The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the applicant for the dredge and fill permit at issue has provided reasonable assurances that the project involved will comport with state water quality standards and public interest standards for purposes of Section 403.918(1)&(2), Florida Statutes. Specifically, it must be demonstrated that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project is clearly in the public interest for purposes of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, and related rules; whether Citrus County has standing to challenge the project; and whether the Department is required or authorized to enforce the provisions of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact Kline filed an application for grant of a permit to construct a private boat dock with a roof, designed to cover a boat, in the Withlacoochee River. The Department has permitting jurisdiction, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules, inasmuch as the Withlacoochee River is a natural water body designed as Class III waters of the state, as well as an Outstanding Florida Water. The landward extent of the Department's jurisdiction is the wetland line depicted in Kline's exhibits 1 and 2 in evidence and in the testimony of Rose Poynor. The proposed installation consists of a private boat dock with boathouse or cover measuring 22 feet by 43 feet mounted on 12-inch diameter pilings. The boat cover roof would be approximately 14 feet above the surface of the Withlacoochee River at mean high tide. Portions of a presently- existing dock will be removed, leaving behind a walkway and terminal platform 6 feet wide and extending 6.5 feet from the wetland jurisdictional line out to the boat cover facility. The dock presently extends 6.5 feet from the wetlands jurisdictional line riverward. The existing dock shades the shoreline, including a non- jurisdictional area on the top of the bank. Kline proposes to remove a portion of this existing dock consisting of an area 10.75 feet by 12 feet on one side of the line and approximately 10.75 feet by 5 feet on the other side. This will include removing portions of the existing dock landward of the jurisdictional wetland line. The shoreline area that will be exposed upon removal of portions of the existing dock will be replanted with native plant species. The entire length of Kline's shoreline along the top of the existing bank will be cleared of nuisance species and planted with the required number of native plant species delineated in specific condition #18 of the intent to issue. More plants will be planted as necessary in order to maintain a 90 percent survival density of the required plants over a five-year period as specified in specific condition #21. Kline will also grant a perpetual conservation easement to the Department for the entire length of the shoreline extending a minimum of 4 feet waterward from the top of the bank. The conservation easement will insure protection of the planted shoreline and prevent any opportunity of shoreline hardening through construction of a seawall or other structures. The project will be constructed using best management practices for erosion control, including having the pilings driven from a barge over a period of three to five days so as to minimize the generation of turbidity. A floating turbidity curtain will also be used so as to surround the entire project area to prevent migration of turbidity off the site and which will not interfere with navigation. The total construction time is estimated to be three weeks. During construction, specific actions will be taken to avoid any impacts to manatees traveling the Withlacoochee River near the property. A turbidity curtain will not block manatee entry or exit from essential habitat and will be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled or injured. Boats in the project area will operate at "no wake/idle speeds" at all times. Upon the sighting of a manatee, all construction activities will cease until the manatee has left the project area. Logs and details of manatee sightings will be maintained and reported to the Department's Marine Mammal Section. During construction, temporary signs will be installed and maintained; and after completion of the project, permanent signs and a permanent informational display will be located in areas specified by the Department's Marine Mammal Section. The specific actions to be taken to avoid impacts to Manatees during construction were developed by the Department's Marine Mammal Section and are imposed on the proposed project in specific condition #13 of the intent to issue as a condition upon a grant of the permit, and Kline has agreed to these conditions. Kline's property is located on the Withlacoochee River in Inglis, Levy County, Florida. The proposed project extends waterward of Kline's shoreline and the waterward portion of the project is located within the boundaries of Citrus County. Kline's property is approximately 7 to 8 miles from Yankeetown, which is downstream on the Withlacoochee River from Inglis. Yankeetown is located on the lower reaches of the Withlacoochee River near the point where it enters the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. 19 Highway bridge is 900 to 1,000 feet upstream of the Kline property. Kline's shoreline is relatively steep with areas of exposed limestone. Vegetation along that shore consists of red maple, laurel oak, and other identifiable wetland species. Water depth drops off relatively quickly varying from 6 to 10 feet at the edge of the existing dock. The river is approximately 121.5 feet wide at the project site. The project's construction will extend approximately 21.7 percent of the width of the river at the project site after completion. On the opposite shore from the Kline property and project site, there is also a boat dock with a small boat basin which was dredged landward into the river bank at some time in the past. On the opposite shoreline, a fallen log projects into the river which does impede navigation to some extent on that side of the river but it is an easily removable obstruction. The log presently remains just below the water surface at high tide. The Cross Florida Barge Canal and spillway are located approximately 2 miles upstream from the Kline property and eastward from the U.S. 19 bridge. An island exists in the river around a bend downstream from the Kline property. The island prevents the passage of boats larger than 16-foot beam around the island and upriver toward the Kline property. The Withlacoochee River is a slow-moving, tannic-acid tinged river and historically was extensively shaded by a tree canopy. In the last half century or so, many of the trees have been removed to accommodate shoreline development which is characterized primarily by vacation homes, weekend retreats, and retirement homes with attendant docks, boathouses, seawalls, and similar private river and boat access facilities serving residential owners. The docks and boathouses existing in the river occur on both sides of the river from the Gulf of Mexico up at least as far as the U.S. 19 bridge. The historical character of the river has thus changed in the last several decades such that extensive numbers of docks, seawalls, boathouses and residences presently characterize the river margin. Water Quality Impacts The water quality impacts of this project will be minimal. The dock and boathouse installation will be placed upon pilings inserted into the river bottom. Installation of the pilings during construction will cause some temporary turbidity. The temporary turbidity that may be occasioned as a result of installation of the pilings will last only a few days at most, and a turbidity curtain will be used to control the turbidity, to prevent it from disbursing over a large area of the river. Turbidity curtains are a well- recognized, proven method for minimizing short-term water pollution violations due to turbidity occasioned by the setting of pilings for such projects. Requiring the applicant to re-vegetate the shoreline and maintain the natural vegetation will enhance natural shoreline pollution up-take processes, as well as erosion prevention. Water quality will be maintained, therefore, and possibly improve somewhat at the site after the re-vegetation of the shoreline and littoral margin. No other water quality parameters were shown to be potentially violated by the installation proposed. So long as no boat maintenance operations which involve the potential spillage of oils and greases, solvents, or bottom paint into the water are practiced, no violations were shown to potentially occur. The permit, if granted, should be restricted against such activities. Public Interest Standards and Considerations The issues and inquiry concerning the public interest standards as to this project related to the question of impacts on recreational uses of the river and navigational uses, as well as the issue of any impacts on manatees. The Department's biology expert, as well as manatee experts presented by the Intervenor, established that the Withlacoochee River is frequented by manatees, but is not a warm-water habitat for manatees. Manatees use the Withlacoochee River during the spring and summer months, but rarely during the winter because it is not a warm-water habitat. The river has been designated as an essential habit for manatees, however. This means that the area is used by them as a food source and as a breeding and rearing area. Although manatees have been seen throughout the length of the river and the immediate vicinity of the project site, the animals mostly use the estuarine mouth or lower reaches of the river. The project on the Kline property is approximately 8 miles upstream from the mouth of the river. There is no question that boats pose definite hazards to manatees through striking manatees with boats and propellers. Boats have been the cause of manatee deaths in Citrus County in the past. Manatees are an endangered species. The Withlacoochee River currently has speed zone regulations involving the requirement of boat operation with no wake, and Citrus County imposes certain dock design criteria on residents seeking to construct new boat docks. The Intervenor's manatee experts participated in the development of these dock design criteria and agree that general adherence to these criteria minimizes potential impacts on manatees. The expert witnesses produced by the Intervenor were mainly concerned with projects of this type causing possible impacts on manatee travel patterns if the dock projects too far from the shore, as well as potential loss of food sources from shading of the water bottom and the question of attendant boats adhering to speed zone regulations. The evidence establishes that the proposed dock will not exceed in a significant way the dock design criteria which the manatee experts agree would minimize any potential impacts on the animals. The experts testifying for the Intervenor had never visited the proposed project site and are unable to do more than make general observations and conclusions regarding any potential adverse impacts to manatees that the proposed project might have. One of the Intervenor's witnesses agreed, however, that the removal of portions of the existing dock structure would help revitalize aquatic vegetation to increase sunlight penetration which would benefit shoreline vegetation and the manatee habitat. The proposed project was shown not to affect manatee travel patterns and it will not have adverse shading impacts on aquatic vegetation due to the design of the facility, which will allow maximum sunlight penetration of the water column. Appropriate speed zones will be maintained during and after construction with the aid of signage warning Kline and the boating public of the need to adhere to "manatee friendly" boat operation practices. The testimony of both Kline and the Petitioner's witnesses establishes that both residents along the river and visitors frequently boat on the Withlacoochee River and there is a significant amount of boat traffic. Certain geographical restrictions such as river width, already existing dock and boathouse structures, the U.S. 19 Highway bridge, and the island between the Kline's property and the mouth of the river at Yankeetown act to limit the size of boats that can traverse this section of the river, as well as their speed. The witnesses agreed that two 16-foot beam boats could safely pass each other in front of the Kline dock even after completion of the project. The proposed project will be visibly marked with reflectors around its entire parameter with a minimum of one reflector on each piling as required by specific condition #15 in the intent to issue the proposed permit. Testimony from licensed boat captains presented by both the Petitioner and Kline establishes that reflectors are a normal requirement and are adequate for structures of this type and size. Kline presented evidence from a longtime native of Inglis, Bill Hart, that a structure with similar dimensions to the proposed project is located in the river at a point where the river is only 95 feet wide, significantly narrower than the width at the project site and yet does not obstruct navigation. That structure also is marked with reflectors and was shown not to pose a hazard to navigation. Witnesses adduced by Petitioner expressed concern that during high tide, the Kline's boat would be moored outside the boat cover and further decrease the river width available for navigation. The evidence showed, however, that Kline's boat would only be moored at the designated mooring location as required by specific condition #14 of the intent to issue. If necessary, Kline will be required to move the boat and anchor it down the river in an area of sufficient width if it should prove that his boat cannot be accommodated under the boat cover during some high tide conditions. Petitioner's witnesses also expressed concern that boats could not turn around in front of the Kline property when the installation is completed. The evidence showed, however, that boats can travel downstream and turn at the island or travel upstream to the U.S. 19 bridge. The U.S. 19 bridge pilings are approximately 20 feet apart which allows easy boat passage between them. The presence of Kline's boat will not represent any increase in boating traffic on the river. The previous owners of the same property used an existing dock to moor their boat. The evidence establishes that the proposed project will not cause a serious impediment to navigation more than is already the case and will not constitute a navigational hazard. The Petitioner's witnesses also expressed fears concerning reduction in the aesthetic quality of the view of the river and its banks. The river still enjoys some portion of tree canopy but is now largely characterized by man-made structures along both banks. Most residents in the vicinity of the Kline property already have docks, seawalls and/or boathouses. The installation of the proposed dock and boathouse or cover will not in any significant degree further impair the aesthetic quality of the view of the river and its banks from its present character. Cumulative Impacts Testimony from the Intervenor's expert witnesses showed concern regarding cumulative impacts of the proposed project on manatees and the "precedent" of granting Kline a permit. The Intervenor's witness feared that many people would apply for more boat docks on the Withlacoochee River and that Kline's project would set a bad precedent, if granted, as to cumulative impact. No evidence was presented to substantiate these concerns, however, and there was no showing that more such permit applications are pending before the relevant regulatory agency. The Department's expert witness established that no cumulative impacts could be expected from this project with regard to water quality, as well as the various public interest standards embodied in Section 403.918(2),(1-7), Florida Statutes. The Department itself has not received any other applications for similar projects in the vicinity.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Protection directing that the Respondent/applicant, William Kline's application for the above-referenced dock terminal platform and boat cover be granted under the conditions found hereinabove and contained in the intent to issue. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-264 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner does not state separate proposed findings of fact. Any proposed factual findings are inextricably entangled with extensive argument on the quantity and quality of testimony and other evidence and attempts to argue the Petitioner's position from the standpoint of documents referenced in the proposed findings of fact without an indication whether those documents are admitted into evidence or not. The Recommended Order can only be based upon testimony and evidence actually admitted and subject to cross-examination at hearing. The relevant and material issues raised in this case are delineated in the Recommended Order and have been fairly addressed and ruled upon and to the extent that the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are in agreement with the findings of fact enunciated by the Hearing Officer, they are accepted. To the extent that they are not they are subordinate thereto and not supported by preponderant evidence and are rejected. Citrus County (Intervenor) Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted to the extent not inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer concerning standing. 2. Accepted to the extent not inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer concerning standing. 3-7. Accepted. 8. Rejected, as irrelevant and immaterial. This is a de novo proceeding and the evidence adduced by a party, including the Department of Environmental Regulation, now known as the Department of Environmental Protection, at hearing and subject to cross-examination, is the only evidence or information upon which findings of fact and conclusions of law may be made. 9-10. Rejected, as irrelevant and immaterial. This is a de novo proceeding and the evidence adduced by a party, including the Department of Environmental Regulation, now known as the Department of Environmental Protection, at hearing and subject to cross-examination, is the only evidence or information upon which findings of fact and conclusions of law may be made. 11. Rejected, as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence and for the reason that these are de novo proceedings and the quantity, quality, and credibility of testimony and evidence adduced at hearing is the basis for findings of fact and conclusions of law adjudicating this proceeding. 12. Rejected, as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence and for the reason that these are de novo proceedings and the quantity, quality, and credibility of testimony and evidence adduced at hearing is the basis for findings of fact and conclusions of law adjudicating this proceeding. 13-14. Rejected, as immaterial and irrelevant in this de novo proceeding involving Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive of the issues to be adjudicated in this proceeding. Accepted, but not materially dispositive of the issues material and relevant to adjudication of this proceeding. Rejected, in accordance with the ruling on motion in limine in this proceeding as immaterial, as not supported by the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. The competent, substantial evidence of record adduced at the hearing shows that the water quality considerations and public interest considerations embodied in Section 403.918(1)&(2), Florida Statutes, Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder will be complied with by the project, as it is described in the evidence adduced at hearing. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Respondent Kline's Proposed Findings of Fact Any proposed findings of fact contained in the "Recommended Order" submitted by Respondent Kline cannot be separately and independently ruled upon. The document denominated "Recommended Order" submitted by Respondent Kline contains discussion and argument concerning the quantity and quality of the testimony in evidence, legal argument and, at best, is a discussion of the testimony of various witnesses, rather than coherent proposed findings. Therefore, the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent Kline to the extent they are proposed findings of fact are rejected as being incapable of coherent, cogent, separate rulings. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation's Proposed Findings of Fact The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department of Environmental Regulation, now known as the Department of Environmental Protection, to the extent they are consistent with the proposed findings of fact of the Hearing Officer are accepted. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are inconsistent with those made by the Hearing Officer on the same issues and subject matter, they are rejected as being subordinate thereto or immaterial or not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Sarah Berger Post Office Box 83 Inglis, Florida 34449 William A. Kline, Jr. 398 South Inglis Avenue Inglis, Florida 34449 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Richard W. Wesch, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 107 North Park Avenue, Suite 8 Inverness, Florida 34450 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jack E. Moore is the owner of real property in Fort Myers Beach known as Lot 9 of Indian Bayou, a subdivision in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 24 East, Lee County, Florida. Moore's property is bordered on the north by the waters of Indian Bayou and Estero Bay. The northern portions of Moore's property are vegetated by juvenile and mature red and black mangroves. Red and black mangrove are the dominant species of vegetation on the northernmost portions of the property, waterward of the fill pad on which Moore's house is built. On April 19, 1983, Petitioner applied to DER for a permit to dredge approximately 1480 cubic yards to a depth of 4' mean low water to create a boat basin behind his house on the property referenced above, and to construct a walkway and fishing dock encompassing approximately 1,235 square feet. The proposed project lies and would be performed in waters of the State of Florida. On April 25, 1983, DER notified Petitioner that his application was incomplete and that certain specified information was necessary to evaluate the application and to deem it complete. On May 24, 1983, DER received additional information from Petitioner, in response to its request. However, certain information was still lacking, including aerial photographs, a hydrographic survey, and consent from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the use of state-owned lands which may be involved in the project. On June 1, 1983, DER notified Petitioner that all of the requested information had not been submitted. Petitioner did not respond to DER's correspondence. On July 19, 1983, DER requested Petitioner to notify DER if he wanted to proceed with his application. Petitioner responded on August 1, 1983, that he needed additional time to supply requested information. On September 20, 1983, Petitioner sought advice from DER about whether he could delete the dredging portion of his project and get approval only for the proposed walkway and dock. DER responded by letter on September 28, 1983, notifying Petitioner that the proposal was a major modification of his application, and enclosing a form to be submitted to DER along with such modification. The letter notified Petitioner that even if only the dock was sought to be permitted, DNR approval would still be required, and DER has no control over the DNR approval process. Petitioner did not contact DER in response to its latest correspondences. On November 28, 1983, DER then issued a notice of intent to deny the application for Petitioner's failure to provide necessary information which would render the application complete and fully reviewable by the DER staff. Petitioner has still not provided aerial photographs, a hydrographic survey, or DNR approval to DER, and offered no such evidence at hearing. The aerial photographs are necessary to review the project's potential impacts on surrounding properties and water bodies. The hydrographic survey is essential since Petitioner is proposing to entrain a large body of water which may not be able to meet State water quality standards. DNR approval is required by statute before DER can issue a permit that may involve state-owned lands. The Petitioner's testimony and evidence merely established his belief that he originally thought the dock and channel project exempt, that he thought settlement of federal litigation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and his predecessor in title, permitted the installation of his rip-rap seawall and fill and that, at DER's behest, he later dismantled the dock and partially refilled the hand-dug channel leading to it. Nowhere in Petitioner's case was evidence offered of reasonable assurances that the "pollution events, envisioned by the authority cited below, will not occur, nor that DNR approval of the use of State submerged lands for the project has been secured.
