The Issue The issues in this proceeding involve whether the Respondent, St. Joe Paper Company ("St. Joe"), is entitled to a "dredge and fill permit" authorizing it to construct a marina for recreational boats, containing 84 boat slips, along the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. Embodied within that general consideration are issues involving whether St. Joe, in the construction and operation of the marina, can comply with water-quality parameters embodied in Chapter 17- 3, Florida Administrative Code, for Class III waters of the State, Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, as well as the public interest standards of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, and the standard concerning "cumulative impact" embodied in Section 403.919, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, St. Joe, seeks to construct and operate a recreational boat marina, consisting of a single, main pier, 12 feet wide and extending some 850 feet waterward in a westerly direction from the shoreline of the east bank of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. The main pier will join a terminal pier extending approximately 575 feet in a general north/south direction parallel to the shoreline of the St. Johns River, perpendicular to and abutting the longer main pier. Extended in a landward or easterly direction from the terminal pier structure will be four (4) individual "finger piers" ranging from 119 to 305 feet in length. Located along the individual piers and along a portion of the main pier near the waterward end of it will be 84 slips for recreational-type boats. Additionally, a breakwater system will be suspended along the outer perimeter of the terminal pier and northernmost and southernmost individual piers in order to reduce wave action and its effect on boats in the interior of the marina. Additional details concerning the marina design and operation are contained in the findings of fact below. The Site The site of the proposed marina is on the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. At that point, the St. Johns River is almost two miles wide, being approximately 10,000 feet from shoreline to shoreline. The proposed marina site encompasses approximately 1,100 linear feet of river bank frontage. All of the adjacent upland property is owned by St. Joe, and St. Joe owns extensive additional river frontage to the north and south of the marina site. The nearest properties not owned by St. Joe are located 3,500 feet to the north of the site and 1,500 feet to the south of the site. The site is located approximately two miles north of Hallowes Cove, a relatively pristine, diverse and productive marine habitat. The site is characterized, landward of the terminal end of the pier and waterward of the upland, by an unvegetated "near shore area or tidal zone" which extends approximately 50 feet from the mean high-water line of the river to the mean low-water line. Waterward of this zone and extending to a depth of approximately two feet is a system of grass beds, (vallisnerida), commonly known as "tape grass". The grass beds extend approximately 200 to 250 feet from the shoreline. Waterward of the grass beds is an unvegetated area with a gradual slope to a depth of approximately six feet. From the six-foot contour of the river bottom, a relatively precipitous slope begins, extending to depths which exceed 19 feet. In this zone, there are no grass beds. Further waterward and extending beyond the most waterward extent of the the marina site, the river bottom rises somewhat to depths of 13 feet, 12 feet and 11 feet, in the direction of the center of the river. The river bottom substrate in the area of the marina is composed primarily of sand. This includes some shell and other coarse materials, with minor amounts of silt. In fact, organic silt is a very small portion of the bottom sediments, consisting, at a depth of four and one-half feet, of less than 1% silt and at a depth of 15 feet of less than 6% silt content. The present water quality prevailing at the marina site is good, and the benthic habitat in the general area is healthy and diverse. The most landward boat slips proposed at the marina will be located at a distance of approximately 275 feet from the most waterward extent of the grass beds. These most landward slips will be located in depths of approximately eight feet. Access to the marina will be from the north and south in defined channels marked on the west by the end of the individual piers and on the east by channel markers located at the depth contour of minus six feet. That is, the six-foot depth will be the most shallow portion of the channel marked by the channel markers, so that boats will not be permitted to navigate the shallower portion landward of the channel markers insofar as the marina's enforcement program can insure that. The approximate width of the northern channel is 75 feet, and the width of the southern channel is 50 feet. Due to the precipitous drop in depth beyond the contour of minus six feet, the average depth of the channels is 10 to 12 feet. The majority of the boat slips, as well as the basin of the marina, will be located in depths of between 10 and 18 feet. The consultant and expert witness who designed the marina, Erik Olsen, established that the length of the main pier and the location of the most landward of the boat slips and the location of the channel markers are all part of a design and plan intended to insure that marina and boat activity within the marina occur well beyond the extant grass beds and waterward of depths of six feet, to insure that no damage to the grass bed habitat area is occasioned by propeller scouring, "prop-wash", or grounding of boats. Other design measures are also intended to preclude boaters from entering the shallow depths and grass bed areas. Two tiers of signs will be located between the marina basin and the most waterward extent of the grass beds. First, regulatory buoys and signs are proposed to be located at the contour of minus four feet and will establish a "manatee protection zone" landward of that contour. The evidence reveals, however, that a safer contour for the manatee protection zone boundary to be established by the applicant would dictate placing the regulatory warning signs concerning the manatee protection zone at the same contour, minus six feet of water, where the channel markers will be located. This is because the marina will serve boats of up to 4.5 feet in draught. Secondly, a tier of signs will be located approximately ten feet waterward of the most waterward extent of the grass beds warning boaters that aquatic grass beds exist landward of the signs and that prop dredging and boat operation is prohibited. Such warnings at the locations found above should be mandatory conditions to any grant of the permit. A specific, agreed-upon condition is already in the draft permit issued by the Department prescribing the size and lettering of these signs and other design details. A railing will extend, as proposed by the applicant, along the main pier between the slips and the shoreline to discourage boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the slips. The evidence establishes that in order to more adequately insure protection of the manatee habitat area and the grass beds, a mandatory condition in boat-slip rental leases should be inserted to absolutely prohibit boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the boat slips. Because of the currents and significant water depth prevailing at the marina site, the marina construction will require no dredging nor will operation and maintenance of the marina require any dredging on a continuing basis. Additionally, in the interest of protecting water quality, no fueling facilities or boat fueling will be permitted at the marina at all; and the grant of a permit should be mandatorily conditioned on this basis. Neither will any boat maintenance or repair be permitted at the marina, including no hauling of boats or scraping or painting of boat bottoms. This condition should be clearly pointed out to users of the marina by appropriate warning signs regarding the prohibition against boat maintenance and repair, including warnings concerning the proper methods of disposal of used oil and other petroleum products. The marina will feature pump-out facilities for boat heads and bilges. The pump-out facilities will consist of a central pumping system in which waste is removed from the boats, transported by pipeline to an upland, central waste water collection and treatment system. No holding tanks or other storage of wastes will be located at the piers. The pump-out facility will serve not only the boat heads but also boat bilges in order to prevent contaminants, such as oil and boat fuel from entering the State waters involved. The piers will feature trash collection containers of appropriate number, size and location on the piers so as to provide convenient trash disposal for each boat slip. The piers will also feature plastic modular dock boxes to preclude boaters from randomly storing materials and equipment on the piers. No fish cleaning will be permitted on the piers at all, but rather must be accomplished on the uplands, with disposal of related wastes in the upland collection system. A "no wake" zone will be established in an area extending 500 