The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in Petitioner’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, the stipulated facts, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties and the Events of August 24, 2019 The Department is the state agency charged with encouraging the development of aquaculture3 in Florida. § 597.003(1), Fla. Stat. “When any qualified person desires to lease a part of the bottom, water column, or bed of any [state waters] for the purpose of growing oysters or clams . . . , he or she shall present to [the Department] a written application ” § 597.010(1), Fla. Stat. Mr. Lee and his father, Robert J. Lee, jointly hold Aquaculture Certificate of Registration No. AQ1529074. On January 5, 2016, they applied to the Department for a state owned submerged land aquaculture lease in the 2 Petitioner’s Exhibit G is a flash drive containing video footage of Officer Travis’s traffic stop and subsequent arrest of Mr. Lee. 3 Section 597.0015(1), defines “aquaculture” as “the cultivation of aquatic organisms.” Section 597.0015(3), defines “aquaculture products” as “aquatic organisms and any product derived from aquatic organisms that are owned and propagated, grown, or produced under controlled conditions.” vicinity of Alligator Harbor in Franklin County, Florida. The lease was to be used for the commercial cultivation of oysters and clams. The Department issued a ten-year lease, Sovereignty Submerged Land Aquaculture Lease No. 19-AQ-1465, to Mr. Lee and his father on February 3, 2016. One provision therein required the lessee to be bound by the current and future versions of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Another provision stated that a violation of chapter 597 and/or chapter 5L-1 “may be cause for this lease to be terminated without further notice to the lessee and shall result in the forfeiture to lessor of the works, improvements, and shellfish in and upon the leased premises.” On June 15, 2017, Mr. Lee pled nolo contendere to several charges filed in Franklin County, Florida. Two of the aforementioned charges pertained to the criminal offenses of possessing untagged and undersized oysters, and Mr. Lee was adjudicated guilty of all charges. At approximately 3:00 a.m., on August 24, 2019, Officer David Travis of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission was on patrol in Carrabelle, Florida, and traveling west on US-98, 25 miles from Alligator Harbor. He observed a Chevrolet Tahoe pulling a boat4 that had no trailer lights. A Ford Fusion was closely following the Tahoe. Officer Travis then made a U-turn in order to initiate a traffic stop based on the lack of trailer lights and the failure of both vehicles to use their blinkers prior to making two turns. Mr. Lee was driving the Fusion, and a friend of Mr. Lee’s was driving the Tahoe. Upon inspecting the boat, Officer Travis saw four untagged baskets, one blue and three orange. The blue basket was completely full with at least 40 4 The boat was registered to Mr. Lee’s father. pounds of unculled5 oysters. The orange baskets were approximately the same size as the blue basket, and two of the orange baskets were at least 75 percent full with unculled oysters. The third orange basket contained 15 to 20 culled oysters. The boat and the contents therein were wet. Officer Travis found multiple pairs of wet gloves and one pair of wet socks inside a yellow oyster sack at the boat’s stern. At the bow, he found several casting nets that were soaking wet and containing fresh grass, mud, sand, and live crustaceans. Officer Travis also found a mullet in a cooler that appeared to have been recently caught. During an inspection of the Tahoe, Officer Travis found a large, white cooler with a large quantity of culled oysters in a bed of ice. According to Mr. Lee, those oysters were harvested from his Alligator Harbor lease on August 22, 2019, and were intended for personal consumption. Mr. Lee told Officer Travis during the traffic stop that he had taken the oysters described in paragraph 6 from his lease in Alligator Harbor on August 23, 2019, between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Lee further stated to Officer Travis that he had transported the oysters at issue to his girlfriend’s house in Carrabelle where he had begun to cull some of them. According to Mr. Lee, he and his girlfriend had gotten into an argument, and Mr. Lee decided to take the oysters to his father’s home in order to finish culling them. Mr. Lee and his friend were supposedly driving to Robert J. Lee’s home when Officer Travis pulled them over. Officer Travis arrested Mr. Lee and his friend. Ultimate Findings Count I of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee violated rule 5L-1.007(2) on approximately 5 Wild oysters commonly grow together in clumps. “Culling” refers to the process by which wild oysters are separated from each other. The term can also encompass the cleaning, grading, and sorting of oysters. August 23, 2019, by failing to label containers holding oysters. Neither Officer Travis’s arrest report nor his testimony mentioned any tags on the baskets in the boat or the cooler in the Tahoe. Also, no tags are visible during the footage from Officer Travis’s body camera. While Mr. Lee testified that he had a bulk tag that applied to all of the containers at issue, the undersigned does not find Mr. Lee’s testimony to be credible. Accordingly, the Department proved Count I by clear and convincing evidence. Count II of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee failed to timely deliver oysters to a certified processing facility on approximately August 23, 2019, as required by rule 5L- 1.008(7). The aforementioned rule requires that “shellfish shall be harvested between sunrise and sunset as established by the U.S. Weather Service.” As noted above, Officer Travis observed that the contents inside the boat were wet and fresh, and that evidence convincingly undermines Mr. Lee’s assertion that the oysters at issue were harvested on August 23, 2019, prior to 6:00 p.m. While Mr. Lee asserted that the oysters in question were intended for personal consumption rather than for sale, that assertion is undermined by the large number of oysters Officer Travis observed in the boat during the August 24, 2019, traffic stop. Therefore, the Department proved Count II by clear and convincing evidence. Count III of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee violated rule 5L-3.004 on approximately August 23, 2019, by attempting to transport oysters to a private residence for sorting and washing rather than performing those activities over his lease. As noted above, Officer Travis observed a large quantity of unculled oysters during the traffic stop. Those oysters had not been sorted and washed over Mr. Lee’s lease. Also, the allegation in Count III is consistent with what Mr. Lee told Officer Travis during the traffic stop. Accordingly, the Department proved Count III by clear and convincing evidence. Count IV of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee violated rules 5L-1.008(5)(a) and 5L- 3.007(8)(c) in December of 2018 by harvesting and replanting wild shellfish stock on the submerged lands of his lease. However, the Department presented no clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Lee violated rules 5L- 1.008(5)(a) and 5L-3.007(8)(c). Count V of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee was convicted on June 15, 2017, of possessing untagged oysters in violation of section 597.0041(4). As noted above, Mr. Lee was adjudicated guilty on June 15, 2017, of possessing untagged and undersized oysters. The Department thus proved Count V by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department impose a cumulative fine of $4,000.00 ($1,000.00 each) for Counts I through III and V. The undersigned also recommends that Aquaculture Certificate of Registration No. AQ1529074, jointly held by Mr. Lee and his father, be revoked. Finally, the undersigned recommends that Sovereignty Submerged Land Aquaculture Lease No. 19- AQ-1465 be terminated with Mr. Lee forfeiting all works, improvements, and shellfish in and upon the lease premises.6 6 Mr. Lee argued that his father’s interest in the Certificate of Registration and the lease at Alligator Harbor should not be extinguished because his father had no involvement with Mr. Lee’s violations. However, Mr. Lee offered no authority to support his argument, and the undersigned’s independent research did not find anything to support Mr. Lee’s position. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Kevin Lee Post Office Box 28 Carrabelle, Florida 32322 Darby G. Shaw, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Allan J. Charles, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Stephen M. James, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 531 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Steven Hall, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 (eServed) Honorable Nicole “Nikki” Fried Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This case involves a challenge by petitioners, Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., Seafood Consumers and Producers Association, Inc., Glen Black, Ronald E. Black, Henry Crane, Dewey Destin, Cecil Lane, Denise Leek, Gerald Pack, Harold Raffield, Richard Van Munster, D. W. Wilson, Tim Adams, Johnnie Clopton, Geoffery Cox, Mike Davis, Ronnie Day, Tim Dixon, Bob Gill, Tim Gerz, Tim Goodrich, and Mark Taylor (petitioners), to the validity of certain changes to forty-seven rules proposed by respondent, Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC or agency). According to paragraphs 5 through 27 of their amended petition, which are not contested, petitioners are incorporated associations of commercial fishermen, fish processors, fish dealers, fish brokers, seafood restaurants and retailers, as well as individual commercial fishermen, fish and bait dealers, owners of seafood unloading facilities, processors, packers and producers, all of whom are substantially affected by the proposed rules. As such, they have standing to bring this action. The changes being proposed by the MFC affect various rules in Chapters 46-3, 46-4, 46-23, 46-24, 46-36, 46-37, 46-39, 46-42 and 46-43, Florida Administrative Code. The rule changes were proposed as a result of the adoption by the electorate on November 8, 1994, of Article X, Section 16 to the State Constitution. That section generally (a) prohibits the use of gill or entangling nets to take marine animals, and (b) places limitations on other nets in nearshore and inshore Florida waters. The amendment becomes effective July 1, 1995. On December 30, 1994, the agency published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly (FAW) of its intent to adopt new rules, amend certain rules, and repeal all or portions of other existing rules. Claiming that these changes were invalid on a variety of statutory grounds, petitioners filed a petition to invalidate proposed rules on January 20, 1995. On March 3, 1995, a notice of changes to proposed rules was published in the FAW advising that, "based on written comment and public testimony" given at public hearings, further changes, albeit minor, were being made to rules 46- 3.008, 46-3.029, 46-4-001, 46-4.002, 46-4.004, 46-4.005, 46-23.003, 46-36.002, 46-37.002, 46-37.006, 46-39.002, 46-42.007, and 46-43.005. By virtue of these changes, petitioners were authorized to file an amended petition which contains essentially the same contentions as were previously pled. They include allegations that the rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because (a) the MFC failed to materially follow the applicable rulemaking procedures in Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes, by failing to provide them a copy of the Economic Impact Statement (EIS) on each of the rules at least 14 days prior to the public hearing, (b) the MFC failed to materially follow the procedures in Rule 46-1.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, by not allowing public testimony at the final rule adoption hearing, (c) the proposed rules have no foundation in statutory law but rather are derived from the Florida Constitution and thus exceed the MFC's delegated legislative authority, (d) the proposed rules are arbitrary and capricious because they are based on law enforcement considerations and lack scientific certainty, (e) the rules conflict with the law implemented, and (f) as to twelve of the rules, the MFC failed to materially follow an applicable rulemaking procedure in Rule 46- 1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that, before amending or repealing any rule derived from local laws, a public hearing be held in each affected county. In conjunction with their claims that the rules exceed the agency's rulemaking authority or are arbitrary and capricious because of law enforcement considerations, petitioners have rarely cited the specific language in the rules that they wish to be invalidated. Rather, they suggest that the entire rule is invalid. Therefore, the undersigned has been forced to undertake the tedious and difficult task of attempting to identify the allegedly offensive language in each of the challenged rules. Where the offending language cannot be readily identified, or speculation is required to identify that language, the contention has been rejected. The Rules and Their Genesis As noted above, on November 8, 1994, the electorate adopted Article X, Section 16 of the Florida Constitution. The new section, which is entitled "Limiting Marine Net Fishing," has a stated purpose of "enact(ing) limitations on marine net fishing in Florida waters to protect saltwater finfish, shellfish, and other marine animals from unnecessary killing, overfishing, and waste." More specifically, subsection (b) of section 16 provides as follows: (b) For the purpose of catching or taking any saltwater finfish, shellfish, or other marine animals in Florida Waters: No gill nets or other entangling nets shall be used in any Florida waters; and In addition to the prohibition set forth in 1., no other type of net containing more than 500 square feet of mesh area shall be used in nearshore and inshore Florida waters. Additionally, no more than two such nets, which shall not be connected, shall be used from any vessel, and no person not on a vessel shall use more than one such net in nearshore and inshore Florida waters. Paragraphs 1.- 5. of subsection (c) go on to define the terms "gill net," "mesh area," "coastline," "Florida waters" and "nearshore and inshore Florida waters," while subsection (d) exempts from the application of the provision the "use of nets for scientific research or governmental purposes." Subsection (f) provides that "implementing legislation is not required for enforcing any violations hereof," and that "nothing in this section prohibits the establishment by law or pursuant to law of more restrictions on the use of nets for the purpose of catching or taking any saltwater finfish, shellfish, or other marine animals." Consistent with subsection (f), the legislature has not enacted any implementing legislation for the purpose of enforcing the new amendment. Also, the MFC has cited a proposed effective date for the rules of July 1, 1995, which coincides with the effective date of the new amendment. In the notice published in the FAW, the MFC stated that "the constitutional provision effectively changes the direction of marine fisheries regulation in the state." In general terms, the MFC proposed the numerous changes, additions and repeal of rules to conform the rules "to this new direction," to remove the provisions that were obsolete or in conflict with the new constitutional provision, and to enhance its ability to enforce the new amendment. According to the MFC's executive director, the constitututional amendment "will have a very significant impact on the historical means and methods of commercial, . . . recreational and subsistence fishing in Florida." As specific authority for making every change, the MFC cites Subsection 370.027(2), Florida Statutes, which grants the MFC "exclusive rulemaking authority (in ten areas) relating to marine life," including gear specifications, prohibited gear, closed areas and seasons. As to the rules in chapter 46-3, the MFC also cites as rulemaking authority Section 2, Chapter 83- 134, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 84-121, Laws of Florida. For those rules being modified in chapter 46-4, the MFC additionally relies upon the new constitutional amendment. For the affected rules in chapter 46-23, the agency further identifies as its authority for rulemaking Subsection 370.01(20), Florida Statutes, which authorizes the MFC to include within the term "restricted species" such species of saltwater products as the MFC deems necessary. As the law implemented for all rule changes, the MFC cites Sections 370.025 and 370.027, Florida Statutes. The former statute generally authorizes the MFC to adopt rules to further the state policy of managing and preserving renewable marine fishery resources while the latter statute delegates to the MFC "full rulemaking authority over marine life." The MFC further cites the Florida Constitution as the law implemented for rules in chapter 46-4, and for chapter 46-3 it cites Chapters 83-134 and 84-121, Laws of Florida. In broad terms, the rule chapters in issue cover a wide range of subject matter within the MFC's regulatory jurisdiction over marine fisheries resources, including local laws which have been reenacted as rules governing marine fishing in all or parts of thirteen counties (chapter 46-3), gear specifications and prohibited gear (chapter 46-4), and regulations pertaining to the harvest of spanish mackerel (chapter 46-23), spiny lobster (crawfish) and slipper lobster (chapter 46-24), blackdrum (chapter 46-36), spotted seatrout (chapter 46-37), marine life (chapter 46-42), and bluefish (chapter 46-43). The constitutional amendment does not prohibit the possession of gill or entangling nets. Rather, it prohibits the use of such nets in Florida waters. Thus, it is still permissible for Florida fishermen to use this gear in federal waters which lie outside of Florida waters. In addition, the amendment prohibits the use of any type of net "containing more than 500 square feet of mesh area . . . in nearshore and inshore Florida waters" but contains no limitations for nets below that threshold size. Within the context of petitioners' objections, it is noted that the proposed rule amendments fall into two broad categories: those which delete obsolete or conflicting language in order to conform existing rules to the new amendment, and those which add more restrictive measures than are contained in the new amendment. While petitioners contend that all of the proposed rules are invalid, their principal attack is directed at the more restrictive amendments. For example, the latter group of rules prohibits (a) the possession of a gill net in state waters, (b) the possession of a gill or entangling net aboard a vessel in state waters at the same time a cast net is on the same vessel, (c) the use of two nets from the same vessel in nearshore and inshore waters, (d) the use of purse seine nets under 500 square feet, (e) the use of a bailer net in Volusia County, (f) the use of a trawl for any purpose other than the harvest of shrimp, and (g) the use of purse seines of any size in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. None of these activities is prohibited by the new constitutional amendment. Do the Rules Exceed the MFC's Rulemaking Authority? Petitioners contend that all of the proposed rules "have as their exclusive foundation the adoption by referendum of Art. X, Sec. 16 of the Constitution of the State of Florida," and thus they "have no foundation in the criteria established by Ch. 370.025 et seq. for the adoption of rules by the (MFC)." As a consequence, petitioners essentially contend that the MFC has exceeded its delegated legislative authority by relying upon a constitutional provision, rather than statutory law, as the source of authority for its rulemaking. At the same time, they contend that the MFC exceeded its rulemaking authority by adopting a number of rules, all containing more restrictive measures than are found in the constitutional amendment, based solely on law enforcement considerations, rather than on its statutory charge of managing and preserving renewable marine fisheries resources. Similarly, they contend that the more restrictive rules are arbitrary and capricious because they are based on law enforcement considerations. This contention, however, is dealt with in a separate part of this order. As noted earlier, the MFC cites Subsection 370.027(2), Florida Statutes, as the source of its rulemaking authority for each of the rules. That subsection vests in the MFC "exclusive rulemaking authority (in ten areas) relating to marine life," including gear specifications, prohibited gear, closed areas and seasons. For rules in chapter 46-4, the MFC has cited the new constitutional provision as an additional source of authority. Finally, as to the rules in chapter 46-3, the MFC also relies on Section 2 of Chapter 83-134, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 84-121, Laws of Authority. All of the rule changes generally pertain to the areas of gear specifications, prohibited gear, closed areas and seasons, each of which is within the "exclusive rulemaking authority" of the MFC. In this broad sense, they are derived from MFC's statutory authority under Subsection 370.027(2), Florida Statutes, and thus they arguably fall within the scope of the organic law. Petitioners contend, however, that the MFC exceeded its rulemaking authority by making law enforcement considerations a basis, at least in part, for adopting the more restrictive rules. Petitioners assert that there in nothing in Chapter 370, Florida Statutes, which allows the MFC to take into account law enforcement issues when engaging in rulemaking. In this regard, respondent concedes through testimony, as corroborated by documentation received in evidence, that the more restrictive rules were crafted for the sole purpose of "facilitat(ing) the most cost effective and efficient enforcement on the prohibition of use (of prohibited gear)." In other words, while the new amendment did not require these more restrictive terms, the MFC nonetheless proposed the rule changes in order to make the Florida Marine Patrol's (FMP) job of enforcing the ban on prohibited gear less "costly" and more "efficient." One of the statutes relied upon by the MFC as the source of its rulemaking authority is Section 370.027, Florida Statutes. Among other things, subsection (1) thereof provides that "(a)ll administrative and enforcement responsibilities which are unaffected by the specific provisions of this act continue to be the responsibility of the department (of environmental protection)," of which the FMP is a part. Although Section 370.028, Florida Statutes, provides that "any law enforcement officer certified pursuant to s. 943.13" shall have the responsibility of enforcing the rules of the MFC, it is clear that the FMP has the primary responsibility of enforcing the new restrictions imposed by the constitutional amendment. The principal statutory charge of the MFC is to manage and preserve renewable marine fisheries resources. The MFC has no specific statutory authority to enact rules solely for the purpose of allowing more "cost- efficient, effective" enforcement of its regulations by another agency, and its executive director readily acknowledges that the agency has no role in enforcing its regulations from a law enforcement perspective. The purpose of the constitutional amendment is to protect marine animals from "unnecessary killing, overfishing and waste." By its own terms, then, the intent of the amendment is to preserve and protect Florida's existing and future fishing stocks. The amendment should achieve its goal, for the record shows that, once the amendment becomes effective, there should be a significant reduction in fishing mortality, with a concomitant rise in fishing stocks. Under Section 370.025, Florida Statutes, the MFC is charged with a similar responsibility of managing and preserving marine fishery resources. The evidence clearly shows that the more restrictive rules will have no meaningful effect on fishing mortality. That is to say, this category of rules has been proposed, not to further the MFC's charge of managing and preserving marine fisheries resources, but rather for the sole purpose of assisting another agency (the FMP) in enforcing the ban on the use of gill or entangling nets in Florida waters, and the use of certain nets in nearshore and inshore waters. As such, the more restrictive rules have no foundation in statutory law, and they exceed the MFC's rulemaking authority. For this reason, the following proposed rules or parts thereof are deemed to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority: the last sentence in 46-3.008(3)(c)3.; 46-3.028(3); 46-3.029(3); 46- 3.031(3); 46-3.032(3)(a); 46-3.034(3); 46-3.035(3); 46-3.037(3); 46-3.038(3); 46-4.001(1)(b); the sentence in 46-4.001(1)(c)3. which reads as follows: "(t)he exceptions provided in this paragraph are not available to a person aboard any vessel on which is also possessed a cast net"; the word "trawl" in 46- 4.001(2)(e); 46-4.001(2)(c)5.; 46-4.001(3); 46-4.004; 46-4.005(2)(a)3.; 46- 23.002(2); the first sentence in 46-23.003; 46-24.007(5); 46-37.002(2); 46- 37.006(2) and (3); 46-39.002(3); and 46-42.007(1)(b) and (c). Because the record supports a finding that the changes to rules 46-4.007, 46-4.015, 46- 4.017, 46-36.002, 46-39.011, 46-39.012, and 46-43.005 do not impose more restrictive conditions than are found in the new amendment, and are derived from appropriate statutory law, the contention that they exceed the MFC's rulemaking authority is deemed to be without merit. Are the Rules Arbitrary and Capricious? In their amended petition, petitioners also contend that all of the rules affected by these changes are arbitrary and capricious. In this vein, they contend that the rules "are not grounded in logic and reason and are not supported by appropriate scientific certainty." They also claim that where the MFC has exceeded the mandate of the constitution, the rules are arbitrary and capricious in the sense they are not grounded on a rational or logical basis since they stem from MFC's desire to ease the FMP's job in enforcing the new amendment rather than its desire to further the goal of managing and preserving the marine fishery stocks in Florida. The record on which the MFC based its changes was derived in part from public hearings conducted in three locations around the state. At those hearings, it heard comment from its staff, numerous affected persons, including those who oppose and support the proposed rules, as well as FMP representatives who are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the new law. In addition, during the rulemaking process, MFC and FMP staffers consulted with the State of Texas, which has a similar ban on the use of entangling net gear, to gain an insight on any enforcement problems which that state experienced. Thereafter, the MFC staff prepared an analysis of the public comment, together with their own recommendations, which were considered by the MFC prior to its final decision. Copies of the staff reports and analyses have been made a part of this record. The more restrictive rules and law enforcement considerations Before