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 1984, Applicant applied to DER, pursuant to Sections 253.123 and 403.087, Fla.Stat., and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, F.A.C., for a permit and water quality certification to construct a 36-slip docking facility in Baker-Carroll Pointe Waterway (the lagoon). While the lagoon is located in Class II waters, the waters are prohibited for shellfish harvesting. On October 31, 1984, DER issued its letter of intent to issue the requested permits. Protestors timely filed a petition for formal administrative proceedings. Protestors' substantial interest will be directly affected by issuance of the subject permit. The proposed facility will be located as close as 50 feet to the main residential building of Protestors, and the proposed docks will be accessed by way of a seawall which is part of Protestors' common area. The Marina The permit sought by the Applicant would allow it to construct a 36- slip docking facility consisting of 615 linear feet of 5 foot wide marginal dock set 6 feet waterward and running parallel to an existing concrete seawall, with three 5 foot by 6 foot access ramps from the seawall to the marginal dock, and eighteen 30 foot by 4 foot finger piers extending waterward of the marginal dock. Nineteen mooring piles are to be installed. Total dock area is to be 5,325 square feet. The facility will be constructed of pressure treated piles and lumber. No fuel facilities are proposed. Applicant proposes to sell the 36 slips to unit owners in the Surf Colony complex, that is Vanderbilt Surf Colony I, Vanderbilt Surf Colony II and Vanderbilt Surf Colony III, and, if and when constructed, Vanderbilt Surf Colony IV and V. Each of the existing buildings contains 65 units. DER's October 31, 1984, letter of intent, proposed to issue the permit subject to the following conditions: Turbidity screens shall be utilized and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. The lagoon shall be designated a "No Wake" zone. Markers and/or signs (PVC pipes or piles) shall be erected at the entrance to the shallow cove prohibiting navigation in said area with limits to be approved by the Punta Gorda DER office. No liveaboards shall be allowed at the permitted facility. No boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning shall be allowed at the permitted facility. Trash receptacles shall be located at approved locations on the dock. The easternmost dock limit shall be lighted at night or equipped with reflective markers to aid navigation. No construction of the project shall take place until appropriate DNR approval is granted for the project per Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. The project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria. 17-3.121 - Criteria - Class III Waters - Recreation, Propagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife: Surface Waters. Applicant has agreed to comply with all conditions established by DER. The Marina Site Baker-Carroll Pointe Waterway (the lagoon) is a partially man made navigable lagoon, with access to Water Turkey Bay which lies to its east. The south side of the lagoon is bulkheaded (along the proposed docking facility site), and the north and west side of the lagoon is composed of dense mangrove forest within the Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Recreation Area (Park). The waters of the proposed project abut and mix with those of the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) of the Park. Rule 17-3.041(4)(c), F.A.C. The Park is located on the western and northern shores of the lagoon, and the Park's boundary is located underneath the existing lagoon. The Park has a boat ramp and dock at the mouth of the lagoon. Associated with the ramp are 36 parking spaces for boat trailers. The access channel from Water Turkey Bay varies from 100 to 150 feet wide, the end of the lagoon is approximately 200 feet wide, and the lagoon is approximately 700 feet long. The bulkheaded shoreline has a shallow, 6 foot wide shelf that is covered by a few inches of water during low tide and is colonized by oyster assemblages. Depths increase rapidly from the edge of the shelf to -7 to -8 feet NGVD approximately 40 feet offshore. Depths at the finger piers will be -4.5 to -6.5 NGVD feet. The majority of the central lagoon has uniform depths of -7 to -8 feet NGVD with approximately one foot of silt overlying a firm substrate. Increased depths of -9 to -10 feet NGVD are found in the channel leading from the lagoon to Water Turkey Bay. Channel depths within Water Turkey Bay are -5 feet NGVD or less. Except for a shallow cove at the northwestern extreme of the lagoon, water depths of -5 to -7 feet NGVD are found approximately 30 feet waterward of the mangrove fringe along the western border of the lagoon. In the immediate project site there are no seagrasses or other significant biota. The only productive area within the project site is the shallow six foot wide shelf which parallels the bulkhead and is colonized by oyster assemblages. There are no other significant biota because the area was extensively dredged in the late 1960s or early 1970s. Seagrasses are found in the smaller cove located in the extreme northwest of the lagoon. The western and northern shores of the lagoon are extensively populated by red, black and white mangroves. Aquatic fauna known to inhabit the vicinity, and found in association with the grassbeds in Water Turkey Bay, include lightening whelks, blue crabs, sheepshead minnows, mullet, pin fish, and silver perch. Areas of Concern During construction of the marina elevated turbidity may be expected by disruption of the lagoon sediments caused by installing the facility's pilings. This can, however, be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. Shading of the benthic environment is a long term impact associated with marinas. While there are presently no seagrasses in the project area, the 6 foot wide shelf which parallels the bulkhead is colonized by oyster assemblages and algae. Since the marginal dock will be placed 6 feet waterward of the seawall, sunlight will be permitted to reach the productive shelf which parallels the seawall. Additionally, since the marginal dock is 5 foot wide, the closest any boat will be to the seawall will be 11 feet. This will result in a buffer zone of 5 feet between the waterward extreme of the 6 foot shelf and any boat moored at the marina. Boats by their very existence and operation present potential negative short term and long term impacts to the environment. Potential damage from existing craft and those which occupy the marina to the seagrass beds in the extreme northwest portion of the lagoon will be eliminated or minimized by the planned installation of markers and/or signs prohibiting navigation in that area. Potential damage from wave action generated by boat operation will be eliminated or minimized by designating and posting the lagoon as a "No Wake" zone. The fueling of boats, hull maintenance and sewage discharge are additional pollution sources associated with marinas. While the proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities, and while no liveaboards, boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning will be allowed at the marina, additional conditions must be attached to the permit to eliminate or minimize potential impacts from these potential pollution sources. In addition to the special conditions established by DER, the following special conditions are necessary: All craft docked at the marina shall be prohibited from pumping bilges and sewage into the waters of the lagoon. Ownership and use of the boat slips, or any of the marina facilities, shall be limited to those person(s) who own condominium unit(s) at the Surf Colony complex, to wit: Vanderbilt Surf Colony I, Vanderbilt Surf Colony II, Vanderbilt Surf Colony III, and, if and when constructed, Vanderbilt Surf Colony IV and V. Leasing or any other use of the boat slips, or the marina facility, by any person(s) other than the actual owner thereof shall be prohibited. Since the facility is small, and a full-time dock master is not proposed, limiting ownership and use of the boat slips to owners of condominium units at the Surf Colony complex will provide reasonable assurances that the conditions imposed on the requested permits will be complied with. Prohibiting the pumping of sewage and bilges will provide reasonable assurances that DER standards for bacteriological quality will not be violated. Protestors suggest that oils and greases, including lead found in marine fuels, could cause a degradation of water quality and affect the biota in the area. Protestors presented evidence through Dr. Nancy Nicholson, an expert in marine ecology and marine biology, that oils, greases, and lead could reasonably be expected to be ejected into the water column from boats occupying the marina, and that such pollutants, after entering the sediments, could be expected to enter the food chain. Protestors offered no evidence of the quantities of oil, greases or lead which could be expected to be injected into the water column, or to enter the food chain, other than "they are not large." Petitioner offered no evidence that the oils, greases or lead emitted by the boats occupying the marina would cause or contribute to a degradation of water quality below DER standards, or impact marine resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest. Juxtaposed with the opinion of Protestors' expert is the empirical testimony of DER's witnesses, Terri Kranzer, an expert in water quality and aquatic biology, and Douglas Fry, an expert in dredge and fill impacts on water quality and aquatic biology, that the proposed facility and its operation will not cause or contribute to a degradation of water quality below DER standards and will not impact marine resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest, so long as the Applicant complies with the permitting conditions. Protestors also suggest that turbidity, caused by boats operating from the marina, could cause a degradation of water quality and affect the biota in the area. Protestors' witness, Dr. Nicholson, testified to observing boats increase turbidity within the lagoon. She further performed a Secchi depth test, which measures the distance to which light will penetrate water, in the lagoon area. The background was measured at 42 inches. After the passage of a motorboat through the subject lagoon, the Secchi depth was reduced to 27 inches, and returned to the background level in 2-1/2 to 3 hours. Dr. Nicholson further testified that if the sediments "kicked up" were of an oxygen poor material, that they could scavenge dissolved oxygen from the waters. Protestors offered no evidence, however, which equated the Secchi depth test with the tests and standards established by DER for turbidity and transparency. There was no evidence, assuming turbidity did increase during boat activity, that DER standards for turbidity and transparency would be violated. Further, no evidence was introduced that such turbidity would cause or contribute to a degradation of the dissolved oxygen levels of the lagoon below DER standards. Contrary to the testimony of Dr. Nicholson, Protestors' other witness, William Doherty, a resident of the Surf Colony complex testified that he had operated his own 28 foot boat in the lagoon, and observed other boats operating in the lagoon, and never observed any increased turbidity. Terri Kranzer testified to the same effect. The depth within the lagoon is adequate for navigation, and there should be no increased turbidity caused by boats operating in the lagoon unless they venture into the shallow cove in the northwestern part of the lagoon. Designating the lagoon as a "No Wake" zone, and prohibiting navigation within the shallow cove, would provide reasonable assurances that there would be no increased turbidity associated with the proposed facility or its operation. Finally, Protestors suggest that if the proposed facility is permitted, DER's standard for Biological Integrity, Rule 17-3.111(4), F.A.C., will be violated. Dr. Nicholson conducted a sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates on the bulkhead of the lagoon and on the bulkhead of a nearby yacht basin, in order to calculate a Shannon-Weaver diversity index for both areas. The Shannon-Weaver index for the yacht basin reflected a level of benthic macroinvertebrates of less than 75 percent of that measured in the lagoon. The results of Dr. Nicholson's sampling are not, by her own admission, statistically significant. The lagoon and yacht basic are entirely dissimilar. The lagoon, with its diverse mangrove forests and large opening into Water Turkey Bay flushes well and is an area rich in biology. The yacht basin, on the other hand, is connected to Water Turkey Bay by a small channel and is completely bulkheaded. No valid comparison can be drawn between the lagoon and the yacht basin.
Findings Of Fact Tavernier Harbor, Inc. (Tavernier, Applicant) has applied for a dredge and fill permit seeking to install seven 40' X 18' boat slips and one 25' X 3' finger pier and to construct a total of 3,024 square feet of perimeter boardwalk, with the eleven six foot wide access walkways over a "mangrove fringe" at a boat basin in an unnamed canal lying at Section 4, Township 63 South, Range 38 East in the municipality of Tavernier, Monroe County, Florida. The site plan and permit application provides that the slips are to accommodate sport fishing boats There would be 564 linial feet of boardwalk waterward of the mangrove fringe surrounding the boat basin and 160 feet of boardwalk landward of that mangrove fringe, with one finger pier of the above dimensions. The landward side of Tavernier's development will contain a restaurant and bar with an adjacent parking area, a storm water drainage system as well as a sewage treatment plant. There will be a six foot high wall screening the parking area from the surrounding non-owned property and public roadways. Tavernier intends to use the property as a sport fishing harbor to moor seven boats as well as to provide transient dockage for users of its upland restaurant or for boat owners or users who travel by car to the upland facilities and parking area. Various environmental impact abatement or mitigation facilities and procedures are proposed to be incorporated in the project in its construction and operation as delineated more fully below. Tavernier owns the entire upland property surrounding and upon which the proposed project will be constructed and operated. Tavernier does not own the submerged land in which the proposed pilings for the boardwalk, slips and pier will be placed, but has received authority from the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources to proceed with the project. The proposed project will be located in a rectangular basin approximately 120 feet wide by 414 feet long, lying at the end of a "dead end" canal which connects with Tavernier Creek, some 2,000 feet away. The canal and basin are box cut (straight sides) into the bedrock with an average depth of approximately 10 feet. The waters of Tavernier Creek and the adjacent Atlantic Ocean lie in the Florida Keys Outstanding Florida Waters as designated in Rule 17-3.041(4)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Artificial water bodies, including canals, within the Florida Keys are excluded from the Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) designation by this rule. Artificial water bodies include canals which have been dredged, as this one has historically, as well as water bodies which existed naturally in whole or in part whose banks or boundaries have been artificially altered by filling. Such is also the case here. In this connection, an aerial photograph in evidence dating from the late 1940s indicates that natural surface waters may have existed at one time in certain portions of the area presently encompassed by the above described boat basin and canal, however, it was not established by competent testimony that the waters depicted in the aerial photograph were actually natural waters or what the depth of those waters might have been as opposed to the above found present average depth of the canal and boat basin at issue. There was credible testimony by persons experienced with the naturally occurring waters of the Florida Keys, which established that the natural waters shown in the 1940s aerial photograph in the vicinity of the boat basin were so-called "floc ponds," which characteristically have a depth of no more than one or two feet. Additionally, the boundaries of the water bodies depicted in the 1940s photograph are not coincidental with the present boundaries of the boat basin or canal system where the project is proposed to be constructed and operated. The basin in which the proposed project is to be placed and the canal connecting it to Tavernier Creek are not natural bodies of water and are instead artificial water bodies created by dredging, excavating and filling of the original boundaries. Therefore, the proposed project is not located in designated Outstanding Florida Waters. The land surrounding the canal and boat basin and owned by Tavernier is historically filled land with a relatively young growth of native vegetation surrounding the basin area. The majority of the boat basin perimeter is vegetated with red, black and white mangroves. White mangroves occur predominately on the upland, near-shore slope of the basin. The surrounding area off the project site is occupied by docks, boats and seawalls owned by non- parties. The boat basin area is non-bulkheaded, although there is a remnant bulkhead which is now largely vegetated. The Tavernier property is surrounded by three roads, the Overseas Highway, the Old Overseas Highway, as well as side streets on the other two sides of the property. The biota present in the basin and canal area involved consists primarily of small fish such as snappers and grunts and occasional small barracuda. Within the mangrove system itself there are algae colonies on the mangrove roots as well as gastropod mollusk systems, with some periwinkus snails on the water bottoms and numerous types of analids, jellyfish, cassipia and tulip snails, as well as various types of minnows and other small fish. Most of the aquatic life in the basin canal system is associated with the vegetative mangrove fringe which provides some structural relief in the water and thus a beneficial marine habitat system for these types of aquatic life. There are no seagrasses associated with the project site or the nearby areas in the artificial canal. There will be no adverse impact on seagrasses. There is presently a healthy biological diversity of life forms in the canal and basin system. Water Quality The Water Quality Rules germane to this proceeding dictate that water quality impact of the proposed project in the basin and canal system must be examined with regard to short term and long term water quality impacts. Short term water quality impacts of the proposed project only involve potential turbidity generated by construction, that is, by the driving of pilings into the bottom substrate to support the finger piers, boardwalks and to create the boat slips. The Applicant agreed at hearing to alleviate such a potential impact by the installation and use of turbidity curtains around the entire construction area during installation of the pilings and decking for the boardwalk, deck and finger pier. In view of the established fact that the driving of the pilings will not cause the suspension of a significant amount of turbidity, reasonable assurances have been provided that this pile driving activity, coupled with the use of turbidity curtains, will result in no violation of state water quality standards as to this pollution parameter. This method of construction and the use of turbidity curtains should be incorporated in the permit as a mandatory condition. The long term water quality impacts which must be examined here are associated with the use of the basin, and to some extent the canal, by boats with the attendant potential for pollution associated with boating activities, as well as the long term pollution effect of storm water runoff from adjacent upland areas into the basin. In this regard, storm water now entering the basin