feet north and 500 feet south of the marina. The "no wake" zone will be marked pursuant to requirements of the Florida Marine Patrol. The marked "no wake" zone should also extend waterward of the farthest waterward extent of the marina, as well as 500 feet north and south of it. Only private, recreational boats will be moored at the marina. All commercial boats will be prohibited. The marina will serve a Yacht Club to be developed by St. Joe in conjunction with the marina. Only members of the Yacht Club and their guests will be permitted to use the marina. This will assist with enforcement of the various conditions on marina operation and maintenance by the owners as to the boat-slip lessees and their guests. This and all other conditions should be enforced by mandatory restrictions in the boat-slip leases. Likewise, the applicant has agreed to permit no "liveaboard" boats at the marina in order to avoid the possibility of sewage or other contaminants entering the State waters from liveaboard boats. The upland facilities will include restrooms, and signs should be appropriately placed on the piers to advise boaters and boat owners and operators of the availability of restroom facilities. The marina will not feature fueling facilities; however, St. Joe will maintain pollution containment supplies and equipment at the marina sufficient to contain any potential fuel or other petroleum spills from catastrophic events, such as the rupture of a boat fuel tank. Expert witnesses for St. Joe established that a "management and operational plan" designed to enforce the provisions enumerated above will be enacted by the applicant. The management and operational plan includes three mechanisms of enforcement: Warning signs. Boat-slip lease agreements which must incorporate all restrictions found to be necessary herein. These will contain an enforcement provision providing for mandatory eviction from use and lease of the marina facilities for any breach of those conditions by lessees or their guests. Management personnel will be employed on the marina property to enforce all restrictions and conditions designed to insure environmentally-safe operation and maintenance of the marina, and such personnel should be employed during all operating hours of the marina, not just during daylight hours, as proposed by the applicant. Signs will be posted at conspicuous locations at the marina and at the upland facilities of the Yacht Club informing boaters of the marina rules and prohibitions. The signage will be visible to Yacht Club members and their guests using the marina, and members' guests will be required, upon mooring at the marina, to register and to review the rules and prohibitions. Boat-slip lease agreements at the marina will incorporate these marina rules and prohibitions. Under the lease agreements, a violation of the marina rules or prohibitions by a member or guest will be considered a breach of the lease and will result in revocation of the lease and removal of the member's boat from the marina. A dock master will be employed at the marina to supervise the operation and maintenance of the marina and will be assisted by dock hands and other personnel in order to see that the conditions and restrictions referenced herein are enforced. The applicant has proposed such personnel being employed during daylight hours. However, in order to insure that the standards for operation and maintenance of the marina and boats using it will be enforced so as to avoid water-quality violations and violations of the public interest parameters delineated below, the permit grant should be conditioned upon such personnel being employed during all operating hours of the marina, whether daylight hours or not. If this is accomplished, the enforcement mechanisms outlined in the management and operational plan will reasonably insure enforcement of the marina's rules, prohibitions and conditions on any grant of the permit and likewise reasonably insure that water-quality and public interest standards are not violated. Upland Facilities The upland and Yacht Club facilities to be developed in conjunction with the marina will be located on approximately seven acres adjacent to the marina site. The Yacht Club and related facilities will include a clubhouse, parking, and a storm water treatment system which will serve the upland facilities. St. Joe has obtained a conceptual permit for the management and storage of surface waters for the proposed upland improvements, including the Yacht Club. It will also seek a permit for the storm water treatment system, itself. St. Joe, through its consultants, has investigated and opined that the installation of the proposed upland facilities are feasible and can comply with applicable regulatory criteria and is pursuing the necessary permits and approvals from local governments and state agencies. It will insure that all such is accomplished prior to initiation of construction of the Yacht Club facilities. The precise configuration and design of all upland facilities will be dictated by applicable local ordinances and the requirements of State regulatory agencies. Marina Impacts The applicant/Respondent and the Petitioners are in essential agreement, through the testimony of their witnesses, regarding the general potential impacts which may be posed by marinas in a general sense, when located in proximity to environmentally-sensitive areas. Concerning anticipated impacts of this marina at the subject site, however, St. Joe presented the testimony of three expert witnesses, as well as a hydrographic study. It was thus established that violations of the pertinent water-quality statute and rules and the public interest standards contained in the statute referenced herein will not be violated. The Petitioners, although presenting both lay and expert testimony regarding the water quality and habitat type and quality in the general area of the site and the general impacts that can be caused by marinas in such areas, presented no expert testimony or studies regarding the anticipated impacts of this particular marina, as designed and configured by the applicant, on the subject site and aquatic habitat. Water Quality Considerations Marinas are potential sources of pollutants which may adversely impact water quality. Different sources at a marina may generate different pollutants; and in this case, testimony addressed these potential pollutant impacts. The totality of the expert testimony taken at hearing establishes that the marina will not likely cause a violation of applicable water-quality standards. One witness for the Petitioners, Bill Watkins, was accepted as an expert in water quality. In describing potential impacts of the marina, however, he only opined that there "could be some effect on water quality"; however, he did not specifically establish adverse effects on water quality which could be anticipated or reasonably expected regarding violations of applicable standards. Mr. Watkins acknowledged: "As to whether or not that degree of pollution, and that's what we're talking about, degree of impact, would be something that would be, have a significant degradation effect, I could not answer without further site specific studies." Mr. Watkins further described the type of site specific information which would be required for him to make a proper assessment of water-quality impacts, including hydrographics and the nature of the sediments existing at the site. Other witnesses for the Petitioners similarly declined to opine regarding violations of the water-quality standards because site specific information was not available to them. Dr. DeMort, for example, explicitly declined to offer an opinion regarding water-quality violations. The opinions and testimony of the expert witnesses on water quality presented on behalf of St. Joe, as well as by the Department, are accepted in establishing that no water-quality violations by the construction and operation of the marina are anticipated. The reasonable assurance that water-quality violations will not occur through the construction and operation of the marina is illustrated by the unrefuted evidence concerning the hydrographics by which the site is characterized. A knowledge of site hydrographics is necessary to accurately determine potential water-quality impacts. A hydrographic study was prepared by St. Joe through the auspices of its consultant, Olsen Associates Incorporated. The experts who prepared that study testified on behalf of St. Joe at hearing, and a Department witness who reviewed the study testified by deposition. None of the Petitioners' expert witnesses addressed the subject of site hydrographics other than to note that they were an important consideration. Mr. Buckingham was accepted as an expert witness in the area of marine engineering with emphasis on hydrographics. He testified regarding the hydrographic study prepared and submitted by St. Joe. The study involved the collection of data at the site, including the gauging of water surface elevations over a two-day period in December of 1988; the comparison of those elevations to predicted elevations based upon historical data; a measurement of current velocities at the site; a dye study to assess the flow regime at the site; and the gathering of depth soundings and sediment samples to confirm the bathymetry and nature of bottom sediments