adopting any rule, the MFC says it always consults with, and obtains advice from, the FMP regarding enforcement implications. Thus, in crafting its more restrictive rules, the MFC relied wholly upon the recommendation of the FMP, which has the responsibility of enforcing the law. The FMP in turn relied upon the experience of the State of Texas, which first imposed a statutory ban on the use of nets in 1988, and later imposed a statutory ban on the possession of nets in order to provide more effective enforcement. Based on advice from the FMP that, without more restrictive measures, it would experience the same problems as did Texas, the MFC decided that a ban on the possession of nets would be necessary in order to permit a more efficient enforcement of the new amendment. Indeed, it did so even though the FMP's chief law enforcement officer acknowledged that the FMP can enforce the new constitutional amendment without the MFC adopting any new rules. Except for this advice from the FMP during the rulemaking process, there is no other basis in fact or logic to support the broad and sweeping revisions. Therefore, while the more restrictive rules are designed to ease the job of law enforcement officials, and thus in that respect they have some logical and rational basis from a law enforcement perspective, they nonetheless have no correlation to the MFC's task of managing and preserving marine fisheries resources. Given this lack of a factual and logical predicate, the following proposed rules or parts thereof are deemed to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority: the last sentence in 46-3.008(3)(c)3.; 46-3.028(3); 46-3.029(3); 46-3.031(3); 46-3.032(3)(a); 46-3.034(3); 46-3.035(3); 46-3.037(3); 46-3.038(3); 46- 4.001(1)(b); the sentence in 46-4.001(1)(c)3. which reads as follows: "(t)he exceptions provided in this paragraph are not available to a person aboard any vessel on which is also possessed a cast net"; the word "trawl" in 46- 4.001(2)(e); 46-4.001(2)(c)5.; 46-4.001(3); 46-4.004; 46-4.005(2)(a)3.; 46- 23.002(2); the first sentence in 46-23.003; 46-24.007(5); 46-37.002(2); 46- 37.006(2) and (3); 46-39.002(3); and 46-42.007(1)(b) and (c). Because the record supports a finding that the changes to rules 46-4.007, 46-4.015, 46- 4.017, 46-36.002, 46-39.011, 46-39.012, and 46-43.005 do not impose more restrictive conditions than are found in the new amendment, the contention that they are arbitrary and capricious on account of law enforcement considerations is deemed to be without merit. The other rules Petitioners also contend that the rules are arbitrary and capricious because they "are not grounded in logic and reason and are not supported by appropriate scientific certainty." Each of the affected chapters will be discussed separately. Chapter 46-3 Chapter 46-3 contains provisions governing fishing in Lee, Volusia, Collier, Duval, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Hernando, Manatee, Martin, Pinellas, Sarasota, Walton and Brevard Counties. When the MFC was statutorily created as a part of the Department of Natural Resouces (DNR) in 1983, there were numerous local laws in existence having special application to these counties. The law which created the MFC directed that these local laws be repealed and reenacted as DNR rules. Some of these were codified in chapter 46-3. As changes to organic law occur, the MFC must logically amend these "local" rules to conform them to statewide requirements. According to the notice published in the FAW, the "purpose of these rule amendments (in chapter 46-3) is to conform the Marine Fisheries Commission's rules readopting portions of various special acts (local laws) to this new direction by deleting numerous local netting regulations and amending other provisions relating to gear still allowed by the constitutional provision." The notice added that "the effect of this rulemaking will be to eliminate many obsolete local rules and implement the constitutional provision's uniform regulatory regime." Affected by the proposed changes are rules 46-3.002, 46-3.008, 46- 3.025, 46-3.027, 46-3.028, 46-3.029, 46-3.031, 46-3.032, 46-3.034, 46-3.035, 46- 3.037, and 46-4.038. Each of these rules contains requirements unique to a particular county or waterbody within a county. They include seasonal restrictions on the use of nets other than cast nets and bait seines (Caloosahatchee River in Lee County, rule 46-3.002); restrictions on the use of gill nets (Volusia County, rule 46-3.008); minimum mesh size for gill nets and other gear (Lee, Collier and Duval Counties, rules 46-3.025 and 46-3.027); minimum mesh size for gill or trammel nets, a special management regime for purse seine harvest of menhaden in inside waters, and a minimum length for seines (Santa Rosa and Escambia Counties, rule 46-3.028); minimum mesh sizes for gill or trammel nets and maximum lengths for nets (Hernando County, rule 46- 3.029); restrictions on net fishing and a minimum gill net mesh size (Manatee River and Terra Ceia Bay in Manatee County, rule 46-3.031); restrictions on allowable nets and traps for inside waters (Martin County, rule 46-3.032); minimum mesh size for gill and trammel nets (Pinellas County, rule 46-3.034); miminum mesh size for gill and trammel nets (Sarasota County, rule 46-3.035); minimum seine length (Walton County, rule 46-3.037); and restrictions on the use of nets and seines (Brevard County, rule 46-3.038). All of the rules in chapter 46-3 have been amended in some respect to delete language made obsolete by the constitutional amendment. More specifically, the existing rules provide an array of requirements relative to the use of gill or entangling nets in the various counties which are clearly at odds with the amendment. Wherever this language appears, or where other obsolete local rules are present, they have been deleted since the use of such gear will no longer be allowed anywhere in the state after July 1, 1995. On this basis alone, and to the extent the changes do nothing more than delete obsolete or conflicting language, it is found that the changes in rules 46- 3.002, 46-3.008, 46-3.025, 46-3.027, 46-3.028, 46-3.029, 46-3.031, 46-3.032, 46- 3.034, 46-3.035, 46-3.037 and 46-4.038 have a factual and logical basis and are not arbitrary and capricious. Chapter 46-4 This chapter is entitled "Gear Specifications and Prohibited Gear." As stated in the FAW, the purpose of the changes is "to implement new prohibitions and specifications to enhance enforcement of the (constitutional) amendment, and provide guidance to Florida citizens in complying with the requirements of the new provision." In new rule 46-4.001, the FMC prescribes new limitations on marine net fishing. More specifically, it prohibits the use of any gill or entangling net to harvest any marine species in state waters, prohibits possession of nets on the waters of the state except for those persons who have a legitimate need for legal harvest elsewhere, prohibits the use of any net in nearshore or inshore Florida waters to harvest marine species other than certain equipment of specified dimension, prohibits the use of any purse seine in nearshore and inshore Florida waters, and provides an exception for nets fished pursuant to a special activities license issued for public or scientific purposes. Rule 46-4.002, which contains gear definitions, provides new or amended definitions of the terms "entangling net," "gill net," and "mesh area," and repeals the definition of an "airboat." At the same time, rule 46-4.0025, which contains other definitions, provides new or amended definitions for the terms "coastline," "Florida waters," "harvest," and "nearshore and inshore Florida waters." According to the FAW, these changes make the definitions "consistent" with the new constitutional amendment. In proposed rule 46-4.004, as later modified in the notice of changes to proposed rules, the MFC expands the scope of the rule banning the use of certain gear with power to include nearshore and inshore waters. As to rule 46-4.005, it is unclear from the record whether the changes regarding the issuance of a special activities license first proposed in paragraph (2)(a)3. were later eliminated by the notice of changes to proposed rules. Assuming they were not, the revisions to the remaining part of the rule simply substitute the word "governmental" for "public" and redesignate the Department of Natural Resources as the Department of Environmental Protection. The MFC has also proposed to repeal rules 46-4.006, 46-4.007(1)and (3), 46-4.008(1)-(4), 46-4.0081, 46-4.0085, 46-4.015(1), 46-4.016, and 46- 4.017(1) and (5). The MFC says these changes are required in order to eliminate obsolete language, some of which is derived from special laws. Finally, the minor changes in rules 46-4.013 and 46-4.014 prohibit the use of spotter planes in harvesting Spanish mackerel and prescribe gear specifications for using purse seines in certain waters of Pinellas, Hillsborough and Manatee Counties, respectively. These changes have been made in order to conform the rules to what the MFC perceives to be existing law. Where the above revisions simply delete obsolete or conflicting language, or make other changes which are not more restrictive in nature, as described in finding of fact 24, there is a sufficient record basis to support a finding that the amendments are grounded in fact and logic and are thus not arbitrary and capricious. Chapter 46-23 This chapter governs the harvest of fishing for Spanish mackerel. By the rule changes, the MFC proposes to prohibit the commercial harvest of this species of fish in state waters by gill nets after July 1, 1995, and to allow only hook and line gear to be thereafter used. Specific changes have been made to rules 46-23.001, 46-23.002, 46- 23.003 and 46-23.004 to eliminate all reference to gill nets, and to describe other restricted activities relating to this species. To the extent these changes do not create more restrictions than are found in the new amendment, as more specifically described in finding of fact 24, they conform to the new law and will ease the fishing pressure exerted on Spanish mackerel. Because the changes in chapter 46-23 enhance the state policy of preserving marine fishery resources, there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that they are arbitrary and capricious. Chapter 46-24 Chapter 46-24 governs the harvest of Spiny Lobster (Crawfish) and Slipper Lobster. The only rule affected by the changes is rule 46-24.007, which has been amended to specify the maximum size of bully nets and hoop nets used in the spiny lobster fishery. More specifically, the changes in subsection (5) of the rule limit bully nets to a diameter no larger than 3 feet while hoop nets are limited to a diameter no larger than 10 feet. Because the only change has been previously found to be arbitrary and capricious, the additional argument that the rule lacks "scientific certainty" need not be addressed. Chapter 46-36 This chapter, which relates to Black Drum, is amended in one respect by changing language in rule 46-36.002(2) to delete reference to nets and seines in the definition of the term "commercial harvest." Because the change is necessary to conform the rule with the new amendment, and there will be no appreciable change in the number of fish that can be caught, there is a sufficient factual predicate to support the change. Chapter 46-37 This chapter specifies regulations pertaining to the harvest of spotted seatrout. Only two rules are affected, those being rules 46-37.002 and 46-37.006. According to the FAW, the effect of the changes will be to "clearly indicate that hook and line gear is the only allowable gear for the harvest of spotted seatrout and that spotted seatrout harvest in excess of recreational bag limits will be considered commercial harvest after (the constitutional amendment) become(s) effective July 1, 1995." The only change in rule 46-37.002 is found in section (2), which defines the term "harvest for commercial purposes." There, the MFC has proposed to delete reference to the use of nets. In addition, sections (2) and (3) of rule 46-37.006 have been amended to delete all gill and trammel net mesh size requirements. Since both changes exceed the constitutional mandate and are based solely on law enforcement considerations, and have already been determined to be arbitrary, it is unnecessary to address petitioners' remaining contentions. Chapter 46-39 Chapter 46-39 governs the harvest of mullet, which has traditionally been a gill net fishery. All or parts of rules 46-39.002, 46-39.0035, 46- 39.005, 46-39.006, 46-39.007, 46-39.008, 46-39.009, 46-39.010, 46-39.011 and 46- 30.012 have been amended or repealed to conform these rules to the new amendment. More specifically, the species will now be available to a limited extent only through the use of cast nets, and thus all provisions pertaining to gill net specifications, spotter planes, daily vessel limits, and weekend closures and other closed seasons have been deleted. To the extent these rules do not exceed the constitutional mandate, as previously discussed, they are based on facts and logic and are not arbitrary or capricious. Chapter 46-42 This chapter pertains to the broad subject of "Marine Life." As stated in the FAW, the purpose of the single rule amendment is to "specify the maximum size of barrier nets and drop nets used to harvest tropical fish." Rule 46-42.007 provides gear specifications for the harvest of tropical fish. Paragraphs (1)(b) and (c) have been amended to establish a maximum length for barrier nets of 60 feet, with a maximum depth of 8 feet, and a maximum dimension of 12 feet for drop nets. Because these changes have been previously found to be arbitrary and capricious by virtue of being based solely on law enforcement considerations, it is unnecessary to determine if they are arbritrary and capricious for other reasons. Chapter 46-43 The final chapter being amended governs the bluefish harvest and changes one rule "to provide gear specifications to apply to the commercial harvest of bluefish in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters adjacent to east coast Florida waters in the Atlantic Ocean, in accordance with the Fishery Management Plan for the Bluefish Fishery . . . as implemented through federal rules." Specifically, subsection (2) of rule 46-43.005 has been amended to delete references to current statewide gear rules and provide new net gear requirements applicable to commercial bluefish harvest in federal waters adjacent to Florida east coast waters, including tending requirements, net marking specifications, maximum net length and minimum mesh size, and soak requirements. The new language also allows only one net to be fished at a time from a single vessel, but allows possession of a maximum of two nets, including the one being fished. Finally, the term "net" is defined to exclude purse seines. These changes apply only to the bluefish fishery in adjacent federal waters which are subject to Florida rulemaking by virtue of an interstate compact. The proposed changes have been approved by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, are necessary in order for Florida to meet its state quota under the compact, and have a basis in fact and logic. Accordingly, the rule changes are not found to be arbitrary or capricious. Do the Rules Conflict with the Law Implemented? Petitioners further allege that the proposed rules conflict with the law implemented. More specifically, they have alleged that the proposed rules do not conform with the criteria established in Section 370.025, Florida Statutes, one of the two statutes relied upon by the MFC as the law implemented for all rules. Subsection (1) of the law declares that the state policy of managing and preserving its renewable marine fishery resources shall be based upon the best available information, emphasizing protection and enhancement of the marine and estuarine environment in such a manner as to provide for optimum sustained benefits and use to all the people of this state for present and future generations. Subsection (2) requires that all rules adopted by the MFC relating to saltwater fisheries be consistent with the following standards: The paramount concern of conservation and management measures shall be the continuing health and abundance of the marine fisheries resources of this state. Conservation and management measures shall be based upon the best information available, including biological, sociologi-cal, economic, and other information deemed relevant by the commission. Conservation and management measures shall permit reasonable means and quantities of annual harvest, consistent with maximum practicable sustainable stock abundance on a continuing basis. When possible and practicable, stocks of fish shall be managed as a biological unit. Conservation and management measures shall assure proper quality control of marine resources that enter commerce. State marine fishery management plans shall be developed to implement management of important marine fishery resources. Conservation and management decisions shall be fair and equitable to all the people of this state and carried out in such a manner that no individual, corporation, or entity acquires an excessive share of privileges. Federal fishery management plans and fishery management plans of other states or interstate commissions should be considered when developing state marine fishery management plans. Incon- sistencies should be avoided unless it is determined that it is in the best interest of the fisheries or residents of this state to be inconsistent. To show conformity with the above standards, the MFC staff prepared a document entitled "Adherence to Commission Standards" for each of the affected chapters. These documents, which are a part of the rule file, are found in respondent's exhibit 1 received in evidence, and they were considered by the MFC as a part of the rulemaking process. They provide an analysis on how the proposed rules comply with the standards enumerated in subsection 370.025(2), to the extent such standards are applicable. This analysis was not credibly contradicted at hearing. In their proposed order, petitioners focus principally on the rules in chapter 46-4, which relate to gear standards and specifications, and contend these rules are illustrative of the fact that none of the rules are consistent with the statutory standards. As to whether the changes in all of the chapters are consistent with the criteria in Subsection 370.025(1), Florida Statutes, the rule changes were based on oral and written comments from laypersons, law enforcement personnel and experts and thus were based on the best available information. In addition, many of the changes were necessary by virtue of the constitutional amendment, and to this extent, they protect and enhance the marine environment for the benefit of all present and future generations. Accordingly, they are found to be consistent with the criteria in Subsection 370.025(1), Florida Statutes. As to whether the changes in chapter 46-4 are consistent with the standards in Subsection 370.025(2), Florida Statutes, the MFC's analysis indicates they "reduce fishing mortality on most inshore finfish species" and do not "jeopardize the health or abundance of inshore finfish stocks" [paragraph (a)], "conform existing rules to the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], eliminate obsolete provisions and "allow for alternative gear fisheries to develop after the new constitutional provision becomes effective" [paragraph (c)], "complement and affect the provisions of already developed management plans" and "maintain consistency" [paragraph (f)], "apply equally to all persons" [paragraph (g)], and "are consistent as possible with federal management plans" [paragraph (g)]. The standards in paragraphs (d) and (e) do not apply. Given these considerations, it is found that the rule changes in chapter 46-4 are consistent with the criteria and standards in Subsection 370.025(2), Florida Statutes. In a similar vein, the rule changes in chapter 46-23 "affect a reduction in fishing mortality on Spanish mackerel in state waters" [paragraph (a)], "conform existing rules to the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], allow the species to "continue to be available to commercial harvesters in state waters with hook-and-line and cast net gear" [paragraph (c)], conduct the management of the species "on the unit stock" [paragraph (d)], amend the fishery management plan [paragraph (f)], "apply equally to all persons" [paragraph (g)], and are "consistent as possible with federal management plans" [paragraph (h)]. The standard in paragraph (e) does not apply. As such, the changes are consistent with the statutory criteria. With respect to the changes in chapter 46-37, they "affect a reduction in fishing mortality on spotted seatrout in state waters" [paragraph (a)], "conform existing rules to the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], allow the species to "continue to be available to commercial and recreational fishers with hook-and-line gear" [paragraph (c)], conduct "the managment of spotted seatrout . . . on the unit stock" [paragraph (d)], amend the fishery managment plan [paragraph (f)], "apply equally to all persons seeking to harvest spotted seatrout" [paragraph (g)], and are not "inconsistent with recommended management plans initiated by the interstate commissions" [paragraph (h)]. The standard in paragraph (e) does not apply. On this basis, the rule changes are found to consistent with the standards. As to the consistency of the changes in chapter 46-39, they "affect a substantial reduction in fishing mortality on mullet in state waters" [paragraph (a)], "implement and aid enforcement of the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], make "available to harvesters with cast net, and to a much lesser extent, hook-and-line gear" and "aid in the development of alternative gear fisheries for mullet" [paragraph (c)], continue to conduct the management of mullet on the unit stock [paragraph (d)], amend the fishery management plan [paragraph (f)], and "apply to anyone attemting to harvest mullet" [paragraph (g)]. The standards in paragraphs (e) and (h) do not apply. Accordingly, the rule changes are found to be consistent with the statutory standards. The revisions in chapter 46-43 "will not change the substantial conservation measures heretofore in place" [paragraph (a)], "conform existing rules to the recently adopted revisions to the Florida Constitution" [paragraph (b)], "continue the current regulatory regime in place in the bluefish management plan" [paragraph (c)], allow the management of Atlantic bluefish to be continued to be conducted on the basis of the U. S. Atlantic coast unit stock" [paragraph (d)], amend the fishery management plan [paragraph (f)], "continue the regulatory regime currently in place and allow a fair and equitable distribution of the available bluefish harvest among commercial and recreational fishers" [paragraph (g)], and "are consistent with federal management plans" [paragraph (h)]. The standard in paragraph (e) does not apply. Again, it is found that the rule changes are consistent with the statutory standards. G. Were Procedural Requirements Met in Adopting the Rules? Petitioners complain that the MFC materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, in three respects. First, it is alleged that the MFC failed to provide petitioners with a timely draft of the EIS prepared for each of the rule changes. Second, petitioners contend that the MFC erred by refusing to take public comment at the final adoption meeting in violation of Rule 46- 1.004(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, petitioners argue that the MFC amended or repealed rules derived from local laws without holding a mandatory meeting in each affected county. These contentions will be considered separately below. Was the EIS submitted on a timely basis? The Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc., Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc., and Seafood Consumers and Producers Association, Inc. are organizations representing at least one hundred persons. Under Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes, an agency must prepare an EIS if within 14 days after the publication of the notice provided pursuant to paragraph (1)(c) or, if no notice of rule development is provided, within 21 days after the notice required by paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), a written request is filed with the appropriate agency by . . . an organization representing at least 100 persons. The same statute goes on to provide in part that: If an economic impact statement is prepared pursuant to paragraph (2)(b), at least 14 days prior to any public hearing on a proposed rule held pursuant to subsection (3), the agency shall make a draft copy of the economic impact statement available to any person who requests a copy of the statement. On January 20, 1995, or just four days before the first public hearing, petitioners filed with the MFC a written request for preparation of an EIS on each of the proposed rules. They also asked that they be provided with a copy of a draft of the statement. Notwithstanding this request, the hearing on the proposed rules was held on January 24-26, 1995, as previously scheduled. The official record of the rulemaking proceedings was closed on February 9, 1995. On the same day, petitioners were provided with a draft EIS. There is no evidence as to how petitioners were prejudiced in the conduct of this proceeding by virtue of not receiving a copy of the EIS prior to the public hearings. Indeed, petitioners never made the MFC aware of any specific concerns regarding the EIS, and they made no claim that the EIS itself is deficient. Therefore, even if an error in procedure occurred, it was harmless and did not impair the fairness of the proceeding. Did the MFC improperly refuse to hear public comment? Rule 46-1.004(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code, provides that during a MFC rulemaking hearing any person present shall be heard on any issue under consideration, subject to control by the presiding officer of irrelevant, repetitious or unduly extended comment. The rules under consideration here were revised and approved for adoption at a MFC meeting held on February 16, 1995. It is undisputed that no public comment was permitted at that meeting. Prior to the final adoption meeting, the MFC conducted public hearings on the proposed rules in Lee, Orange and Leon Counties. The MFC general counsel was appointed as a hearing officer to conduct those meetings, and at least one commissioner attended each meeting. Members of the public who attended the meetings were allowed to offer both written and oral comment on the rules. The meetings were not transcribed, but they were videotaped in order to preserve the record. After the meetings were completed, the MFC general counsel prepared a summary of the public comment and a staff recommendation for use by the MFC at its regularly scheduled meeting on February 16, 1995. Since three public hearings had already been conducted, including one in Tallahassee, the MFC opted to dispense with public comment at the February 16 meeting and to deliberate and vote on the proposed rule changes. It is undisputed that, prior to voting on the changes, the commissioners who had not attended the public hearings did not watch the videotaped record. Instead, they relied upon the summary of comments prepared by their staff. Even