carries with it an indeterminate amount of pollutants associated with surrounding, inhabited upland areas and surrounding automobile roadways. The project as now proposed will alleviate much or all of the present storm water runoff pollutant effect and will prevent any additional such effect occasioned by the installation and operation of the project with regard to upland- originated pollutants. This is because the Applicant has proposed to install, pursuant to its storm water drainage plan, a reverse gradient configuration around the perimeter of the basin on the upland which will divert storm water back on to the upland and prevent it from entering the subject basin. The storm water would be directed into approved storm water filtration basins. Thus, to the extent that storm water may be exerting a pollutant effect on the basin and canal at the present time, the project as proposed represents a marked improvement. The only other potential long-term source of water quality degradation from the proposed project, concerns the pollution that may emanate from the use of boats in the basin, canal and dockage facilities. This potential source will be offset by the diversion of similar type oil, grease and other pollutants already entering the basin from the upland by the storm water diversion and filtration system as well as by the preservation of the present mangrove fringe. The mangrove fringe is quite important to alleviating water quality impacts due to present pollution or due to increased boat traffic as a result of the installation of the project. Mangroves provide an important function in this regard in that their root systems serve to up- take excessive nutrients, heavy metals and other pollutants from the water into the mangroves, thus serving as an important natural filtration system. Additional methods of alleviating the water quality impacts due to pollution from boats and associated activities consist of establishing certain permit conditions, described below, which will prevent boat operation and related activities from lowering ambient water quality and requiring a continuous, long-term operation permit by which those conditions may be enforced, associated with requiring an extensive, water quality monitoring program. That program will require site modification and ultimately even removal of the project if water quality parameters are not met in the long term. Increased boat operation in the basin can result in discharges of hydrocarbons, toxic metals (chiefly from boat bottom paint), organic debris (chiefly associated with disposal in the water of fish cleaning offal) as well as the deposition of detergent material in the waters involved. Additionally and importantly, the presence of boats with heads can result in sewage spills or discharges. It was established, however, that boat use in the canal and associated pollution will not be solely due to the Applicant's proposed project. The canal margin is already almost entirely developed with approximately forty developed lots, most of which have boats associated with them with attendant docking facilities. Many of the same water quality contaminants such as hydrocarbons and greases, heavy metals, nutrients and organic material that would be expected from boat operations and fish cleaning are already present in the canal and in untreated storm water entering the canal and basin system from adjacent roads and parking areas. These contaminants will be reduced somewhat by the installation of the storm water diversion and filtration system at the basin. Additionally, as mentioned above, the proposed project will retain the vast majority of the present mangrove fringe filtration system surrounding the basin. The mangrove fringe will continue to serve its function of filtering and absorbing nutrients and other contaminants related to both storm water runoff and boat operation, which are now or will be entering the system. The Applicant has agreed to the imposition of several permit conditions which will control boat operation pollutants. These include the prohibition of any boat fueling facilities and boat fueling by private owners, the prohibition of "live aboard" boats which require frequent sewage pumpout and pose a substantial risk of illegal sewage discharge, the prohibition of boat hull cleaning and major boat maintenance (other than minor engine adjustments), and the mandatory requirement of an oil spill containment and removal apparatus which must be kept and maintained on the site. An extensive pre-construction and post-construction water quality monitoring plan will be required because of the paucity of background data available concerning existing water quality in the basin and canal. Such monitoring is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the storm water management plan and structures, as well as all the other permit conditions. The applicant has agreed to the implementation of such a long term water quality monitoring plan. Additionally, the Applicant will be required to obtain a long term operating permit in addition to the construction permit, which will allow for continuous Department review of the project and its operation. If water quality standards are not consistently maintained, the permittee will be required to change the marina design, management or operation to correct the problems. These changes can include the reducing of the size and number of boat slips and dockage facilities and ultimately even the physical removal of the proposed project and the non-renewal of the operating permit. In this connection, the evidence of record reveals that the ambient water at the site occasionally is violative of state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. This is characteristic of such dead end canal and basin systems which are characterized by a very low flushing rate. This canal system flushes such that approximately 90 per cent of the waters therein are exchanged in approximately 5 1/4 days. This is quite a low flushing rate which tends to concentrate pollutants over time. This, however, is an ambient or natural condition in the canal as it presently exists and is not a water quality problem occasioned by the proposed project. The Department has heretofore followed a policy of granting permits where such a parameter is sometimes not in accordance with state water quality standards and indeed, with regard to the instant project, the permit conditions which will be implemented and enforced, especially including the upland sewage and waste disposal system and storm water management and disposal filtration system have been reasonably shown to assure an overall improvement in the water quality in the basin area involved. In addition to prohibiting live aboard boats as a means to protect water quality in the face of boat traffic in the basin area, the Applicant will construct an upland, approved and permitted sewage treatment and disposal facility. Approved and properly maintained pump-out facilities for boat- generated sewage are also proposed and must be required. The Applicant also proposes dockside fish cleaning facilities to help ensure that fish cleaning debris is not deposited in the waters of the basin and canal. In view of the evidence of record which establishes that any other disposal area, such as the open ocean, for fish remains is a substantial distance from the project site, dockside fish cleaning facilities will not ensure that fish debris is not deposited in the waters of the basin because dockside fish cleaning facilities are too proximate to the waters sought to be protected. Accordingly, the evidence of record reveals that, for reasonable assurances to be provided that fish cleaning debris will not be deposited as an organic, nutrient pollutant in the waters of the basin, any fish cleaning facility should be placed a significant, reasonable distance from the dockage facilities on the upland with discharge of the waste into an appropriate waste disposal system, which the Applicant proposes to install. Such should be an additional condition to granting a permit. In addition to the above, there were no other water quality issues presented in this proceeding. In view of the fact that water quality may be enhanced by installation of the project with the above conditions and proposals by the Applicant, the project as presently proposed will reasonably assure that state water quality standards are not violated by the fact of the installation and operation of the proposed project and attendant boating activities. Public Interest Standards Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes It was not established that the proposed project will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others in a significant way. The main concern regarding the "public welfare" or "property of others" was feared adverse impacts of increased boat usage in the canal with attendant wakes and erosion of shoreline property. These concerns are alleviated by two factors. First, almost all the canal front property involved is presently seawalled, thereby substantially reducing the impact of waves from boats. Secondly, the Applicant has agreed and the Department will require, that the Applicant post "idle speed--no wake" signs at both the entrance to the canal and at the end of the canal at the basin within the Applicant's own property. Additionally, the canal boundaries are largely developed with approximately 40 developed lots with approximately as many attendant boats already using the canal. The relatively small number of additional boats that the proposed project will entail will not significantly add to any erosion problem due to boat wakes, which will be alleviated in any event because of the fortified shorelines already existing and because of the use of the signs with attendant citizen reporting of excessive boat speeds to the Applicant's management as well as to the Department of Natural Resources Marine Patrol. In conjunction with the above-discussed monitoring plan to be imposed as a condition to the permit consideration should be given by the Department and the Applicant to obtaining necessary authority (i.e. from the Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for posting buoys or other similar partial obstruction devices at strategic locations in the canal channel to prevent boats from having the ability to operate on a straight course at high throttle levels when traversing the channel. This, too, should be a condition incorporated in the permit. The project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered, threatened species or their habitats. The evidence reflects that on rare occasions manatees have been seen in or in the vicinity of the canal, although the evidence does not reveal that this is truly a manatee habitat area. In conjunction with the posting of idle speed--no wake signs, the Applicant should be required to post signs indicating that it is an area frequented by manatees and urging attendant caution in boat operation. Although there will be some net loss of existing mangroves at the basin, at least 90 percent of the extant mangroves will remain. The record reveals that for unknown reasons, and at a time prior to the institution of this proceeding, the Applicant removed or cut some of the existing mangrove growth at the basin site. The permit should be conditioned upon the Applicant replanting or allowing regrowth of the mangroves so removed or altered. Additionally, it having been shown that the walkways between the landward deck and the boardwalk supported by pilings in the water of the basin are for pedestrian use, it was not established as necessary that the walkways should be six feet wide and of the total number depicted in the Applicant's design and plans. The presence of the boardwalks connecting the landward deck and the waterward boardwalk are the direct cause of ten percent removal of the existing mangroves due to the mangroves beneath the walkways being shaded from the sunlight. Accordingly, the Applicant, as a condition to the permit, should be required to either redesign the walkways so that they are significantly narrower than those proposed or reduce the number of these bridges over the mangroves by 50 percent so that only a maximum of approximately five percent of the extant mangroves will be ultimately removed or destroyed. Despite the fact that manatees have been seen in the canal, the habitat in the canal and basin is not favorable for attracting manatees and, additionally placement of the marina away from a pristine natural area as is the situation here will generally tend to have much less of an adverse impact on fish and wildlife than if the marina were placed in a pristine natural area often frequented by manatees and other endangered species. The proposed project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The evidence establishes that the small numbers of additional boats using the canal as a result of the project will not cause additional navigation problems of any significance. The possible erosion caused by boat wakes already is an existing condition and the small number of boats which would be added to present traffic in the canal as a result of the project will not substantially exacerbate any problem that exists, especially in view of the conditions which will be imposed and are discussed above. The proposed project will not adversely affect fishing, recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. For the reasons referenced above, there will be no water quality problems occasioned as a result of this project provided the conditions found to be necessary herein are imposed on the permit, the project construction and the project operation. If these are accomplished, there will be no adverse effect on fish and wildlife. Fishing, recreation and marine productivity in the area in turn will not be adversely affected from a water quality standpoint. Additionally, the proposed project will have the positive impact of enhancing the public recreational value of the area since it will offer public facilities for people seeking to navigate the state waters in the vicinity of the project by the provision of a small amount of additional dockage space. Maintenance of the mangroves in the manner depicted above will maintain and indeed, to a small degree, enhance marine productivity. The members of the public presently using the canal and basin area to fish, swim or perform similar activities will be able to continue doing so. In short, the project will not adversely affect marine productivity. There is no evidence of record to indicate that the project will adversely affect historical or archaeological resources. Concerning the "permanence" criteria under the above-cited statutory subsection, the project will indeed be of a permanent nature. The operating permit which the Department will require, will determine, with the conditions incorporated in it, whether or not the project remains a permanent structure. That is, if the various water quality parameters and the various considerations in the above-cited public interest provisions are not complied with, alteration of the project or even ultimate removal of the project may be required. Concerning the public interest criteria regarding current conditions and relative value of the functions being performed by the area involved, the project as proposed to be constructed and operated will not cause any adverse impact on current conditions and relative value of the resources of the project area as a functioning habitat for marine life. The functions and value of the area as a habitat for fish and wildlife and as an area of marine productivity will be unaltered in its post-development state, provided the conditions referenced herein are imposed, especially those related to protecting water quality from the impacts of boat operation, human wastes and waste attendant to fish cleaning operations. Cumulative Impact There have been no similar permit applications submitted to the Department in the past five years for projects in this canal and basin system. In fact, there have been only three or four shoreline dockage facilities permitted by the Department within a four square mile area in the vicinity of the proposed project. There are approximately 40 lots along the canal leading up to the Tavernier Harbor basin. The majority of these lots have already been developed with single family residences and the majority of them already have seawalls with dockage capability. The development of the few remaining undeveloped lots along the canal, coupled with the installation of the proposed project, should not significantly add to the cumulative effect upon water quality and the public interest parameters discussed above. There is only one other pending dock permit application received by the Department for any area near the proposed project. Thus, there will not be any cumulative adverse effect causing violation of any of the water quality or public interest standards at issue if the proposed project is built and operated and exists with other proposed or existing facilities In addition to the above conditions, Tavernier Harbor, Inc. has agreed to devise a contingency plan concerning oil spill containment and removal to be utilized in the event of a spill, which shall be submitted to the Department for review and changes as necessary prior to the commencement of the project's construction. The Applicant has agreed that all perimeter docking areas will be aligned waterward of the mangroves, whereas the restaurant deck will be placed landward of the mangroves. The Applicant has agreed to conduct water quality monitoring of the canal to include a minimum of one year pre- construction data and a minimum of two years of data collected after the project has been constructed and is operating. The Applicant will apply for a long-term operating permit for the mooring facilities and agrees to continue - monitoring and to implement necessary changes to marina design or management as directed by the Department in order to maintain water quality standards on a permanent basis. Tavernier Harbor, Inc. will also institute, prior to issuance of the operation permit, a maintenance program to permanently ensure removal of floating debris from the basin and project site. The Applicant has agreed and should be required to provide sewage pump out and treatment facilities capable of providing upland disposal and treatment of sewage and will provide an upland area well removed from the basin waters and the mangrove fringe for the conducting of fish cleaning operations and disposal of related waste material. The Applicant has agreed, and the permit should be conditioned upon, the allowance of only seven permanently moored sport fishing boats at the site and restriction of the use of the boardwalk waterward of the mangroves to only be used by "transient boats," with no permanently moored boats docked thereto. In summary, it has been established that the project will not degrade state water quality standards or the public interest criteria referenced above. The basin at the project site presently meets state water quality standards with the minor exception of occasional deficient levels of dissolved oxygen which naturally occur at the site.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the application of Tavernier Harbor, Inc. for the dredge and fill permit sub judice be granted, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the above Findings of Fact are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE and ORDERED this 29th of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2057 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-3. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted as to the first two sentences but not as dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted except for the first and last sentences which are contrary to the preponderant evidence. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding on this subject matter. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not dispositive of the material issues presented. Respondent Tavernier Harbor, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-5. Accepted. 6. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 7-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 15-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 22-23. Accepted. Respondent Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 2-30. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James T. Hendrick, Esquire MORGAN & HENDRICK, P.A. 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 H. Ray Allen, Esquire 618 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent, E. Speer and Associates, Inc. (the "Applicant"), should be granted a permit for the construction of a permanent docking facility pursuant to Sections 403.91-403.929, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17.