at the site. The hydrographic study also involved the analysis of the data collected at the site. Hydrographics at the site are composed of two components, the transport of a pollutant by advective currents and the dispersion or diffusion of a pollutant within the water column. The physical transport by advective currents dominates the hydrographic circumstance prevailing at the marina site. A pollutant introduced at the site is more likely to be physically transported away from the site, in addition to being merely dispersed through the water column at the site. This is because of the relatively high current velocities prevailing. Both the transport and dispersion components were analyzed in the study to determine the time and distance necessary to reduce an initial concentration of a hypothetical pollutant to 10% of its initial concentration. A pollutant introduced at the site would be reduced to 10% of its initial concentration in less than seven minutes and within 400 feet of the site on the ebb tide and within 300 feet of the site on the flood tide. Moreover, the "plume" of this hypothetical pollutant would occur in a longshore direction parallel to the shore, as opposed to a direction toward the shore and would be of comparatively narrow width (approximately 30 feet). The hydrographics of this site are such that a complete water exchange will occur in 20 to 30 minutes at any point during the tidal cycle. The evidence thus demonstrated that the site is extremely well flushed by tidal currents. In his deposition, Ken Echternacht, of the Department, testified that data in the hydrographic study was realistic in his experience and that he had no questions or concerns regarding the data and methodology used to confirm that data. In addition to Mr. Buckingham's testimony and the study, itself, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht established that flushing is of no concern and is thoroughly adequate at the site. Dr. Echternacht is the Department's hydrographic engineer, whose function is to review all dredge and fill permit applications which may have impacts upon the hydraulics of surface water systems. He has reviewed approximately 1,500 dredge and fill permit applications. His testimony and that of Mr. Buckingham is accepted, as is that of other Department expert witnesses in establishing the excellent flushing characteristics of the site and that the construction and operation of the marina will not adversely affect the present hydrographic situation at the site, as that relates to establishing that no water quality violations will occur. All marinas are potential sources of pollutants. The first to be addressed involves the installation of the pilings themselves during the construction of the marina. This is a potential source of turbidity. Turbidity involves the suspension of bottom sediments and substrate material in the water column, which can pose, among other problems, the retardation of light penetration through the water column which can have an adverse impact on photosynthesis in marine grass beds. In extreme cases, it can cause the destruction of grass beds through killing of the grass by lack of adequate light penetration, as well as the smothering effect of sediments being deposited upon grasses. The method to be used by St. Joe in installing the pilings will be by "jetting" them into the bottom of the river initially and then driving the pilings into the river bottom to the required depth to support the piers. Witnesses for St. Joe and the Department established that this method will constitute an adequate safeguard to be employed during construction to minimize any turbidity. Any temporary or local turbidity caused by the installation of the pilings will be transitory and will pose no significant water-quality violation; however, turbidity curtains will, be employed, if necessary, by the applicant to control any such turbidity during construction. Another potential source of turbidity at a marina involves the dredging, washing or disturbance of the river bottom caused by boat propellers or boat keels. The evidence demonstrated that the risk of such "prop dredging" or wash at this marina will be negligible due to the design features and conditions at the site, including the channels and channel markers, and particularly by the depth of waters prevailing at the site. The marina basin and boat slips are located in water of sufficient depth to prevent prop dredging or wash. The =average depth of the entrance channels is between 10 and 12 feet. Maneuvering within the marina basin will occur in depths of 10 feet or greater. Although the most landward boat slips are located in depths of approximately eight feet, the average depth within most slips is approximately 10 to 12 feet. These depths are based upon the bathymetric survey of the site and confirmed by random soundings performed during the course of the hydrographic study in evidence. Further, these depths are "mean low water" depths. Mean low water reflects the "lowest expected level" within a 29-day tidal epic. The "mean lower low" level is the lowest expected level over the course of a year. That level prevailing at the site, according to the study, is 0.1 feet lower than mean low water. The maximum draught of boats expected to be moored at the marina is 4.5 feet. Thus, the depths in the marina will allow ample clearance between propellers and keels and the river bottom. The required clearance between boat bottoms and propellers and the river bottom can further be assured by proper placement of boats in the boat slips in the leasing process and in the assignment of boat slips to casual, temporary users of the marina. In other words, the larger boats will be assigned to the deeper, more waterward slips. Other measures include warning signs, which should be placed along the six-foot depth contour, along the landward edge of the entrance channels and beyond the waterward extent of the grass beds. This will insure that boaters do not stray into shallow-water, aquatic habitat areas. A second factor in determining the potential for prop dredging at the marina is the nature of the sediments themselves. Four witnesses, including those testifying for the Department and for the Petitioners, established that the sediments at the site are primarily sand-based, with minimal organic silt content. The sandy nature of the sediments minimizes the potential for turbidity caused by prop dredging or prop washing (hydraulic currents created by propeller operation) because sand, by its density, mass and weight, tends to settle out to the bottom much quicker if it is suspended in the water column. Even if prop dredging did occur at the marina, generating turbidity, the high flushing characteristic of the site would quickly transport and disperse any such turbidity and render it undetectable and likely prevent its deposition on the grass beds. A potential source of pollutants at a marina is boat fuel. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the design and operational features of the marina, primarily the absence of any fueling facilities, will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants generated by fueling operations. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is waste from boat heads and bilges generated by flushing boat heads or pumping out of bilges with bilge pumps. Expert witnesses for St. Joe, as well as the Department, established that the design and operational features with which this marina will be characterized will minimize or eliminate the potential for such pollutants to be generated because liveaboard boats will be prohibited, and the pumping out of heads and bilges will also be prohibited because of the conditions agreed to by the applicant for a grant of this permit. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is the use of anti-fouling paint used on the bottoms of boats and the periodic scraping and repainting of boats. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the operational features and design of this marina will minimize the potential for pollutants from this source because boat painting, sanding, and scraping and other operations attendant to boat painting will be absolutely prohibited at the marina. Finally, another potential source of pollutants would be trash and garbage materials. The potential for pollution from this source will be minimized by the use of trash containers and dock boxes located at frequent intervals around the piers and boat slips, as well as the instructional signs to be placed on the piers and slips by the applicant and the publication of marina rules in order to inform boat operators and guests of the necessity to dispose of trash in the proper containers. It has thus been established that the design and operational characteristics of the marina and conditions to be imposed thereon will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants to be generated and placed in the surface waters at the site. The marina will not occasion violations of applicable water-quality standards. Any pollutants which might be deposited in the surface waters at the site will be quickly transported and dispersed so as to be undetectable at the marina or in the vicinity of the marina because of the critical role played by the hydrographics prevailing at the site. Public Interest Impacts Much of the