if the MFC's decision to dispense with public comment was in violation of rule 46-1.004(4)(b), there is no evidence as to how petitioners were prejudiced. This is especially true since a public hearing had already been held in Tallahassee less than a month earlier, at which time public comment was invited. Therefore, if an error in procedure occurred, it was not material, and it did not impair the fairness of the proceeding. Were hearings required in each affected county? Each of the twelve affected rules in chapter 46-3 is derived from local laws identified in Chapter 83-134, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 84-121, Laws of Florida. Although these rules affect Lee, Volusia, Collier, Duval, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Hernando, Manatee, Martin, Pinellas, Sarasota, Walton and Brevard Counties, a public hearing was held only in Lee County. Rule 46-1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, provides in relevant part as follows: (5) Before adopting any rule amending or repealing any rule derived from local laws identified in Section 2(5)(a), (b), or (c) of Ch. 83-134, Laws of Florida, . . . the Commission or, at the direction of the Commission, one or more Commissioners or staff members shall hold a public hearing. When acting on rules derived from such local laws, a hearing shall be held in the county or counties affected. (emphasis added) This rule tracks language in Section 2(5)(d) of Chapter 83-134, Laws of Florida, which requires the MFC to "hold a hearing in the affected county or counties" before amending or repealing any rules derived from local law. Petitioners contend that the foregoing rule and law were violated since a hearing was held in only one of the thirteen affected counties. As noted earlier, when the MFC was created by Chapter 83-134 as a part of the DNR, numerous local laws were in effect regulating fishing practices on a county by county basis. Section 2(5)(a) of Chapter 83-134 provided as follows: Effective upon the appointment of the commission, the following local laws pertaining to saltwater fishing, to the extent they relate to those areas specified in subsection (2), shall be repealed and shall continue as rules of the department: Chapter 83-134 was amended by Chapter 84-120, Laws of Florida, which, among other things, repealed additional local laws but provided that they continue in effect as DNR rules. It is a commonly recognized fact that in 1993 the DNR was abolished through a merger with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Respondent takes the position that when the DNR was merged with the DEP, the DNR rules were repealed and readopted as MFC rules, and thus the present rules found in chapter 46-3 are no longer "derived from local laws." As a consequence, the MFC contends that a public hearing in each affected county is not required. The history notes to the challenged rules reflect that they were amended at various times in 1992, or before the merger of DNR and DEP occurred. No amendments have occurred since that time. Whether the 1992 changes constitute the readoption that the MFC relies upon is not apparent from the record. In any event, the rules are clearly derived from local laws, and thus they are subject to the requirements of Chapter 83-134, Laws of Florida, and Rule 46-1.004(4)(b) Florida Administrative Code. This finding is buttressed by the fact that in the FAW, the MFC describes its changes in chapter 46-3 as being for the purpose of conforming its rules "readopting portions of various special acts (local laws)" to the constitution. Moreover, the rules themselves contain language that the MFC intends "to readopt certain provisions of (the local law)." Even though the requirement in chapter 83-134 was not followed, there was no showing by petitioners that they were prejudiced by this error or that the fairness of the proceeding was impaired. Therefore, the error is deemed to be harmless. G. Do the Rules Conflict with the Constitution? Although petitioners' amended petition does not contain the allegation that the rules conflict with the new constitutional provision, in the main body of their proposed order they argue that eighteen rules "enlarge, modify or contravene the specific provisions of the constitution implemented." In contrast, the appendix to their proposed order cites twenty, rather than eighteen, rules which are allegedly constitutionally infirm. More specifically, petitioners complain that rules 46-3.008, 46-3.029, 46-3.032, 46-4.001, 46-4.005, 46-4.007, 46-4.015, 46-4.017, 46-23.001, 46- 23.002, 46-23.003, 46-24.007, 46-36.002, 46-37.002, 46-37.006, 46-39.002, 46- 42.007 and 46-43.005 make certain conduct unlawful even though such conduct is permissible under Section 16, Article X. By way of example, the rules make the possession (as opposed to the use) of gill or entangling nets unlawful even though the possession of such equipment is not barred by the constitutional amendment. Assuming, but not conceding, that the constitutional claim has been timely raised, Subsection (f) of Section 16, Article X provides in part that "nothing in this section prohibits the establishment by law or pursuant to law of more restrictions on the use of nets for the purpose of catching or taking any saltwater finfish, shellfish, or other marine life." (Emphasis added) Since the changes to the rules under challenge arguably relate to the "use of nets," and they have been made "pursuant to law," that is, pursuant to MFC's statutory rulemaking authority, the cited rules, even if more restrictive than the amendment, do not contravene the constitutional provision.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Norman Padgett, holds a haul seine permit, issued by the Commission, which authorizes Respondent to operate a haul seine net on Lake Okeechobee. The permit is renewable annually and is one of ten such permits issued by the Commission. The Lake Okeechobee Haul Seine Permits authorize their holders to fish by haul seine and to harvest game fish in commercial quantities, activities not legal absent such a permit. To minimize conflicts between sport fishermen and commercial haul seine permittees on Lake Okeechobee, the Commission has, by rule, prohibited seining activities in certain areas. Among the areas closed by rule to haul seining is the area south of a line that connects the northernmost point of Kreamer Island to the northernmost point of Ritta Island. That line is approximately five miles long and can be readily determined since the northernmost point of either island is visible from the other island. Also closed by rule to haul seining are those areas shoreward of a line delineated by the Commission's commercial fishing boundary buoys. The boundary line is approximately one mile lakeward of emergent aquatic vegetation. The Commission, by rule, has prohibited the use of "short" haul seines as an aid to its enforcement against haul seining in closed areas. "Sport" nets are prohibited because of the ease with which they can be deployed and retrieved. During the time period pertinent to these proceedings, the Commission's rules prohibited use of haul seine nets of less than 350 yards in length. On June 18, 1984, a crew was conducting haul seining operations under the authority of Respondent's haul seine permit. The crew was operating in the closed area south of the line established by the northernmost points of Kreamer and Ritta Islands and was warned by a Commission employee that use of a haul seine in that area was prohibited. On June 19, 1984, a crew was again conducting haul seining operations under the authority of Respondent's haul seine permit in the closed area south of the line established by the northernmost points of Kreamer and Ritta Islands. The seining operations were being conducted from one-half to one mile within the closed area. On June 20, 1984, a crew was again conducting haul seining operations under the authority of Respondent's haul seine permit. On this occasion the crew was operating in a closed area shoreward of a line delineated by the Commission's commercial fishing boundary buoys. The haul seine net being used measured 277 yards in length. Respondent was not on board the fishing vessels during the foregoing events. However, consistent with the Commission's rule, the crews were in possession of his permit. At hearing Respondent offered no evidence of what, if any, efforts he took to supervise or maintain control of the haul seine crews. His testimony established, however, that he was aware the haul seine net was less than 350 yards in length. By letter dated March 28, 1985, the Commission informed Respondent of its intent to revoke his Lake Okeechobee Haul Seine Permit. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-1312. By letter dated July 23, 1985, the Commission informed Respondent of its intent to deny his application for renewal of his haul seine permit, predicated on their prior decision to revoke his permit. Respondent timely requested a formal hearing. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, assigned Case No 85-2612, and consolidated with Case No. 85-1312.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Facts admitted by all parties The water quality standards contained in Rule 17-3.111, Florida Administrative Code will not be violated by this project. There are no aquatic macrophytes located in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is located within 500 feet of the incorporated municipality of Horseshoe Beach, Florida. The proposed project is located within Class II waters of the State not approved for shellfish harvesting. The project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect or will not enhance significant historical or acheological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. The rest of the findings The Applicant, Dixie County, applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock which would expand the existing public dock at Horseshoe Beach. In accordance with the revised plans dated October 23, 1986, the proposed facility would consist of a pier 6 feet wide and 120 feet long designed to accommodate six boat slips, each 30 feet wide and 40 feet long. The boundaries of the boat slips will be demarcated by pilings set 10 feet apart. Four of the boat slips would be primarily for the use of commercial fishing boats and commercial shrimping boats. The other two boat slips (the two slips closest to the land) would be reserved for the exclusive use of recreational and other small vessels. By adding a catwalk 3 or 4 feet wide down the middle of the two slips reserved for recreational vessels, the usefulness of those slips to recreational vessels would be greatly enhanced and the narrowness of the resulting slips would preclude their use by large vessels. Adding the two catwalks would be a minor addition to the proposed project which would greatly enhance the usefulness of the project and at the same time avoid the possibility that large vessels in the two slips closest to the land would impede ingress and egress at the nearby boat lift, boat fueling facility, and boat ramp. Adding a reasonable number of permanent trash or garbage containers would also enhance the usefulness of the proposed project and minimize the possibility of improper disposal of trash and garbage which is generated by the normal use of a dock by fishermen and boaters. The proposed project site is located in the Gulf of Mexico at Horseshoe Beach, Florida, and would extend into the waters of the Gulf, which is a tidally influenced water body adjacent to Dixie County, Florida. The water along the shoreline of the area is shallow for a considerable distance waterward, except where basins and channels have been dredged. The Horseshoe Beach area is relatively unpolluted. The existing public dock at Horseshoe Beach is used primarily by recreational vessels, but there is also extensive commercial fishing and Shrimping boat activity in the area. The project is located at the mouth of a canal with direct access to the Gulf. Several commercial fishhouses operate from the canal bank, which generates extensive commercial boat traffic past the proposed project site. Large numbers of commercial shrimp boats presently dock along the canal that ends near the proposed project site. The proposed project requires no dredging. The only filling required by the proposed project is the placement of pilings into the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Even though the plans do not specify whether concrete or wooden pilings will be used, this lack of specificity in the plans is irrelevant. Regardless of what types of pilings are used on this project, the filling activity will not violate the water quality criteria contained in Rule 17- 3.051(1), Florida Administrative Code. The placement of the pilings will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the proposed project will not adversely affect any property interests of the Petitioners within the scope of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Gulf bottom in the area of the proposed project has already been disturbed. The presently existing suspension of particulate material in the water column, a natural occurrence in the area of the project, results in low visibility which means that seagrass beds and other marine vegetation, which provide shelter and detrital deposits for fish and other marine resources, will not grow. Coast Guard regulations prohibit commercial fishing vessels from depositing materials into the water within three miles of the coast line. Commercial fishing vessels must prominently display a sticker reciting that regulation and it is the practice of commercial fishing vessels operating in the vicinity of Horseshoe Beach to comply with this Coast Guard no discharge requirement by cleaning nets and scrubbing decks outside the three mile limit. It is not the practice of Commercial fishing vessels to deliberately discharge diesel fuel, fish parts or other material into the water while docked. Further, the limited number of commercial fishing vessels which could dock at the proposed facility at the same time cannot reasonably be expected to create discharges in amounts creating a nuisance, posing any danger to the public health safety or welfare, or violating the water quality criteria contained in Rule 17-3.051(1), Florida Statutes. Although small amounts of diesel fuel can become mixed with bilge water and be discharged by automatic bilge pumps while commercial fishing vessels are docked, there is no evidence that this would be in amounts Sufficient to create a nuisance or violate water quality criteria. To the contrary, notwithstanding a large amount of commercial boat traffic past the proposed site and notwithstanding the fact that large numbers of shrimp boats dock up the canal from the proposed site, the water in the area of the proposed site has remained relatively unpolluted. The proposed project will not affect the normal wind and wave action in the area of the proposed project. Such wind and wave action presently results in free exchange between the waters of the open Gulf and the waters near the shore. This free exchange of waters means that any pollutant discharges in the area of the proposed project will be diluted and rapidly dispersed into the Gulf of Mexico. There will be no measurable difference in the wind and wave action, or in the water exchange, after the proposed project is built. No harmful shoaling or erosion is expected to result from construction of the proposed project. Any docking structure extending out into the Gulf of Mexico will obviously have some effect on navigation in the area of the dock, but there is no evidence that the proposed dock will present a hazard to navigation or any significant interference with customary navigation patterns. The distance between the nearest channel marker and the waterward end of the proposed project is more than 200 feet. The angle of the proposed dock and its Spatial relation to the main Horseshoe Beach turning basin cause no impediment to navigation. The placement of Coast Guard Safety lights on the dock would minimize any potential for impeding navigation or posing a danger to the public health or safety during hours of darkness.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a Final Order in this case granting the permit applied for by Dixie County. It is also recommended that the permit be made subject to the following additional conditions: That one or more Coast Guard safety lights be placed on the proposed expansion to the dock; That catwalks be added down the middle of the two most landward of the proposed boat slips; and That a reasonable number of trash or garbage receptacles be permanently located on the proposed expansion to the dock to minimize the possibility of trash and garbage being thrown overboard. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 30th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1448 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. The paragraph numbers referred to below are references to the paragraph numbers in the parties' respective proposed recommended orders. Ruling on findings proposed by the Petitioners: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: First sentence is rejected as appearing to be more in the nature of an introduction to a discussion of legal issues than a proposed finding of fact. Second and third sentences are rejected as repetitious Paragraph 5: Entire paragraph rejected as unnecessary speculative generalizations in light of the other evidence in this case. Paragraph 6: Entire paragraph rejected as unnecessary speculative generalizations in light of the other evidence in this case. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 8: Entire paragraph is rejected as appearing to be more in the nature of an introduction to a discussion of legal issues than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 9: Entire paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; construction of the dock may be expected to bring about some changes in the nature of the boat traffic in the immediate area, but nothing of the nature or magnitude suggested by these proposed findings. Paragraph 10: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: First sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence is accepted in part and rejected in part. Rejected portion is irrelevant. Third sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Fourth Sentence is accepted. Fifth sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as repetitious Sixth sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12: Entire paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on findings Proposed by the Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: First two sentences accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary recitation of opposing party's contentions and not proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence accepted in part and rejected in part; rejected portion concerns riparian rights, which are irrelevant to whether this permit should be issued. Paragraph 14: Entire paragraph rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Accepted. Paragraph 17: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick M. Bryant, Esquire Moore, Williams & Bryant, P.A. Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Doyle Thomas, Esquire County Attorney Post Office Box 339 Cross City, Florida 32628 Ann Cowles-Fewox, Legal Intern Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Karen Brodeen, Esquire 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The central issues in this case are whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on April 1, 1997, and was issued certificate number 170935. At all times material to the issues raised in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was employed by the Martin County Sheriff’s Office as a deputy sheriff. On June 1, 2004, at approximately 11:30 a.m., the Respondent was on-duty and drove to an address in Martin County to respond to a trespassing complaint. The Respondent met with Jack Moore, the property manager for a parcel of land that included a lake. Mr. Moore complained that trespassers were fishing in the lake. The Respondent and Mr. Moore went to the area adjacent to the lake in Respondent’s assigned Martin County Sheriff’s Office vehicle, and made contact with Maxwell Boley and Frank Preston, who were fishing in the lake. The Respondent told Mr. Preston and Mr. Boley that they were trespassing on the property and if they wanted to “leave without handcuffs” they would have to give the Respondent some of their property. Mr. Preston understood the Respondent to mean that, if he and Mr. Boley did not give the Respondent some of their fishing equipment, they would be arrested and be taken to jail. Mr. Preston readily turned over his rod and reel. He estimated that it was valued at $50 to $60 dollars. Mr. Boley was hesitant to turn over his fishing equipment because it was more valuable than Mr. Preston’s. Mr. Boley estimated that his two rods and reels were worth $250 dollars each. The Respondent told Mr. Boley that he was “stupid” because giving up his fishing gear was a lot better than going to jail. The Respondent told Mr. Boley that, if he were arrested, his fines and court costs would likely exceed $1,000 dollars and Mr. Boley would have to serve a term of probation. The Respondent told Mr. Boley that he would be “better off” to simply give the Respondent half of his fishing gear and “be done with it.” When Mr. Boley still hesitated to comply, the Respondent told Mr. Boley he was going to jail, to give his car keys to his friend (Mr. Preston), and to turn around. The Respondent then reached for a set of handcuffs. When it became apparent to Mr. Boley that the Respondent meant to make good on his threat, Mr. Boley relented and gave the Respondent one of his rods and reels. Subsequent to the contact with the Respondent and Mr. Moore, Mr. Boley and Mr. Preston turned over a total of two fishing rods and reels. After both Mr. Boley and Mr. Preston turned over their fishing equipment to the Respondent, the Respondent did not arrest or charge either of them with an offense and permitted them to leave. A short time after meeting with Mr. Boley and Mr. Preston, the Respondent and Mr. Moore made contact with Melvin Oliver and Joseph Crawford. Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford were also fishing at the same lake. The Respondent told Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford that they were trespassing on the property. Mr. Oliver told the Respondent that he, Oliver, would take his stuff, leave, and never come back. The Respondent then suggested that perhaps Mr. Oliver could “work something out” with Mr. Moore in exchange for not being arrested. The Respondent stated that Mr. Moore wanted to “press charges.” The Respondent and Mr. Moore discussed, in Mr. Oliver’s presence, the comparative costs to Mr. Oliver if he were arrested in contrast to the value of his fishing equipment. When Mr. Oliver rejected the idea of such a trade, the Respondent persisted with the proposal of Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford giving up their property to avoid going to jail. While the Respondent continued to discuss the matter with Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford, Mr. Moore walked over to Mr. Oliver’s boat and retrieved the trolling motor and fishing poles from the boat. Seeing this, Mr. Oliver verbally protested and repeatedly pleaded with the Respondent not to take his property and to simply allow himself and Mr. Crawford to leave. Mr. Moore and the Respondent did not return the property and instead loaded the motor and the fishing poles into the Respondent’s patrol car. The Respondent then told Mr. Oliver never to return to the lake. Once the fishing gear was loaded in the patrol car, the Respondent and Mr. Moore got into the Respondent's patrol car and drove away. The Respondent did not arrest or charge Mr. Oliver or Mr. Crawford with an offense. Instead, he permitted them to leave. As a result of the contact with the Respondent and Mr. Moore, Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford turned over a total of four fishing rods and reels and one electric trolling motor. Three of these fishing rods and reels as well as the trolling motor belonged to Mr. Oliver. One fishing rod and reel belonged to Mr. Crawford. After returning Mr. Moore back to his residence, the Respondent set aside one fishing rod and reel and stated that he was keeping it for himself. The Respondent said he had been working a great deal of late and had not had the time to go and purchase a rod and reel. Although the Respondent had initially kept only one fishing rod and reel, Mr. Moore told him to take some more because he (Moore) had plenty. The Respondent agreed and took two more of the fishing rods and reels, remarking that he would give them to his buddies. The Respondent then left Mr. Moore at his residence and drove away. Of the total of six fishing rods and reels and one electric trolling motor turned over by the four fishermen on June 1, 2004, three of the fishing rods and reels were retained in the Respondent’s Martin County Sheriff’s Office vehicle, and Mr. Moore retained the other three fishing rods and reels and the electric trolling motor. Later, on the evening of June 1, 2004, Mr. Boley encountered a Palm Beach County deputy sheriff at a convenience store. Mr. Boley told the deputy about the incident with the Respondent earlier in the day and asked the deputy if it was “right." Based on his conversation with the Palm Beach County deputy, Mr. Boley reported the incident with the Respondent to the Martin County Sheriff’s Office the following day. On June 2, 2004, the Respondent’s supervisor, Lieutenant Glenn Zirkle, contacted the Respondent and instructed him to bring the fishing equipment to Lieutenant Zirkle’s office at the Martin County Sheriff’s Office. In response to Lieutenant Zirkle’s question to the Respondent as to what had occurred, the Respondent told Lieutenant Zirkle that in lieu of arresting the trespassing fishermen, their fishing rods had been taken by the property owner. The Respondent told Lieutenant Zirkle that he had merely “stood by.” The Respondent also told Lieutenant Zirkle that he would go to Mr. Moore’s residence and retrieve the fishing equipment. The Respondent did not inform Lieutenant Zirkle that the Respondent had retained some of the fishing equipment himself. In response to Lieutenant Zirkle’s order, the Respondent went back to Mr. Moore’s residence and retrieved the other three fishing rods and reels and the electric trolling motor. The Respondent then delivered the six fishing rods and reels and the electric trolling motor to Lieutenant Zirkle’s office at the Martin County Sheriff’s Office on June 2, 2004. Approximately one week after his encounter with the Respondent and Mr. Moore, Mr. Oliver filed a complaint with the Martin County Sheriff’s Office. On August 26, 2004, the Respondent gave a sworn statement to Detective Gary Bach of the Martin County Sheriff’s Office concerning an internal investigation into complaints filed against the Respondent by Mr. Oliver and Mr. Boley concerning the fishing equipment. In his statement, the Respondent denied initiating any “deals” with the trespassing fishermen and stated that any arrangements regarding the fishermen giving up their property were between the fishermen and Mr. Moore. The Respondent also stated in his sworn statement that although he was reluctant to keep any of the fishermen’s property, Mr. Moore persuaded the Respondent to accept three of the rods and reels. The Respondent indicated that he relented and accepted the additional fishing gear from Mr. Moore in an effort to be “polite” to Mr. Moore. The Respondent said in his sworn statement that he took the three rods and reels home in his patrol car. The following day, he loaded them into the bed of Deputy Shawn Green’s personal pickup truck. The Respondent stated that he did so without Deputy Green’s knowledge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of two violations of Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent’s certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner and developer of real property in Brevard County, Florida. Petitioner applied to DER for a development permit to construct three wooden docks and retain an existing wooden dock on its property. The docks were designed to provide a total of 58 mooring slips. On March 13, 1983, the Department issued an Intent to Deny the requested permit, On March 10, 1983, Petitioner filed a petition for a formal 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing on DER's intent to deny the permit application. DER's Intent to Deny asserted DER jurisdiction under Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-4.28 and 17- 4.29, Florida Administrative Code. DER contends that the construction of the proposed docks was to be conducted in areas within DER jurisdiction under Rules 17-4.28(2) and 17- 4.29(1). Additionally, DER asserted that the proposed project was located in Class II waters approved for shellfish harvesting, and that dredging in those areas was prohibited by Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department recognizes the special value and importance of Class II waters to Florida's economy as existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shellfish. Therefore, it shall be the department's policy to deny applications for permits for certifications for dredging or filling activities in Class II waters, except where the applicant has submitted a plan of procedure which will adequately protect the project area and areas in the vicinity of the project from significant damage. The department shall not issue a permit for dredging or filling directly in areas approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources. . . . The parties have stipulated, and the record otherwise established, that Petitioner is substantially affected by Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), which is challenged in this proceeding, by virtue of the fact that DER asserts that rule as a grounds for denying the requested permit. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted proposed findings of fact concerning whether the driving of pilings for the construction of the dock constitutes "dredging", so as to invoke the prohibition against such activities contained in Rule 17-4.28(8)(a). It is specifically determined that these facts are irrelevant to the issue to be determined in this cause, as will more fully hereinafter appear.
