The third boring was taken just off the pad, but still in the cleared area. It yielded about nine inches of sandy fill and Samsula muck below, similar to the first boring, and clearly a hydric soil. St. Johns fine sand also appears on the site in a USDA soil conservation map of Orange County. The map is a good guide, but cannot be relied upon without ground tests in specific sites as the scale on the map is 1 to 20,000. Although distinct soil zones are indicated, in fact there are transitional areas between soil types in the zones, which means that in a transitional zone there may be either wet or dry areas. It would be virtually impossible to determine the soil type prevalent in Mrs. Vatalaro's cleared half acre, without the borings. DER properly concluded that it has jurisdiction over the site. Petitioner's expert, William Dennis, concedes that most of the Vatalaro property is within DER's jurisdiction, including a substantial portion of the cleared area, most notably the 43 by 100 foot cleared finger extending south from the cleared area designated for the house. In performing his jurisdictional analysis, Dr. Dennis concentrated on the cleared area. He did not complete transects. He counted and measured trees, and with the aid of a compass, sited them on a chart, received in evidence as Petitioner's exhibit #13. Within the cleared area he found a predominance of pines, and upland species (71%) and some submerged and transitional species (4.8% and 24.2%, respectively). This, he concluded, failed the jurisdictional test described in paragraph 7, above. Dr. Dennis also examined the aerial photographs and determined there was a vegetation break extending approximately 30 feet into the thicket from the northwest corner of the cleared area. He counted and measured trees in that area and found 14.8% submerged species, 35.4% transitional species, and 49.8% upland species. That area failed the jurisdictional "A" test because the submerged species did not outnumber the upland species present. Extrapolating from this finding, he concluded that the upper part of the cleared area designated for placement of the house, is outside of DER's jurisdiction. This conclusion is unreliable. The aerial photographs, particularly the pre-clearance photographs from 1984, are not crisp and clear. It is also possible that in looking at an aerial photograph, the tallest trees, the pines, would overshadow the other species which are also four inches or greater in diameter breast height (DBH) and are, therefore, equally significant. Rule 17.4.022(1)(c), F.A.C. provides that belt transects be used when the line demarcating the landward extent of waters of the state cannot be determined visually or by photo interpretation. DER, but not Mr. Dennis, relied on belt transects. Rule 17.4.022(I)(d), F.A.C. provides that other methods may be used as long as the department and applicant both agree in writing, to the method used. DER did not agree with Dr. Dennis' method. Counting trees in an area that has been disturbed is not a reliable means of establishing what existed prior to clearance when substantial evidence suggests that the clearing left the pines but eliminated the predominant submerged and transitional species. Section 403.8171(5), F.S. provides a "back-stop" to the vegetative jurisdictional determination by providing that "...in no case shall [the landward extent of the waters of the state] extend above the elevation of the 1- in-10-year recurring flood event or the area of the land with standing or flowing water for more than 30 consecutive days per year calculated on an average annual basis, whichever is more landward." The petition in this proceeding raised the issue of the jurisdictional backstop but the application and evidence at a hearing fails to include sufficient information to substantiate that this alternative applies. Generally, a study would be required, and the applicant has not provided such. The Merits of the Application The wetland contiguous to Lake Rouse, within which the Vatalaro property is located, comprises approximately 20 acres. It is the only mature forested wetland of its quality within a large region of east Orange County. This wetland provides a filtration function contributing to the water quality of Lake Rouse and to the waters of the region. The Lake Rouse wetland also provides flood abatement capacity via its soil and plants. The effects of the loss of this capacity in other severely impacted wetlands along the State Road 50 corridor have become evident. The altered areas are no longer able to provide water holding capacities. Wildlife which are residents of the area and which use the area as a stopover will be impacted by alteration of the habitat which they currently rely upon for food, cover, nesting and resting. Examples of those wildlife are ducks and other birds, raccoons, deer and opossums. Even though the proposed project will comprise only 1/2 to 3/4 an acre of the wetland, the impact is significant considering the unique quality of the wetland. Dr. Dennis agrees that alteration of the site would change the habitat value of the area and would impact the functions of the wetlands. He argues, however, that the effects of this project are minimal compared to the development which has already occurred in surrounding areas. Although the applicant has a building and septic tank permit and a Corps of Engineers permit, the regulations for those permits are not the same as the balancing criteria which DER must consider. The Orange County Planning and Environmental Protection Departments recommend denial of the project. No evidence was presented with regard to mitigation proposed or agreed to by the applicant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying the application for fill permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 26th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael D. Jones, Esquire 996 Westwood Square Suite 4 Oviedo, Florida 32765 Vivian F. Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the Hearing Officer's view of the project site, the following relevant facts re found: Respondent Sunset Realty Corporation initially applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation on March 2, 1979, for a permit to place 54,600 cubic yards of fill adjacent to Three Sisters Island and waterward of the mean high water line in Charlotte Harbor in order to construct a causeway and a sixty-foot bridge from Boca Grande Isles to Three Sisters Island. The applicant Sunset was notified on May 3, 1979, that adverse comments on the project had been received due to its impact upon biological resources. DER suggested that the application be modified by bridging the entire submerged area to alleviate biological and hydrographic concerns. On June 21, 1979, the respondent Sunset filed a revised application which reduced the volume of fill from 54,600 cubic yards to 25,000 cubic yards and extended the bridge from sixty feet to ninety feet long. The Department of Environmental Regulation forwarded to Lee County a summary of the Department's biological and hydrographic report. Additional information was not requested by the County. On October 31, 1979, the Lee County Commission considered the information made available to them from the Department and passed a resolution giving their approval to the first revision of the project by respondent Sunset. Finding that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurance that immediate and long-term impacts of the project would not result in violation of state water quality standards for Class II waters, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued its Intent to Deny Sunset's permit application on March 24, 1980. After a biological and hydrographic study of the project area, Sunset filed a second revision to its project on June 30, 1980. This revised application requested a permit for 10,000 cubic yards of fill and a 120-foot long bridge. In addition, this revision contained plans to install groins at the south end of Three Sisters Island and on Boca Grande Isles, to place riprap along the face of the fill, to remove and relocate existing oyster bars, to maintain turbidity barriers around the project during construction, and to direct stormwater run-off from the concrete bridge to an upland retention area on Three Sisters Island. It was also stipulated by respondent Sunset at the hearing that it would agree, as a condition of the permit, to replant mangrove vegetation along the shoreline of Three Sisters Island. On July 18, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Letter of Intent to Issue the applicant a permit for the revised project. The Department of Environmental Regulation did not seek reapproval of the revised project from the Lee County Commission because the scope and impact of the revised project were substantially reduced. It is not the policy of DER to request a new local approval for reduced projects. All property within the project boundary including submerged lands to be filled is held in fee simple by respondent Sunset. The waters affected by the proposed project are Class II waters, but are unclassified by the Department of Natural Resources as to shellfish harvesting. The nearest Class II waters which thus far have been approved for commercial shellfish harvesting are located approximately one and a half miles north of the project site. The proposed project would involve the destruction and elimination of approximately one acre of productive marine bottoms. The area has an abundance of grass beds and organisms that constitute a viable marine nursery and habitat. The area is not considered a spawning ground for any significant commercial or sport fish species. While the project will eliminate one acre of shallow water and productive bottom resources, the project should have no permanent effect upon the quality of the remaining surrounding waters. Three different species of mangroves vegetate the shoreline and the project would entail the removal of approximately 2/10 acre of mangroves. As indicated above, the applicant has agreed to insert a condition in the permit to revegetate mangroves around the site. The project will also entail the removal of one or two oyster bars. Live oysters can be removed and relocated by the use of floating cages. Relocation of the oysters to the riprapping and bridge pilings should increase their productivity. While the proposed fill will eliminate a wading bird habitat, birds will not otherwise be affected except during the construction of the project. The area around Three Sisters Island is an excellent fishing ground for line and net fishing for trout, red fish, mullet and sheepshead. Concern was expressed by commercial fishermen at the hearing that the bridge would obstruct net fishing, that the construction of the bridge would drive the fish away temporarily and that the fish, being creatures of habit, would not come back. The 120-foot bridge itself would have a minor effect of approximately 2% upon the restriction of flow in the area. A flow resistance is presently caused by the channel itself, a sharp bend in the channel that occurs at a constriction or spit, and the spit itself. The spit severely restricts flow and the channel needs to be enlarged. The remedial measure proposed is to place groins on the spit and on Boca Grande Isles across the spit. This will gradually enlarge the opening and reduce constriction. The placement of groins could provide a 40% increase in flow through the channel, and the increased circulation will improve the overall system. The two groins proposed are 40 feet and 80 feet in length. The groins will intercept the transport of sand