testimony at hearing regarding impacts upon the various public interest standards, including wildlife and habitats, focused upon the grass beds, and the benthic communities prevailing in deeper water at the site, as well as the fact that the site is used by manatees. Dr. Quinton White was accepted as an expert in biology and biological impacts of marina construction and operation. He testified on behalf of the applicant. His testimony and that of other expert witnesses offered by St. Joe and the Department established that there would be no adverse impact on benthic communities and organisms, including manatees, caused by the construction and operation of the marina. The Petitioners called expert witnesses on the issue of impacts on wildlife. Mike Allen, a Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, testified that he was not really qualified as an expert in fisheries or benthic communities but, rather, in terms of terrestrial species which are not involved in this proceeding. Lawson Snyder, another Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, was accepted as an expert in fisheries biology on behalf of Petitioner but testified that the marina's impacts upon fish and wildlife would not be detectable. Jim Valade, a Florida Department of Natural Resources staff member, was also accepted as an expert in marine biology, including fish and manatees, but testified that the permit applicant has taken steps to protect manatees in virtually all aspects and that his department's concerns regarding the safety of manatees have been adequately addressed by the design and proposed operation of the marina. Bill Watkins, a St. Johns River Water Management District staff member, was accepted as an expert in biology, but testified that the design of the marina provides the grass beds "a fair degree of protection" and declined to opine that the marina would have any adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Finally, Dr. Carol DeMort, in her deposition, specifically declined to render any opinion regarding adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Thus, the evidence adduced by the Petitioners at hearing did not rebut the evidence introduced by the applicant that the marina will have no detectable impacts upon wildlife or habitats involved in the vicinity of the site St. Joe introduced evidence concerning impacts from shading upon grass beds by the marina structures themselves and from turbidity "washed" onto, the grass beds by motorized boats maneuvering in the marina basin. Expert testimony was adduced that established that shading caused by the widest pier, that is, the main pier with a width of 12 feet, would have no adverse impact on the grass beds due to shading. That testimony was unrebutted and is accepted. Two expert witnesses for St. Joe, a marine engineer and a biologist, as well as a Department witness, established that, even assuming that turbidity was generated by propeller action in the marina basin, the turbidity resulting from prop wash would not be transported 275 feet from the marina basin offshore to the :grass beds at the inshore area. They attributed those opinions to the nature of the sediments involved which are not readily suspended, the flushing at the site, the distance between the basin and the grass beds, and the typical extent of prop wash from boats expected to be used at the marina. The Petitioners presented two witnesses, who testified regarding the impacts of prop wash. Mr. Allen, an expert in upland terrestrial species, testified regarding the potential for deposition of sediments on grass beds but also acknowledged that the hydrographics at the site, the distance between the marina basin and the grass beds and other protective measures would minimize this potential. One lay witness for the Petitioners testified to the effect that if a "handful" of boat owners in the marina violated the "no wake" restrictions and accelerated their boats in violation of those restrictions, they would cause turbidity to be placed upon the grass beds. His testimony was contradicted, however, by a marine engineer, who testified that prop wash is a function of many parameters (e.g., the RPM of the engine, the horsepower of the engine, the draught of the boat, and configuration of the propellers, etc.). He established that it would not be reasonable to expect prop wash extending twice the length of a boat. Regarding impacts upon benthic communities at the site, the applicant introduced expert testimony which established that the benthic communities in that vicinity of the marina, including the grass beds, fin fish, shellfish, and other organisms, will not be adversely impacted by the construction and operation of the marina in light of the safeguards which would be imposed upon the permit, as delineated herein. This is primarily due to the absence of significant concentrations of pollutants to be expected and the hydrographics prevailing at the site as that relates to the unlikelihood of boat grounding, prop dredging, and prop wash suspending pollutants and turbidity and depositing them on benthic community habitat areas. Only one of Petitioners' witnesses, Dr. DeMort, testified in her deposition concerning potential impacts upon benthic communities. Dr. DeMort made it clear, however, that she had conducted no investigations and studies necessary to enable her to render an expert opinion on the impacts upon the benthic communities prevailing at the site which might be caused by the marina's construction and operation. Her testimony in this regard only related to marina installation and operation in general and was not related to the specific design characteristics and proposed operational parameters of the subject marina. Manatees are an endangered species. There is much concern about their welfare with regard to the proposed project because all parties acknowledge that the site and the shoreward grass bed areas, particularly, are frequented by manatees, particularly for summer foraging. Manatees tend to forage in shallow waters and associated grass beds. Boats pose definite hazards to manatees and cause significant manatee deaths each year due to impact from boats, as much as 15% to 30% of the known population. In response to this hazard, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission has recommended that grass beds be protected and that establishment of protective or "no wake" zones in manatee foraging areas be accomplished. In light of such restrictions voluntarily agreed to by St. Joe and its expert testimony in this regard and in light of the manatee education and awareness measures proposed by the applicant, it has been demonstrated that the marina will not have any negative impact on the manatee population in the area. The Petitioners' only expert witness concerning manatees, Jim Valade, indeed, opined that the marina had taken steps to protect manatees "in virtually all aspects". In this connection, the design features in the management and operational plan discussed herein and proposed by the applicant embodies measures to address potential impacts upon manatees which frequent the marina site. These include manatee awareness signs to be posted at the marina; and an additional specific condition has been agreed upon by the Department and the applicant which specifies the size, lettering and other details of the warning signs, and the location of them within the marina, all of which will be included in a plan to be submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Additionally, a permanent educational display will be located at the Yacht Club informing boaters who frequent the facility of the presence of manatees in the area and the need to minimize the impact of boats upon manatees. During construction, if a manatee is sited within 100 yards of the marina site, construction activities will cease and not resume until manatees have left the area. A handbook will be prepared concerning manatees and the effect on them of boat operation, which will be distributed to employees of the facility and to Yacht Club members and guests. This requirement and the review of it by Yacht Club members and guests will be an integral requirement in the terms of the slip leases. Additionally, no docking facilities, pilings or cleats will be located along the portions of the piers not containing boat slips in order to discourage boaters from attempting to moor at those locations, which will reduce the number of boats frequenting the marina, as that relates to manatee safety. This portion of the St. Johns River functions as a highly productive juvenile fish nursery and sports fishing area. Therefore, an examination of the marina's potential impacts upon marine productivity, fishing and recreation in the area is an important consideration in this proceeding. The discussion of this potential impact involves the same issues discussed in connection with impacts upon water quality and wildlife habitat; namely, the generation of pollutants and the impacts upon the grass beds and benthic communities directly by boat operation itself. Unrefuted testimony adduced by the applicant and the Department has established that impacts upon the fish population and upon marine productivity, fishing and recreational values will not be adverse. No deliterious effect is likely to be occasioned the fisheries and fish habitat and the