The Issue Whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization to Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., for the upgrade of its existing commercial marina in Deep Lagoon, an arm of the Caloosahatchee River?
Findings Of Fact The Caloosahatchee River Located in Lee County and considered a part of Charlotte Harbor, the Caloosahatchee River (the "River") is among the Class III surface waters of the state, so classified on the basis of the designated uses "Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.400(1). The River runs from Lake Okeechobee in a southwesterly direction past the City of Ft. Myers into San Carlos Bay. The bay, adjoining the Gulf of Mexico, is directly south of Matlacha Pass. It sits in the midst of, and is formed by, Sanibel Island, Pine Island, and the land masses on the north side of the Caloosahatchee (the site of City of Cape Coral) and the south side that culminates in Shell Point, at the mouth of the River. Beginning 120 years ago or so, the River underwent a series of major man-made alterations. Together with a statement of the current status of the River, they are summarized briefly in a publication of a recent special study of manatees and the River by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Florida Marine Research Institute (the "Special Study"). (Highly pertinent to this case, the Special Study is referred to elsewhere in this order.) This is its summary of the alterations to the River: Prior to the late 19th century, the Caloosahatchee River was a meandering waterway that ran from west Lake Flirt to San Carlos Bay . . . In 1881, Hamilton Disston began dredging a canal to connect the river's headwaters with Lake Okeechobee (citation omitted). This procedure caused severe flooding downstream, especially during the hurricane season. To mitigate the flooding effects, various spillways, locks and dams were constructed, including the locks at Moore Haven and Ortona. In 1947, the Central and Southern Florida (CS&F) project was authorized to manage the flood-control system and water supply issues of the Caloosahatchee River basin. The CS&F project involved widening and straightening the river and constructing the Olga Lock and Dam (now known as the . . . Franklin Lock and Dam). The river today is 65 miles long with a 25- foot-deep channel. Petitioners' Exhibit 20, A Special Study of Manatees in Mullock Creek and the Caloosahatchee River Eastward to the Edison Bridge, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, November 2002. Despite these alterations, the River is listed among the waters of the state designated as Outstanding Florida Waters. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(9)(b)2. As such, it is entitled to special protection by virtue of DEP's pronouncement that "[I]t shall be the Department policy to afford the highest protection to Outstanding Florida Waters". Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.700(1). The Franklin Lock is located on the Caloosahatchee about 25 miles upstream from San Carlos Bay. The lock permits fresh water to flow downstream toward the bay, of course, but it keeps the salt in brackish waters in the River south of the lock from penetrating upstream. In other words, the lock is a salinity barrier. The estuarine extension of the River, therefore, is defined by the lock. Little more than four miles downstream from the lock, the Orange River feeds into the Caloosahatchee. Upstream on the Orange, not far from its mouth, is the site of a Florida Power and Light Company ("FP&L") power plant. Until very recently, the power plant discharged into the Orange River effluent roughly seven degrees Celsius warmer than its ambient waters. (Waters discharged now are not as warm but still significantly warmer than the River's ambient water.) The warmed waters flow into the Caloosahatchee. These river system waters warmed by power plant effluent are sought by manatees as refuge from colder water in the River, the bay and the gulf. "Controlled releases or pulses of fresh water from Lake Okeechobee, upstream runoff, and prolonged periods of drought can severely, though temporarily, alter the salinity gradient [downstream of Franklin lock]." Id. at p. 20. It is believed that the variations in salinity affect seagrass biomass more than actual salinity levels. The salinity ranges cause turbidity and decrease in water clarity in the Caloosahatchee. They darken the water color and result in the submerged aquatic vegetation being variable and patchy instead of plentiful as it would be were the River not affected by rapid and extreme salinity changes. The River is crossed by a number of bridges: the Interstate 75 Bridges, Edison Bridge (part of U.S. Highway 41), the Midpoint Bridge, and the Cape Coral Bridge. The average depth of the water at river's edge is three feet. The center, including the channel, ranges from 6 to 25 feet in depth. Relatively shallow, the length and breadth of the River is traveled by manatees who use it as a critical link in habitat in southwest Florida. Manatee Habitat Linkage The presence of manatees in the River and their use of it for habitat is also summarized in the Special Study: The Caloosahatchee River between the Edison Bridge and Shell Point links habitats used by manatees including warm-water refugia, feeding areas, and resting areas. Because of drastic changes in salinity . . . coupled with high turbidity from development and vessel traffic, the distribution of submerged aquatic vegetation (marine and freshwater) in the study areas is variable and patchy. Manatees travel between stable feeding areas found upstream (freshwater) and downstream (estuarine), although they presumably feed opportunistically while passing through the area. Selected areas in the Cape Coral and Ft. Myers canals likely afford manatees with fresh water through stormwater runoff and drainage, resting habitats, and possible nursery areas. In winter, manatees may also use a few of these canals as temporary warm- water sites. Id. Among the places along the River where manatees congregate is Deep Lagoon. Deep Lagoon Deep Lagoon is a natural, relatively short, largely mangrove-lined arm of the Caloosahatchee on its southern shore just east of Palmetto Point. The lagoon is to the west and south of the downtown area of the City of Ft. Myers, less than a mile south of the southern terminus of the Cape Coral Bridge, and approximately 12 miles downstream from the FP&L power plant. Roughly four miles upstream from Shell Point where the River opens to the bay, the mouth of the lagoon opens west. Just inside the lagoon's mouth, it widens into an area known as the Cove. The lagoon turns 90 degrees to the south and extends in a southerly direction toward McGregor Boulevard. The upper reaches of the lagoon, or its headwaters, very close to McGregor Boulevard, are known as Cow Slough. Like the Caloosahatchee, Deep Lagoon is one of the Class III waters of the state. Unlike the River, the lagoon is not listed among the Outstanding Florida Waters. Wildlife in the area around Deep Lagoon include great blue herons, night herons, osprey and other hawks, and, of course, the manatee. In fact, Deep Lagoon is considered by the Bureau of Species Management in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (the "FWC") to be a "minor aggregation area" (Tr. 792) for manatees. The lagoon provides some warm waters attractive to the manatee, and manatees consume fresh water discharged into the lagoon from the Iona Drainage District ditch. (See paragraph 17, below.) The waters in and near the lagoon are frequently used by citizens for fishing. Fly fishing for snook, redfish, snapper, sea trout, and sheepshead is particularly popular in and about the lagoon. The lagoon is also the site of the Boat Club's Deep Lagoon Marina. The Deep Lagoon Marina The Deep Lagoon Marina (the "Marina") consists of 24 acres less than one-half mile from the River, north of Cow Slough, and south of the Iona Drainage District ditch. The Iona Drainage District ditch, the result of the first dredging in the Deep Lagoon area, is separated from the Marina by a relatively thin strip of mangrove fringe. It is a source of fresh water runoff from predominately fresh water wetland and upland areas. It appears in a 1944 aerial photograph that pre-dates dredging for the marina or of the lagoon otherwise. An aerial photograph taken in 1958, 14 years later, shows development of the Deep Lagoon marina property, as well as completion of a north canal separated from the Iona Drainage Canal by the mangrove fringe. Sometime between 1958 and 1966, two additional canals were dredged as part of the Marina. The marina consists of 15.4 acres of uplands, largely the result of the dredge and fill activity that created the marina's three man-made canals: the "north canal"; the "main canal" that includes a basin (the "main basin") at its eastern end; and the "south canal." At their eastern ends, the three canals terminate a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. On their opposite ends to the west, the canals open to the lagoon. Except for the Iona Drainage District ditch that discharges into the north canal, the canal water system has little circulation. Within the dead-end system the canals comprise, the water sloshes back and forth. The dead-end nature of the canals has led to violations of water quality standards as found in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Sheridan, et al. v. Deep Lagoon Marina, et al., Case No. 88-4759 (DOAH June 10, 1989): As a result of poor water circulation within the system, sediments have built up in the canal bottoms and in the basin. Although different historical incidents, such as ship building, the burning of a large building on the east-west peninsula and the receipt of agricultural and highway drainage into the northern canal may have caused some of the build-up, marina activities and the use of the canals for marina purposes have contributed significantly to the problem. Water quality samplings within the canals and basin indicate that State Water Quality standards are currently being violated for dissolved oxygen, oils and greases, total and fecal coliform, copper, lead, mercury and tributylin. Sediments in the canals and basins are contaminated by lead, copper, cadmium, chromium and mercury. The canals and basin are currently devoid of seagrasses, oyster beds and benthic organisms. Id. at pp. 4 and 5. The north peninsula (referred to in other DOAH orders as the "east-west peninsula") is the longer of the two peninsulas on the marina property. It lies between the north canal and main canal. The south peninsula lies northeast of the south canal, southwest of the main basin, and south of the main canal. Two steel buildings used for dry boat storage, a building used for boat repair and related marina uses are located on the south peninsula. The marina property located east of the marina's two peninsulas that fronts MacGregor Boulevard is occupied by a boat dealership and the Boat Club's sales trailer. To the north of the marina is the Town and River subdivision. The subdivision has an extensive canal system. Like the marina's canals, the Town and River Canal System is also the result of historic dredge and fill activity. As the Town and River subdivision expanded in the 1970's, the use of the marina increased. A boat storage building appears on the north peninsula in a 1970 aerial photograph. Extensive outdoor dry boat storage on the north peninsula began in the late 1970's. Dry boat storage expanded in the 1980's. An examination of aerial photography taken in 1990, 1993, 1999, 2000, and 2001, reveals 1990 to be "the period of time that the facility appeared to be at full operating capacity." (Tr. 787). As early as March 23, 1980, a travel lift facility appears in aerial photographs at the west end of the north peninsula. The boat lift appears in the same spot on the western end of the northern peninsula, west of the longitude at which the Iona Drainage District canal opens onto the North Canal, in a series of aerial photographs taken over the next two decades. The area surrounding the marina is fully developed, including the residential areas and boat basins to the north and south. Opposite the marina and along much of the western border of the lagoon, there is a vacant tract of wetlands. Purchased by Lee County as conservation lands, it will not be developed. It is the Department's position that Deep Lagoon Marina can operate as a marina without a permit. But a permit is required if its owners seek to upgrade the marina by activity that trips permit requirements such as construction or dredging of channels. The Boat Club became involved in permitting processes soon after it purchased the marina. Purchase by the Boat Club The Boat Club purchased the marina in 1997, with a closing on the purchase in September of that year. At the time of the purchase, it was the Boat Club's intent to redevelop the entire marina property and upgrade its facilities under the authority of development orders and permits obtained by the former owners. These included a Development of Regional Impact Development Order (the "DRI DO") issued in 1987; a surface water management permit (the "MSSW permit") from the South Florida Water Management District issued in 1988; and a dredge and fill permit from the former Department of Environmental Regulation issued in 1989, and extended through a major modification in 1995. A Litigious History These permits have a litigious history, particularly the dredge and fill permit and its conditions. Modifications to the permit resulted in additional permit processes, including administrative hearings. The history of the dredge and fill permit litigation, including litigation related to the Boat Club's application for an environmental resource permit to construct a surface water management system (the "SWMS permit") at the marina site is summarized in a final order of the Department of Environmental Protection rendered March 6, 2000 ("Sheridan III"): Applicant [Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., or, as referred to in this order, the Boat Club] is the owner and operator of Deep Lagoon Marina (the "Marina"), presently consisting of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips and other marina-related buildings. * * * In 1989, the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") entered a final order issuing a dredge and fill permit to a predecessor in title of Applicant authorizing a major renovation and expansion of the Marina, including additional boat slips and other related activities. See Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon, 11 F.A.L.R. 4710 (Fla. DER 1989). The final order in the original Sheridan case was appealed and the portion thereof issuing the dredge and fill permit was subsequently affirmed by the appellate courts Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon, 576 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). A permit was ultimately issued by the Department in October of 1995 (the "Original Permit") after the conclusion of the appellate proceeding. The Original Permit was modified by the Department in November of 1995 and again in April of 1997. This 1989 DER final order in the original Sheridan case adopted the hearing officer's findings that the waters of the Marina canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, oils and grease, total and fecal coliform, copper, lead, and mercury. Sheridan, supra, at 11 FALR 4727. These persistent water quality violations in the marina canals in the 1980's were the impetus for specific conditions set forth in the Original Permit issued by the Department in 1995 to ensure a net improvement" to water quality. Specific Condition 5K of the Original Permit, as revised in 1997, requires that 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 permitted and phased in prior to use of the parking lot and the new boat slips." . . . In order to meet these requirements of Specific Condition 5K of the Original Permit, Applicant filed an application with the Department in December of 1997 for an environmental resource permit to construct a surface water management system at the Marina site. The Department executed a Notice of Intent to Issue Applicant's requested permit for the surface water management system (the "SWMS" permit) in November of 1998. In March of 1998, Applicant also gave the Department written notice that it intended to "maintenance dredge" the internal canals at the Marina site. The Department's South District Office then issued a letter determining that Applicant's proposal to maintenance dredge the Marina's internal canals was exempt from environmental resource permitting requirements. Upon receipt of this letter from the Department, Applicant's contractor proceeded with the "maintenance dredging" of the three canals. Petitioner and Intervenor then filed petitions challenging the Department's notice of intent to issue the SWMS permit and the Department's maintenance dredging exemption determination. These petitions were forwarded to DOAH and were consolidated for final hearing in Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Boat Club, DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 ("Sheridan II"). A recommended order was entered in Sheridan [II] in November of 1999 by a DOAH administrative law judge ("ALJ"). The Department subsequently entered a final order in January of 2000 in the Sheridan [II] consolidated cases. See Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Boat Club, OGC Case Nos. 98-1184 and 98[-]3047 (Fla. DEP, January 28, 2000) In its final order in Sheridan [II], the Department adopted the ALJ's conclusion that Applicant failed to establish at the final hearing that the already completed dredging of the three Marina canals complied with two of the statutory requirements for entitlement to "maintenance dredging" exemption. The Sheridan II final order also adopted the ALJ's conclusion that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the operation of the proposed SWMS would not violate water quality standards and would not adversely impact the West Indian manatee. The Sheridan [II] final order of the Department thus disapproved the prior determination of Department staff that Applicant was entitled to a permit exemption for maintenance dredging of the Marina Canals [although the matter was moot since the Boat Club had, in fact, conducted the dredging while the proceeding was pending] and denied Applicant's SWMS environmental resource permit application. While Sheridan [II] was pending, DEP issued a notice of intent in March of 1999 to further modify the specific conditions of the 1995 Original Permit. These modifications would allow Applicant to construct and operate a boat travel lift at a new location within the Marina and to install flushing culverts in lieu of the previous requirement of a flushing channel between the north and middle Marina canals. [The modification for the boat lift would allow the construction and operation of a boat lift at the eastern end of the north canal.] These 1999 modifications to the Original Permit were timely challenged by Petitioner and the matter was referred to DOAH, resulting in the formal administrative proceeding now on review in this Department Final Order. Sheridan vs. Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., et al., OGC Case No. 99-0619, DOAH Case No. 99-2234, (DEP March 6, 2000). As stated in the quote above, following its purchase of the marina, the Boat Club conducted contamination and maintenance dredging of the marina's canals. This dredging had been preliminarily authorized by DEP, but DEP's preliminary action was challenged. The result of the litigation was that the permit for the dredging was disapproved, a result too late for the opponents of the process because the dredging had been undertaken and completed while the litigation wended its way through state agencies and the court. In the meantime, the boats stored on the north peninsula were removed to make way for the dredged materials. When the dredging was completed, dry boat storage resumed on the north peninsula. During the Sheridan II proceedings, the Final Order in Sheridan III was rendered. It accepted the recommendation of the administrative law judge that, with four changes, the modifications that would allow the boat travel lift at the eastern end of the north canal and the flushing culverts be granted. The recommendation was predicated on findings related to and conclusions that any adverse impacts on water quality would be negligible and that impacts to the manatee would be minimal or that projections of significant impacts were speculative. These findings and conclusions were adopted and accepted by DEP in the Sheridan III Final Order. While the administrative process in Sheridan III proceeded toward its culmination with the issuance of a final order in March of 2000, Sheridan II was under appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal. Almost a year after the Sheridan III Final Order, the Court rendered an opinion in Sheridan II. Rehearing in the Sheridan II appellate proceeding was denied on April 6, 2001. The Court affirmed DEP's adoption of the conclusion that the Boat Club failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the operation of the proposed SWMS would not violate water quality standards and would not adversely impact the West Indian Manatee. While the appellate litigation in Sheridan II was pending, the 1989 dredge and fill permit expired. In order to upgrade the Marina, therefore, the Boat Club was required to re-apply to DEP for an Environmental Resource Permit, a type of permit that succeeded the type of permit (the dredge and fill permit) issued by DEP in 1989. This most recent Environmental Resource Permit application is the subject of this proceeding. The ERP Subject to this Proceeding The Boat Club application for the new Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP") was received on August 24, 2001. The following January 22, 2003, approximately one year and five months after the filing of the ERP application, DEP issued a "Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization" (the "Permit/Authorization"). The Permit/Authorization governs the Boat Club's proposed dredge and fill activity, its proposed stormwater and surface water management plan and authorization of sovereign submerged land use. The permitted activity is described in DEP Permit/Authorization No. 36-0128502-008 as follows: The project is to upgrade an existing 445 slip commercial marina. Upon completion, the marina will accommodate 485 slips (129 wet slips and 356 dry slips) 40 of which shall be occupied by sailboats or left unoccupied. This shall include the construction of 1,693 lf (2,257 sq. ft.) vertical retaining wall in the north canal landward of mean high water (MHW) and existing mangroves. The construction of a travel lift affecting approximately 600 sq. ft. and approximately 37,369 sq. ft. of docking structure (3,529 sq. ft. of fixed docking structure and 33,840 sq. ft. of floating docking structure). The construction of two 48" grated culverts to enhance flushing, as well as, the removal of two travel lifts and approximately 10,443 sq. ft. docking structure. Further, the activity is to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres (total upland area) of the entire 24.0-acre commercial marina site. Construction of the surface water management system will include three separate and independent stormwater collection systems with associated pretreatment areas and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems for stormwater storage/treatment prior to discharge through concrete weir outfall control structures into adjacent Class III waters. Petitioners' Exhibit 15, page 3 of 20. The Parties Petitioners The three petitioners all reside in proximity to Deep Lagoon. Brenda Sheridan resides to the northeast of the marina. Her lot, owned since 1976, is on the shores of the Caloosahatchee River at Deep Lagoon. She and her husband are avid practitioners of fly fishing. In addition to fishing, Ms. Sheridan boats in Deep Lagoon, including in the north canal, where she enjoys observing wildlife, particularly manatees. A member of the Save the Manatee Club for more than 20 years, she has observed manatees in Deep Lagoon "[f]or many years" (Tr. 963) and continues to see them "all the time." Id. With the exception of calving, she has seen them "doing just about everything" (Tr. 964), including drinking fresh water off the surface of Deep Lagoon. She has participated in posting manatees signs "starting at the channel coming in from the river into Deep Lagoon . . . through the cove." (Tr. 973). She has assisted state personnel in the recovery of a manatee carcass, and has reported what she has believed to be speeding boats the many times she has seen them. She believes that the proposed permit will adversely affect her activities of fishing and observing wildlife and fervently hopes to be able to continue to "enjoy wildlife and unpolluted waters for the rest of my life and also for my grandchildren." (Tr. 979). Kevin Derheimer and Kathryn Kleist reside on Deep Lagoon Lane in Ft. Myers adjacent to the Iona Drainage Ditch immediately north of the north canal. Members of the Audubon Society, they selected the property where they built their home because it had been owned by Ms. Kleist's family, and because they "had observed wildlife, manatees, and birds from this piece of property and [so] decided to build a home there because of the proximity to wildlife" (Tr. 856), as well as its proximity to wetlands that could not be developed. They boat, kayak and fish on Deep Lagoon, and observe the abundant wildlife there especially manatees. Ms. Kleist has seen up to seven manatees at one time together in Deep Lagoon. Her observations have taken place over the last five years. She describes herself and her husband as avid observers of manatees who keep their binoculars at the ready any time they think they might have spotted a manatee in the lagoon. Ms. Kleist has a number of concerns about the proposed permit, particularly its effect on the north canal and the areas of the lagoon used by manatees observed by her over her years of residence in the area. Of major concern to her is the increase in boat traffic. Consistent with Mr. Ruff's testimony quoted in paragraph 178 below, Ms. Kleist testified that the proposal will make the marina "much larger" (Tr. 941) than it has been in her five years living in the area. (Tr. 940). When asked whether she observed the speed zones that apply to Deep Lagoon, Ms. Kleist candidly replied: Probably not all the time. Just like I don't with my car. But we attempt to pay attention to speed zones. It's not intentionally, but if you're asking me to 100 percent of the time, have I never speeded in my boat, I would say no. (Tr. 959). Respondents Respondent DEP is the state agency authorized to issue environmental resource permits for projects affecting the waters of the state under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It is delegated authority to issue proprietary authorizations to use sovereign submerged lands by Florida Administrative Code Rule 18- 21.0051. Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is the owner and operator of Deep Lagoon Marina, a 24-acre marina, claimed in its proposed recommended order (adopted by DEP) to consist presently "of 50 wet slips and approximately 350 dry slips (171 boats stored inside two storage buildings and the remainder stored outside of the buildings on racks or block)." Deep Lagoon Boat Ltd.'s Proposed Recommended Order, p. 6-7. A principal of the Boat Club is Edward J. Ruff, a developer of marinas in southwest Florida. The business is a family concern as was evidenced by the presence of many members of the Ruff family at the final hearing. Mr. Ruff has had success in developing several marinas in southwest Florida. An advocate of the Clean Marina Program, Mr. Ruff attributes the success to his pursuit of development of marinas that meet Clean Marina criteria. The Boat Club has applied for Clean Marina status for the Deep Lagoon Marina, but was turned down for lack of compliance with one criterion. It does not yet have a surface water management system that has been finally approved by DEP. The Boat Club hopes that approval of the surface water management system under review will clear the way for it to be able to "fly the flag" (Tr. 312) that demonstrates its achievement of Clean Marina status. Petitioners' Challenge Petitioners raised 10 bases in their petition for denial of the Consolidated Permit/Authorization. One, found in paragraph 32.H., of the petition, concerning the application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.0045, has been waived. See p. 55 of Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order. The remaining nine alleged in paragraph 32 of the petition are as follows: Whether Deep Lagoon Club has provided reasonable assurances of compliance with the applicable water quality standards as required by Section 373.414(1), Fla. Stat., including Florida's anti-degradation policy in Rules 62-4.242(1)9a) and Rule 62- 302.300(7), Florida's minimum standards in Rule 62-302.500, and Florida's Class III standards Rule 62.302.560. * * * Whether Deep Lagoon Club has provided reasonable assurances of compliance with the public interest criteria of Section 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat., . . . Whether Deep Lagoon club has provided reasonable assurances of compliance with the elimination and avoidance criteria of Section 373.414(1)(b), Fla. Stat. and SFWMD Basis of Review Section 4. Whether Deep Lagoon Club is collaterally estopped from being granted an ERP for its proposed stormwater management system due to the DEP's denial of the same proposed stormwater management system and its secondary impact on Manatees. . . . Whether Deep Lagoon Club failed to provide reasonable assurance concerning the direct impacts and secondary impacts of its proposed activities on the endangered Manatee. (Section 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d)-(f); Basis of Review Section 4.2.7(a); [citation omitted]; Section 370.12(2)(m), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code Chapter 68C-22 . . .; . . . Whether Deep Lagoon Club failed to provide reasonable assurance concerning the past, present and foreseeable cumulative impacts, especially including cumulative impacts on the endangered Manatee. . . . Whether Deep Lagoon Club has provided reasonable assurances its sovereign submerged lands application complies with the public interest criteria of Rule 18-21.004, including secondary impacts on the endangered Manatee . . . * * * Whether Deep Lagoon Club has provided reasonable assurances that its proposed activities are consistent with Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program . . . Whether Deep Lagoon Club has provided reasonable assurances of compliance with applicable standards, rules and ordinances in light of its past violations such as failing to register for sovereign land lease, dredging the marina basin without authorization, and dredging the marina basin to depths and widths greater than Florida's exempt statute authorized . . . Petition for Hearing, pp. 11-15. These bases can be grouped under three headings: the proposed stormwater management system and water quality; the impact of the Consolidated Permit/Authorization on the Endangered Manatee, and (3) other issues related to these two such as collateral estoppel and past violations. Fundamental to resolution of these issues are issues that relate to the number of boat slips at the Boat Club marina and the number of power boats the marina can accommodate. These numbers vary depending on whether marina usage is considered in terms of physical capacity, actual usage or legal limits. Physical capacity, as found above, exceeds 600 slips. Actual usage has varied over the years. The lawful number of slips depends on local development orders and permit requirements. If a permit is to be obtained from the state, then the lawful number of boat slips and power boats may be restricted, just as is proposed in the permit at issue in this case. Lawful Number of Boat Slips and Power Boats Of the 485 boat slips (129 wet slips and 356 dry slips) allowed at the marina under the Consolidated Permit/Authorization, 40 may not be used for power boats. The 40 may be used for sail boats; otherwise, they must remain unoccupied. This leaves a maximum of 445 slips at the marina that may be used for power boats. Over the years, the number of boat slips at the marina and the number to have been authorized by the various sought- after permits have varied. For example, on June 26, 1998, a Manatee Impact Review Report issued by the Bureau of Protected Species Management, then in the DEP's Division of Marine Resources, showed the marina to have 228 existing slips: 61 wet and 167 dry. The report shows that the marina had an additional 446 slips (113 wet and 333 dry) that were "[p]reviously permitted but not constructed". DEP Ex. 41, page 2 of 7. According to the report, together the existing and authorized, not-yet-constructed slips totaled 674 (174 wet and 500 dry). In the Sheridan II administrative proceeding, the administrative law judge found as follows: 26. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF ["dredge and fill" permit] to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips . . . so as to raise its marina capacity to 150 -174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. Deep Lagoon Ex. 9D, 22 FALR 3286. The Applicant and the Department took exception to Finding of Fact No. 26 while the recommended order was under consideration by DEP. The finding was modified in DEP's Final Order so as to reduce the number of new wet slips authorized to 89 so that the total number of wet slips numbered 150. The new dry slips to be added through the permit process under review were left at 227 by the DEP Final Order so that the marina's total capacity for dry slips, if the permit were granted, remained as the ALJ had found, at 427. See Id., at 22 FALR 3264. In the Sheridan II administrative hearing, Mr. Uhle, counsel for the Boat Club, made the following statement: "D.R.I. actually authorized more wet slips and more dry slips. But that's if the amendment is approved, that's what will be authorized." Deep Lagoon Ex. 43, p. 30. In fact, a DRI Amendment (presumably the one to which Mr. Uhle referred) was approved subsequent to the administrative hearing in Sheridan II. The Deep Lagoon Development of Regional Impact Development ("DRI") Order had been adopted on March 23, 1987. At the behest of the Boat Club by the filing of a Notice of Proposed Change on August 10, 1998, the DRI Development Order was amended for a second time. The amendment was adopted on June 7, 1999, a month or so after the administrative hearing in Sheridan II. The "Second Development Order Amendment for Deep Lagoon Marina, A Development of Regional Impact" (the "Current DRI Order") employs a "strike-through and underline format" (Boat Club Exhibit 8, Attachment 18, p. 2 of 17), that reveals both the amendment requested by the Boat Club and the DRI Development Order as it existed prior to the second amendment. The Current DRI Order authorizes "150 permanent wet slips; of which 30 will be reserved only for temporary moorings; 115,000 square feet of dry storage (427 slips)" (Id.) The Current DRI Order thus sets the number of boat slips at the marina as 150 wet slips and 427 dry slips. The Current DRI Order is consistent with the conclusion of DEP in its Final Order in Sheridan II: the legal capacity of the marina, were the permit applied for there to be granted, would be 150 wet slips and 427 dry slips for a total of 577 slips, wet and dry. This capacity was not achieved through permitting, however, because DEP accepted the recommendation of the administrative law judge that the permits applied for in Sheridan II be denied. The denials were based, at least in part, because DEP "declined to reject the ALJ's mixed statements of law and fact concluding that increased boating capacity and other Marina expansion activities authorized in the Original Permit constituted adverse secondary impacts of the proposed SWMS to water quality and to manatees and their habitat." Deep Lagoon Ex. 9D, 22 FALR at 3277. Water Quality and Surface Water Management The Boat Club proposes to construct a stormwater management system for the entire 15.4 acres of uplands at the marina site. Such a system is badly needed if the marina is to operate with environmental integrity. For the most part, any surface water that is generated presently on the south peninsula hits the pavement or the buildings and then runs off into the canals. On the north, runoff sheet flows across the non- vegetated areas and discharges directly into the canal systems. "A person proposing to construct or alter a stormwater management system . . . shall apply to the governing board or the department for a permit authorizing such construction or alteration." Section 373.413(2). Existing ambient water quality in Deep Lagoon does not meet water quality standards. Data collected in May of 2002, "showed exceedances . . . of total coliform . . . of dissolved oxygen and . . . of copper, cadmium and zinc." (Tr. 560). "If the applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the . . . department shall consider mitigation measures proposed by . . . the applicant that cause net improvement of the water quality in the receiving body of water for those parameters which do not meet standards." Section 373.414(1)(b)(3). Construction of the surface water management system will include three separate and independent stormwater collection systems, associated dry pretreatment areas, and an underground vault/infiltrator system for storage and treatment of stormwater prior to discharge through concrete weir outfall control structures into the adjacent Class III waters. The system proposed in this proceeding retains the components of the design that failed to win approval in Sheridan II, and it enhances them with additional measures designed to provide net improvement in water quality in the receiving body of water. Under the proposed system, any water flowing from a rain event is routed into above-ground pretreatment areas, an enhancement to the original system. Once the water in these detention systems reaches a certain level, it flows into drainage structures. The structures transport the water below ground into a series of pipes connected to underground infiltrator storage treatment areas. The underground infiltrator drainage structures, constructed over crushed stone, were not designed specifically as a retention system. Nonetheless, they have the ability to remove water through ex-filtration into the ground. Chambers will be placed throughout the marina property, including under buildings and parking surfaces, and under some pathways. Their primary function is to detain waters and, through a settling process, treat it. The number of infiltrators provided in the proposed system is increased over the prior system, another enhancement. After detention in the underground system, the water is discharged through three outfalls, one for each of three independent drainage areas. The proposed dry pretreatment areas increase total stormwater storage capacity over the prior system by roughly 18,000 cubic feet, a 30-40 percent increase of storage over the prior design. With the prior system, there could have been discharge from parking areas into the canals during storms. The proposed system is designed so that all the runoff from the uplands is captured by the system. The proposed Marina Management Plan (the "Plan"), another enhancement, will add extra safeguards to eliminate some pollutants. The Plan provides a maintenance program to be carried out by a designated Environment Compliance Officer. Maintenance includes regular inspection of the chambers, themselves, inspections of the outfall structures, and an annual reporting to DEP as to the status of the storage/treatment system. The surface water management system also incorporates three "closed loop" recycling systems, one for each of the two designated boat wash-down areas and a third, located in the maintenance and service area, added as an enhancement to the prior system. The three recycling systems each consist of a concrete containment area with a drain. The water flows into the drain and is pumped up into a closed loop treatment system. There the water is pumped through a purifying device, separating contaminants and byproducts. The clean water is then reused for future wash downs. In the prior system, overflow, during an extreme storm event, for example, would flow into the surface water management system. Under the proposed plan, overflow from the recycling systems discharges directly into the municipal sewage system that will serve the site, another enhancement over the previous system. The proposed permit requires the closed loop recycling systems to be inspected by a Florida-registered professional engineer on an annual basis. The water discharged from the discharge structure will meet Class III standards. The system also complies with design requirements for discharge into Outstanding Florida Waters. The surface water management design incorporates best management practices to eliminate erosion or water quality problems during construction of the project. If done in compliance with permit requirements, construction and operation of the proposed stormwater management system will be in compliance with the Southwest Florida Water Management District's Basis for Review. These requirements together with the Marina Management Plan will improve the quality of the water leaving the site. There will be a net improvement in water quality for all parameters in the marina's receiving waters that currently do not meet standards. The treated water leaving the site will not cause parameters currently within standards to violate those standards. The contamination and maintenance dredging project performed by the Boat Club in 1999, appears to have improved water quality based on a comparison between 1997 pre-dredging water quality data, and the 2002 post-dredging water quality. Jack Wu, a professional engineer and DEP's expert in "coastal engineering, hydrographic impacts of submerged lands and environmental resource permit projects" (Tr. 750), performed a technical review of the marina canals and the proposed projected in accordance with the Basis of Review. He considered the structural design, size, and configuration of the proposed docking system, the flushing and mixing study, tidal data, and water quality data. Mr. Wu's testimony establishes that the proposed flushing culverts will increase circulation and eventually reduce the flushing time of the canals. Jack Myers, DEP's stormwater system design expert testified that the proposed surface water management system would not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources of the District according to his assessment. Mr. Myers' assessment of the secondary impacts, however, did not include impacts to manatees. The Endangered Manatee Manatees are listed as an endangered species under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)(16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.), and under Florida law (Florida Administrative Code Rule 68A-27.003(1)(a)(31). In view of their status as endangered and as a Florida wildlife resource, manatees have undergone extensive study by many including the Florida Marine Research Institute in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Among these studies is the Special Study, conducted as the result of a settlement of litigation and released in November of 2002. Paragraphs 91-129 are derived from the Special Study, a copy of which appears in the record as Petitioners' Exhibit 20. The Florida Manatee The Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostirs) is one of two subspecies of the West Indian manatee (T. manatus). Florida manatees inhabit the southeastern United States, primarily occupying the marine, estuarine, coastal, and freshwater inland waters of Florida. Manatees are herbivorous marine mammals. Manatees are not typically gregarious although mothers and calves travel in pairs and, on occasion, manatees travel in mating herds. Otherwise, for the most part, they are solitary although they may aggregate in areas with resources essential to the well-being of the population. These resources include warm water, fresh water, quiet resting areas, and areas with aquatic vegetation (marine and freshwater). Like most large mammals, manatees have a potentially long life-span, mature slowly, are slow to reproduce, and have a high parental investment in their offspring. Threats to the manatee population have their origin both in nature and in the activities of human beings. Potentially catastrophic, naturally occurring threats to manatees include hurricanes, red tide events and disease, and exposure to cold temperatures. To combat cold temperature exposure, manatees rely on a network of warm-water sites in eastern and southwestern Florida, as refuge during the cold season. Tampa Bay is a prime site of warm water refuge because of the number of power plants in the area. The only power plant that produces a manatee aggregation site between Tampa Bay and eastern Florida is the FP&L power plant up river from Deep Lagoon. Continued high counts of manatees at sites near power plants in southwestern Florida highlight the manatees' dependence on this network. Manatees feed on a variety of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial plants. Common forage species include shoal grass, manatee grass, turtle grass, tape grass, and widgeon grass. Manatees are reported to feed on seagrass plants both above and below the sediment. It has been theorized that manatees use fresh water for regulation of body temperature. They obtain fresh water from the plants they consume and are able to maintain their body water balance in salt water systems without drinking fresh water. Nonetheless, manatees are attracted to fresh water sources, especially in areas of high or fluctuating salinity like the Caloosahatchee. In estuarine waters such as Deep Lagoon, where fresh water floats on the top of saltier water, manatees have been observed with their mouths open at the surface drinking fresh water. Warm-water refuges play an important role in defining manatee movements between Shell Point and the Edison Bridge. The warm water refuge at the FPL power plant is classified in the Special Study as a Primary warm-water site. A secondary warm- water site along the River is at the Franklin Lock and Dam. Another secondary warm-water site in the area is in the canals of the Matlacha Isles at the northern end of Matlacha Pass. An old quarry pit in Ten-Mile Canal, Mullock Creek, is another site near Deep Lagoon where manatees aggregate because of warm water. In 2001, FP&L re-powered its plant from oil to natural gas. This reduced its warm water effluent. To compensate for the reduction and to provide manatee habitat, FP&L installed "donkey boilers" in January of 2002. The discharge in January of 2002, was more than one degree Celsius cooler than it had been in January of 2000, but the average January temperature of the FP&L discharge remained more than two degrees Celsius warmer than the water at the Franklin Lock. The single greatest cause of manatees' human-related mortality (referred to in the Special Study as "anthropogenic") is collisions with watercrafts. With regard to "anthropogenic" threats to manatees, the study, in part, reported the following: From 1976-2001, watercraft collisions accounted for approximately 25% of all manatee deaths and are the single greatest cause of human-related mortality (FWC unpublished data). In 2001 there were over 943,000 registered vessels in Florida (citation omitted). Given that about 97% of registrations are for recreational watercraft (citation omitted), it can be expected that there will be a continued increase in recreational vessels plying the waterways of Florida due to an increase in the human population. In addition to the expected increase in boat numbers over the next 25 years, other factors may act synergistically to increase the risk of fatal collision between manatees and watercraft. Relatively new modifications to the design of vessel hulls and engines allow boats to travel at higher speeds in shallower waters (citation omitted), thus threatening manatees and scarring seagrass beds. Boater compliance with existing slow speed zones is inconsistent (citation omitted). Sub-lethal effects of increased vessel traffic on manatees and a growing human population in the nearshore waters create more risk to manatees. Most adult manatee carcasses bear scars from previous boat strikes, and the healed, skeletal fractures of some indicate that they had survived previous traumatic impacts (citation omitted). Of over 1000 living individuals in the manatee photo-identification database (citation omitted), 97% had scar patterns from multiple boat strikes (citation omitted). It should be noted that the photo- identification database contains only animals with scars or other identifiable features. Non-lethal injuries may reduce the breeding success of wounded females and may permanently remove some animals from the breeding population (citation omitted). Vessel traffic and recreational activities that disturb manatees may cause them to leave preferred habitats and may alter biologically important behaviors such as feeding, suckling, or resting (citation omitted). Other threats from human activities include entanglement in fishing gear or debris; entrapment or crushing in water-control structures, locks and pipes; exposure to contaminants; and incidental ingestion of debris (citation omitted). Indirect effects from increased vessel traffic include increased water turbidity from wake action and decline of seagrass beds due to scarring by propellers (citation omitted). Petitioners' Exhibit 20, pp. 3-4. Essential Habitat for the Manatee Essential habitat for manatees, referred to in the Special Study as "places" (see id., p. 17), are areas frequented by manatees for extended time periods. These manatee places contain key habitat for manatee feeding, resting, and thermoregulation. In addition to the warm water aggregation places, the FWC's field staff has verified other places in the Caloosahatchee River area important to manatees. These secondary sites are important because they either contain fresh water or seagrass beds, aid in manatee thermoregulation, or are areas of minimal disturbance. Manatees are frequently seen in these important secondary sites during rapid cooling spells that do not greatly drop the ambient water temperature. Id. These important secondary sites are: Eight Lakes (deep canal lakes with warm water and sediments in SW Cape Coral); Chiquita Canal (freshwater source with access to Eight Lakes area); Bimini Basin (may be used for resting); Shell Point Village Lagoon (may have fresh water); Punta Rassa (seagrass beds-feeding aggregation); Beautiful Island (possible feeding site); Downtown Fort Myers Basins (presumably for fresh water discharged from hoses); Deep Lagoon (fresh water, resting, or warm water); Iona Cove (feeding); and Billy Creek (sediments retain heat). Deep Lagoon has been denominated a "minor aggregation site." Manatee Corridors Manatee "corridors" are areas visited regularly by manatees for brief times as they travel from place to place. The FWC has used telemetry data of manatees to model manatee corridors and manatee places. The Caloosahatchee River is a major manatee travel corridor because of the warm water discharged by the FP&L plant. The FP&L refuge attracts one of the largest wintering aggregations of manatees in Florida, with as many as 469 manatees having been counted in Lee County during the winter. In January 2001, as many as 434 manatees were counted in one day at the FP&L refuge. Manatees in the