and the pass will thereby be enlarged. The groins will be visible to boaters in shallow water and will not be a significant hazard to navigation. Three Sisters Island is a fifteen acre island to be utilized by Sunset Realty Corp. for residential development. Employees of DER who testified at the hearing were not aware of DER ever permitting filling in Class II waters for the purpose of aiding a private development or use. Other regulatory agencies providing comments on the proposed project after its first revision recommended that all fill be deleted from the project plans and that the bridge be constructed so as to span the entire submerged lands and shoreline wetlands. These agencies included the United States Department of the Interior, the Department of the Army, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. With the exception of Durbin Tabb and Richard Lotspeich, both of whom felt that the destruction of one acre of bottom resources would not be significant to the total system, all other experts in marine biology who testified at the hearing felt that spanning the entire area with a bridge and eliminating the fill would provide a viable alternative to the permanent elimination of wetlands and shorelands. The petitioner Gasparilla Island Conservation and Improvement Association, Inc. is a non-profit, tax exempt corporation which was incorporated in 1971. The qualification for membership is the ownership of real property on Gasparilla Island. Approximately 700 property owners on Gasparilla Island are eligible to be members of GICIA. The actual membership is approximately 446. Twenty-two members own property on Boca Grande Isles, the subdivision closest to Three Sisters Island. Among the purposes of the GICIA are the promotion of Land, water and wildlife conservation uses and purposes in the Gasparilla Island area in Lee County and Charlotte County, Florida, including the preservation of ecology of the area, the protection of fish and shellfish breeding areas, the preservation of wildlife, and the promotion of anti-pollution measures. Members of the association use the proposed project area for recreational boating, commercial fishing, shellfish gathering, swimming, fishing and enjoyment of the natural flora, fauna and wildlife. Association members will be adversely affected by the destruction of grasslands, mangroves and oyster beds. The Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc. (O.F.F.) is a non-profit corporation with chapters throughout the State of Florida. Its purposes include the protection of the fishing industry of Florida and the promotion and sponsorship of conservation. Some members of O.F.F. regularly fish in the Three Sisters Island area that would be impacted by the proposed project. No evidence was presented at the hearing that the State Board of Directors of O.F.F. officially sanctioned witnesses to appear on behalf of the incorporated Organized Fishermen of Florida. No evidence was presented at the hearing as to the standing or substantial interest of the Florida Division of the Izaak Walton League or Eugene C. Enlow, both listed as Petitioners in the "Amendment of Petition for Formal Hearing." Petitioner Freemen Boynton is the owner of a residence located on Lot No. 98 on Boca Grande Isles. The proposed access bridge and groins are to be constructed on Lots No. 99 and 100 which are contiguous to Mr. Boynton's lot. The groin on Lot No. 99 could cause sand and other debris to accumulate upon Mr. Boynton's riparian property. Petitioner Boynton uses his home on Boca Grande Isles about two and one-half months per year and fishes along the shore, collects oysters, conch and shells and engages in bird watching. He is a member of the Gasparilla Island Conservation and Improvement Association, Inc., and he feels that the proposed project would remove some of the recreational aspects of his property and Three Sisters Island. Petitioner Ralph Cole is 71 years old and has been a commercial fisherman in the Charlotte Harbor area since the age of 12. He fishes the Three Sisters Island area every week. He feels that the area is an excellent fishing ground and that the proposed bridge would be in the way of striking a net.
Recommendation Based upon the findings and fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Sunset Realty Corporation for a permit be DENIED insofar as it includes the deposition of 10,000 cubic yards of fill in Class II waters. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Landers, Jr. Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers and Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles G. Batsel Wotitzky, Wotitzky, Johnson, Mandell and Batsel 201 W. Marion Drive Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Robert M. Rhodes and Terry E. Lewis Messer, Rhodes, Vickers and Hart Post Office Box 1976 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lester E. Durst Farr, Farr, Haymans, Moseley and Emrick Post Office Box 635 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Ray Allen Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue here concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner, Hernstadt Broadcasting Corporation to be granted certain environmental permits from the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, which would allow the Petitioner to construct a radio transmitter tower and access dock within the Biscayne Bay which is located in Dade County Florida. 1/