Findings Of Fact Whether Quantified Hydrographic Studies Are Necessary For All Marina Applications To Provide Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion (stated as a finding of fact) that it is not possible to demonstrate adequate flushing without "quantifying flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data." (R.O. at 20, 22-24, 47, 49-50, 54, 57-58; F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38-39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66, and 69) It is clear from the tenor of the entire recommended order that the Hearing Officer believes that as a matter of law an expert's opinion is not sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that flushing will be adequate to prevent violations of water quality standards unless that opinion is based on quantified conclusions generated by objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data. (R.O. at 47, 49-50, 57-58) Thus, for example, the Hearing Officer opines that quantification of flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective measurements of appropriate hydrodynamic data is an essential element of the prima facie showing required to be made by the applicant. (R.O. at 47; C.O.L. No. 11) The Hearing Officer places great significance an the following excerpt from the opinion in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Reculation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990): 1800 Atlantic filed 34 exceptions to the recommended order, most of which were denied in the Department's final order . . . . The final order approved and adopted most of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order and denied the permit. The following stated rulings and reasons there for are significant to the issues on this appeal. (emphasis added) We must note at this point that there is no finding of fact in the hearing officer's recommended order that quantifies how productive the marine habitat may be in this case, and no record support for the suggestion that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of the marine habitat attributable to this project [footnote omitted]. (emphasis added) Exception 23 filed by 1800 Atlantic challenged the hearing officer's finding that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity . . . The Department rejected this exception based upon the hearing officer's general statements, without any quantification whatsoever, of adverse effects upon these matters . . . (emphasis added) 1800 Atlantic, 552 So.2d at 951-952. I do not concur that 1800 Atlantic stands for the proposition that quantified hydrographic measurement of flushing is in all cases an essential element of a prima facie showing that a marina project will not cause violations of water quality standards. Notwithstanding the above noted statement of the court in 1800 Atlantic that "there is no finding of fact . . . that quantifies 'how productive the marine habitat may be' . and no record support . . . that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of marine habitat attributable to [the] project," 552 So.2d 951, the court did not reject the finding that the project adversely affected the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreation values, and marine productivity. Indeed, had the court rejected the above finding due to lack of quantified findings the court would never have gone on to reach the issue of mitigation because in 1800 Atlantic mitigation could only become relevant if the applicant was unable to provide reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the public interest criteria of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. See Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. I do agree that in some cases quantified hydrographic studies of flushing may be required in order to provide reasonable assurances. Thus, in Rudloe v. Dickerson Bavshore, Inc., 10 FALR 3426 (DER Case No. 87-0816, June 9, 1988), my predecessor held that a dye tracer study was necessary to provide quantitative information about dilution rates and directions on dispersion of pollutants emanating from a proposed marina site which was in "close proximity" to Class II waters approved for shellfish harvesting. 10 FALR at 3447-48. However, the need for such quantified studies must be determined on a case by case basis and is not required as a matter of law for all marinas. 5/ Far me to determine as a matter of law that experts may establish a fact only by certain types of evidence would be an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the scientific domain of the expert. Thus, in Kralik v. Ponce Marine, Inc., 11 FALR 669, 671 (DER Final Order, Jan. 11, 1989), my predecessor held that expert testimony with regard to flushing does not lack credibility just because a hydrographic study had not been conducted. Of course, the finder of fact has the ultimate say on how much weight an expert opinion should be given if it is not based on a quantified study. Thus, whether an expert testifying on adequacy of flushing has conducted a quantifiable hydrographic study merely goes to the weight of the evidence. Kralik, 11 FALR at 671. I only conclude that a quantified hydrographic study for a proposed marina is not in all cases essential for a showing of reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Accordingly, to the extent that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact state that a quantified hydrographic study is required in all cases as a prima facie element of a showing of reasonable assurance that a project will not violate water quality standards, I reject such statement as a mislabled and incorrect conclusion of law. Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards I read Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part as taking exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study was needed in order to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards, and that because such a quantified hydrographic study had not been conducted, reasonable assurances had not been provided. (F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38- 39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66 and 69) As noted by the Hearing Officer, the applicant's expert testimony concerning the adequacy of the flushing consisted of general statements describing visual observations of river and tidal flows which, together with past experience and knowledge of the general area of the project, formed the basis for the experts' opinions that a quantified hydrographic study was not necessary for this project. (R.O. at 22-23) Thus, far example, Mr. Charles C. Isiminger, accepted as an expert in marina design and hydrographic engineering testified that based on his knowledge of the area, its riverine and tidal flows, a hydrographic documentation was not needed to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause water quality violations. Mr. Isiminger also testified that any pollutants entering the water from the marina would be flushed out of the area within one tidal cycle. (Tr. at 65-66, 70, 77- 79, 93, 110, 125, 128, 134) Mr. Thomas Franklin, an environmental supervisor from the Department testified that: the hydrographic survey was not really necessary due to the location of the project being in open waters and in close vicinity to the Inlet with a large volume of tidal waters moving in this area, plus the fact that it was further enhanced by flushing due to the St. Lucie River being -- basically coming around Hell Gate point [sic] and funneling out into this estuary. (emphasis added) TR at 437. Other experts also testified that the area was well flushed and that a quantified hydrographic study was not needed in this case. (Jacqueline Kelly, Tr. at 187; John Meyer, Tr. at 319, 322, 341; Gerald Ward, Tr. at 44749) 6/ Speer asserts that the Hearing Officer's finding that a quantified hydrographic study is required in this case cannot stand in light of the unrebutted expert testimony that the marina site will be well flushed and that the rate of flushing provides reasonable assurances the water quality standards will not be violated. I have found no competent substantial evidence in the record which would support a finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study is required. I did note that in Footnote 21 of the Recommended Order (R.O. at 20) the Hearing Officer states: Tidal range is only one of the types of data used to quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. See TR at 78. Other appropriate data include: overall flow rates, mid tide flow, flow amplitude (the magnitude of the flow without regard to direction, i.e., speed as opposed to velocity), horizontal current distribution, downstream plume characteristics, and field verification using a dye tracer. All of this data is needed to fully describe and quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. (citing testimony of Mr. Isiminger at Tr. 88-94) At first blush this may appear to be competent substantial evidence supporting a finding that a quantified hydrographic study is necessary in this case. However, when the testimony is read in its complete context, it is clear that Mr. Isiminger is testifying as to what is necessary to do a hydrographic study when one is needed, and is not testifying that such a study is needed in this case. (Tr. 88-94). I also note that the record contains a memo written by Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer employed by the Department. (Tr. at 67-70) This memo was admitted without objection. (Tr. at 23) The memo states in part that "without . . . hydrographic documentation, reasonable assurance cannot be given that the project will not cause problems." (Tr. at 70; Pet. Exh. No. 10) 7/ Dr. Echternacht was not called as a witness at the hearing and the letter was not offered as evidence of the opinion of Dr. Echternacht or the Department at the time of the de novo hearing. To the contrary, the above noted testimony of Mr. Franklin and the testimony of Jacqueline D. Kelly, an environmental specialist of the Department accepted as an expert in evaluating impacts of environmental dredge and fill projects (Tr. at 187, 195; R.O. at 3), clearly establish that at the time of the de novo hearing the Department was of the opinion that further hydrographic documentation was not needed. The Hearing Officer noted that Mr. Meyer testified that the flushing is a "very, very complicated dynamic situation." (Tr. at 320). The testimony was as follows: Q. So you don't know for sure whether the currents here impact this at all or stay offshore from it? A. Oh, the currents definitelv affect it, and you do have interchange -- as I mentioned before, a very high rate of interchange on a daily basis on every tide. Q. Are you saying that the current that flows through here every day flows right through the site? A. We're dealing with two different things here. We're dealing with your currents, your general migration of waters from the estuary from the inland areas down. You're also dealing with tidal effects coming in and out, and it's a very, very complicated dynamic situation. For me to try to tell you exactly how these things work would be impossible without having a very, very long drawn-out expensive study done on the entire area, and I have not reviewed any studies like that. Tr. at 319-20 (emphasis added) When taken in its context it is clear that Mr. Meyer is testifying that there is a very high rate of exchange on a daily basis on every tide. The fact that he viewed the exact details of the flushing as very complicated in no way retracted his statement that there was a very high rate of exchange on every tide. My review of the record leads me to concur with Speer that no testimony, either on direct, cross-examination, or examination by the Hearing Officer, nor any other evidence was introduced to rebut the expert testimony presented by Speer and the Department that flushing on the site was adequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. 8/ As a general rule, the trier of fact may not arbitrarily reject uncontroverted evidence as proof of a contested fact. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. G. & J. Investments, 506 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. den., 515 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1987); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel, 352 So.2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); In Re: Estate of Hannon, 447 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). This does not mean that a mere scintilla of unrebutted evidence is sufficient to establish a contested fact in an administrative hearing. At least in the context of administrative proceedings, the unrebutted evidence still must be competent substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. 9/ There is no suggestion that the Hearing Officer rejected the unrebutted testimony of the experts of Speer and the Department as not being competent substantial evidence. In fact, in the light of the testimony of Mr. Isiminger (Tr. at 65- 66), Mr. Ward ( Tr. at 447-449), Mr. Meyer (Tr. at 238- 239), and Mr. Franklin (Tr. at 345-350), it is beyond peradventure that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause violations of water quality standards. It is clear from the context of the Recommended Order that the Hearing Officer believed that reasonable assurance had not been provided only because he believed that a quantified hydrographic study was required as a matter of law. Although I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion that a quantified hydrographic study must be conducted as a matter of law for all marina applications, I must still determine whether a quantified hydrographic analysis is required under the facts of this case. In Rudloe v. Dickerson Bayshore, 10 FALR 3426 (DER Final Order, June 9, 1988) it was held that a hydrographic study was not adequate because it did not include a quantified dye tracer study. Id., 10 FALR at 3448. In Rudloe, as in this case, the marina was located in Class III waters, but near Class II waters. However, in Rudloe, the marina site was much closer to the Class II waters (approximately 1,700 feet in Rudloe (10 FAIR at 3430) as compared to approximately 8,000 feet in this case). (R.O. at 16, F.O.F. No. 26) Also, the Rudloe case is significantly different from this case in that competent substantial expert opinion was presented in Rudloe that the marina would adversely impact the Class II shellfish harvesting area. See Rudloe, 10 FALR at 3433-35, 3437-38 (testimony of DNR expert that operation of marina would result in closure of waters to the harvest of shellfish; testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston that the hydrographic drogue studies conducted were inadequate.) In this case, neither expert nor lay testimony was offered by Barringer to show that operation of the marina would result in violation of water quality standards or have any adverse impact on the Class II shellfish waters. 10/ I conclude that the facts of this case as found by the Hearing Officer are not sufficiently similar to the facts of Rudloe so as to justify holding as a matter of law a quantified hydrographic study is necessary to establish the required reasonable assurances. Since the record contains competent substantial evidence that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause water quality violations, and since there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's contrary finding, I must accept the exception of Speer and reject the Hearing Officer's findings of fact to the contrary. In this case I note that I am not so much rejecting findings of fact as rejecting a conclusion of law. As I noted, the Hearing Officer's finding is really based on a conclusion of law which I reject. This leaves only unrebutted competent substantial evidence that there will be adequate flushing to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. There is no rational basis to reject this unrebutted competent substantial evidence. Therefore, I must accept as proven that the applicant has provided the reasonable assurances that operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; Estate of Hannon; supra, Effect On Class II Waters Speer's Exceptions Nos. 7 and 8 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina would not have a "negative effect" an the Class II waters of the St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (F.O.F. No. 43) Rule 17-312.080(6)(b), Fla. Admin. Code provides: The Department also shall deny a permit for dredging and filling in any class of waters where the location of the project is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the dredging or filling will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. In this case expert testimony was presented by Speer and the Department that due to the distance of the marina site from the Class II waters (8,000 feet) the marina site was not in close proximity to the Class II waters, and due to the rapid flushing of the area, the construction and operation of the marina would neither have a negative effect nor would result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters of St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (Isiminger, Tr. at 96, 126-27; Meyer, Tr. at 254-55) I find that the record contains no competent substantial evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by Speer and the Department that the marina will have no negative effect on Class II waters and will not result in violation of water quality standards in Class II waters. Accordingly, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In Re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Reasonable Assurance That Operation Of The Marina Will Not Result In Prop Dredging Or Violations Of The State Water Quality Criterion For Turbidity Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 9-12, and 16 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat traffic from operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. (F.O.F. Nos. 33-34, 45, 48, 52-53, 64, and 67) 11/ On one hand, there was testimony that the depths of the marina, in combination with the size of boats allowed in the various slips, would allow for a one foot clearance from the bottom of the boats to the bottom of the marina, and that this clearance, in combination with speed limits in the marina, would provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not result in prop dredging or turbidity violations. (Isiminger, Tr. at 104-107, 118; Meyer Tr. at 263-65, 299, 304- 305; Kelly, Tr. at 189-190; Ward, Tr. at 460) On the other hand, Bruce Graham, admitted as an expert in marine biology testified that: "A large boat, three feet from the bottom, I think would resuspend sediment." (Graham, Tr. at 378). The Hearing Officer, noting that when asked if one foot clearance is sufficient to prevent prop dredging and resultant turbidity violations, a Department witness, testified: I would have to say that we simply don't have enough documentation to know this for a fact. We know that a foot gives us a degree of comfort that there will not be prop wash. In certain instances -- a tug boat, for instance, you know, with huge engines, you're going to have prop wash over a much -- over a large area and with probably much more than a foot of clearance. But for the normal, typical marina a foot, as I say, gives us a degree of comfort that we have settled on. Neyer, Tr. at 264. The Hearing Officer concluded that the witnesses of Speer and the Department could not explain the reasons or efficacy of the "one foot policy" except to say that in their experience the one foot policy was adequate to prevent prop dredging and turbidity violations. (R.O. at 28 n.35)0 The Hearing Officer thus found that Speer and the Department failed to "prove up" the one foot policy -- i.e., failed to elucidate and explicate the reason for the policy. 12/ Clearly the Hearing Officer placed more weight on the testimony of Mr. Bruce Graham than that of Isiminger, Meyer, Kelly and Ward. Since I cannot say that the testimony of Graham was not competent substantial evidence, I am not at liberty to reweigh the evidence or reject the Hearing Officer's finding of fact. See, Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sections 120.57(1)(b)10., and 120.68(10), Florida Statutes. Speer contends that Barringer presented no evidence that prop dredging will cause sufficient turbidity to violate the state water quality turbidity criterion of 29 NTUs. 13/ That contention misses the point. The burden is on Speer to establish by the preponderance of evidence that reasonable assurance has been provided that operation of the marina will not result in violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Hearing Officer, as the finder of fact, concluded that Speer failed to do so. Accordingly, I reject the exception of Speer and accept the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the state water quality criterion for turbidity. Manatee Impacts and the Public Interest Test Speer's Exceptions Nos. 13 and 17 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to do a quantified study of impacts to manatees and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat. (F.O.F. Nos. 61, 64 and 68) The Hearing Officer reasoned as follows: Instead of a traffic study, the Applicant and DER presented evidence in the form of general statements that manatees need not migrate north and south through the approach channel. According to the Applicant and DER, manatees can migrate across the project site by one of two alternative routes. They can migrate in one or two feet of water under moored boats and then under wave breaks on the north and east piers, or they can migrate in the shallow water landward of the west boundary of the project. That evidence was not persuasive and was controverted by competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence that manatees would be deterred from migrating under the project footprint by substantial obstacles in their path. Manatees migrating under the project footprint would be exposed to 86 or more moving boats with powerful engines and drafts of four to five feet in waters covering approximately 20,800 square feet. It could be argued, or course, that 86 or more boats would not be moving in and out of the marina at one time. However, it is impossible to estimate occupancy rates, length of stay, and frequency of boat trips without a traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) As Speer's exception notes, there was testimony that because of the width of the river and boat speed restrictions in the project area, there would be no adverse impacts an the manatee from the marina. (Kelly, Tr. at 162; Meyer, Tr. at 255-56, 331- 32; Isiminger, Tr. at 130) The St. Lucie/Jupiter/Hobe Sound waterways are a major travel corridor for manatees. (DER Exh. No. 4) Between 1974 and December 1990, there were ten water craft related manatee fatalities within the boating sphere of influence of the project. (DER Exh. No. 4) In order to reduce impacts on the manatees, the proposed permit contains the following specific conditions: S.C. No. 13: The permittee agrees to install and maintain a minimum of one manatee education/display on the main access pier during and after construction. S.C. No. 15: The permittee agrees that any collision with a manatee shall be reported immediately [to DNR and U.S. Fish and wildlife Service]. S.C. No. 18: The permittee shall post four (4) manatee area/slow speed signs, two of which would be spaced along the perimeter pier and two of which would be located on the outside of the marina for all boating traffic to observe within the marina facility. (DER Exh. No. 3) 14/ There was testimony that the piers, once constructed, would not impair the passage of manatees. (Isiminger, Tr. at 114- 115) On the other hand, there was some testimony that manatees may have to go around the project rather than through it. (Meyer, Tr. at 311) The existing boat traffic past the site of the project to the Inlet was "rough1y estimated" at 50 to 100 boats a day. (Meyer, Tr. at 337) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that "while [the project] may negatively affect, it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian Manatee." (Tr. at 120-21) The Hearing Officer concluded that reasonable assurance as to adverse impacts on manatees could not be provided absent a quantified traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) In Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FAIR 1359 (DER Final Order March 9, 1990), the Department held that the information needed to determine a marina's impact on manatees and the necessary actions to mitigate such impacts must be decided an a case by case basis. For example, in Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 11 FALR 4710 (DER Final Order, Aug. 24, 1989), 15/ a marina sought to expand by adding 113 new wet slips. The marina was required to develop a manatee protection plan far the surrounding portions of the Caloosahatchee River, all new slips were limited to sail boats until the manatee protection plan was implemented and enforced, and power boat occupancy was limited to 75% of the total 174 wetslips in any event. The marina also made available a wet slip for use by the Florida Marine Patrol. In this case there is evidence of significant boat related manatee fatalities in the boating sphere of influence of the proposed marina. There is also evidence of existing traffic of 50-100 boats per day past the project site. In view of the fact that this project would add 86 slips and a public fueling facility, it seems likely that that the project will significantly increase both boat traffic and the threat of manatee collisions. Accordingly, I concur with the Hearing Officer that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that further studies are needed to determine what, if any, additional manatee protection conditions are needed to provide reasonable assurance that manatees will not be adversely affected. I conclude that the applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat, and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore, I reject the exception of Speer. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Speer's Exception No. 15 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse cumulative pacts created either by the cumulative effects of the object and existing similar projects, or by secondary pacts of the project itself. (F.O.F. No. 66) 16/ Cumulative impact analysis takes into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, supra; Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Secondary impact analysis considers the impact of the project itself and of any other relevant activities that are very closely linked or causally related to the permitted project. Conservancy, 580 So.2d at 778; J.T. McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 FALR 960, 980. 17/ Thus, in Conservancy the secondary impact analysis was required to consider the environmental impacts of development of 75 estate homes on an island where the development would be reasonably expected as a result of the permitted laying of a subaqueous sewer line. Similarly, in del Campo v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 452 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the Department was required to consider the environmental impacts of the foreseeable development of an island facilitated by the permitted building of a bridge to the island. In this case there is competent substantial evidence that there are other marinas located 1,750 feet downstream in Willoughby Creek, and 5,000 feet downstream in Manatee Pocket. (R.O. F.O.F. 31; Isiminger, Tr. at 112; Meyer, Tr. at 261) The record contains competent substantial evidence that the cumulative impact of the project and the existing marinas in Willoughby Creek and Manatee Pocket will not result in violations of state water policy. (Isiminger, Tr. at 125; Kelly, Tr. at 167) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly on cumulative impacts is not competent, substantial evidence. In light of the fact that there is no competent substantial evidence to indicate that cumulative impacts would result in water quality violations, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersbur; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. As to secondary impacts, the Hearing Officer pointed out that Speer did not introduce any evidence as to whether there would be secondary impacts to water quality as the result of further development or increased utilization of the uplands facilities. (See F.O.F. 66, n.59, R.O. at 39) Such further development or increased utilization of upland facilities is reasonably foreseeable and would be very closely linked or causally related to the building of an 86 slip marina with public fuel services. As noted above, the applicant has the burden of providing reasonable assurances as to cumulative and secondary impacts. Brown v. DER, supra; Conservancy, supra. However, neither the pleadings nor the pre-hearing stipulation raised the issue of the adequacy of the secondary impact analysis. In a case such as this where the Department's notice of intent to issue a permit has been challenged by a third party, the applicant's prima facie case need only include the application and the accompanying documentation and information relied on by the Department as the basis of its intent to issue. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., 396 So.2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The petitioner challenging the permit must identify the areas of controversy and allege a factual basis for its contentions that the applicant did not provide the necessary reasonable assurances. J.W.C., 396 So.2d at 789. See also Woodholly Assoc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 451 So.2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since Barringer did not identify this issue and did not allege any factual basis for a contention that the secondary impact analysis was inadequate or incorrect, I may not rule on the issue in this order. Miscellaneous Exceptions To Findings of Fact Speer's Exception No. 14 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project will have no adverse impact on (1) the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the project, including seagrasses, shell fish, and fin-fish, and (2) recreational and commercial values in the vicinity. (F.O.F. No. 64) Speer contends that this finding is not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebutted testimony of Ms. Kelly and Mr. Isiminger. (Kelly, Tr. at 159, 161-62, 165-67; Isiminger, Tr. at 73) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly is not competent, substantial evidence, and I find no evidence in the record to rebut the testimony of Kelly and Isiminger. Therefore, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Speer's Exception No. 3 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide a current water quality analysis. (F.O.F. No. 35) A water quality analysis was submitted in April of 1990, shortly after the permit application was filed. (R.O. at 2, 19; F.O.F. No. 34) I find no competent substantial evidence in the record to suggest any reason for believing that the water quality has changed since April of 1990. I agree with Speer that, absent some specific reason for believing that the water quality has changed since the date of a study conducted contemporaneously with the permit application, there is no requirement to provide an updated water quality analysis. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Need For Quantified Hydrographic Study Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 7 and 9, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that a quantified hydrographic study was needed to provide reasonable assurances that the operation of the marina would not result in violations of water quality standards and would would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. For the reasons stated in Parts III(1), (2) and (3) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Introduction Of Issues Not Set Forth In Pleadings Or Pre-Hearing Stipulations Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's consideration of issues of (1) the need for a quantified hydrographic study, (2) the proximity of the site to Class II waters, (3) turbidity and prop dredging, (4) cumulative impacts, and (5) the need for a quantified study on manatee impacts. For the reasons set forth in Part 111(6) above, I agree that, absent waiver, a petitioner challenging an intent to issue a permit may not raise issues at the hearing which were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations. However, in this case the issue of manatee impacts was raised in the pleadings, and Speer was on notice that it had the burden of proof on that issue. As to the other issues, even if I accepted far the sake of argument that they were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations, Speer failed to timely object to the raising of these issues at the hearing and therefore waived any objection. See Sarasota County and Midnight Pass Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 13 FAIR 1727 (DER Final Order, April 4, 1991). Therefore, I reject the above exceptions. Proximity To Class II Waters Speer's Exception No. 2 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer was required to submit a plan which demonstrated that the marina would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. (C.O.L. Nos. 12 and 13) I do not agree that where a proposed marina site is 8,000 feet from Class II waters and where the site is rapidly flushed as noted in Parts 111(1), (2) and (3) above, that the site is in close proximity with the Class II waters within the meaning of Rule 17-312.080(6), Fla. Admin. Code. Accordingly, I accept this exception and reject the above note conclusion of law. Public Interest Test Speer's Exception No. 4 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project was not contrary to the public interest. (C.O.L. Nos. 17 and 20) For the reasons set forth in Parts III(4) and (5) above, I reject this exception. Cumulative Impacts Speer's Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurances that cumulative impacts would not result in water quality violations, and that such assurances could only be provided by a quantified study. For the reasons set forth in Parts III (1), (2), (3) and (6) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Modification Of Permit Conditions Speer's Exception No. 6 takes Exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law Nos. 24-34. These conclusions of law concern questions of the authority of the Hearing Officer and me to modify the conditions of the permit. I agree with Speer that since none of the parties have requested any modifications, these conclusions of law are irrelevant. 18/ Therefore I accept the exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law as irrelevant. Miscellaneous Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that Speer and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurance as to prop dredging and turbidity violations because neither Speer nor the Department sufficiently proved the basis for the one-foot clearance policy. For the reasons set forth in Part III(4) above, I reject this exception. Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the question of whether mitigation is adequate is a question of law. I agree with the Hearing Officer and reject this exception. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, enter a Final Order denying the application for a permit to construct the proposed project and denying the request for determination of improper purposes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1550 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's application for a permit to connect his canal to the Caloosahatchee River be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1976.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Orange County Parks Department is entitled to a dredge and fill permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation for the construction and installation of a boat dock on Lake Down.
Findings Of Fact The Application On November 1, 1989, Orange County Parks Department (Orange County) applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a floating boat dock in the Town of Windermere on Lake Down. The application, which is dated September 7, 1989, describes the proposed project as a "public improvement of an existing boat ramp facility." The application describes a floating dock attached by short hinged sections to fixed docks that would be affixed, at normal water elevations, to upland. The application explains that the purpose of the dock is to accommodate boats and pedestrians in loading and unloading boats at the ramp. The dock would, according to the application, reduce wave and wakedisturbance action on the existing shoreline and thus reduce the current rate of erosion at the site. The application assures that no existing vegetation would be disturbed except in the area of the fixed docks. According to the application, the floating dock and two fixed docks would measure about 420 feet long by 7 feet wide with several wideouts of about 10 1/2 feet. The dock is designed to moor 15-18 boats simultaneously. The location map attached to and a part of the application shows that the dock would be at the southernmost extent of Lake Down. The survey attached to and a part of the application provides submerged and upland elevations in the vicinity of the proposed dock. The survey states that the water elevation of Lake Down is 98.8 feet. Nothing indicates whether 98.8 feet is the average water elevation or the water elevation on the date of the survey on June 28, 1989. Other portions of the application describe the composition of the dock parts. The only parts in contact with the water would be galvanized steel pilings, which would be jetted or driven not more than 15 feet deep into the submerged bottom, and plastic floats attached to the bottom of the dock for floatation. The application also indicates that construction-period turbidity would be controlled through the use of turbidity curtains. Another diagram attached to and a part of the application superimposes the dock over the submerged elevations. A note on the diagram states that, under "Plan 1 and Plan 2, Orange County would excavate existing grade under floating dock to elev 97.0." The applicant proposed excavation under the dock due to the shallowness of the water under and lakeward of the dock. The diagram depicts a dock that would run parallel, rather than perpendicular, to the shore. The diagram discloses that the proposed dock would begin immediately east of the existing boat ramp. The diagram indicates that the floating dock runs about 390 feet. The elevation at the northwest corner of the west fixed dock is about 100 feet. At what the construction drawings call "average lake elevation" of 99.5 feet, the piling at the northwest corner of the west fixed dock would thus not be submerged. About 15 feet to the east of the northwest corner, where a hinge connects the west fixed dock to the floating dock, the elevation is between 98 and 99 feet. At average water elevation, the shoreside of the floating dock generally ranges from five to ten feet from the shoreline, with extremes of one foot at the southeast corner of the west fixed dock and 17 feet about 220 feet east of this point. The submerged elevations change significantlyunder the 390 feet of floating dock. On the lakeside, where boats would dock, the following elevations exist under the dock at 40 Dock interval 40' 80' 120' 160' Lakebottom elevation 95-96' 95' 92' 93' 200' 240' 280' 320' 360' 390' 91-92' 91' 92-93' 93-94' 96' 96' The submerged elevations are higher (and thus water depths shallower) on the shoreside of the dock, which would not be accessible to boats. For the back of the floating dock, the submerged elevations exceed 97 feet for the westernmost 40 feet and a short segment at the eastern end of the floating dock; the remaining elevations are less than 97 feet. Unlike the west fixed dock, which would stand almost entirely in upland even at average water elevation, the east fixed dock would stand almost entirely in water at the same water elevation. Also, the west fixed dock would be relatively small and run parallel to the shore beside the ramp. The east fixed dock would be oriented in a northwesterly direction from, and perpendicular to, the shore. The northwest and northeast faces of the east fixed dock would be accessible by boats. The submerged elevation under the northwest face, which is between 15 and 20 feet offshore from the average shoreline, is between 95 and 96 feet. The water depth adjoining the northeast face is shallower because the northeast face, although accessible to boats, would runupland, past the average shoreline at 99.5 feet, to an upland elevation of about 101 feet. The rate of drop of submerged elevation is uneven along the length of the proposed floating dock. Water depth increases more rapidly from the center of the floating dock. For instance, at the 200-foot interval from the west end, the elevation drops from about 91.5 feet at the front of the dock to 88 feet at a point ten feet lakeward of, and perpendicular to, the dock. In other words, the water becomes 3 1/2 feet deeper in the first ten feet. The lakebottom drops more gradually at the west and east ends of the proposed dock. For instance, at the 40 increase in depth ten feet out is only about 2 1/2 feet. At the north corner of the east fixed dock, the increase in depth ten feet out is only about 1 1/2 feet. The diagram also depicts the existing boat ramp that would be served by the proposed dock. The ramp, which is oriented in an eastnortheasterly direction from the shore, is less than ten feet north of the proposed west fixed dock. The ramp measures about 20 feet wide upland and about ten feet wider farther out into the water. The elevation of the submerged north corner of the lakeward end of the boat ramp is between 94 and 95 feet. The elevation of the submerged south corner of the lakeward end of the boat ramp is between 95 and 96 feet. The lakebottom isfairly flat at the boat ramp. Over its 40-foot length, the elevation of the ramp changes by only about 5 feet. A separate diagram attached to and a part of the application depicts the floats that would be attached to the bottom of the decking. The floats would be about 18 inches high and draw about three inches of water when the dock is supporting no weight. A 40-inch high railing would run along the back of the dock. However, the railing would not extend along the northwest and northeast faces of the east fixed dock. Thus, nothing would deter a boat from docking along these two faces of the east fixed dock. On November 9, 1989, Orange County filed an application amendment, which contains drawings that eliminate all excavation. The amendment states: "Dock will be relocated if conflict with existing shore occurs." This amendment was filed at the urging of a DER representative, who would not have recommended the application for approval without the change. There are other suggestions in the record that Orange County would be willing to amend its application to locate the proposed dock farther from shore and in deeper waters. However, Orange County did not specifically offer an amendment, and the record offers no indication where the dock would be, if Orange County again amended the application. On June 20, 1990, Orange County informed the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) by letter that the legal description provided with the application was inaccurate. The letter provides a new legal description and a list of adjoining property owners. Mr. Rosser, Ms. Grice, and Mr. Patterson own property adjacent to the proposed project or reside in close proximity to Lake Down so as to be substantially affected by any material degradation of water quality. The new legal description encompasses only 1.46 acres rather than the 12.16 acres set forth in the original application. The land eliminated from the application is west and north of the existing boat ramp. Orange County plans to make considerable improvements to the existing boat ramp, such as by the addition of substantial parking and a septic tank on the land eliminated from the original application. However, the present application does not request any permit for such work. The Intent to Issue On February 26, 1990, DER filed an Intent to Issue the permit for which Orange County had applied. The Intent to Issue indicates that the permit is to construct a floating dock on Lake Down about 420 feet by 7 feet, plus wideouts, and notes that the request to dredge along the dock had been withdrawn. According to the Intent to Issue, the bank between the north side of Conroy-Windermere Road and the shoreline has eroded, probably as a result of boaters pulling their boats onto shore for temporary mooring. Although DER did not determine the water elevation on the date of the inspection, the Intent to Issue reports that water depths range from a few inches alongshore to about three feet at the shoreside of the proposed dock. The Intent to Issue notes that Orange County is currently trying to condemn the land north and west of the boat ramp to upgrade the launching facility with a larger ramp, picnic area, and parking spaces for between 50 and 100 vehicles. The Intent to Issue finds that the proposed docking facility and its associated boat traffic would not result in violations of state water quality standards nor degradation of ambient conditions in Lake Down or the Butler Chain. Except for limited construction-period turbidity, which could be controlled with a siltation barrier, displacement or disruption of the lakebottom would reportedly occur only during piling installation, and shoreline vegetation would be removed only at the fixed docks at either end of the floating dock. Addressing prop dredging, the Intent to Issue notes: It is not anticipated that damage to the lake bottom will result from boats moving into and away from the dock. If water levels fall to particularly low levels, the county can close the ramp until adequate depth is available again. Addressing the possibility of increased boat traffic on the lake, the Intent to Issue states: It is not anticipated that use of ramp will significantly increase as a result of the proposed construction. Those individuals who are seriously interested in accessing the Butler Chain have done so despite the poor facility currently available. The new dock will provide mooring capability without causing shoreline erosion. Furthermore, the dock will provide a safer place for boatersto walk and wait. Presently, because there is no onsite parking nor mooring available, boaters park vehicles to the east of the boat ramp site in an undeveloped parcel. They then walk west along Conroy-Windermere Road while sharing the road shoulder with vehicles and trailers. The dock, in combination with the proposed (upland) sidewalk won't shorten the distance to be walked but will remove pedestrians from the roadway sooner to the relative safety of the mooring area. The Intent to Issue concludes that Orange County has provided reasonable assurance that the project will not result in violations of state water quality standards and that the project is clearly in the public interest. Thus, DER expressed its intent to issue the permit, subject to various conditions, in the absence of a timely filed petition. Specific condition 7 of the Intent to Issue addresses the issue of prop dredging: When the lake level drops to the point where boats entering and leaving the dock cause