Caloosahatchee River generally travel not far from the shoreline, but they have also been observed to travel in the River's channels. Manatees also cross the Caloosahatchee River between Deep Lagoon and the Redfish Point area where the river narrows to 1,000 meters, and at Shell Point where the river narrows to 710 meters. Redfish Point lies across the river from Deep Lagoon. Manatees frequently travel between Redfish Point and Deep Lagoon, thereby crossing the main boat channel of the river. The FWC has identified this narrow part of the river between Redfish Point and Deep Lagoon as both a manatee travel "corridor" and as a heavy boat vessel travel corridor. Manatee crossings of the river also occur at Shell Point where the River narrows to 710 feet. Shell Point is the mouth of the river area where the river flows into San Carlos Bay. The FWC has identified the Shell Point area as a manatee travel corridor, and as the most heavily used boat vessel travel corridor. The 1998 Gorzelany report recorded an average of five boats per minute passing the Shell Point area. Just to the west of Shell Point, the boat channel in eastern San Carlos Bay is known as the "Miserable Mile." The Shell Point and Miserable Mile area likely represent the highest risk areas for watercraft collisions with manatees. Manatee Population The exact number of Florida manatees is unknown. Manatees are difficult to count because they are often in areas of poor water quality, and their behavior, such as resting on the bottom of a deep canal, can make them difficult to see. Aerial surveys and ground counts (statewide synoptic survey) have been conducted by the state in most years since 1991. There are four regional sub-populations of the Florida Manatee, these being in the Northwest Region, the Upper St. Johns River Region, the Atlantic Region, and the Southwest Region. The great bulk of the Florida population lives in the Atlantic and Southwest Regions. The sub-populations of the Manatees in those two regions account for substantially more than 80 percent of the total Florida manatee population with roughly half of the two in each region. The Southwest Region of the West Indian Manatee consists of the coastal counties from Pasco County south along the Gulf of Mexico to Whitewater Bay in Monroe County (including Lee County), and the inland counties of DeSoto, Glades, and Hendry Counties. The Southwest Region population of the Florida manatee constitutes approximately 42 percent of the total Florida manatee population. The adult survival rates in the Southwest Region are substantially lower than the survival rates in all of the other manatee regions in the state. The average age at death of manatees in the Southwest Region is significantly lower than in other regions of the state and statewide. Of the four Florida sub-populations, there is less data available for the Southwest population. "[A] priority [has been] placed on catching up to gather the necessary amount of data to better evaluate [the] status of the southwestern population." (Tr. 516-517). Nonetheless, both FWC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have developed manatee population models, that are both sound and comprehensive. The two agree about the status of the Southwest Region population of the Florida manatee and its immediate future as explained at hearing by Dr. Bruce Ackerman, an expert in marine mammal biology, manatee population modeling, and manatee aerial surveys: "The two models were written to answer somewhat different questions, but an area that they agree on is that the southwest population is likely to be declining now, whether a little or a lot, is not so clear, but likely to be declining at this time and in the near future." (Tr. 923). The FWC's Florida Manatee Recovery Plan contains three benchmark criteria for each of the four manatee regions: average annual adult survival rate of 94 percent, average annual reproduction (at least 40 percent of adult females with calves during the winter), and the average annual rate of population growth is equal to or greater than zero. The Southwest Region manatee population is currently failing to meet the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan goal criteria. Even in the absence of any water-craft related mortalities (incidental takes), the growth rate of the Southwest Region manatee population over the next 20 years is expected to be negative. In the Southwest Region, there is no excess manatee population growth and no net productivity which can be allocated to incidental takes. In the absence of any water-crafted related manatee moralities in the Southwest Region, the probability of recovery of the Southwest Region manatee population in the next 100 years is 63 percent. If current Southwest Region watercraft-related manatee mortality trend continues, there is a zero percent chance of the recovery of the Southwest Region manatee population. Natural Threats to Manatees Manatee populations are threatened by natural causes as well as causes whose origin is human activity. The fatal and non-fatal natural threats to manatees include cold temperatures, hurricanes, red tide (Karenia brevis) events, and disease. Manatee carcasses with evidence of cold- stress show reduced gastrointestinal tract activity, a condition that can reduce an animal's buoyance. Juveniles and sub-adults are the most vulnerable to cold-stress death. Manatees on Florida's west coast are frequently exposed to brevetoxin, a potent neurotoxin, during red tide events. Manatees are exposed to brevetoxin through inhalation and ingestion. There were 75 manatee fatalities in the Southwest Region due to red tide recently. Watercraft-Related Mortality Types of Fatal Injuries The Florida Marine Research Institute conducted an analysis of watercraft-related mortality of manatees in Florida covering the period 1979 to 1991. Its abstract sums up the analysis as follows: From 1974 to 1991, the annual number of manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) deaths increased. The most frequent cause of death from human activity is collision with watercraft. Scars and wounds from propellers are common. A total of 1,376 sets of fatal or healed wounds was measured on 628 dead manatees recovered from 1979 through 1991. Collisions with watercraft caused 406 of these deaths. Of the 406 deaths, propeller cuts caused 158 (39%); impact injuries (no propeller cuts) caused 224 (55%); propeller cuts and impact injuries, either of which would have been fatal, caused 16 (4%); and unidentified specifics of the collisions caused 8 (2%). Fatal cuts were usually larger (longer) than healed wounds. Many animals survived several boat collisions; one manatee had 22 separate patterns of propeller cuts. The mean length [formula omitted] of the longest fatal cut from a propeller indicated that death was most often caused by a direct-drive watercraft. In contrast, fatal-impact injuries may have resulted from fast-moving watercraft of many sizes and types. Impact injuries killed more manatees than propeller cuts and increased in proportion with time. Impact often resulted in massive internal injuries with only minor surface abrasions. Only 2% of the propeller strikes were to the head, but 98% were to the dorsum. In addition, nearly 90% of the scar patterns were along the head-to-tail axis, indicating manatees were moving in response to an oncoming boat when struck. Changes in watercraft design may increase the frequency of operation of boats in shallow water. This increases the probability of collisions with manatees. Petitioners' Exhibit 26, pp. 259-260. The location of scars and wounds from propellers ranged from the head to the tail of manatees: Head (2%), Thorax (26%), Mid dorsal (body)(17%), Abdomen (36%), Tail (19%). Watercraft collision with manatees are common. Even U.S. Coast Guard and the FWC marine patrol boats have struck manatees. Mortality Data While the FWC's manatee mortality data are deemed to be reliable, the FWC does not document all watercraft-related manatee fatalities. It is, of course, not possible to know how many manatee carcasses escape observation and are not recovered. Even estimation of such numbers has difficulties. But scientifically, it is generally accepted that there is an undercount of manatee carcasses. It is known, for example, that in cases of manatee perinatal (dependent calf) deaths, carcasses are frequently not recovered. No recoveries in such cases are due to a number of factors: the small size of the carcass, rapid decomposition, and presence of scavengers. The manatee deaths listed by the FWC as having an undetermined cause of death could be watercraft-related deaths. A perinatal death, moreover, could be the direct result of a watercraft-related death of the mother. Watercraft-related manatee injuries are not limited to power boats. They may also be caused by sailboats. A significant number of sailboats have shaft driven inboard motors with a rudder that functions as a skeg (a projection that is the after part of the keel or an extension upon which the rudderpost is mounted). Collisions between skegs and manatees cause sub- lethal and lethal injuries to manatees. Statewide Mortality Rate The most frequent cause of manatee death that is avoidable is watercraft collision. Statewide, the watercraft- related mortality of manatees is 24.5 percent for the time period January 1974, to December 2002, the highest single cause of manatee deaths. Lee County Mortality Rate Among counties, Lee County has the second highest level of watercraft-related deaths in Florida, with 163 reported between January 1974, and December 2002. From 1975 through 1993, the annual watercraft-related manatee deaths in Lee County were less than 10 per year. During the nine years from 1994 to 2002, there were 109 watercraft-related manatee deaths in Lee County, an average of 12.1 per year. In 1999, the watercraft-related deaths were 10 in Lee County. There were 13 in 2000, 23 in 2001, and 13 in 2002. The first six months of 2003, through June 10, have seen six watercraft-related deaths of manatees in Lee County. The 23 manatees to have died from watercraft-related injuries in Lee County in 2001, accounted for 45 percent of the total number of manatee deaths in Lee county for the year. Caloosahatchee River Mortality Rate For the ten years from 1976 to 1986, the number of watercraft-related manatee deaths in the Caloosahatchee River was 15, with an average annual number of such deaths being 1.5 per year. For the five years from 1988 to 1993 (no data available for 1989), the number of watercraft-related manatee deaths in the Caloosahatchee River was 13, with the average annual number of such deaths being 1.8 per year. For the seven years from 1994 to 2000, the number of watercraft-related manatee deaths in the Caloosahatchee River was 30, with the average annual number of such deaths being 4.3 per year, a substantial increase over the earlier annual numbers. From 1989 through 2001, the annual number of watercraft-related manatee deaths for the Caloosahatchee River increased by 15.1 percent per year. This rate of increase is higher than the rate of increase of such deaths in the Southwest Region manatee population (9.2%), and almost triple the rate of increase of such manatee deaths statewide (5.5%). The rate of increase of watercraft-related manatee deaths over the past 13 years in the Caloosahatchee River, moreover, is higher than: (a) the manatee death rates of all categories for the Caloosahatchee River, (b) of all watercraft- related manatee deaths in southwest Florida, and (c) of all watercraft-related manatee deaths statewide. There are a number of caveats to be considered when considering manatee death data. For example, "[I]t cannot be conclusively known where manatees are actually struck by boats." Petitioners' Exhibit 21, p. 9. A "Summary and Analysis of Manatee-related Data in Lee County, 2002" prepared by Mary Duncan of the FWC (Petitioners' Exhibit 21), elaborates: The mortality database reports carcass recovery locations, which is not necessarily where animals were struck by watercraft, or where they died. For watercraft-related manatee deaths, the precise location of where animals are struck usually cannot be verified unless reported by a witness of the incident. Carcasses may move with currents and tides, but also some injuries may not cause immediate death. Injured animals have been know to swim many miles before dying. Since there is a warm water refuge in the Orange River, at tributary off the Caloosahatchee River, it is possible that some injured animals may attempt to reach this area since it represents a safe place. Cases where death occurred several days to weeks after the trauma are considered "chronic". Some of the recent watercraft-related deaths recovered in the Orange River have been identified as chronic. Efforts are underway to make this determination on historical necropsy reports. It is possible that some animals included in the Caloosahatchee River dataset may have actually been struck outside the river system. While this analysis may provide additional information and insights, it should be recognized that most cases do not have evidence of chronic injuries-but the carcass location of those cases cannot [be] assumed to represent the impact site. Petitioners' Exhibit 21, pp. 9-10. Because of these caveats, Ms. Duncan's analysis posits, "[i]t is difficult to draw conclusions on relative risks to manatees from vessels with death data alone." Her report reaches these conclusions, There appears to be an intersection of high boat use and high manatee use at the . . . mouth of the Caloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay, commonly called the Miserable Mile area (reference omitted). This area represents the highest risk area for boat/manatee collisions. Boating studies indicate that vessel traffic is higher during the spring and summer, with the Miserable Mile area of San Carlos Bay being the highest use area. Miserable Mile is also identified as the highest vessel traffic area in Lee County in a 1998 boating study by Mote Marine Laboratory. Manatee aerial survey data confirm higher manatee use in Miserable Mile area and other parts of Lee County outside of the Caloosahatchee River system during the spring and summer. This is also confirmed by a higher number of watercraft deaths in these areas during the same time of year. Id., at 11. Ms. Duncan's report summarizes its conclusions drawn from the analysis of manatee-related data in Lee County: Existing population models now being developed typically assume that the level of threat will remain the same, since it is difficult to factor in projected threat increases. However, it is likely that threats are increasing and will continue to increase, such as increasing boat traffic and reduced foraging resources from increased coastal development. Such factors are likely to influence reproductive success and mortality rates. On a statewide basis, the continued high level of manatee deaths raise concern about the ability of the population to grow or at least remain stable. (Citation omitted.) Lee County currently ranks second in watercraft-related deaths and second in all categories of deaths statewide, suggesting that this county's waters provide a crucial habitat for manatees. Previous offsetting measures recommended during the permit review process do not appear to have offset the impacts of increasing boat traffic. Speed zones alone do not offset all adverse impacts to manatees from increased boat traffic. Long term comprehensive planning documents, such as a boat facility siting plans and manatee protection plans, are also needed to place marinas where they are least likely to increase risks to manatees. These types of conservation measures are needed to reduce the number of human-related manatee deaths, which will reduce overall manatee mortality. Id., at 13. Speed Zones and Boating Restrictions In 1989, manatee speed zones were implemented in Lee County. The steady increase in the annual number of watercraft- related manatee deaths in the Caloosahatchee River since then, and the dramatic increase in the annual rate of watercraft- related deaths in the River during the recent seven-year time period from 1994 to 2000 demonstrate, as is generally accepted and as concluded by Ms. Duncan, that speed zones alone do not offset adverse impacts to manatees from increases in boat traffic. This increase has occurred despite many features of boating restrictions in the area. Primary features of the Lee County speed zone, for example, are a one-quarter mile slowspeed shoreline buffer on either side of the intercoastal waterway channel from the mouth of the River to the U.S. 41 Bridge, and slow speed outside most of the intercoastal waterway channel from the Edison Bridge to the railroad trestle. The State-mandated manatee protection speed zones administered by FWC's Bureau of Protected Species Management under Florida Administrative Code Rule 68C-22.005, impose a year- round one-quarter mile slow speed zone for the entire shoreline of the Caloosahatchee River to the Edison bridges. East of the Edison bridges there is a slow speed zone outside of the marked channel all year, and a 25 mph maximum speed in the channel. East of the railroad trestle near Beautiful Island to east of the I-75 bridge crossing, in the area that includes the FP&L power plant, there is an idle speed zone imposed outside the channel all year, and an idle speed zone in the channel from November 15 through March 31. There is also an idle speed zone in the Orange River all year. Lee County's regulations, pursuant to its Ordinance No. 02-14, adopted on March 26, 2002, restrict boat speed within 500 feet offshore from all beaches, and within 500 feet from any water-oriented structures, such as docks, to idle speed. The FWC rules at Florida Administrative Code Rule 68C- 22.002(7), define "slow speed" as "the speed at which a vessel proceeds when it is fully off plane and completely settled into the water." The definition also states, "This required level of protection for the safety of vessels and vessel operators is also intended to provide adequate protection for manatees and is therefore adopted because of its familiarity to vessel operators." The State defines a slow speed zone as "an area where vessels may not be operated at greater than Slow Speed." Fla. Admin. Code R. 68C-22.002(8). The County's Ordinance 02-14 describes "idle speed" as: the lowest speed at which a vessel can operate and maintain steering control. The actual speed will depend upon the design of the vessel and on the vessels load, wind direction and speed, and the sea conditions. Generally, it will be between 1 and 3 miles per hour for outboard and inboard/outboard vessels, between 2 and 5 miles per hour for fixed shaft/rudder vessels. Boat Club Ex. 20 at Section Three. This definition is substantially the same as the State's definition. Marine signs in Deep Lagoon include two idle speed County ordinance signs. One is at the entrance to the central and south canals; another is at the entrance channel into Deep Lagoon and the River, inside the one-quarter mile State manatee speed zone. The second sign lets boaters know they are entering the County idle speed zone from the slow speed zone. There is also a slow speed sign for the boaters leaving the Deep Lagoon channel. It lets them know they are leaving the idle speed zone and entering the State's slow speed zone. The State, Lee County Sheriff, and Lee County municipalities participate in enforcing the State speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River. The Lee County Sheriff and the municipalities, through a memorandum of understanding, enforce the Lee County Ordinance if there is not a more restrictive ordinance in the municipality. On July 11, 2002, the Lee County Sheriff enacted a "zero tolerance" policy. It directs its marine unit to no longer issue warnings. Every stop for violation of a speed restriction is ticketed. The cost of the tickets ranges from $50 to $75. It is too soon, however, to tell what effect the policy is having on protection of manatees. Funding for Lee County marine patrol officers has increased recently. In February 2003, local law enforcement entities created a Manatee Task Force in order to better coordinate manatee protection efforts within Lee County. Once or twice per month, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service selects an area in Lee County for a heavy patrol known as a "wolf pack." (Tr. 426). The wolf pack consists of "three to four boats and eight or more officers". (Tr. 427). It concentrates in one area. Lee County also maintains displays of the county's Boater Guide at all local boat ramps showing the State and County speed zones, with a more detailed inset of the area where the boat ramp is located. Another education effort consisted of the mailing of a Boater's Guide that detailed manatee protection zones to about 40,000 registered boaters. Nonetheless, there are channels exempt from speed zones. All manatee travel corridors and places, moreover, are not subject to speed limitations. For example, the corridor that crosses the River from Redfish Point to the mouth of Deep Lagoon is not entirely subject to speed limitations. Commercial vehicles, moreover, can apply for exemption from manatee speed zones and can be exempted if compliance would be "burdensome." (Tr. 443). Compliance with manatee speed zones by boaters, as Ms. Kleist, an advocate of manatee protection, confessed in her case, is far from exemplary. A review of vessel activity in the Special Study led to this summary: Boaters in the Caloosahatchee River behave similarly to others throughout the state (citation omitted). Vessel traffic is highest on spring weekend afternoons. Yachts, ski boats, and open fishermen are the three most common vessel types found between the Edison Bridge and Miserable Mile while Mullock Creek is dominated by open fisherman. In these areas, the most common vessel sizes range from 16-39 feet. Highest traffic densities occur at Shell Point, where the Caloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay converge. Mullock Creek had comparatively low levels of boat traffic. Many of the boats along the lower Caloosahatchee River originate in the Cape Coral canal system and travel toward the Gulf of Mexico. The highly variable, site- specific nature of boaters' behavior and vessel compliance requires scientists and managers to treat each site individually. Compliance with speed zones ranged from 12- 77% in the Caloosahatchee with an overall compliance of 57.3%. Although the number of vessels using Mullock Creek was relatively low, compliance was 26% accompanied by a high level of blatant non-compliance. Compliance rates may not be as important as the total number of blatant violators. While Shell Point has higher compliance, it also has heavy boat traffic that yields a greater total number of blatant violators that could pose a threat to manatees than areas with lower compliance. Petitioner's Exhibit 20, at 15. The number and size of registered boats is substantially increasing. For management of the manatee, it is important to determine where and how watercraft collisions occur. Studies to date have not yet reached these determinations. Watercraft-Related Sub-Lethal Injuries Between 60 percent and 90 percent of all Florida manatees have propeller scars. Propeller scars on manatees are so common that the FWC uses propeller scars to identify manatees. Of the over 1,000 living manatees in FWC's photo-identification data base of manatees with scars or other identifiable features, 97 percent had scar patterns from more than one watercraft collision. Most adult manatee carcasses bear scars from previous boat strikes, and the healed skeletal fractures of some of these carcasses indicate they had survived previously traumatic impacts. An example of such scar patterns is manatee MSW9321. Its carcass "floating in the Caloosahatchee River just inside the mouth of Deep Lagoon" (Petitioners' Exhibit 26), was recovered by the Department of Natural Resources in May of 1993, with the assistance of Mrs. Sheridan. The manatee had ten fresh propeller wounds along its back and across its fluke, five of which penetrated its body cavity, and multiple healed and healing scars in the dorsum. There were 31 prior scars from propeller cuts. The FWC's study of 628 manatees carcasses recovered from 1979 to 1991, found that manatee carcasses with no propeller scars were rare. Many manatees have multiple sets of propeller scars from different collisions. Non-fatal propeller cuts can become contaminated wounds which can cause prolonged illness and death. Non-fatal watercraft-related injuries can damage a manatee's ability to swim. They may reduce the breeding success of wounded females, and remove some animals from the breeding population. In sum, as was found nearly four years ago by Administrative Law Judge Meale in paragraph 14 of the recommended order in Sheridan II: 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 from 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. (Petitioners' Exhibit 8, p. 9 [this exhibit contains only the odd-numbered pages of the recommended order; official recognition is taken of the order in its entirety]). As further found in the Sheridan II recommended order: "Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years." Id. Manatees in Deep Lagoon Groups of manatees frequently use Deep Lagoon. The state, under the auspices of FWC and its predecessors, has made numerous aerial flight observations of manatees of Deep Lagoon. Between January 17, 1984, and December 19, 1985, there were 48 such flights. Between July 24, 1988, and November 15, 1995, 23 aerial observations were flown. Groups of manatees were observed in Deep Lagoon near the mouth of the north canal, in all portions of the north canal, and in the Cow Slough headwaters of Deep Lagoon. Manatees radio-tagged by the state have also been documented in Deep Lagoon. On May 28, 1998, photographs were taken of groups of manatees in Deep Lagoon near the mouth of the marina's north canal and in the north canal. In late May 2003, photographs were taken of manatees in the Iona Drainage District canal near the mouth of the north canal. The Boat Club has also taken video tapes on numerous times of numerous manatees (from one manatee to groups of as many as five manatees) in the north canal. Each of the three Petitioners testified that on numerous occasions they have observed numerous manatees, including manatee mating herds in Deep Lagoon, the north canal, and the Iona canal. A manatee pair was also seen one day in the Iona Canal which appeared to be a new born manatee. Manatees have been observed several times in Deep Lagoon with small calves. From April 1974, to August 2002, within Deep Lagoon itself, 13 manatee carcasses have been recovered by the state. Four of the manatee deaths were determined to be watercraft- related deaths. Five of these manatee deaths were due to natural causes other than cold stress. For three, the cause of death was notdeterminable due to decomposition. One of the deaths was perinatal. In the Caloosahatchee River just outside the mouth of Deep Lagoon, during this period of time, the FWC recovered six manatee carcasses. Three of the deaths were watercraft-related. One was perinatal. The cause of one of the deaths was undeterminable due to decomposition. Another of the deaths was verified but the carcass was not recovered, thus the cause of death of was not determined. The Opinions of Experts None of the Petitioners' manatee experts