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action, Hernstadt Broadcasting Corporation, owns and operates radio station WKAT, which is located in Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to pursue this enterprise. On April 30, 1980, the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation received an application from the Petitioner, which application requested permission to construct a radio transmitter tower and access dock in Biscayne Bay, Dade County, Florida. (The tower end dock are part of a proposed station complex in which the radio station building is to be constructed upland from the Bay.) The project, if allowed, would be located off the north side of the Julia Tuttle Causeway which connects the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach via the Biscayne Bay. The tower and access dock, if constructed, would be located in submerged lands owned by the State of Florida. In view of the location of this apparatus in Biscayne Bay, it would be subject to the provisions of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act found in Chapter 258, Florida Statutes, together with other provisions of statute and rule. To place the access dock in the Bay, the Petitioner proposes to drive pilings into the Bay bottom to support the access dock which is 200 feet long and four (4) feet wide. The support mechanism for the radio tower would also be constructed by the driving of pilings into the Bay bottom and the radio transmitting tower, once built, would be 400 feet tall and would have attached stabilizing guy wires connected to anchors driven into the Bay bottom. As the pilings are driven into the floor of the Bay, the displaced soils will be compressed into lower elevations or redistributed against the pilings. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15, admitted into evidence, is a copy of the original application for permit, which was modified by site plans and sketches depicted in Respondent's Exhibit No. 16, admitted into evidence, shortening certain dimensions related to the access dock. (These modifications came about subsequent to the Department of Environmental Regulation's permit application appraisal found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, which is dated June 23, 1980.) After review of the project, in the face of the aforementioned modifications, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a letter of intent to deny the permit request. This letter of intent was dated September 9, 1980, a copy of which may be found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, admitted into evidence. The authority stated for such denial are these provisions of Subsection 258.165(3)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), and Rule 17-4.242(1), Florida Administrative Code. Subsequent to the issuance of the letter of intent to deny, a further modification was made on the project increasing the length of the proposed access dock to the presently requested 200 feet. This modification is depicted in petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, admitted into evidence, which shows site plans and other pertinent information related to the project. Another modification to the project which the Petitioner claims is not subject to permit review by the Department of Environmental Regulation, and for which the Department of Environmental Regulation takes a contrary point of view, concerns the use of a grid of nickel-plated copper straps, approximately 40 feet by 40 feet, constituted of a mesh of approximately 1/4 inch in diameter by 1 inch sections to be placed underneath the tower and on the Bay bottom for purposes of grounding the tower. This item was not made known to the Respondent until September 30, 1980, at a time subsequent to the letter of intent to deny. The Petitioner in this action pursues the project on the basis of a joint use agreement entered into with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, in which the Department of Transportation, in return for the ability to use the radio tower for communications in connection with a surveillance and traffic control system for Interstate Highway-95 and for the ability of the City of Miami, Florida, to use the facility for a tactical communication repeater installation, would grant to the Petitioner the Department of Transportation's rights and opportunities as easement holder in the area where the subject project would be constructed. See Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. The Department of Transportation's rights stem from an easement grant from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13, admitted into evidence. The rights of the Petitioner, by assignment from the Department of Transportation, do not relieve Petitioner of the obligation to gain the necessary approval of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund in the person of the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for permission to use those submerged lands over which the access walkway and tower would be constructed, notwithstanding any rights and privileges assigned to the Petitioner by the Department of Transportation as easement from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. This is true because the perpetual easement granted from the Trustees to the Department of Transportation for right-of-way and dredging purposes related to the roadway which is constituted of the Julia Tuttle Causeway and to the adjacent Bay bottoms related to construction and maintenance of that roadway, does not envision assignment of the submerged lands to an entity in the position of the Petitioner, which entity does not have as its purpose the construction or maintenance of the roadway; hence, the necessity to gain permission from the Department of Natural Resources if the access dock and tower are to be constructed on the submerged land of the State. The easement held by the Department of Transportation is specific in nature and does not contemplate the construction of a radio station. (It is not necessary to comment on the question of whether a joint use agreement between the Department of Transportation and Hernstadt as that Department's assignee for rights and privileges bestowed upon