habitat of other aquatic organisms in terms of juveniles or adults or to the sport fishing values of the area in which the marina will be located. Indeed, the marina structures and the shade and concealment offered by moored boats will provide additional habitat for juvenile fish, as well as provide an additional source of food because of the "fouling communities" of life forms which will be expected to grow on the pilings. These will serve as food for juvenile fish and some species of adult fish which, in turn, will enhance the food supply of predatory fish operating at an upper level in the food web. The boats and structures themselves also will operate as a source of protection for certain fish populations from predators. The Petitioners produced a fisheries biologist as an expert witness, who testified in this regard; but he acknowledged that he did not know whether noticeable impacts on conservation of fish, marine productivity and recreational values will be caused by the installation and operation of the marina. He testified in a general sense that he feared some negative impacts might result but did not feel that any such impacts would be detectable based upon testimony he heard and deferred to, including testimony that the littoral zone would not be impacted by the marina to any significant degree. He ultimately opined that the marina would likely have little impact on sports fishing. The other witness produced by the Petitioners concerning impacts upon fishing and recreational values was unable to render any expert opinion, by her own admission, because she had conducted no studies or otherwise been provided information regarding the design and proposed operation of the marina. Consequently, the testimony adduced by the applicant as to these parameters is accepted; and it has been established that the marina will not adversely impact fisheries, fish conservation, aquatic habitat, sport fishing, recreational values and marine productivity in the area involved at the project site. Regarding potential impacts upon the public health, safety and welfare and property of others, the applicant and the Department adduced expert testimony that no adverse impact regarding these interests will occur. The testimony of Petitioners' experts similarly establishes that the marina would not pose safety hazards or would otherwise give rise to any noticeable impacts upon the public health, safety, welfare and property of others. Regarding potential impacts upon navigation or the flow of water, St. Joe and the Department introduced expert testimony to establish that the marina would not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water, and it is so found. The Petitioners' introduced no evidence regarding this subject. Regarding potential impacts upon significant historical and archaeological resources, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that no adverse impact as regards these resource parameters will occur. Although one of the Petitioners, in her testimony, speculated that the marina could "detract" from the William Bartram scenic highway, she was unable to specify how the marina would impact the highway or to what extent the highway was a significant, historical or archaeological resource. It is found that no such adverse impact on the William Bartram scenic highway will occur. Cumulative Impact Regarding cumulative impacts, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that the marina would not give rise to impacts which, cumulative with the impacts of other marina facilities, would be significant. The evidence establishes that there are six marinas within four miles of this marina site; two upriver, and four downriver. Due to the hydrographic circumstances in the area and the distance of the other marinas from this site, it has been demonstrated that the addition of this marina to the area will not result in any adverse cumulative impacts. Mr. Mike Allen, the expert in upland terrestrial species (not involved in this proceeding), referenced in his testimony the cumulative impacts he feared on sports and commercial fishing. Mr. Allen made it clear, however, that his reference was not to cumulative impacts caused by the marina and existing marinas but, rather, to impacts which could be brought about by many such future facilities located in this particular area. The evidence does not reflect, however, that any other marinas are conceptually contemplated or are the subject of other permit applications for this area for the future. It is thus found that no significant adverse cumulative impacts will be occasioned by the installation and operation of the subject facility.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Joe Paper Company for the dredge and fill permit at issue be granted, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the Department's Intent to Issue, in evidence as St. Joe Exhibit 9, and accepted by the applicant, as well as those conditions found in this Recommended Order to be necessary and supported by the evidence, are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 26 day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5053 Applicant's/Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-53. Accepted, but are subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the same subject matter, particularly in those several instances where conditions on the grant of the permit have been recommended to be modified somewhat by the Hearing Officer in light of the totality of the preponderant evidence presented. Rejected, as unnecessary. Accepted. Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact The Department submitted no proposed findings of fact but, rather, adopted those submitted by the applicant/Respondent. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioners, Hoffert, presented no proposed findings of fact but, rather, a letter in the nature of final argument which has been referenced and discussed in the above Preliminary Statement to this Recommended Order. Petitioners, Cornwell, submitted a post-hearing pleading; but it contained no specific, separately-stated proposed findings of fact, which can be separated from their mere recitation and discussion of testimony in evidence and arguments such that coherent, specific rulings could be made. Petitioners, Cornwell's post-hearing pleading did not conform to the instructions given to them by the Hearing Officer at the conclusion of the hearing concerning the appropriate manner for submission of proposed findings of fact, and they were submitted late. They have been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order, however, in spite of the fact that they were filed in a tardy fashion. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 T. R. Hainline, Jr., Esq. ROGERS, TOWERS, ET AL. 1300 Gulf Life Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 William H. Congdon, Esq. and Joanne Barone, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building Room 654 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Barbara Davis Winn 3448 State Road 13 Jacksonville, FL 32259 Mary and Irv Cornwell 2652 State Road 13 Switzerland, FL 32259
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1985, Applicant filed a request with the Department for a permit to construct a marina in a manmade basin (Captain's Cove) located on Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. The permit sought by the Applicant, as modified, would allow it to construct a 52-slip docking facility consisting of two 5' x 248' docks, each with fourteen 3' x 40' finger piers and twelve associated mooring piles; and, approximately 590 linear feet of riprap revertment requiring the disposition of approximately 300 cubic yards of rock boulders landward and waterward of mean high water (MHW). All docks and finger piers would be constructed of prestressed concrete supported by concrete piles; mooring piles would be pressure treated wood. The Applicant proposes to organize the facility as a condominium development; however, live-aboard use will be prohibited. A manager's quarters, office, restrooms and a parking area will be provided on the adjacent uplands. The Department's October 3, 1985, notice of intent to issue, proposed to issue the requested permit subject to the following condition: The permittee is hereby advised that Florida law states: "No person shall commence any excavation, construction, or other activ- ity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use." If such work is done without consent, a fine for each offense in an amount of up to $10,000 may be imposed. Turbidity screens shall be utilized and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. Only non-commercial, recreational boats shall be allowed to use the proposed marina. The applicant shall incorporate this condition into the condominium document for the proposed marina and supply the Department with a copy of the document prior to any sales of the condominium. No live-aboard boats shall be allowed in the marina. This condition shall also be placed in the condominium document. A portable sewage pumpout wagon shall be provided at the marina. Pumpout effluent shall be properly disposed of by methods acceptable to the department; these methods and locations shall be approved by the department prior to construction. A supply of oil absorbent materials, designed to clean up small oil spills, shall be maintained at the marina office. At least sixty (60) days prior to construction, the applicant shall submit to the Punta Gorda DER office for review, a detailed list of equip- ment to be permanently maintained on site. This list of equipment shall be modified as necessary and approved by the department prior to construction. The uplands on the permittee's property shall be graded to direct stormwater away from the edge of the boat basin. No fuel facilities nor storage shall be allowed at the project. Only clean rock boulders free from attached sediments or other deleterious compounds, and of a minimum diameter of 2' or greater shall be installed as riprap. 