expressed the opinion that the proposed permit would have an adverse effect on the manatee. Dr. Ackerman, for example, had never seen the application and had no opinion about whether it should be granted or not. See Tr. 933. But two of Petitioners' experts expressed opinions either that the addition of watercraft into any river system that constitutes manatee habitat poses a risk of collisions between boats and manatees or that adding boats to the Caloosahatchee River system poses a threat to the manatee unless there is some other accommodation for manatee protection. Sara Lynn McDonald, a marine biologist with FWC's Florida Marine Institute and an expert in marine mammal biology, wrote the majority of the report for the Special Study. When asked her opinion concerning whether an increase in boat traffic on the Caloosahatchee would increase the possibility of water crafts colliding with manatees, she answered, "Yes, I believe that in any system an increase in vessel traffic would increase risk of harmful collisions with motor boats." (Tr. 898). Ms. McDonald was asked on cross-examination whether she believed that speed zones are an effective measure to prevent collisions between manatees and water craft, she answered, "I think they can be." (Tr. 913). Dr. Bruce Ackerman, an expert in marine mammal biology, manatee population modeling, and manatee aerial surveys, was also called by Petitioners. Dr. Ackerman testified that the between 1974 and 1991, boat registrations in Florida trended upward and so did manatee fatalities from water craft collisions. Both trends have continued since 1991. His opinion was that "all other things being equal, adding more boats into [the Caloosahatchee River] system would increase the risk to manatees." (Tr. 923). On cross-examination, Dr. Ackerman went so far as to agree that speed zones show promise for the protection of manatees. Education, required by the state now of new boaters, in his opinion "helps somewhat." (Tr. 930). Mr. Pitchford, like Ms. McDonald and Dr. Ackerman, is an employee of FWC's Florida Marine Institute. He manages the State's Marine Mammal Pathobiology Lab where manatee necropsies for cause of death is determined. He offered testimony about the causes of deaths of manatees and related issues, but did not express an opinion at hearing, just as Petitioners' other two manatee experts, on whether the Boat Club's application should be granted or not. In contrast to the three experts who testified at the behest of Petitioners, two experts called by the Boat Club opined that there would be no adverse impact to manatees if the Boat Club's application were granted in the form preliminarily approved by the Department. Tom Logan, an expert in wildlife biology, whose specialty is in "endangered species management" (Tr. 484), opined that the project will not have an adverse affect on the manatee or its habitat. Mr. Logan offered this opinion on the basis of information he had examined and because, "the level of use that will be there with the proposed marina in place relative to what has been there in the past . . . will not result in anything increased or additive in the way of activity in the water that manatees are using . . . ." (Tr. 491). In other words, there will be no increase in power boats or other watercraft (sailboats with skegs, for example) in the Caloosahatchee River as the result of the proposed permit and therefore, granting the permit would have no adverse impact on manatees. Furthermore, Mr. Logan testified that manatee management protection programs combining speed zones, enforcement of speed limitations and education, can assist in the protection of manatees particularly in marina areas where manatees tend to congregate or visit. The speed zones in Lee County (in place of a considerable number of years), coupled with a "zero tolerance" enforcement policy in place since July of 2002, appeared to him to be working. (Tr. 491). Ms. Mary Duncan, a state Environmental Specialist III and FWC's Bureau of Protected Species Management's coordinator of its mortality database, was accepted as an expert in "potential impacts to manatees from development." (Tr. 777). At the time of hearing, she had conducted permit reviews for the bureau for 11 1/2 years, the time in which the bureau has been a part of the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Environmental Regulation, the Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. She has a "Bachelor's in biology with a minor in chemistry" (Tr. 775), and prior to the hearing in this case had testified four times in judicial or administrative proceedings on potential impact of manatees from development. Ms. Duncan has been involved with Deep Lagoon Marina permitting since "about 1994." (Tr. 777). In 1998, for example, she prepared a Manatee Impact Review Report for the Deep Lagoon Marina permit modification that involved the stormwater permit application and "the allowance of liveaboards, the relocation of the travel lift ramp to the north canal, and a redesign of the proposed cross connection between the north canal and the main basin." DEP Ex. 41. Her review described the project as in "an area of relatively high manatee use in Lee County, based on aerial survey and mortality data . . . [where the power plant] effluent attracts one of the largest wintering aggregations of manatees in Florida." Id. Her report further noted: Despite some existing manatee protection measures such as speed zones, watercraft- related manatee mortality trend is continuing to increase within the Caloosahatchee River. It is unknown whether the continuing deaths are a result of inadequate speed zones, inadequate posting of speed zones, inadequate enforcement of speed zones, and/or the cumulative impact from years of adding boats to the system. It is probable that many or all of these factors are involved. Id. In the historical information section of the report, Ms. Duncan showed the project to have 228 existing slips (61 wet, 167 dry) with previously permitted but not constructed slip at 446 (113 wet and 333 dry) for a total of 674 slips (174 wet, 500 dry). In a section entitled "Cumulative Impacts," the report found: This project is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft- related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. Id. Numbers of recommendations were made in the report as conditions for approval including that "boat launching from the uplands be prohibited along the shoreline of the North Canal" (id., page 5 of 7), and that "[a]fter construction of the dry storage barns, storage of boats on trailer or open dry storage racks shall be prohibited." Id., page 6 of 7. On March 1, 1999, Ms. Duncan authored a memorandum through which the Bureau of Species Protection Management suggested that the following language be used as condition of the Boat Club's proposed permit, Launching and retrieval in the north canal shall be restricted to vessels requiring boat repair. The applicant shall maintain a daily log of vessels launched and retrieved from the north canal travel lift. The applicant shall also maintain a log of incoming and outgoing boat repairs, which shall correlate with the travel lift log. DEP Ex. 43. A letter authored by Ms. Duncan dated November 18, 2003, was sent to Mr. Calvin Alvarez in the Southwest District Office of DEP. Signed by Brian Barnett, Interim Director of the FWC's Office of Environmental Services, it represents the Commission's comments and recommendations regarding the Boat Club's application under review in this proceeding. The letter contains a number of recommendations for conditions of the proposed permit, all of which were, in fact, made conditions of the permit as approved. In addition to standard construction conditions, development of a marina manatee education program, and installation of grates over certain pipes to prevent manatee drowning, the recommendations included the following: Of the 485 slips proposed for this marina, the number of powerboats allowed at this facility shall be limited to 445. The remaining slips (40) must be either occupied by sailboats or left unoccupied. Future requests for additional powerboats will be considered if the secondary and cumulative impacts associated with this increase are not expected to adversely affect the West Indian manatee. Storage of boats on trailers or open land racks shall be prohibited. Use of the travel lift in the north canal for boats less than 40 feet in length is prohibited except in emergencies (approaching hurricane etc.). Limitation on the use of this lift shall not exceed a 28-day rolling average of ten vessels a week for those vessels, except in emergencies (approaching hurricane etc.). Launching and retrieval of boats in the north canal shall be restricted to vessels requiring boat repair. The applicant shall maintain a daily log of vessels launched and retrieved from the north canal travel lift. The applicant shall also maintain a log of incoming and outgoing boat repairs, which shall correlate with the travel lift log. DEP Ex. 33, page 3. So long as the recommendations in the letter are conditions of the proposed permit, Ms. Duncan offered the opinion that the proposed permit "imposes minimal adverse impacts to manatees, and if any impacts do occur, they have been offset by" the permit conditions. (Tr. 784). Ms. Duncan's opinion was based on review of the project, "the historical background of the facility, manatee data, the requirements of the ERP rule, and [her] general knowledge of Lee County and manatee use in Lee County." Id. The 1990 Aerial: Proof of Maximum Historical Use Of particular import to Ms. Duncan's review was the historical background of the facility. Ms. Duncan reviewed a document provided to her by Hans Wilson and Associates, the Boat Club's environmental consultant and marine engineer. The document, enlarged as DEP Ex. 37, "has two coverages. It is an aerial photograph in 1990 of the facility. Overlaid on that is a CAD drawing done by Hans Wilson to outline what they determined to be existing boats that were uncovered in open storage on the facility in 1990." (Tr. 786-787). Ms. Duncan used the document to determine "actually how many boats were located coming out of this facility." (Tr. 787). She determined that there were 217 "Uncovered Dry Slips" (DEP Ex. 33) at the marina in 1990. Together with 61 authorized wet slips and 167 authorized "Covered Dry Slips" (id.), she reached a total of 445 slips at the marina as the historical maximum, 40 slips less than the 485 that were proposed in the Boat Club's current ERP application. Hence, FWC recommended that the number of power boat slips be restricted to 445 slips. Ms. Duncan chose the 1990 aerial for the basis of her recommendation because unlike the other aerials she looked at from 1993, 1999, 2000 and 2001, "[t]he 1990 aerial was the period of time that the facility appeared to be at full operating capacity in the sense that this was the aerial that showed the most boats and open storage on the uplands." (Tr. 787). Furthermore, she chose the 1990 aerial because "it represents the existing use of the facility before they started clearing it to prepare for building boat barns later in the 1990's." (Id.) Use of the 1990 aerial as the proof of maximum usage of the marina enabled Ms. Duncan to conclude, like Mr. Logan, that restricting the number of power boats slips at the marina to 445 would not introduce any new boats into the system. Usage at Other Times However fair to the Boat Club the choice of the 1990 aerial as to historical background of usage at the marina might be, it is not free of problems. First, the 1990 aerial is more than a decade old. In the interim, the marina was not shown by a number of aerials to have achieved the usage that appears to have peaked in 1990. The actual usage at the marina, in fact, has varied over time greatly and has been less (at times, much less), than what it was in 1990. Recent usage at the marina, in fact, has been far less than it was in 1990. At the 1999 administrative hearing before Administrative Law Judge Meale, Mr. Ruff, in answer to a question from the Administrative Law Judge, offered that the covered dry space and uncovered dry space totaled only about 200 slips rather than the 356 dry slips proposed in the Boat Club's current application: The ALJ: Okay. Can we deal with first what's in the ground or on the water, regardless of what's been authorized? If you need to confer with other witnesses, that would be fine. Mr. Uhle: Mr. Ruff is the person who knows how many dry spaces there are. The figure 61 wet slips I believe is correct. The ALJ: For present conditions? Mr. Uhle: For present conditions. Ms. Holmes: And that's permitted and in use. Mr. Uhle: Those are existing. The ALJ: Existing, right. * * * The ALJ: How about dry spaces. Mr. Ruff: Okay. The existing dry space, there is approximately in the two buildings and on the ground and outside racks, about 200. When we bought the property [in 1997], there were about 400 because we used the entire north peninsula for dead storage. We've eliminated that, effectively, so we've probably eliminated 150 boats from the property since we bought it. And they were there for a long time. Petitioner's Exhibit 9 (emphasis supplied). Mr. Ruff's testimony supported the administrative law judge's finding that "Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings." Sheridan, et al., v. Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., et al., DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Recommended Order (November 24, 1999), paragraph 6, and supported the finding that adding 227 dry slips so as to raise its dry slip capacity to 427 dry slips would "adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters." Furthermore, the Sheridan II Recommended Order found: Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial number of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. Id., paragraph 137. In light of these facts, the recommended order reached the conclusion, "[a]pplicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species." Id., paragraph 138. In its final order in Sheridan II, DEP disapproved the maintenance and dredging exemption issue to the Boat Club, denied the Boat Club's request for a determination of entitlement to a maintenance and dredging exemption for dredging in the marina canals, and denied the Boat Club's application for an ERP to construct a SWMS on uplands at the Marina site. In the course of the final order, DEP "declined to reject the ALJ's mixed statements of law and fact concluding that increased boating activity and other Marina expansion activities authorized in the Original Permit constituted adverse secondary impacts of the proposed SWMS to water quality and to manatees and their habitat." Petitioners' Exhibit 8, DEP Final Order, OGC Case Nos. 98-1184 and 98-3047 and DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409, p. 42 (January 28, 2000). Actual usage at the marina of 61 wet slips and 200 dry slips was confirmed again in Sheridan III both in the recommended order issued in January of 2000, and the final order by DEP. Ms. Duncan's testimony was forthright; her demeanor earnest. There is nothing to suggest that her opinion was anything other than honest and sincerely held. If one were to suspect that Ms. Duncan had a bias, it would be, in light of her position with the state and the recommendations she has made in the past, toward manatee protection. Her opinion, therefore, that the proposed permit does not adversely affect manatees should be given substantial weight. Ms. Duncan's opinion, however, is rejected. It is rejected because, just as Mr. Logan's, it is based on a faulty assumption: that approval of the permit will not introduce into the Caloosahatchee River system more boats that threaten the endangered manatee. The approval of the permit will allow more slips (485) and power boats (440) than have been actually at the marina since 1999 when Mr. Ruff testified before Administrative Law Judge Meale (261, 200 dry slips and 61 wet slips). The approval will allow more boat slips and power boats than the Boat Club claims in its proposed recommended order exist there now (400, 50 wet and 350 dry). Furthermore, it may be inferred that the upgrade, particularly if Clean Marina status is achieved and is publicized, will make it likely that the marina will be more attractive to boaters and will operate at full capacity. Full capacity is 184 more power boats above the capacity that served as the baseline in Sheridan II, and 224 more boat slips than the Sheridan II baseline. Furthermore, and most persuasively, the Department decided in Sheridan II that allowing a similar number of boats to operate in the Caloosahatchee River system constitutes adverse secondary impacts to the manatee and its habitat. There is nothing in this record that is shown to have occurred in the past three years that would justify overriding the Department's conclusion. Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease The applicant has provided all information necessary to qualify for a proprietary authorization for a lease of sovereign submerged lands. But the Boat Club has failed to demonstrate that the lease will not be contrary to the public interest. See paragraph 204, below. Claim of Boat Club Violations Petitioners claim that the Boat Club has violated permit conditions or environmental law in the past in a number of different ways. There was no proof, however, of these violations. There was not even proof that the Department has ever issued a notice of violation to the Boat Club. Applicable Law In General At hearing, DEP produced a notebook with a cover page inside the book entitled "ALJ's Copy of Statutes and Rules." Official recognition was taken of the contents with no objection from any of the parties. Included in the notebook is an "Operation Agreement Concerning Regulation Under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., . . . Between South Florida Water Management District and Department of Environmental Regulation." Pursuant to the agreement, DEP reviews and takes final action on all applications for permits under Section IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, for docking facilities and adjacent docking and boating-related development which includes "parking areas for the docking facility, dry storage facilities, boat sale and supply facilities, maintenance and repair facilities, associated seafood loading and processing facilities, restaurants, harbor master and marina administration facilities." Section II, A. 1(i), pp. 3 and 4 of the Operating Agreement. Section 373.413 provides that "the governing board [of the water management district] or the department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the construction . . . of any stormwater management system . . . will comply with the provisions of (Part IV of Chapter 373] and applicable rules . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district." Section 373.414, entitled "Additional criteria for activities in surface waters and wetlands," provides: As part of an applicant's demonstration that an activity regulated under this part will not be harmful to the water resources or will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, the governing board or the department shall require the applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards applicable to water as defined in s. 403.031(13) will not be violated and reasonable assurance that such activity in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands . . . . is not contrary to the public interest. * * * In determining whether an activity, which is in, on, or over surface waters . . . and . . . is not contrary to the public interest . . . the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302; and SFWMD Basis of Review, Section 4.2.3. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300 states the Department's anti-degradation permitting policy for surface water quality. Section (15) of the rule provides that pollution that causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Section (17) of the rule provides that the Department shall permit new discharge if it will not reduce the quality of the receiving waters below their classification and if the degradation is necessary under federal standards and circumstances clearly in the public interest and meets other requirements. Of particular pertinence to this case, the subsection goes on to state, "[p]rojects permitted under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., shall be considered in compliance with this subsection if those projects comply with the requirements of subsection 373.414(1), F.S." Those requirements, of course, include the statement with regard to "net improvement in water quality" in Section 373.414(1)(b)3. In Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.100, DEP has adopted by reference certain ERP rules of SFWMD for its use in conjunction with its existing rules when regulating surface water management systems, including activities on, in, or over wetlands or other surface waters under Part IV of Chapter 373. The Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District August 1995 ("BOR") is also contained in the notebook of "ALJ's Copy of Statutes and Rules" produced at hearing as applicable law. Among the BOR's Environmental Criteria to be "implemented in a manner which achieves . . . a project permitting goal, of no net loss in . . . surface water functions" (Section 4.0, BOR) is Section 4.2.1. It requires the exploration of design modification to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to surface water functions. The evidence establishes that the proposed surface water management system will enhance surface water functions by providing a net improvement of the water quality of marina's receiving waters. Section 4.2.2 of the BOR requires that the applicant "provide reasonable assurances that the regulated activity will not impact the values of wetland and other surface water functions so as to cause adverse impacts to: (a) the abundance and diversity of fish, wildlife and listed species; and (b) the habitat of fish, wildlife and listed species." The Boat Club has failed to provide assurances that the upgrade to the marina will not cause adverse impacts to manatees and their habitat. The opinions of the experts presented by the Boat Club that there will be no adverse impacts are based on the faulty assumption that the upgrade will not add more boats into the Caloosahatchee River system. The boating restrictions imposed by the federal, state and local governments, moreover, have not been shown in this proceeding to mitigate adverse impacts to the manatee and its habitat that will be produced by the introduction of additional boats, power and otherwise, into the River system. The Public Interest Test Deep Lagoon has been found in previous recommended orders and DEP final orders not to be among Florida's Outstanding Waters, even though it is an arm of the Caloosahatchee River and the River is so listed. The parties do not contend otherwise. They have structured their arguments along the line that the proposed permit must be shown to be "not contrary to the public interest." Section 373.414(1). Of the seven criteria of Section 373.414(1), which must be considered and balanced in determining whether the project is contrary to the public interest, it has been shown that there is no adverse impact with regard to criteria 1., 3., 4., and 6. In fact, for example, as the Boat Club points out with regard to criterion 1., "[e]xcept for mosquito control, the testimony and evidence demonstrated that this proposed project will have a positive impact on each and every one of [the] concerns" (Respondent, Deep Lagoon Boat Club Ltd.'s Proposed Recommended Order, p. 53) listed in Section 4.2.3.1 of the BOR for assessment of hazard to public health, safety with respect environmental issues. This leaves criteria 2., 5., and 7. Implementation of the proposed surface water management system will have a positive affect on the conservation of fish and wildlife but the upgrade otherwise will not. The project is of a permanent nature, a matter the Boat Club concedes. (Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club Ltd.'s Proposed Recommended Order, p. 55). The surface water management system will improve water quality in the area. The remainder of the upgrade will diminish the value to manatees and of the manatee habitat of the areas affected. Reasonable Assurances Section 4.2.4 of the BOR requires that an applicant provide "reasonable assurance that the regulated activity will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply." Water quality standards will not be violated as a result of the proposed project. Reasonable assurances have been provided both in the short term with best management practices during construction, and in the long term with the Marina Management Plan governing the operation of the marina for the life of the facility. The Boat Club offered reasonable assurance that future water quality will be in compliance by detailed maintenance and reporting procedures for the surface water management system and the closed loop systems, and monitoring of water quality and sediments. Sections 4.2.4.2 and 4.2.4.3 of the BOR require long term water quality considerations. Reasonable assurances were offered that the project will not cause water quality violations. Flushing has been improved by making the canals more shallow, and will be further improved by the culverts that will connect the north and main canals. The fueling facilities are conditioned upon a detailed operations and procedures commitment in the area of spill response, minimizing the effects of any spills, as required by Section 4.2.4.3(f). The marina will have publicly available pump-out facilities for boat heads at a nominal cost to minimize improper disposal, as required by Section 4.2.4.3(g), and will not have live-aboards. The disposal of solid waste, such as garbage and fish cleaning debris, has been addressed to prevent disposal into wetlands or other surface waters, as required by Section 4.2.4.3(h). The pollutant leaching characteristics of pilings has been addressed as required by Section 4.2.4.3(i), by the replacement of the existing, treated wood docks with PVC and concrete structures. Anti-fouling paints on hulls have been addressed by requiring all wash-downs to take place in the closed loop contained areas that overflow in storms to the sewer system. Additionally, any boat scrapings are contained and disposed of by a contaminant disposal contractor, and the marina uses only low-copper bottom paints. The permit conditions, as well as the plans, address the short-term water quality impacts of the proposed system, as required by Section 4.2.4.1 of the BOR. The project plans attached to the permit include provisions for erosion and siltation barriers, and similar devices during construction. The permit conditions also require temporary erosion control barriers to remain in place and be inspected daily during all phases of construction until soils stabilize and vegetation has been established. All practices are required to be in accordance with the guidance and specifications described in Chapter Six of the Florida Land Development Manual: A Guide to Sound Land and Water Management (Department of Environmental Regulation 1988), unless a project-specific erosion and sediment control plan is approved as part of the permit. Additionally, all access for construction activities, including placement of floating docks into the water, must occur via the existing boat ramps, travel lift and fork lift areas of the marina. At no time are mangroves affected unless specifically authorized by the permit to be altered or trimmed to accommodate construction or access operations. From a hydrographic standpoint, the project is approvable. Section 4.2.4.5 of the BOR, entitled "Where Ambient Water Quality does not Meet State Water Quality Standards," provides in part: If the site of the proposed activity currently does not meet state water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the water quality standards by meeting the provisions in 4.2.4.1, 4.2.4.2, and 4.2.4.3, as applicable, and for the parameters which do not meet water quality standards, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. The proposed project will result in a net improvement of the water quality standards, and will not contribute to any exceedances where exceedances exist. Section 4.2.7 of the BOR requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource as described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of the section. The section stresses the import of protection of endangered species such as the manatee: Aquatic or wetland dependent fish and wildlife are an integral part of the water resources which the District is authorized to protect under Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S. Those aquatic or wetland dependent species which are listed as threatened, endangered or of special concern are particularly in need of protection. As discussed elsewhere, the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause adverse impacts to the manatee. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) provides that "all activities on sovereignty lands must not be contrary to the public interest except for sales which must be in the public interest." "Public interest means demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action. In determining the public interest in a request for . . . lease . . . in sovereignty lands . . ., the board shall consider the ultimate project and purpose to be served by said . . . lease . . . ." Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-2.003(40). While conditioned upon the construction of the surface water management system that will provide a net improvement in water quality to a water body that does not meet water quality standards, implementation of the Marina Management Plan, and execution of a DEP-approved lease agreement, the proposed activity has not been shown to be not contrary to the public interest because of adverse secondary impacts to manatees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation that the application by the Deep Lagoon Club Ltd. for a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 17th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mark A. Ebelini, Esquire Knott, Consoer, Ebelini, Hart & Swett, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Post Office Box 2449 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2449 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether an application by Petitioner, Hancock Bridge Marina, LLC (Petitioner or Hancock), for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and sovereign submerged lands lease to expand an existing docking facility on Hancock Creek near the Caloosahatchee River in unincorporated Lee County (County), Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Background Hancock is a limited liability corporation with two shareholders: Donald Epler and Stefen Heinke. After conducting a feasibility study, on April 26, 2004, Hancock purchased a 5.51-acre parcel of property in the County with the expectation of constructing and operating a 400-slip marina and a 5,000- square-foot building housing a restaurant, ship's store, and other sundry items needed for operation. (Hancock has subsequently revised its plan by reducing the number of slips requested from 400 to 352.) The cost of the property was around $2.5 million. The property is located in an unincorporated part of the County on the north side of the Caloosahatchee River (River), a Class III water, south of Hancock Bridge Parkway, east of the City of Cape Coral, and west of U.S. Highway 41 and the City of North Fort Myers. The property currently contains a 30-wet slip marina with 13 finger piers and a 4-slip T-dock. The remainder of the parcel is essentially vacant. The parcel borders a River tributary named Hancock Creek, which is a man- altered tidal creek branching off of the River in a northwestern direction, and the North Key Canal, which extends east from Hancock Creek for approximately one-half mile. Access to the River, which is no more than a hundred yards or so south of the parcel, is by traversing North Key Canal and Hancock Creek. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to issue an ERP. In addition, the Department has authority from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to review and take final agency action on requests to authorize activities in sovereign submerged lands. See § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The Commission is the agency with constitutional regulatory authority over "wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life." See Art. IV, § 9, Fla. Const. The Commission's authority for the regulation of manatees is derived from the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, which is codified in Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes. Under Sections 373.428 and 380.23, Florida Statutes, it also has authority to review ERP applications for federal consistency purposes pursuant to the federally approved Florida Coastal Management Program. On September 12, 2005, Petitioner filed an application for an ERP (a regulatory approval) and a lease to use sovereign submerged lands (a proprietary approval) with the Department's South District Office in Fort Myers, Florida. (For unknown reasons, the application was resubmitted to the Department on August 14, 2006.) The two requests are linked, and the Department cannot approve one without approving the other. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-343.075(2). The application seeks authority to expand in two phases the existing 30-slip facility. The first phase would generally authorize the construction of a 198-slip upland dry storage facility and reconfiguration of the existing docks. In phase 2, Hancock would add 154 dry slips and construct a 5,000-square-foot marina building. Because the docks are constructed on and over sovereign submerged lands, a proprietary authorization is necessary. Before making a decision on the application, the Department forwarded a copy to the Commission for its recommendation. After receiving the Commission's comments, which consist of 89 pages, including transmittal letters, on December 10, 2007, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to deny the ERP and proprietary authorization on the grounds the project area is sited in an area of very high level of manatee use and the project will increase local boat traffic, resulting in significant adverse effects on the manatee, which is listed by the state and federal governments as an endangered species. A more detailed description of the reasons for denial is found in the Notice of Intent. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6, pages 4 through 9; Department's Exhibit 1.b., pages 4 through 9. The Department acknowledges that its decision was based wholly upon the Commission's determination that the project, as proposed, would have an adverse impact on manatees. The DRI and Estoppel In its Petition, Hancock contends that the Department is "estopped to deny a permit for Phase 1 of the marina in light of its acquiescence to the approval of DRI 2-8990-99." By way of background, in 1990, Hancock's predecessor in interest (Waterway Group, Inc.) applied with the County for a DRI which included, among other things, 400 dry boat spaces on the property. DRI 2-8990-99 was approved by the County on July 8, 1991, and has been amended three times. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The original terms of approval contained several conditions that specifically addressed manatee protection. One separated the project into two phases of 200 spaces, the first of which was authorized without additional studies, while the second was subject to additional study and review by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR). When the DRI was approved, the State's manatee protection program was under the jurisdiction of the DNR. That agency reviewed the DRI and recommended manatee protection conditions. The conditions in the final approval were consistent with the program's recommendation. On June 29, 2004, the County adopted a resolution approving a MPP for the County. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. It was not adopted as an ordinance, and individual notice was not provided to interested property owners, including Hancock's principals. After adoption, the County incorporated the MPP into its Comprehensive Plan. The MPP is a planning document that provides a comprehensive review of manatee and boating data on a county-wide basis. It is developed, reviewed, and approved by local, state, and federal governments and is used for guidance when considering appropriate levels of slip densities within a county. The County is one of thirteen counties directed to adopt a MPP. On October 20, 2004, Hancock filed with the County an application to amend its DRI. The application included requests to extend the DRI approval a third time and to revise the site plan. The site plan changes included a reduction in the total number of dry spaces from 400 to 352. On June 20, 2005, the County approved the DRI amendment. The Development Order included a finding of fact that the marina was exempt from the requirements of the MPP because Section 8.4 of the MPP "exempts existing projects with valid permits and Chapter 380 vested status for the construction of slips (wet or dry) that have not been constructed at the time the MPP was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners." See Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Third Development Order Amendment for Hancock Bridge Marina, page 4, paragraph H. Hancock then filed the instant application on September 12, 2005. To date, Hancock has expended $1,731,000.00 in its permitting efforts, including the DRI extension and ERP application. There is no evidence that during the DRI process, the Department or Commission made any representations to Hancock about its ability to obtain an ERP or sovereign submerged lands authorization. Also, neither agency was consulted during that period of time, presumably because the DRI and ERP processes are separate and independent of one another. Permitting Criteria Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, contains the standards and criteria governing the approval of an ERP. Subsection (1) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the regulated activity is "not contrary to the public interest." In determining whether this test is met, paragraph (1)(a) requires that the Department consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. These same factors are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302, an ERP rule adopted by the South Florida Water Management District. This rule has been adopted by reference by the Department to be used when it considers ERP applications within the geographical jurisdiction of that water management district. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-330.200(4). An additional requirement in the rule is that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302(1)(b). Besides the foregoing requirements, additional conditions for the issuance of an ERP are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301, also adopted by reference by the Department. Relevant here are requirements that the applicant give reasonable assurances that the proposed activity (a) will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and (b) will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(d) and (f). Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that if an applicant is unable to meet the above criteria, the Department shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity. In this case, mitigation measures have been proposed by Hancock and are discussed below. Finally, Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes, requires that the Department evaluate applications for dry storage facilities for ten or more vessels in the same manner as any other ERP application, including that the applicant demonstrate that the facility will not be harmful to the water resources, provides reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and surface waters, and meets the public interest test in Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes. There are no rules or statutes which require that the Department consider the status of, or otherwise take into account, a DRI in evaluating an application for an ERP or proprietary authorization. Impacts on Manatees After reviewing the application for an ERP, the Department determined that the project, as proposed, should be denied because of direct, secondary, and cumulative effects it would have on manatees. The Department further determined that the applicant had not met the applicable requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. In making these determinations, the Department considered not only potential deaths of manatees, but also potential impacts such as harassment, disturbance, and sub-lethal boat strikes. The latter strikes may cause permanent injury and can affect reproduction and behavior. The State is a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee. See § 379.2431(2), Fla. Stat. The manatee is a marine mammal that can live as long as sixty years. It is unable to tolerate prolonged exposure to temperatures below around sixty-one degrees, which makes it susceptible to cold-related stress and death. Consequently, the manatees typically seek warm water when temperatures drop below sixty-eight degrees, migrating seasonally over extensive geographic areas. Hancock's marina is located just off the River. The River is one of the most studied and significant habitats for manatees on the west coast of Florida. The County's water bodies, including the River, provide manatees with submerged aquatic vegetation for foraging, fresh water sources, and several warm-water sites to use as refuges during colder weather. Hancock Creek, which is used to access the River from the marina, is an area used by manatees because it provides fresh water and a quiet environment. Manatees also use the River as a major travel corridor between the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) power plant on the Orange River, a tributary of the River located around eight miles upstream from the project site, and the estuaries found downstream where foraging resources are abundant. Hundreds of manatees go up and down the River throughout the year, and those traveling to and from the warm water around the FPL plant must travel past Hancock Creek. Manatee deaths have occurred within a five mile radius of the project site. Also, the number of manatee watercraft- related deaths in the River has steadily increased over the years. According to a 1998 study of boating activity in the County, vessels use the River more as a travel corridor to the bays and estuaries outside of the River than as a destination itself, and that on weekends there is almost constant traffic with vessels leaving or entering the mouth of the River every thirty-five seconds. The majority of the boats leaving the project site are expected to travel downstream through the mouth of the River, an area with substantial vessel congestion. This travel pattern, in conjunction with the typical travel patterns of manatees, indicates that there is a great potential for boat/manatee overlap in the River, increasing the likelihood of impacts to manatees. Besides manatee deaths, there are sub-lethal effects of increased boat traffic in the area. Increased traffic in important manatee areas may create disturbances which will alter behaviors such as feeding, suckling, or resting, or it may separate mothers from their calves. Also, vessel traffic may cause them to leave preferred habitats. Finally, as noted above, vessel collisions with manatees produce non-lethal injuries as well, causing pain and extreme scarring, which can alter natural behaviors and affect reproduction. The single biggest known cause of death to manatees is impacts from boats. The project would increase the risk of watercraft collisions with manatees in this region. As the level of boat traffic increases, the probability of boat and manatee collisions is also likely to increase. Because the project is located along the travel corridor between the largest wintering aggregation of manatees on Florida's west coast and their local foraging habitat, the expected secondary impacts from increased vessel traffic associated with the project is expected to reduce the value of the functions of the River as a travel corridor. Therefore, the secondary impacts of vessel traffic from the expansion of the marina are expected to result in adverse impacts to manatees. In 1990, the DNR reviewed the proposed DRI for this site under the state manatee program. It found that during the preceding thirteen years (1976-February 1990), thirty-six manatees had died from water-related injuries in the County. Within a five-mile radius of the site, four manatees had died from watercraft-related injuries. DNR concluded that since the manatee protection speed zones for the River had just been established, they were expected to offset the impact of the additional 198 slips. From March 1990 until September 2006, however, twenty-five additional manatees have died from watercraft-related injuries within a five-mile radius of the site. Therefore, the number of deaths had increased without the additional 198 slips. The logical inference is that if the new slips are allowed, boat traffic and the associated adverse impacts on manatees will likewise increase. The fact that dry slips will be used does not change the Department and Commission's evaluation of the project. A boat has the same risk to a manatee whether stored in a wet or dry facility. Marine industry groups suggest that an average usage rate is between ten and fifteen percent at any time, and that usage is likely to increase on the weekends. Thus, as density increases so does the risk. In addition to its own analysis, the Commission reviewed the County MPP, which indicated that nine additional slips at this location would be acceptable, for a total of thirty-nine. This number was calculated by using a slip density of three slips for every one hundred feet of shoreline owned. (The actual linear feet of shoreline owned by Hancock is unclear. The Commission concedes that Hancock "may own a total of 1,214 linear feet of shoreline.") A MPP typically allows for higher boat densities in areas that pose less risk to manatees and lower boat densities in higher risk locations. Had the MPP not been considered, the number of allowable slips would remain at thirty since the MPP provides for a countywide strategy instead of a case-by-case review. To date, the Commission has never recommended approval of a marina application in the County that would authorize more docks than the MPP would authorize. The Commission initially makes an independent assessment of the application without regard to the MPP. In this case, based upon mortality data, aerial surveys, telemetry data, rescue data, and boat studies, the Commission determined that no further slips are appropriate. Therefore, even if the County's MPP is based upon outdated data and analysis, as Hancock contends, approval of the application would not be warranted. Petitioner's expert posited that the proposed project would only result in one manatee death over the next twenty years, which would amount to no more than a de minimus impact on the overall population. Assuming this to be true, manatees are nonetheless an endangered species, and there is no minimal amount of death that is considered acceptable. The witness also opined that Hancock is entitled to an unlimited number of slips under the MPP due to flawed data and analysis underpinning that document. In formulating his recommendations, however, Hancock's expert relied on mathematical models and statistics while ignoring the principles of manatee behavior and biology. Finally, the expert agreed that the greater the number of boats in the water, the greater the likelihood that a manatee could be accidentally crushed. On the issue of impacts to manatees, the testimony of the Commission witnesses is deemed to be the most credible and persuasive. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the marina will be located in an area adjacent to the River, that large numbers of manatees use the River, and that the project is expected to increase boat traffic. This in turn will lead to a higher incidence of boating-related manatee casualties in the area. Therefore, the proposed activity adversely affects the conservation of wildlife and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; it adversely affects the marine productivity in the area; it is permanent in nature; and it diminishes the current condition and relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the activity. On balance, then, the project is contrary to the public interest. Based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f). Similarly, based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b). By failing to provide reasonable assurances that the facility will not be harmful to water resources, that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters, and that the project meets the public interest test, Hancock has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes. Mitigation If an applicant cannot meet the requirements of Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the Department "shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity." As noted in Finding of Fact 27, supra, the Department is willing to approve an additional nine slips that would be allowed under the County MPP, for a total of thirty- nine. According to Hancock, this number is not acceptable because more slips are needed to make the project financially feasible. Although a copy of the application is not a part of this record, the testimony suggests that in its application, Hancock proposed certain measures to mitigate the impacts on manatees. In a letter to the Department dated November 8, 2007, however, the Commission stated that "[i]f the Applicant propose[s] changes to the project to minimize fish and wildlife resource impacts that are consistent with the Lee County MPP, such a project would be consistent with Chapter 370.12(2), F.S." (The Legislature has subsequently consolidated this statute into Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes.) Despite this lack of clarity in the record, sometime during the application process, and presumably before the Notice of Intent was issued, the Commission staff discussed with Hancock whether the following mitigation measures would offset or adequately reduce the impacts: placing a size restriction on boats docking at its facility; providing boater education; installing speed zone marking and making it a requirement for all boats at the marina to be equipped with a speed zone map or a Global Positioning Satellite unit with speed zone mapping; implementing a volunteer watch program to enforce speed limits; making a cash donation to study manatee population dynamics; and installing sonar avoidance technology on vessels. The Commission established that these measures, even if implemented, would not offset the impacts from 198 slips expected with phase 1 of the project. For example, the research associated with sonar technology is not yet completed, and devices are not available for boaters. Also, given the location of the project, even with additional law enforcement and boater education, the impacts would not be offset due to the level of traffic already existing on the River at that site, and the importance of the area to manatees. The middle of the River is a high-speed corridor (with a twenty-five miles per hour speed limit) and even with one hundred percent compliance in that zone, a small boat can still hit and kill a manatee. The Proprietary Authorization Because denial of the ERP is being recommended, the proprietary authorization must likewise be denied. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-373.075(2). Even so, for the purpose of addressing all issues in this Recommended Order, a discussion of the application for proprietary authorization is set forth below. Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 contains the rules that implement the administrative and management responsibilities of the Department in authorizing activities in sovereignty submerged lands. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004 establishes the specific standards and criteria to be applied by the Department in determining whether Hancock should be allowed to use sovereign submerged lands. Paragraph (1)(a) provides that "[f]or approval, all activities on sovereignty lands must be not contrary to the public interest." The public interest is defined as "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(43). The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, on balance, the project is contrary to the public interest based upon the standards in the rules. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) provides that "[a]ll sovereignty lands shall be considered single use lands and shall be managed primarily for the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Compatible secondary purposes and uses which will not detract from or interfere with the primary purpose may be allowed." The evidence does not show that Hancock's proposed marina expansion constitutes a secondary use not interfering with the propagation of wildlife. Therefore, the project is not consistent with this rule. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(b) provides that "unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate mitigation is proposed," activities which result in significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources shall not be approved. As previously found, the mitigation measures proposed by Hancock are not adequate. Paragraph (2)(i) of the rule further provides that activities in submerged lands "shall be designed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural or cultural resources. Special attention and consideration shall be given to endangered and threatened species habitat." Because Hancock failed to prove that the project would not result in unmitigated adverse impacts to manatees, it fails to meet this criterion. Paragraphs (7)(d) and (e) of the rule are general conditions for authorization and provide that activities "shall be constructed and used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources" and "shall not adversely affect any species which is endangered, threatened, or of special concern." Here the more persuasive evidence shows that neither condition has been met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an ERP and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands to expand an existing marina on Hancock Creek in Lee County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2009.