the Department from the Trustees based on the easement rights granted on October 2, 1941, would allow the construction of the building of the radio station building which would be at the upland terminus of the access dock which also adjoins the radio tower, the Department of Environmental Regulation having offered no claim for permitting jurisdiction over the radio station building.) The Petitioner proposes to move its radio station from the existing location in Miami Beach because buildings in the general area of the radio station interfere with the radio signal and, in addition, there is interference caused by radio transmissions from Cuba. The terms of the license held by Petitioner on issuance from the Federal Communications Commission limit the movement of the station's transmitter tower to a location no more than four (4) miles from the current location. At the time of the hearing, the Petitioner had not located an alternative tower site, other than the proposed site. As stated before, if the tower were constructed, the State of Florida, Department of Transportation would utilize the tower in its communications network and the City of Miami Fire and Police Departments would likewise desire to use the tower. The Florida Marine Patrol and the Florida Highway Patrol would also be interested in using the proposed tower for communications purposes. The City of Miami Planning and Advisory Board and the City Commission of that municipality would be in favor of the construction of the proposed radio tower. Dade County, Florida, has adopted a Comprehensive Master Plan, copies of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. Within that document is a discussion of environmental concerns within the county to include Biscayne Bay and, in particular, concern for protection of environmentally sensitive areas such as Biscayne Bay and an interest by the County to provide a wide range of public water oriented opportunities for the populace. Subsequent to the time of the submission of the permit application, and specifically, in October, 1980, Dade County, through its Metropolitan Planning Department and in conjunction with the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management Department prepared a proposed Biscayne Bay Management Plan, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence. This plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, by an Ordinance, a copy of which may be found as the Respondent's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence. The Biscayne Bay Management Plan encourages the enhancement of public access to the Bay for uses such as fishing, boating, shoreline wading and view in and the preservation and enhancement of the environmental, chemical and aesthetic qualities of the Bay. Furthermore, if the necessary permission could be obtained, Dade County, has future plans to use the subject Julia Tuttle Causeway as a public access to the Bay. The location of the radio tower and associated facilities would interfere with the proposed use by Dade County. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in keeping with Section 403.0615, Florida Statutes, 2/ through a program in conjunction with Dade County is attempting the restoration of the biological and chemical characteristics of the Biscayne Bay. Some of the items included in this program would be enhancement of aquatic vegetation, including seagrasses and mangroves and the promotion of aesthetics and public access to Biscayne Bay, to include the area of the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Radio station WKAT presents public service programs; is a part of the Emergency Broadcasting System and broadcasts emergency information in times of natural disaster. On the question of environmental implications of this project, the placement of the pilings would cause the destruction of certain seagrasses in that area, while at the same time promoting the introduction of marine life along the surfaces of the tower and dock supports. Seagrasses in the area where the grounding system would be placed may be destroyed and although the copper to be used would be nickel plated, thereby inhibiting the release of the toxic properties of the coated copper, eventually the nickel plating would break down and the marine life communities adjacent to the mesh would be harmed by the copper. The loss of seagrasses under the grid could cause a reduction in fish population. The installation of the radio tower and access dock in the Biscayne Bay is an impediment to navigation; however, the Petitioner intends to place channel markers to divert boat traffic away from the tower and its environs. There is no expected difficulty with run-off, discharges or other forms of pollution related to the construction or operation of the tower facility, although there will be some turbidity caused in the construction phases of the project. The project would be located in a State Aquatic Preserve within the meaning of Chapter 258, Florida Statutes; would be located in waters of the State within the meaning of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes; would be in navigable water within the meaning of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, end would be in an Outstanding Florida Water within the meaning of Rule 17-4.242(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners in this proceeding challenge the validity of one of the Department of Environmental Regulation's ("DER") Class III water quality standards contained in Rule 17-3.121(7), Florida Administrative Code. This rule, commonly known as the "Biological Integrity Rule," reads as follows: Biological Integrity--the Shannon- Weaver Diversity Index of benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75 percent of established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and, in