1O. The Marathon Department of Environmen- tal Regulation office shall be notified 48 hours prior to commencement of work. "IDLE SPEED-NO WAKE" signs shall be placed at conspicuous locations at the docking facility with additional language that "this precaution exists throughout the length of the canal channel during ingress and egress". At least two trash receptacles shall be provided on each of the two main walkway piers: these receptacles shall be routinely maintained and emptied. Prior to dockage use by boats, marker buoys shall be established around all vege- tated shallow zones within the limits of the submerged property limits with signs advising boaters of "SHALLOW WATERS-NO ENTRY". Prior to construction, the applicant and the Mara- thon DER office shall meet to discuss accept- able locations for these markers. The project shall comply with applic- able State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria 17-3.121 - Criteria - Class III Waters - Recreation, Propagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife: Surface Waters. The Applicant has agreed to comply with all conditions established by the Department. The Marina Site Captain's Cove is a manmade navigable lagoon with access to Florida Bay through a 2,500' long by 100' wide canal located opposite the project site. The waters of Captain's Cove and the canal are designated Class III surface waters, and those of Florida Bay as Outstanding Florida Waters. The controlling depth for access to the proposed marina is found at the mouth of the canal, where Florida Bay is approximately 6' mean low water (MLW). Depths within the canal are typically 1' or 2' deeper than the controlling depth at the mouth. Captain's Cove is roughly rectangular in shape. It measures 1,400' northeast to southwest, and up to 500' northwest to southeast. In the vicinity of the Applicant's property, which is located in the northeast fifth of the cove, the cove measures 350' wide. The bottom depth of the cove is variable. The southwestern four-fifths of the cove was typically dredged to a depth of 25' MLW. Within the northeast fifth of the cove (the basin), a gradation in depths is experienced. The northwest portion of the basin, located outside the project site, is typically 5' - 6' MLW, and heavily vegetated by sea grasses (turtle grass, manatee grass, and Cuban shoalweed). The southeast portion of the basin, which abuts the Applicant's property, consists of a shallow shelf 10' - 20' in width. Beyond this shelf, the bottom drops off steeply to a depth of 20' MLW. The shelf abutting the Applicant's property is sparsely vegetated with mangroves, and provides limited habitat for aquatic fauna such as domingo mussels and paper oysters. Replacement of these mangroves and other shoreline vegetation with riprap would not significantly affect the biological balance within the cove and would provide suitable habitat for existing species. The waters within the cove are quite clear, and meet the Department's water quality standards except for a thin layer at the deepest part of the cove where dissolved oxygen violations were noted. The proposed marina is, however, to be located in the northeast fifth of the cove, opposite the access canal, where the waters are more shallow and water circulation more prevelant. As sited, the proposed marina will not exacerbate or contribute to a violation of the Department's water quality criteria. Areas of Concern During construction of the marina elevated turbidity may be expected by disruption of the basin sediments caused by installation of the facility's pilings. This can be adequately controlled, however, by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. Shading of the benthic environment is a long term impact associated with marinas. Since the boat slips will be located in the deeper 20' MLW depth of the basin, where seagrasses are not present, sunlight will be permitted to reach the productive areas of the basin lying at 5' - 6' MLW and no adverse impact from shading will be experienced. Boats by their very existence and operation present potential negative short term and long term impacts to the environment. Potential damage to the seagrass beds in the northwest portion of the basin will be eliminated or minimized by the planned installation of buoys and/or signs prohibiting navigation in that area. Potential damage from wave action generated by boat operation will be eliminated or minimized by designating and posting the marina and access channel as an "idle speed-no wake" zone.[footnote 1] [footnote 1: Intervenors raised some concern regarding possible impact to the Florida manatee. While manatee have been sighted in the access channel, their occurrence is infrequent. Marking the shallow areas and designating the area as an "idle speed-no wake" zone will provide reasonable assurances that the manatee will not be adversely affected by the proposed marina.] The fueling of boats, hull maintenance, boat cleaning (detergents), and sewage discharge are additional pollution sources associated with marinas. While the proposed marina will have no fueling facilities and no live-aboards will be allowed at the marina, additional conditions must be attached to the permit to eliminate or minimize potential impacts from these potential pollution sources. In addition to the conditions established by the Department, the following conditions are necessary: All craft docked at the marina shall be prohibited from pumping sewage into the waters of the cove. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to those person(s) who own the slip. Leasing of boat slips shall be prohibited. Living aboard any boat docked at the marina is prohibited at all times.[footnote 2] [footnote 2: During hearing some concern was raised regarding the definition of live- aboard. The Department's intent in specifying no live-aboards was that no person(s) stay overnight on any boat moored at the marina. The purpose of this condition is to clarify that intent.] No boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning shall be allowed at the permitted facility. Limiting use of the boat slips to owners will provide reasonable assurances that the conditions imposed on the requested permit will be complied with. Prohibiting live- aboards, the pumping of sewage, fish cleaning, boat cleaning and hull maintenance, will provide reasonable assurances that Department standards for bacteriological and water quality will not be violated.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the after-the-fact Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) and the November 19, 2019, proprietary Letter of Consent for a 2,203 square foot dock should be issued as described and authorized by the December 6, 2019, Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, entered between Respondent Andrew Kent and the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), in its own capacity, and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal in Romeo Point, Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. Petitioners use the waters of Doctors Lake for recreational purposes, and have navigated to and from Doctors Lake, or reasonably expected as riparian property owners to do so, via the permitted and dredged navigational boat access channel leading from the western canal to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. Petitioners have challenged the Consent Order that authorizes issuance of the revised general permit for a residential dock that bisects and severs the navigational boat access channel. Thus, Petitioners have standing under section 120.569. Mr. Kent is the owner of Lot 18 of the Romeo Point subdivision. Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18 in 2017, and constructed a home there, 2059 Castle Point Court, Fleming Island, Florida, in which he currently resides. Mr. Kent is a party to the Consent Order, and proposed recipient of the ERP and Letter of Consent at issue in this proceeding. DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 253, 373 (Part IV), and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Title 62, regarding activities in surface waters of the state, and in Florida Administrative Code Title 18, governing the use of sovereignty submerged lands. The BTIITF is a collegial body that holds title to sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public. Art. X, § 11, Fla. Const.; § 253.001, Fla. Stat. DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The SJRWMD “shall perform the staff duties and functions related to the review of any application for authorization to use board of trustees-owned submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the water management district has permitting responsibility as set forth in an operating agreement” between DEP and the SJRWMD. Id. Review and approval of general permits and individual ERPs in Clay County generally falls within the jurisdiction of the SJRWMD pursuant to the July 1, 2007, Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP (“Joint Agreement”). DEP and the SJRWMD have been delegated the authority by the BTIITF to take final agency action on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands, without any action by the BTIITF, with the delegated entity to be established by rule. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat. Rule 18- 21.0051(2) provides that DEP and the water management districts “are delegated the authority to review and take final agency action on applications to use sovereignty submerged lands when the application involves an activity for which that agency has permitting responsibility, as set forth in the respective operating agreements.” Romeo Point Romeo Point is located on Doctors Lake in Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. The confluence of Doctors Lake with the St. Johns River is generally considered to be at the U.S. Highway 17 bridge, with Doctors Lake to its west, and the St. Johns River to its east. Doctors Lake is tidally influenced, with the range of tides generally being about one foot from high to low, but as much as 1.25 feet and as little as 0.8 feet depending on the phase of the moon. In addition, there are times when a confluence of a full moon, low tide, and winds to the east can pull water from the lake, which can result in even shallow draft vessels grounding in normally shallow areas unless they have access to a deeper water channel. In 2002, the Romeo Point property was purchased by Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for development as a residential subdivision. The Romeo Point subdivision included the western canal on which five waterfront lots were created. Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal. As part of the development, two permits were applied for and obtained from the SJRWMD. Mr. Goria, a licensed professional engineer, was part of the development team. SJRWMD Permit No 40-019-86850-1 authorized the stormwater management system for the Romeo Point subdivision. Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP separately applied for permits from the SJRWMD and the Corps for “a boat access channel and [ ] a bulkhead on the western property line to facilitate access to Doctors Lake.” Its purpose was, specifically, to allow access for the future homeowners along the western canal to Doctors Lake. The boat access channel followed the course of an existing, though somewhat narrower channel used by the previous property owner and others. SJRWMD issued Permit No. 40-019-86850-2 (the “Dash-2 Permit”) for “[d]redging of a boat access channel and construction of a bulkhead along a section of the channel at Romeo Point Subdivision.” The boat access channel extended from the mouth of the western canal northward along the shoreline in front of and past Lots 19 and 18, then turning to the west at Lot 17 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. The boat access channel was approximately 35 feet wide with 4:1 side contours, with its centerline about 30 feet off of the bulkhead. The Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit noted that “[t]he proposed dredging [of the boat access channel] will give water access to 5-lots along the western property line.” The SJRWMD Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit also established that, upon completion of construction, the “Final O&M [operation and maintenance] Entity” was to be the Romeo Point Homeowner Association. The boat access channel allowed vessels from the western canal to navigate around a cattail dominated shoal. Although the cattails no longer grow in the area, the shallow water shoal remains to varying degrees. Among the conditions made part of the Dash-2 Permit were that the permittee purchase 0.82 mitigation credits from the Sundew Mitigation Bank. The SJRWMD also issued a Consent of Use for state-owned submerged lands to Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for “Dredging of Boat Access Channel in Doctors Lake at Romeo Point - Permit # 40-019-86850-2.” The permittee was required to pay $2,978.75 to DEP for severed dredge material, with the SJRWMD permit number provided to DEP on the check and the cover letter. On December 16, 2003, the Corps issued Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW) to Floridays Development Group, Inc.,2 to “construct a single-family, residential subdivision and bulkhead, dredge a man-made canal and entrance channel into Doctors Lake, and also construct 7 new single-family docks.” The Corps permit required the purchase of 1.86 mitigation credits. The permit plans clearly depict both the western canal and the boat access channel into Doctors Lake. The Corps permit also permitted shoreline docks at Lots 18 and 19, with the permitted dock at Lot 18 to extend from the bulkhead to the edge of the boat access channel. The shoreline dock was sufficient to provide navigational access from Lot 18 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel. The docks along the boat access channel were permitted as part of the Corps permit to ensure those docks would not block access to the channel. Other docks were also permitted by the Corps for the Romeo Point subdivision that extended further into Doctors Lake to provide navigational access for lots that did not have direct access to the boat access channel. 2 Floridays Development Group, Inc., was a company owned by Mr. Goria that owned the membership interest in Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP. There was no dispute that the Corps permit constituted Federal authorization for the boat access channel. By sometime in 2004, all construction authorized by the permits, including the dredging of the boat access channel, was complete, and Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP moved to the marketing and sales phase. On October 3, 2005, and as contemplated by the Dash-2 Permit, the SJRWMD permits were transferred from Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP to Romeo Point Owners Association, Inc., for operation and maintenance. The transfer applied to both the stormwater permit and the boat access channel permit. There is nothing to suggest that the transfer to the owners’ association was improper or insufficient to transfer rights under the Dash-2 Permit. Navigation To and From the Western Canal When Petitioners bought property along the western canal, the boat access channel had been permitted and constructed for the specific purpose of providing those canal-front lots with reliable, deep-water navigable access to Doctors Lake. Persons owning, renting, visiting, or using those lots, or otherwise wanting to access the western canal, were customary users of the boat access channel. Water depths along the shoal that exists waterward of the boat access channel between the mouth of the western canal to the current location of the Lot 18 Dock were measured by DEP to range from 2 feet, 9 inches (33 inches) to 3 feet, 8 inches (44 inches) at a “rising tide towards high tide.” At the normal 12 inch tidal range, depths would be expected to range from 21 inches to 32 inches+/- at low tide. During full moons, the low tides could be as much as 0.25 feet (3 inches) lower over three or four days. Thus, the deepest area along the shoal could, on a monthly basis, be as shallow as 29 inches in depth. In order to address the issue of safe and reliable navigational access, conditions at low tide provide the best assessment of a waterway and the ability of boats to navigate in the area. Photographic evidence of Mr. Sheffler dragging his 20-foot boat through less than knee-deep water across the shoal at its deepest point near the Lot 18 Dock supports a finding that water depths across the shoal are, with regularity, insufficient to support safe navigation. In 2017, Mr. Sheffler purchased an existing home and boat lift on lot 23 along the western canal. The prior owner had previously kept a 24 and one half-foot boat on the boat lift. Mr. Sheffler kept a 21-foot Bayliner on the lift after he bought the house, which had a two foot, 10 inch (i.e., 34-inch) draft. He sold that boat with the thought of buying a larger boat for skiing, wakeboarding, and watersports with his four children. Those plans were shelved pending the resolution of this proceeding. Currently, Mr. Sheffler uses his father’s 19-foot Seafox center console boat with a 24-inch draft, which he used to navigate into Doctors Lake through the boat access channel prior to the time Mr. Kent constructed the Lot 18 Dock. He is able to navigate across the shoal at high tide, but otherwise the shoal presents an obstruction. In 2017, Mr. Davis built a home on lot 22 along the western canal that included a boat lift that could accommodate a 24-foot boat. Mr. Davis already owned a 19-foot Stingray boat with an inboard/outboard motor that he docked at his lot, and used the boat access channel to access Doctors Lake. Mr. Davis testified that, after July 4, 2019, when the Lot 18 Dock was substantially completed, he could not safely navigate around the dock, and that