damage to submerged bottoms in the immediate area, the county shall close the ramp and dock until the water returns to acceptable levels. Specific condition 8 addresses the County's plans for additional improvements for the boat ramp facility: Issuance of a permit for the dock does not guarantee nor infer issuance of a permit orpermits for further improvements to the county boat launching facility. Additional Findings Regarding Upland Orlando and the more densely populated areas are generally to the north and east of the boat ramp; Orlando itself is about 10 miles away. The center of the Town of Windermere, which numbers about 1400 persons, is to the west of the boat ramp. About 80% of the users of the boat ramp approach the ramp from the east. A small vehicle-maneuvering area adjoins the ramp on the west. After unloading the boat into the water, the driver of the trailer-towing vehicle typically drives east on Conroy-Windermere Road about 1600 feet and parks on the south side of the road in a large unimproved lot. The County's permission to use the lot is terminable by the owner without notice. While the vehicle and trailer are being parked, the person or persons with the boat normally start the engine and idle just offshore from the ramp or moor on the sandy beach immediately east of the boat ramp. After parking the vehicle, the driver generally crosses to the north side of Conroy-Windermere Road and walks along a sidewalk running from the parking area to what would be the east end of the proposed dock. The road and the sandy beach are separated by a thin strip of thick vegetation. Pedestrians continuing westalong the road, past a point across from the east end of the beach, must walk in the staging lane designed for vehicles waiting to enter the maneuvering area. An existing sidewalk on the south side of the road, which runs east of the ramp area, is not used as much because the sidewalk ends almost 800 feet east of the parking area. Pedestrians typically rejoin their boat at some point along the sandy beach immediately east of the boat ramp. When the boat is spotted, the pedestrian cuts through the vegetation on one of four or five paths running at intervals between the north side of the road and the beach. Traffic on these paths has worn them down noticeably from the prevailing elevations on either side. The same pattern is repeated upon the return of the boat, which is temporarily moored onshore to allow the driver to disembark, take the nearest path to the road, walk along the north side of the road to the parking area, cross the road, and return with the vehicle to the boat ramp. Normal summertime usage, when the boat ramp is used more frequently, involves a range of 30-65 boat launchings per day from the boat ramp. However, peak usage is much higher; nearly 400 trailers have been in the parking area at one time. Present upland usage of the boat ramp area is risky. The staging lane mixes pedestrians and motor vehicles towing trailers. The speed limit on Conroy-Windermere Road is 35 miles per hour at the parking area and 30 miles per hour at theramp, so westbound traffic is still moving rapidly past the staging lane. Also, Conroy-Windermere Road, which is an urban collector, is heavily travelled with an average daily traffic count of 9400 vehicles. Pedestrians crossing the road at the parking area 1600 feet west of the ramp must cross 22- 24 feet of highway. Pedestrians crossing the road at the boat ramp must cross about 50 feet of highway due to the presence of the staging lane and a painted median. Upland safety would be enhanced by separating pedestrians from the staging lane. However, the addition of the floating dock would not eliminate the risks associated with upland usage of the boat ramp. Persons still would be required to cross Conroy-Windermere Road, although a proposed crosswalk would reduce present risks somewhat. In addition, the existing sidewalk on the north side of the road would be reconfigured to lead to the floating boat dock, which would be incorporated into the sidewalk system leading toward the center of the Town of Windermere. For some persons using the dock segment of the sidewalk, such as young children and the disabled, close proximity with the water and mooring boats might prove unsafe. Conroy-Windermere Road has existed for many years, but the portion of the road parallel to the proposed dock was added only about 30 years ago. Previously, the road had turned south, but, following a serious traffic accident, the curve was straightened. Large amounts of fill were added to form the roadbed across the southern tip of Lake Down, which consequentlywas cut off from the remainder of the lake. This fill forms the bank leading to the shoreline directly parallel to the proposed dock. The boat ramp has also existed for many years. Years ago, grove trucks drove down to the lake in order to take on irrigation water. From time to time, persons would put in canoes at this point. Until the late 1960's, when Orange County paved the ramp, few if any powerboats were launched from the area or even used the lake. Today, the overwhelming majority of boats using the ramp currently are gasoline-powered motorboats. There are no restrictions on Lake Down as to the size of engine permitted on the lake, and the posted speed limit is 36 miles per hour. The area surrounding the boat ramp features few amenities. Apart from the maneuvering area, staging lane, and ramp itself, the only other improvements are an enclosed portable toilet and a dumpster garbage container. The Town of Windermere operates two boat ramps on the Butler Chain-- one on Lake Down and one on Lake Butler. Use of these ramps is reserved for Town residents and their guests. The remaining boat ramps on the chain are owned by corporations or private associations. Some boat traffic on the lake is from the use of private boat docks owned by persons owning lakefront land. Lake Down and the Butler Chain Designation as Outstanding Florida Waters By report dated January, 1984, DER recommended that the Environmental Regulation Commission designate as Outstanding Florida Waters the Butler Chain of Lakes: Lake Down, Lake Butler, Wauseon Bay, Lake Louise, Lake Palmer, Lake Chase, Lake Tibet, Lake Sheen, Pocket Lake, Little Fish Lake, and their connecting waterways. The January, 1984 report (DER Report), states that the Butler Chain drains into the Upper Kissimmee River Basin. Noting that Lake Down is the northernmost lake in the chain, the DER Report states that water flow in the lakes, which are interconnected by a series of man-made navigable canals, runs from north to south. Reviewing Florida and applicable federal anti-degradation policies protecting high quality waters, the DER Report states: This antidegradation policy is predicated on the principle that resources are so precious that degradation should not occur except after full consideration of the consequences and then only to the extent necessitated by important economic and social development. Scientifically, the principle is a valid one in that history has taught that adverse effects are difficult to predict. As scientific knowledge grows, previously unknown effects are discovered, and it is prudent to preserve our natural resources in the face of the unknown. DER Report, January 11, 1984 memorandum from DER to Environmental Regulation Commission, page 4. The Butler Chain covers 4700 acres. The largestlake is Lake Butler, which consists of 1665 acres. Lake Down, which is the third largest, consists of 872 acres. Depths of the lakes range from 15-30 feet. According to the DER Report, the upper seven lakes are oligo-mesotrophic with low productivity, high water clarity, and deeper waters. The lower three lakes (Sheen, Pocket, and Fish Lakes) are mesotrophic, with moderate productivity, high coloration of water, and shallower waters. The DER Report states that the water quality of the lakes is excellent. Lake Down had the highest level of dissolved oxygen: 7.1 mg/l. Biochemical oxygen demand was extremely low, in most cases, including Lake Down, less than 1.0 mg/l. Lake Down also had the lowest presence of chlorophyll a, which is a measure of the presence of algae, and a higher degree of biologically diversity, which is typical of a clean, soft-acid lake, according to the DER Report. The DER Report concludes that: An OFW designation will preserve the present environmental values of the Butler Chain of Lakes without any important environmental costs. The existing ecosystem and recreational use of the lakes is dependent upon the maintenance of sufficiently high levels of water quality, which an OFW designation would help to ensure. Id. at 23. The DER Report also includes a May, 1975 report of the Orange County Pollution Control Department, which concedes that the Butler Chain is: one of the few clean water systems left in the Central Florida area. The balance between available nutrient concentrations and the biotic communities has maintained an ecosystem free from the problems that are associated with more enriched systems. The balance is fragile and not well understood. Any activities which would effect this system will express itself [sic] in the aquatic habitat. May, 1975 report, page 4. At the time of its designation, the proposal received numerous endorsements and no objections. On August 16, 1983, The Orange County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution urging DER to designate the Butler Chain as Outstanding Florida Waters. The Orange County Property Appraiser also supported the designation. In a letter to DER dated September 30, 1983, the appraiser warns that pollution could decrease surrounding property values and cost taxpayers substantial sums for cleanup. Additional Findings Regarding Lake Down Effect of Addition of Floating Dock 53. Neither the submerged galvanized steel pilings nor the plastic floats would allow materials to leach into the lake so as to affect measurably the composition or quality of the water. The increased turbidity during construction of the proposed floating dock also could be controlled so as not to have a significant effect on Lake Down. 2. Relevant Water Levels Water levels have fluctuated considerably in Lake Down. Since January, 1960, to present, the lowest recorded water elevation was 93.86 feet in February, 1987, and the highestelevation was 101.58 feet in August, 1960. Recorded water elevations were less than 97 feet from October, 1977 through August, 1979 and September, 1980 through November, 1982 (during which time the elevation attained 96 feet only six months). Water elevations were between 97 and 98 feet, inclusive, for an additional 29 months during this 31-year period. From March, 1987 through May, 1989, water levels were between 99 and 100 feet, attaining 100 feet only in December of 1987 and 1989. From June through August, 1989, water levels were between 98 and 99 feet. From September, 1989 through the date of the final hearing, water elevations were below 97.8 feet. From mid-March, 1990 through the date of the hearing, water elevations dropped from 97 feet to 96 feet; at the time of the hearing, the water elevation was about 96 feet. When the water elevation is 97.8 feet or less, the canal to Wauseon Bay and, from there, to Lake Butler is impassable to all but very small flatbottom boats. At these times, boat traffic tends to concentrate on Lake Down. Three witnesses for the County and DER testified as to the relationship between the water level of the lake and the operation of the floating dock. One witness for the County testified that the dock would float at 99.5 feet, which corresponds to ordinary high water. The designer of the dock testified that the east and west ends of the dock would cease floating at 96 feet. The DER representative testified that the dock and, pursuant to Special Condition 7, the ramp should beclosed at depths less than 95 feet. The meaning of Special Condition 7 is unclear. First, it is not clear what is meant by boats causing damage to submerged bottoms in the immediate area. Probably, this phrase means actual contact between the prop and bottom, which is known as prop dredging. Thus, boats cause damage to submerged bottoms when the depth of the water is about one foot or less. Special Condition 7 probably ignores the effect of prop wash, where the prop disturbs the bottom, including vegetation, by turbulence rather than direct contact. The second major ambiguity in Special Condition 7 cannot be resolved on the basis of the present record. The question is whether the ramp and entire dock must be closed whenever the water depth under any part of the dock is one foot or less (recognizing that the floats require about one foot of water). In the alternative, Orange County could close only that part of the dock as to which the underlying water depth is one foot or less. It is likely that DER and Orange County have different opinions on this question, with the County taking the latter position. Regardless how Special Condition 7 is construed, it fails to address the damage to submerged bottom that the"floating" dock will do when parts of it begin to ground. When partly grounded, the floating dock will pound up and down on the lakebottom in response to wave action and traffic on the dock. Over 40 feet of the shoreside of the dock will be grounded at water elevations of 97 feet or less, which, without regard to the effect of dock loading or wave action, is the point at which "dock dredging" commences. Water elevations have been less than 98 feet for a total of nearly seven of the last 31 years. The east and west ends of the lakeside of the floating dock would also begin to ground at a water level of about 97 feet. By the time water elevation falls to 96 feet, which existed at the time of the hearing, at least 80 feet of the west end of the floating dock and at least 30 feet of the east end of the floating dock would be grounded, again assuming no wave action and no load on the dock. Additionally, prop dredging would also take place at water elevations of 97 feet immediately adjacent to the dock, at its east and west ends. These water elevations have been experienced for a total of over four of the last 31 years. Another feature of the design of the proposed dock makes it likely that prop dredging will take place regardless of the water elevation. A popular area of the proposed dock would be the east fixed dock because it would be the closest point, by more than 100 yards in some cases, to the existing parking area. Boats could approach the northeast face of the east fixed dock up to an elevation of 101 feet. In other words, except in periods of unusual high water, some boats could and probably would use a section of the fixed dock in the same manner as temporary moorings are made today: in effect, by running up onto the beach. Prop dredging of the bottom would take place if boats approached the northwest face of the fixed dock when the water level fell to about 96.5 feet. The same is true for at least the first 40 feet of the west end of the floating dock. The resuspension of bottom sediment by prop wash would begin at depths of anywhere from 18 inches to seven feet, according to the testimony of the DER representative. Although important variables, such as the composition of the bottom and size and speed of the prop, affect prop wash, significant prop wash takes place for at least three feet under the prop. If three feet were the minimum depth necessary to avoid prop wash and, thus, lakebottom damage, the east 160 feet and west 70 feet of the floating dock would not be usable at water levels not exceeding 96 feet, such as at the time of the final hearing. The significance of lakebottom damage is great under and lakeward of the proposed dock. A thick carpet of bogmoss begins about ten feet offshore, which is roughly where the dock would begin, and continues out into the lake. Bog moss, which captures and retains sediments, would be damaged by the dredging action of the pounding floating dock when it begins to ground and boats using the floating dock at water elevations described in the preceding paragraphs. The phosphorus-rich sediments would then be resuspended in the water column. 3. Ambient Water Quality One of the key elements to preserving the health of Lake Down is to avoid conditions that can lead to the presence of excessive nutrients in the system. The presence of excessive nutrients, which leads to eutrophication, usually occurs because of the increased availability of a limiting nutrient. The limiting nutrient in Lake Down is phosphorus. Thus, a condition precedent to the eutrophication of Lake Down is an increase in the level of phosphorus in the water. The presence of phosphorus in the water can be detected directly, by measuring the phosphorus itself. The presence of phosphorus can also be detected indirectly, by measuring the effects of the nutrient or conditions that may result in the release into the water of additional phosphorus. Indicators of the nutrient levels of a lake include the presence of chlorophyll a, which, as a measure of the amount of algae in the water, is an indicator of the enrichment process. As a lake proceeds from an oligotrophic to a mesotrophic condition or from a mesotrophic to a eutrophiccondition, the presence of algae and chlorophyll a will increase. Indicators of conditions that may result in the release of additional phosphorus into the water include turbidity measurements and clarity data, such as Secchi depths. The sediment found in the submerged lakebottom contains greater concentrations of phosphorus in various organic and inorganic and soluble and insoluble forms than the water column itself contains. When this sediment is disturbed, part of the previously trapped phosphorus is released into the water column. The phosphorus is thereby made more readily available for supplying the nutrients necessary to contribute to the enrichment process, at least until the phosphorus settles back into the sediment where it can be locked up until redisturbed. As relevant to this case, the ambient water quality of Lake Down in the baseline year can largely be assessed in terms of the following data, which are obtained from Orange County Exhibit 13: chlorophyll a: 1.01 ug/l; turbidity: 1 NTU; total phosphorus: .01 mg/l; Secchi depth: 3.5 meters; and pH: 5.97. In the year ending immediately preceding the filing of the County's application, the following data were collected, according to Orange County Exhibit 13: chlorophyll a: 1.59 ug/l; turbidity: .75 NTU; total phosphorus: .01 mg/l; Secchi depth: over 3.5 meters; and pH: 6.36. In the summer of 1990, when the hearing took place, the County's expert collected from Lake Down the followingaveraged data, which are shown on Orange County Exhibits 15 and 17: chlorophyll a: 1.22 ug/l; total phosphorus: .011 mg/l; Secchi depth: over 4 meters; turbidity: 1.0-1.2 NTU's; and pH: 6.97. In the same summer, the Town of Windermere's expert collected the following data from Lake Down: turbidity: 0.92-1.8 NTU's; pH: up to 7.2; and total phosphate: .04-.05 mg/l. The only finding materially different from the findings of the County's expert is the amount of total phosphate. The findings of both experts are credited. The higher finding is supported by, among other things, the recording in the County's records of .037 mg/l of total phosphorus on May 15, 1990, according to Orange County Exhibit 12. In a phosphate-limited, oligo-mesotrophic lake such as Lake Down, total phosphates of .03-.04 mg/l require serious attention in terms of what may be the beginning of a significant degradation of ambient water quality standards. The increase in chlorophyll a is consistent with a trend toward enrichment of the lake since the baseline year. The record establishes the role of motorboat traffic in degrading ambient water quality. Bottom sedimentsoften contain many times more phosphorus than is found in the water column. In the case of Lake Down, sampled bottom sediment contained 11 mg/l of phosphorus, or over 200 times the amount contained in the water column. The phosphorus is trapped in the sediment, which, if disturbed, releases the phosphorus back into the water column. Prop dredging may resuspend the sediments and release the phosphorus, as well as destroy bottom vegetation that tends to retain the sediments. Prop wash also may resuspend bottom sediments, even to depths of seven feet beneath the churning prop. Ultimate Findings of Fact Impact of Proposed Dock on Boat Traffic The proposed floating dock would substantially increase use of Lake Down by motorboats. The dock would generate increased boat traffic on Lake Down because of improvements in navigability in the vicinity of the boat ramp and convenience for boaters in picking up and dropping off passengers and walking between the existing parking area and mooring area. The dock, which would be longer than a football field, is designed to moor 15-18 boats simultaneously. At typical current launching rates, the dock would be capable of mooring, at one time, one-quarter to one-half of the boats using the boat ramp on a given day. DER reasons in the Intent to Issue that boat usage would not increase significantly because persons seriously interested in accessing the Butler Chain have overcome the limitations of the present facility. This reasoning ignores persons more casually interested in accessing the Butler Chain. The above-described improvements in navigability and upland safety will increase the frequency of their visits, which presently may be limited to peak days, such as holidays. If the ratio of serious to casual users corresponds roughly to the ratio of typical boat launches to peak boat launches, the number of casual users may outnumber their more earnest counterparts by six to one. The large capacity of the proposed boat dock suggests that Orange County was targeting these more casual boaters. In theory, Special Condition 7 could have a substantial effect upon boaters' access to Lake Down if the ramp and dock were closed when water elevations fell to 97 feet, at which point much of the shoreside of the dock would already be grounding and boats could not approach the east or west ends of the dock without prop dredging. The ambiguity of Special Condition 7, whose meaning remains elusive even after DER and Orange County have had opportunities to explain its operation, precludes assigning the condition any significance, except as a clear invitation to litigate in the event the floating dock were constructed under the subject Intent to Issue. 2. Ambient Water Quality 79. As relevant to this case, the relevant ambientwater quality of Lake Down is the baseline year. The value of chlorophyll a was 50% lower in the year ending March, 1984, than in the year ending with the subject application. Total phosphorus was about the same, as were Secchi depths. Turbidity was 25% less in the latter year, but the lake had acidified slightly. 