predominantly fresh waters, collected and composited from a minimum of three Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate samplers of 0.10 to 0.15 meters squared area each, incubated for a period of four weeks; and, in predominantly marine waters, collected and composited from a minimal of three natural substrate samples, taken with Ponar type samplers with minimum sampling area of 225 square centimeters. Petitioners challenge this rule as a result of DER's intended denial of an application by Dade County for a permit to renourish the beach at Key Biscayne. DER's decision not to issue the beach renourishment permit was based in part upon its conclusion that there existed an expected violation of the Biological Integrity Rule as a result of the proposed beach renourishment. Whether or not the permit should be granted is an issue currently pending in another DOAH proceeding, Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 80-2201. Petitioners contend that Rule 17-3.121(7), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because: It fails to accomplish the purpose of the enabling legislation in that it contains no information as to where it is to be applied; It is incapable of consistent and objective application, and thus vests unbridled discretion in the DER staff; It is too vague and indefinite to determine whether it conforms to the statutory limitation on DER's authority; and It purports to but does not measure environmental integrity or environmental quality. The project for which Petitioners have applied for a permit requires the placement of fill on the beach at Key Biscayne in an area which extends landward from a point referred to as the 'design toe of fill." The permit application on file requests permission from DER to place fill material up to the design toe of fill. According to the permit application, it will take approximately two years after the initial placement of sand in the project area for that sand to reach the design toe of fill. There is no information contained in the original permit application regarding the location of the fill as it is initially placed within the project area, nor did DER request any additional information on that subject. The parties have stipulated that 45 acres of sea grass will ultimately be covered by fill. This area represents all the sea grass acreage landward of the design toe of fill, not just the acreage of sea grass which will be covered during the initial placement of fill within the project area. DER has no written policy establishing where the Biological Integrity Rule is to be applied. The record in this proceeding contains differing opinions from members of the DER staff concerning where the rule should be applied in order to determine whether a given project complies with the requirements of the rule. These explanations vary from applying the requirements of the rule within the area to be dredged or filled, to applying the rule outside the fill area, to applying the rule immediately adjacent to the fill area, to determining where the rule should be applied on a case-by-case basis. There is nothing in the record in this proceeding in the form of agency "orders" or any other form of agency "action" to indicate any prior DER interpretation of where the parameters of the Biological Integrity Rule are to be applied and measured. The rule uses the Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index of benthic macroinvertebrates as a measure in order to regulate the biological quality of a water body. The regulatory aspect of the rule depends upon some change in the existing biological community. If the index is reduced by more than 25 percent, a violation of the rule has occurred. The index is a function of two factors: the number of species of organisms in a given sample, and the number of individuals of each species in a sample. The higher the number of species in a given sample, and the more even the number of individuals of each species, the higher the index will be. The opposite is also true. If the number of species or the evenness of numbers of individuals among species is reduced, then the index decreases. The two factors are combined to arrive at the index. Naturally, these are only two of a vast number of factors actually present in the environment, but when taken together they give an accurate indication of existing water quality. Although this index does not reveal a number or these factors, such as existing biomass, types of species present in a sample, and the quality of those species, it is the most widely used scientifically valid single measure of environmental quality available. DER has had many years of experience with this index, and uses it in its routine monitoring program. In fact, this index is recommended for use in such programs by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. The formula for the Shannon-Weaver index is found in Rule 17-3.021(23), Florida Administrative Code. Although the rule containing the formula for the index was not specifically challenged in the Petition filed in this cause, it bears mentioning here because the formula as published in the Florida Administrative Code, contains so many typographical errors as to make the definition of the formula meaningless. However, the record in this proceeding establishes that the Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index is so commonly known, accepted and utilized in the scientific community as to make the proper parameters for its application easily ascertainable. Thus, because the definition of the formula was not specifically challenged in this petition, and additionally because the proper definition of the index is so widely known and easily ascertainable, inaccuracies contained in DER's published definition of the index are harmless insofar as this proceeding is concerned.