3. Changes in Water Quality The water quality of Lake Down has deteriorated since it was designated an Outstanding Florida Water. The amount of chlorophyll a has increased, which is consistent with increased levels of nutrients in the water column. By the summer of 1990, phosphate readings were as much as four or five times greater than in the baseline year and had reached a level that threatens water quality in a phosphate-limited lake such as Lake Down. The role of motorboat traffic in disturbing phosphate-laden bottom sediments and destroying bottom vegetation has been discussed above. The dock dredging at lower water elevations, which are frequently encountered, as well as prop dredging immediately adjacent to the dock, would be especially harmful in view of the thick carpet of bog moss present underneath and lakeward of the proposed dock. 4. Effect of Proposed Dock on Water Quality Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not lower ambient water quality standards with respect to the effects of dock dredging, prop dredging in the immediate vicinity of the dock, and prop wash associated with increased powerboat traffic on the entire lake. Boats presently mooring on the south shore undoubtedly dredge the bottom with their props. However, the effects are less destructive than the prop dredging that would be associated with the proposed dock, even ignoring the effects of dock dredging and prop wash from additional powerboats. First, fewer boats are using the area now than would be with the proposed dock. Second, although possibly once vegetated, the lakebottom adjacent to the shore is sandy without much vegetation or sediment, so resuspension of sediment and release of phosphorus is less of a problem presently than it would be with the use associated with the new dock. The record does not support a finding that the water quality of Lake Down has been adversely affected by the erosion of rubble and fill from the bank used to construct the realigned Conroy-Windermere Road 30 years ago. Concerns about unfiltered stormwater runoff bypassing the vegetated strip by pouring down the eroded paths into the lake are misplaced. Some governmental entity has installed a stormwater system along aconsiderable part of Conroy-Windermere Road, and the outfall is directly into Lake Down shoreside of the west end of the proposed dock. 5. Effect of Proposed Project on Public Interest Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project would be clearly in the public interest after balancing the statutory criteria. The proposed project would achieve a net gain in upland safety, although not without exposing pedestrians using the sidewalk to new risks. The project would also increase boater safety by improving navigability in the vicinity of the boat ramp. However, degradations in water quality negatively impact the issues of public health, the property of others, the conservation of fish and wildlife, and fishing or recreational values, which ironically may be threatened as Lake Down risks becoming a victim of its well-deserved popularity. The current condition and relative values of the functions performed by the lakebottom also militate against a finding that the proposed project, which would be permanent in nature, is clearly in the public interest. The factors in the preceding paragraph outweigh the statutory factors in favor of a finding that the project is clearly in the public interest. In addition to the gains in upland safety and navigability, the other favorable factors are that the proposed project would not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. A neutral factor isthat the proposed project would not help or harm significant historic and archaeologic resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the application of the Orange County Parks Department for a dredge and fill permit to construct a floating dock 420 feet by 7 feet. ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Orange County Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-7 (except last sentence of Paragraph 6); 9 (except for last two sentences)- 11 (except first sentence); 12 (except that the amendment eliminated all construction-related dredging)-19 (except the railing in Paragraph 14 runs the entire landward side of the floating dock, but not the fixed docks); 20 (except the last sentence); 25; 27 (except last sentence); 29 (first sentence; however, the implication that the erosion is having an adverse effect on water quality is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence); 30 (except that the implication that wave and wake action are presently eroding the shore is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence); 32; 33 (in sense of increasing boater usage of lake, but not in sense of maintaining the water conditions on which the lake ultimately depends for its recreational value); 35-36; 39 (third and fourth sentences); 40 (there would be a net increase in upland safety); 42 (the crosswalk would somewhat increase upland user safety); 43; 44 (through the colon); 46; 48 (second and third sentences); 49 (except that the summer, 1990, findings of Windermere's expert are also credited); 51 (except as to the improvement in ambient water quality between baseline year and year immediately preceding the application); 52 (except for characterization of chlorophyll a value as very low) with attendant implication that this value, in conjunction with readings of .04-.05 mg/l of phosphate in the summer of 1990, is not cause for serious concern); 56-57; 59 (all but first sentence); 60 (second and third sentences); and 71 (last sentence). Rejected as irrelevant: 6 (last sentence); 11 (first sentence); 20 (last sentence); 21-22; 26 (second sentence); 28; 44 (following the colon)-45; 47; 54 (first sentence); 55 (there is no safe harbor for proposed projects whoseeffects would degrade ambient water quality, but still leave the waters in good condition); 67; and 74-75. Rejected as subordinate: 8; 9 (last two sentences); 28; 34 (second sentence); 41; 53; 63 (except for first sentence); 64; 69; and 74-75. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 23; 26 (first sentence); 27 (last sentence); 29 (second sentence); 31; 34 (except second sentence); 37 (except whether the proposed dock is a political "hot potato" is irrelevant); 38 (except that the existing facility is "very mediocre"); 50 (second sentence as to relevant ambient water quality and third sentence); 54; 55 (although the water quality in Lake Down remains generally good, recent readings of phosphorus levels of .04-.05 mg/l are a cause of serious concern); 58; 59 (first sentence, at least as to the bottom beginning around where the dock would be placed); 60 (first sentence); 61 (the County's own survey, which accompanied the application, has been credited over the incidental findings of an expert, who did not carefully establish the exact proposed location of the dock and was preoccupied with water sampling); 62 (strictly speaking, the County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat dock will not lead to degradation in ambient water quality); and 63 (first sentence)-71 (except for last sentence). Rejected as unnecessary: 39 (first two sentences) and 72-73. Rejected as recitation of evidence: 48 (first sentence) and 50 (first and second sentences except for the identification of the baseline year and the year immediately preceding the application). Miscellaneous: 24: first sentence is adopted in substance as the average is probably about 10', although the distance is as much as 17'. The second sentence as to where the boat dock could be built--i.e., further away from theshore to reduce or eliminate dock dredging--is rejected as irrelevant. Orange County did not offer to amend its application, nor even provide a new location for the dock. In any event, the relocation of the dock in deeper water would not reduce the damage done to the lake by the prop wash associated with the additional boat traffic that the new dock would generate. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DER Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-5 (except erosion-protection clause in Paragraph 4); 6 (first sentence, although the elevations have been discussed in detail in the findings and, though the dock probably averages about 10' from normal shoreline, it is as much as 17' offshore); 7-14 (except, as to Paragraph 8, 41-65 launchings represents typical summertime usage and 395 represents peak usage, probably on a holiday); 18; 19 (second sentence); 26-28; 30 (first sentence); 33-34; 37-39 (except, as to Paragraph 38, first sentence and last clause implying the need to control erosion to protect water quality); 41-42; and 46-47. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 4 (erosion-protection clause); 6 (second sentence because the County's own survey, which accompanied the application, has been credited over the incidental findings of an expert, who did not carefully establish the exact proposed location of the dock and was preoccupied with water sampling); 15 (except second and fourth sentences); 16 (first sentence); 17; 19 (first and second sentences); 25; 29-32 (except first sentence of Paragraph 30); 35; 36 (except first sentence); 38 (first sentence and last clause implying the need to control erosion to protect water quality); 40; and 43-44. Rejected as recitation of evidence: (second and fourth sentences). Rejected as irrelevant: (second through fourth sentences) and 19 (third sentence--there is no safe harbor forproposed projects whose effects would degrade ambient water quality, but still leave the waters in good condition--and last sentence). Rejected as unnecessary: 19 (last sentence as to benzene); 21-23 (except that the facts of this case, such as the quick elimination of benzene from the water and the proximity of sampling to boat periods of numerous boat launches and no rain, suggest that gasoline-powered boats, not stormwater, are responsible for most of the benzene finding its way into Lake Down); 24-25; and 45. Rejected as subordinate: 20. Rejected as repetitious: 36 (first sentence). Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Windermere Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-14 (except last sentence of Paragraph 11); 18-19; 26 (first and last sentences); 28 (first three sentences through "not be floating" and third and second to last sentences, although the prospect of either DER or orange County interpreting Special Condition 7 as requiring the closure of the entire facility for significant periods of time is highly remote); 33-34; 35 (as to intention to construct crosswalk); 38; 40 (first three sentences); 42 (first three sentences); 46 (first sentence); 49 (second sentence); 50 (except second sentence); 51 (first sentence); 52 (except last sentence); 54-57; 59 (first two sentences)-61 (except for final sentences in Paragraphs 60, as to benzene, and 61); 62; 65 (last sentence); and 67. Rejected as subordinate: 11 (last sentence); 15-17; 21-25; 27; 28 (all sentences not adopted in whole); 29-32; 35 (except as to intention to construct crosswalk); 36-37; 39; 40 (last sentence); 42 (last three sentences); 43-45; 46 (fourth sentence); 48; 49 (third and fourth sentences); 63; 65 (except last sentence); and 68-71. Rejected as irrelevant: 16; 20; 22; 49 (first sentence); and 53. Rejected as recitation of evidence: 26 (all but first and last sentences); 31; 35 (except as to intention to construct crosswalk); 41; 44-45; and 46 (second and third sentences). Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 28 (portion of third sentence following "not be floating"; Orange County's position as to the meaning of Special Condition 7 did not emerge from the record, largely because of an apparent lack of detailed understanding of the impact upon the submerged bottoms of particular water elevations in terms of dock dredging and prop dredging); 50 (second sentence); 51 (second sentence); 64; and 66. Rejected as unnecessary: 47; 52 (last sentence); 58-59 (last two sentences); 60 (as to benzene); and 61. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Rosser and Grice Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-39 (as to Paragraph 18, the only navigable connection and, as to Paragraph 19, the surface elevation); 45; 51 (at least as to desirability); 57 (except first sentence); 58; 59; 61-64 (except last sentence of Paragraph 64); 66 (second sentence); 68-69; 74 (fourth sentence); 75-76; 80-81; 83; 86; 88; 89 (the specific elevations have been discussed in detail in the order); 94; 96; 97; and 102. Rejected as irrelevant: 40-42; 52-55; 70-72; 74 (third and last sentences); 77-78; 84; 90; 101; and 103. Rejected as subordinate: 43-44; 46-50; 53-55; 57 (first sentence); 60; 73-74 (first and second sentences); 82 (first sentence); 85; 99-100; and 104-05. Rejected as unnecessary: 56; 59; 64 (last sentence)-66 (first sentence); 91-92; 95; and 98. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 67; 82 (second sentence); 87; and 93. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. Maclaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Joel D. Prinsell, Assistant County Attorney Eugene Legette, Assistant County Attorney Orange County Legal Department P.O. Box 1393 Orlando, FL 32802-1393 J. Christy Wilson, III Brigham, Moore, et al. 111 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1575 Orlando, FL 32801 J. Stephen McDonald John M. Robertson Robertson, Williams, et al. 538 East Washington Street Orlando, FL 32801 Robert W. Williams P.O. Box 247 Windermere, FL 34786 Carl D. Patterson, Jr. 219 Third Avenue Windermere, FL 34786
Findings Of Fact This cause commenced upon the filing of an application (#440816855) by William O. Reynolds to construct a weedgate and fence in front of a dead-end canal in Bogie Channel serving the Atlantis Estates Subdivision on Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The proposed project would be constructed in Class III waters of the State of Florida. An existing unpermitted weedgate exists in this location and the applicants for the proposed project are attempting to obtain a proper permit for a modified version of the existing gate. Applicants for the proposed project are property owners in the Atlantis Estates Subdivision, whose properties are adjacent to the canal in front of which the proposed weedgate and fence are to be located. An ad hoc committee of certain of the Atlantis Estates Subdivision owners had met and decided to proceed with an application for the proposed project. However, not all subdivision landowners agreed with the proposed project, most specifically the Petitioners Margaret and J. A. Abbanat. William Reynolds signed and submitted the application for the project, and indicated in a notarized affidavit in tie application that he was acting as agent for property owners in the Atlantis Estates Subdivision. Reynolds is one of those property owners, specifically lot #17. There are 26 lots adjoining the dead-end canal. At hearing, twenty (20) of the property owners indicated their support for the project by submission of notarized statements. The members of the ad hoc committee and the vast majority of property owners authorized and supported the project and the filing of the application by Reynolds. The permit application for the proposed weedgate and fence was submitted due to the problems caused by dead floating sea grasses and weeds (wrack) collecting in the Atlantis Estates Subdivision canal. Wrack has collected in large quantities in the canal in the past, and at such times problems such as stench, difficulty in navigation, and fish kills have occurred. Accumulated wrack in dead-end canals can cause water quality problems, including fish kills, and may also negatively affect navigation in the canal. Wrack is likely to collect in the Atlantis Estates Subdivision canal due to its dead-end configuration and due to its location, since the open end of the canal faces the east and the prevailing winds in this area are from the east. The weedgate and fence should cause no state water quality violations, should not unreasonably interfere with navigation where it is located at the mouth of the canal, and should actually improve water quality and navigation within the canal. Water quality outside of the weedgate and fence should not be significantly decreased since the winds, tides, and currents should allow the wrack to drift away into open water and not accumulate, especially not to the extent the wrack would accumulate in the canal. According to a proposed DER permit condition, the weedgate and fence must not cause a state water quality violation, and therefore if a water quality violation were caused by the project in waters outside the weedgate and fence, enforcement action would be required to correct the problem. If the weedgate and fence becomes a navigational hazard, it is to be removed according to a proposed DER permit condition. The application was not certified by a Professional Engineer. The Department's South Florida District Office did not seek such a certification from the applicant. The proposed project consists of a stainless steel framework with vinyl covered wire fence to prevent wreck from drifting into the canal and a gate through the fence constructed of the same type of materials with a cable and counter weight system for opening and closing the gate. As proposed, the weedgate and fence should not create a navigational hazard, but should that occur, the proposed DER permit condition would require removal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation grant the application and issue the permit subject to the following conditions: That the weedgate and fence be removed if at anytime a navigational hazard develops or the structure fall into disrepair. That the weedgate and fence must not cause a state water quality violation outside of the fence and if such water quality violations were caused by the project in water outside the weedgate and fence, enforcement action would follow. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 8th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. and Margaret M. Abbanat 5561 SW Third Court Plantation, Florida 33317 William O. Reynolds Route 1, Box 661-E Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire 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 in this case are whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should modify the conditions of permits held by the Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., d/b/a Deep Lagoon Marina (Applicant), to allow Applicant to construct and operate a boat travel lift in a new location at the marina and to substitute a 60-foot wide flushing channel required by the prior permits with two-48 inches box culverts.
Findings Of Fact Applicant owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina (the Marina). The Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. The Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. The Marina is on Deep Lagoon, a Class III surface water body less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove- lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns at least the uplands and claims ownership of the submerged bottoms of the canals. The parties have stipulated that ownership of the submerged bottoms of the canals is not being litigated or decided in this proceeding and that, subject to the issue's being decided adverse to the Applicant in other proceedings, sufficient ownership is presumed for purposes of this proceeding. From north to south, the Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Petitioner, Brenda Sheridan, resides at 842 Cal Cove Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, which is on the shores of the Caloosahatchee River at Deep Lagoon, just across the south canal from the Marina. Intervenor, Save the Manatee Club (STMC), is a non- profit Florida corporation with approximately 40,000 members. The organization's stated purpose includes protecting the manatee and its habitat through public awareness efforts, research support and advocacy, which activities benefit manatees, STMC, and its members. The Florida Legislature has recognized STMC's substantial interest in manatee protection by designating it a member of the manatee protection committee provided by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act at paragraph 370.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, and by requiring the state to solicit recommendations from STMC regarding the use of Save the Manatee Trust Fund monies, at Section 370.12(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Numerous members of STMC reside within Lee County, where they observe, study, photograph, and actively attempt to protect manatees from collisions with watercraft. These efforts benefit manatees and provide STMC's members with educational and recreational benefits in the waters of Lee County that would be affected by the proposed activity. STMC has expended substantial resources in advocating increased legal protection of manatees in Lee County, including additional boat speed regulations on the Caloosahatchee River. STMC has also constributed funds for the rescue and rehabilitation of manatees exposed to red tide in Lee County waters. Injury, mortality, and loss of important habitat would produce significant, adverse impacts to the manatee, thereby diminishing the ability of STMC's members to observe, study, and enjoy manatees in waters that would be affected by the proposed activity and frustrating STMC's efforts to preserve and protect manatees in Lee County. Permit History On December 9, 1986,, Applicant's predecessor in title applied to DEP's predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), for a dredge and fill permit to rehabilitate the 61 existing wet slips at the Marina and add 113 new wet slips. Because Deep Lagoon violated Class III water quality standards, and there was concern for the West Indian manatee, a listed endangered species which uses the waters in and around Deep Lagoon, DER placed conditions on the permit and gave notice of intent to grant the permit, with conditions, on July 26, 1988. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the permit, and formal administrative proceedings were conducted, culminating in a final order on August 24, 1989, approving the permit, with additional conditions, and certifying under the federal Clean Water Act that state water quality standards were met because there would be a net improvement in water quality of the poorly-flushed canals. Sheridan, et al. v. Deep Lagoon Marina and Dept. of Environmental Reg., 11 F.A.L.R. 4710 (DER 1989). Wetland Resource Permit 361279929, incorporating all of the conditions, was issued on September 22, 1989, for construction and operation of the project for five years (the 1989 Permit). Petitioner and the others appealed the final order. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the 1989 Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DER's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following proceedings on remand, DER entered Final Order on Remand on April 10, 1992, which revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341, as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Sheridan, et al. v. Deep Lagoon Marina and Dept. of Environmental Reg., 14 F.A.L.R. 2187 (DER 1992). The 1989 Permit expired on September 22, 1994, but Environmental Resource Permit 362504599 was issued on October 9, 1995, essentially extending the 1989 Permit conditions for ten years, to October 9, 2005. Minor modifications were approved on November 17, 1995, March 26, 1997, and April 15, 1997. Environmental Resource Permit 362504599, with all conditions and subsequent modifications, is referred to as the 1995 Permit. Permit Conditions In general, the 1995 Permit authorizes the owner of the Marina: to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The 1995 Permit authorized activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposed several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among them, Specific Condition 5 stated in pertinent part: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addressed the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provided in pertinent part: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. Specific Condition 11 added: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 required the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibited live-aboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 added various manatee-protection provisions. Applicant's DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Specific Condition 5 of the 1995 Permit, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter described the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assured that Applicant's contractor would use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advised that the contractor would unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter stated that the dredging would "be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the 1995 Permit, and would be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [1995 Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divided the dredging into two areas. (For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals and then replace these materials with clean backfill material, as already authorized in the 1995 Permit.) For 4.84 acres, which ran through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated its determination that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement to obtain an ERP. The letter warned that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter added that DEP could revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provided a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Petitioner challenged the exempt status of the maintenance dredging, and STMC intervened in support of the challenge, which was referred to DOAH and given DOAH Case No. 98-3901. But Applicant's contractor proceeded during the pendency of the challenges and completed the maintenance dredging in the three canals. (Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the 1995 Permit.) On November 5, 1998, DEP gave notice of intent to issue the ERP for the surface water management system and certify compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code, Section 1341. Petitioner filed a challenge on December 8, 1998, and the matter was referred to DOAH, where it was given DOAH Case No. 98-5409. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the 1989 Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification, consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 were pending when Applicant sought the modifications to the conditions of the 1995 Permit which are the subject of this case (DOAH Case No. 99- 2234). DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 were consolidated and heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert E. Meale on February 11 and May 3-4, 1999. On November 24, 1999, ALJ Meale entered a Recommended Order recommending a final order revoking DEP's determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the ERP in DOAH Case No. 98- 5409. The recommendation to deny the ERP in DOAH Case No. 98- 5409 was based on findings and conclusions: (1) that Applicant had not provided reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the proposed surface water management system would result in a "net improvement" in water quality; and (2) that the direct and secondary impacts of the construction and operation of the system would adversely affect the West Indian manatee. Water Quality As indicated in relating the permitting history of this site, water quality in the waters of the Marina has been poor. See Findings 10 and 12, supra. ALJ Meale recently found in his Recommended Order on Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 as follows: The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one- day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. In this case, the parties stipulated that the waters of Deep Lagoon and the Marina are Class III marine waters that do not meet Florida water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria. They also stipulated that there were violations in 1987 for oil and greases (20 times standard), fecal coliform (too numerous to count), lead (20 times standard), cadmium (ten times standard), mercury (1,000 times standard), biological diversity, and tributytin (150 times standard) (although DEP and Applicant do not think the 1987 data are relevant). Data collected in 1987 showed average flushing time in the north canal to be 183 hours (tidal prism method), 90.5 hours (current velocity), and 50 hours (dye concentration reduction method). Data collected in 1987 showed average flushing time in the main basin to be 208 hours (tidal prism method), 48 hours (current velocity), and 154 hours (dye concentration reduction method). Manatees The parties stipulated that Lee County is a heavy use area for the West Indian Manatee and that manatees use the water south of Deep Lagoon and the Caloosahatchee River on a year-round basis. ALJ Meale recently found in his Recommended Order on Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 as follows: The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. It is clear that manatees frequent Deep Lagoon near the mouth of the north canal. There are seagrass beds there to serve as a food source, and freshwater from the Iona Drainage District ditch discharges in that area. The evidence in this case includes testimony and numerous photographs of manatees not only in that vicinity but up to 200 feet into the north canal. While there are no seagrass beds in the north canal itself, freshwater from the Iona Drainage District ditch discharges into the north canal all along the length of mangrove fringe on the north shore of the canal. It is not clear how much further up the north canal manatees go, but they probably frequently continue further into the north canal since one primary attraction of the north canal for manatees at this time is its relative quiet and peacefulness. Manatees also make some use of the central and south canals of the Marina, but they seem to prefer the north canal for its peacefulness and for the fresh water supply from the Iona Drainage District ditch. The Florida Department of Transportation recently has constructed a retention pond for MacGregor Boulevard in the vicinity of the Marina which will discharge fresh water into the main basin of the central canal. This may make the central canal more attractive to manatees than it is at this time, notwithstanding the relatively high level of boating-related activity there. New Boat Travel Lift The Marina's existing boat travel lift is located in the main basin of the central canal. There also are the remnants of an older travel lift operation at the western end of the central peninsula extending into Deep Lagoon. Applicant proposes to construct and use a new boat travel lift at the eastern terminus of the north canal. The proposed location of the new travel lift will be closer to the approved location of a new service center building. A travel lift essentially consists of a heavy-duty, U-shaped frame which is built on wheels and motorized for mobility. Heavy-duty straps are suspended from the frame using pulley systems. The travel lift is driven out over water on specially-built tracks so the straps can be placed underneath large vessels (over 40 feet) and tightened using the pulleys to secure the vessels; the travel lift is then driven off the tracks, and the vessels are transported to a dry storage or repair location, where the vessels are lowered, and the straps are removed. The process essentially is reversed to return vessels to the water. The direct impact of construction of the new boat travel lift involves removal of some mangroves existing at the terminus of the north canal and sinking pilings to support the tracks extending into the water on which the travel lift operates. Applicant proposes to mitigate the mangrove impacts by filling areas on either side of the proposed travel lift to just above the mean-high waterline and planting the areas with mangroves. Not only will this be a net increase the amount of mangrove fringe, the decrease in water depth at the east end of the north canal also will improve flushing of the canal to some extent. Applicant also proposes to remove exotic plants all along the shoreline of the Marina's canals for the life of the Marina. It is the Marina's intent to use the travel lift only for vessels too large to be lifted by forklifts operated at the main basin of the central canal. The Marina is purchasing new, larger (37,000 pound) forklifts (compared to the 10,000 pound forklifts currently in use), which can lift vessels up to approximately 42 feet long. Use of the larger forklifts will reduce the use of the travel lift. At this time, there is no proposed specific condition to limit use to the travel lift to vessels too large to be lifted by the new forklifts. New Specific Condition 33 in the proposed permit modifications provides: "Launching of vessels from the dry storage facilities shall be prohibited in the north canal at the site." New Specific Condition 34 in the proposed permit modifications provides in part: "Launching and retrieval of vessels in the north canal shall be restricted to vessels stored/moored at the marina facility that require boat repair." New Specific Condition 34 also would require Applicant to maintain logs for the travel lift and boat repairs to allow DEP to verify compliance by comparing the two logs. There was some disagreement as to the intent of the quoted proposed new specific conditions. A DEP witness thought it meant that the Marina only could use the travel lift for repair of vessels permanently moored at the Marina, but the Marina's representative did not think the language would prohibit the repair of other vessels as well. Assuming that vessels not permanently moored at the Marina will be accepted for repairs, and that only vessels too large for the new forklifts will use the new travel lift, it can be anticipated that an average of 6-10 vessels a week will use the travel lift for retrieval from the water and discharge back to the water. To some extent, use of the travel lift is limited by the average time it takes to use the lift. But considering only those limitations, it is possible use the lift as many as 19 times in a day in an emergency--e.g., when a hurricane is approaching, and the Marina is trying to get as many boats out of the water as possible. On average, use of the travel lift also will be limited by market conditions and the capacity of the new service center to store and repair large vessels. More than half of the average use of 6-10 vessels a week probably will occur on Fridays (for repairs before peak weekend boating) and Mondays (for repairs after the weekend peak). At this time, there is no proposed specific condition to limit use of the new travel lift. But at final hearing, the Marina expressed its willingness to accept a limit of an average of ten vessels a week. (Counting retrieval from the water and discharge back to the water for each vessel, the agreed limit would be an average of 20 uses of the travel lift a week). The Marina was not willing to accept a daily limit. Secondary impacts from such a limited use of the proposed new travel lift on water quality and manatees are difficult to assess precisely. The travel lift itself uses some form of lubrication, but only the straps enter the water during operation. Historically, vessels have been pressure-washed and had their bilges and engines flushed while on the existing travel lift in the main basin of the central canal at the Marina, and wash-water from these operations has entered the main basin at that location. Wash-water from such operations at the proposed new travel lift location would enter the north canal, subject to the construction and operation of an adequate surface water management system, as required by Specific Condition 5.C. of the 1995 Permit. Cf. DOAH Case No. 98-5409, supra. It is possible that vessels in need of repair entering the north canal and proceeding to the proposed new travel lift location (whether under power or being towed) could leak oil or gasoline. Both contaminants would rise to the surface. Leaked gasoline and the more volatile components of oil could be expected to evaporate relatively quickly; the residue of oil contamination would be persistent. Such spills would affect water quality and could affect manatees drinking fresher water from the surface of the north canal. There was no evidence from which to predict or quantify such impacts. It would be possible for manatees to be injured by vessels using the proposed new travel lift. Although such vessels would be traveling at low speed (1-2 mile per hour), maneuvering such large vessels in close quarters like the north canal sometimes is accomplished by intermittent bursts of high engine and propeller speeds, both in forward and reverse gears. Such operations could cause a vessel to lurch in the direction of a manatee; if done in reverse gear, a manatee could be sucked into the speeding propellers. It also is possible for a manatee to be crushed against the bottom or against a structure of the Marina facility during such operations. Despite the possibility of injury to manatees from use of the new proposed travel lift, it is clear that most manatee injuries and deaths from boat collisions occur as a result of propeller injuries from boats being operated at high-speed. Manatees are known to frequent and safely use marinas where large vessels operate at low speed. The risk of danger to manatees from use of the proposed new travel lift can be characterized as being minimal if not speculative, especially in view of the manatee protections in Specific Condition 15 of the 1995 Permit. Initially, DEP misunderstood the nature of the proposed new travel lift, thinking it would greatly increase boat traffic in the north canal. When the minor impact of the project was explained, DEP's concerns were allayed. Greater risk of danger to manatees would occur from the addition of wet slips in the north canal, but those impacts are not secondary to the travel lift proposal; they are completely separate impacts that are governed by the pre-existing 1995 Permit. Petitioner and Intervenor were critical of the absence of a specific condition for the daily logs to be presented to DEP for inspection on a regular basis. See Finding 42, supra. They contended that absence of such a requirement would compromise compliance enforcement. But DEP inspection of the logs at times of its own choosing could be just as effective. The key to enforcement is having an enforceable specific condition limiting use of the travel lift. Petitioner and Intervenor also were critical of using a simple weekly average to limit use of the new travel lift. They correctly argue that the time over which the weekly average would be computed must be designated for such a use limitation to be enforceable. They also contend that there should be a daily limit. Assuming a weekly average limitation of ten, a daily limit of ten would not be unreasonable if it allowed leeway to exceed the daily limit in cases of emergencies such as approaching hurricanes. Replacing Flushing Channel with Culverts Applicant's proposal to replace the 60 foot by 4.5 foot-deep flushing channel with two 48-inch culverts is motivated by practical considerations. Applicant essentially wishes to avoid the expense of constructing the channel required under the 1995 Permit and having to bridge the channel to make use of the peninsula between the central and north canals. Part of the Marina's initial motivation for the channel was to expand operations and allow access to the north canal from the main basin. Part of the channel was to have been used by the Marina as a new forklift area with access to boat storage areas on both sides of the channel. In the 1989 Permit, it was stated that the channel was "to act as a sediment sump." It was not until the 1995 Permit that the channel was said to serve to "improve flushing." Most of the "net improvement" of water quality at the Marina was to come from proposed contamination dredging of the canals (and backfilling with clean sand), removal of contaminated soil from Marina uplands, installation of a redesigned boat-wash area, and installation of an adequate surface water management system. Most flushing benefits were anticipated to come from making the canals shallower by back-filling after dredging. Flushing from the channel was presented as "frosting" on the "net improvement cake." The hydrographic evidence was that the channel, in conjunction with back-filling the Marina's canals, would indeed increase flushing of the Marina's canals to some extent. Looking at the main basin only, the channel would improve flushing by up to 27 percent. But looking at the Marina's canals overall, the channel would only increase flushing by up to 0.6 percent. By comparison, the hydrographic evidence was that the proposed flushing culverts also would contribute to increased flushing but by a smaller amount. Looking at the main basin only, the proposed flushing culverts would improve flushing by up to 4 percent. Looking at the Marina's canals overall, the proposed flushing canal would only increase flushing by up to 0.2 percent. Petitioner and Intervenor question the reliability of Applicant's calculations of flushing times without more up-to- date data on the depths of the canals after contamination and maintenance dredging. But the evidence was that differences in the starting depths would not have a significant effect on the relative changes in flushing times from the channel versus the culverts; the differences would be approximately proportional regardless of the starting depths. In addition, the depths assumed in Applicant's calculations are based on the 1987 data and the requirements of the 1995 Permit. Compliance with the requirements of maintenance dredging and the 1995 Permit can be enforced, if necessary, in other proceedings. See, e.g., DOAH Case No. 98-3901, as to maintenance dredging. Applicant's calculations on flushing times do not account for the possibility of an additional benefit from the proposed flushing culverts. Applicant proposes to locate the culvert inverts at a depth of 6 feet. If a greater salinity gradient exists at that depth, the culverts would have a relative advantage over a 4.5 foot-deep channel in terms of flushing and the exchange of more oxygenated water between the north canal and the main basin. The existence of such a salinity gradient is suggested by data collected in 1997. But salinity gradients are not constant, and water samples were collected only during one 24- hour period in May 1997 and another 24-hour period in September 1997. In addition, no data has been collected after the maintenance and contamination dredging. The sampling in this case was too limited to give reasonable assurance that the proposed flushing culverts would have advantages over the required channel in promoting of flushing. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that changing the open channel to closed culverts would decrease the benefit of oxygen exchange in an open-channel system. It is true that, generally, more oxygen would be introduced in an open system. But the evidence was that none of the "net improvement" to water quality from the specific conditions to the 1995 Permit was anticipated to derive from increases in dissolved oxygen from oxygen exchange in the channel. Conversely, Applicant contended that the proposed culverts would decrease the chances of contamination from the uplands, as compared to an open channel. But there was no specific evidence to support or quantify this speculative benefit. In addition, required improvements in surface water management at the Marina would reduce any such benefits from the culverts. See, Specific Condition 5.B. and DOAH Case No. 98-5409. Approximately 60 feet of mangrove fringe would have to be removed from the north canal to accommodate a flushing channel. In contrast, only approximately 8 feet of mangrove fringe would have to be removed to accommodate the proposed culverts. But there was no evidence as to how removing less of the mangrove fringe would improve flushing or water quality. In addition, Specific Condition 12 of the 1995 Permit required replacement of the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. There was no evidence that installation of flushing culverts instead of the flushing channel required under the 1995 Permit would have any impact on manatees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: granting Applicant's proposed modifications to the 1995 Permit, with the following additional modifications: No use of the new travel lift for boats less than 40 foot in length except in emergencies, e.g., approaching hurricane. Limitation on use of travel lift to a 28- day rolling average of ten vessels a week, except in emergencies, e.g., approaching hurricane. Prohibition against pressure-washing and flushing bilges and engines of vessels on the new travel lift except in the boat wash area to be constructed and operated in accordance with Specific Condition 15 of the 1995 Permit. A requirement to report and promptly clean-up any spills of oil or gasoline in the north canal related to operation of the new travel lift. waiving certification as a precondition to federal permitting under 33 United States Code, Section 1341. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: T. Elaine Holmes, Esquire 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman, Esquire Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