he ran aground on the shoal at low tide. His testimony is credited. Due to the difficulties in maneuvering his 19-foot Stingray across the shoal to the open waters of Doctors Lake, Mr. Davis postponed his planned purchase of a larger boat pending the results of this proceeding. Sadly, Mr. Davis passed during the course of the hearing, before he could buy the boat he wanted. Mr. Hudson is Mr. Davis’s son-in-law. He is an experienced boater, and has boated to the Davis home from Doctors Lake in his 20-foot Regal boat using the boat access channel. His boat is comparatively heavy, with an inboard/outboard motor and a 34-inch draft. Mr. Hudson was unable to easily and safely navigate to the Davis home after the construction of the Lot 18 Dock without grounding on the shoal at low tide. In 2017, Mr. Fuzzell purchased Lot 20 and Lot 21. Lot 20 partially fronts on Doctors Lake. Mr. Fuzzell constructed a house on each lot, each with a boat lift designed to accommodate a boat up to 26 feet in length. Mr. Fuzzell rents the house on lot 21, at which his current tenant keeps a 21-foot boat. Mr. Fuzzell built his house on Lot 20 with the expectation of purchasing a boat of sufficient size to put his family aboard, up to a 26-foot boat. Due to the blockage of the boat access channel by the Lot 18 Dock, the purchase was postponed and altered pending resolution of this proceeding. Mr. Ergle owns Lot 24 along the western canal. He has not developed the lot with a house or a boat dock. He is, nonetheless, a riparian owner. When he bought the lot, a primary reason was his expectation that he would be able to build a boat dock and keep a boat of around 24 feet. Mr. Ergle currently owns a small Boston Whaler, which he has used to visit his property. While the boat only has a 10-inch draft, Mr. Ergle has touched bottom along the shoal between the mouth of the western canal and the current Lot 18 Dock. Lt. Commander Van Hook testified to his familiarity with the area, and stated that “[i]f you were to come straight out from the channel, there's a shoal, shallow water out there, which I know about because I've gone through there. I wouldn't dare go that close to the shoreline because of how shallow it gets over that way.” Mr. Tomasi, a Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer (Ret.) visited the area in April 2019. He went through the area in Mr. Davis’s 19-foot Stingray, and testified that they “bumped bottom” with the boat’s hull at various places, including along the “deeper” areas along the shoal. The motor was tilted up as far as possible during the trip so as to avoid having silt sucked into the water intake which could damage the motor. Mr. Tomasi noted that, like bottom contours of any water body, “it's not a complete flat, glass bottom. I mean, you're going to have contours in the sea bed and there's going to be areas that get down. You're going to have some highs and some low areas out there.”3 He stated that, during the visit, “I never found a clear path to where I could come out going somewhere along that boat access channel and then be able to cut straight out without at some point bumping bottom.” It was Mr. Tomasi’s opinion that “[i]t's not a reasonable expectation that somebody should have to attempt to hazard their boat to get in and out of their dock or their canal.” His opinion is credited and accepted. The undersigned is not unmindful of the testimony of Captain Suber, who is every bit as worthy of respect as Lt. Commander Van Hook and Mr. Tomasi. Captain Suber visited the site at roughly low tide “a week or two” prior to the hearing in a “bay boat.” He testified that there were areas along the shoal that were not passable, but through trial and error, he was able to find a way out -- or rather a way in, since he was “out in the lake and looking in” -- without grounding. However his opinion regarding navigability was quite conditioned, providing that: Well, from -- from what I see, the waterway is -- you know, it is what it is.· It's shallow and you have to be cautious, but you can get in and out of that -- that canal at low tide. This is one of those areas where local knowledge is a -- is a must. Someone that don't know anything about the waterway right in this area, they probably would stay away from this. But if you live on this area of the waterway and you know the bottom out there, you should be able to get all of these vessels that have been in question in and out of there at any time by using caution If it's -- if it's an outboard, simpler, yes, all of them, any one that I would think would be able to get in and out of there. An inboard/outboard would be possible and probable. Inboards, those drafts on those are -- and they're so sensitive, you 3 Mr. Tomasi’s testimony supports a finding that, although DEP measured a maximum of 3.8 feet along the shoal at high tide, that does not establish 3.8 feet as a uniform depth around that point. Natural undulations could cause that depth to be more or less, which would explain the “bumping.” know, if I owned one, I probably would stay out of these swallower areas with one. Most people that have full inboards, they don't even want to try to get into places like that. Captain Suber’s testimony was worthy of belief. However, to the extent his opinion was that the Lot 18 Dock did not create an impediment to navigation, it was simply outweighed by other more persuasive evidence in the record. Purchase of Lot 18 Mr. Kent became aware that Lot 18 was on the market at some point in 2015, and engaged in a series of negotiations with the owners to purchase the lake-front property. After a period of unsuccessful efforts to purchase Lot 18, Mr. Kent “caught [the owner] at the right time,” and acquired the property in 2016. At the time of the purchase, Mr. Kent knew of lots on the western canal, but was not interested in them because “I didn’t want to be limited to the size of boat that I … used,” and “I wanted a long dock to put a -- I wanted a couple of boat lifts just like I do, just like the neighbors.” The line at which four-foot of depth in the boat access channel existed, and the point to which Mr. Kent would have to “wharf out” from Lot 18 to achieve four feet of navigable depth, was roughly 12 to 15 feet from the Lot 18 bulkhead. Around the last week of September or the first week of October 2017, prior to his construction -- or planning -- of the Lot 18 Dock, Mr. Kent, while on a walk around the neighborhood where he then lived, ran across his neighbors, Mr. Goria and Lt. Commander Van Hook. Mr. Kent knew that Mr. Goria had been involved in the development of Romeo Point, and took the opportunity to inquire about the area, and discussed his desire to build a long dock, similar to his neighbor’s dock to the north, extending from the shoreline of Lot 18 to the open waters of Doctors Lake. Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent of the existence of the permitted boat access channel that provided navigational access to residents of the western canal to Doctors Lake, a statement heard by Lt. Commander Van Hook. The conversation was memorable because Mr. Goria stated his belief that Mr. Kent was fortunate that his boat lift was going to be right on his bulkhead, which would save him considerable money on having to build a dock. When Mr. Kent expressed surprise, Mr. Goria explained that “we dredged a channel for the canal lot owners that goes and meanders right along your bulkhead and then goes out between you and [lot] 17.” Mr. Kent stated that he wanted a big dock,4 to which Mr. Goria stated that he would be blocking the channel near his bulkhead used by the canal front owners. Mr. Goria testified that Mr. Kent then stated that “well, that's their problem. They can't stop me.” Lt. Commander Van Hook testified, credibly and without reservation, that Mr. Goria “made it 100 percent clear on a two-way dialogue that without a doubt, there's a boat access channel that runs along the bulkhead that provides access from the folks that live back on the canal, the petitioners. … access to the deeper waters out in Doctors Lake.” He testified to his recollection of the conversation that “I know [Mr. Goria] said [the channel] ran parallel to the bulkhead that gets out there so parallel to the Romeo Point bulkhead. So if that puts it up against your lot, depending on how far it goes out there, I just know that it ran parallel. I don't know how far off.” He then stated that Mr. Kent’s “only response pretty much was he's going to apply either way. His plans were to build an extended dock.” When asked if it was reasonable for one to conclude that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the 4 Mr. Kent’s desire to have a big dock on Lot 18 was not new. As he testified at hearing, “I mean, hey, it's everybody's dream to live on the water. But for this particular area, I mean, come on. … Who wouldn't walk up to [Lot 18] and want a boat dock. I wanted a boat dock before I bought it.” boat access channel as a result of the conversation, Lt. Commander Van Hook replied, “Yes, sir, without a doubt.” Mr. Kent disputed his response, or even understanding, of the information provided by Mr. Goria, testifying unconvincingly that he thought Mr. Goria was talking about the western canal. Nonetheless, Mr. Goria provided clear and accurate information that a SJRWMD permitted boat access channel crossed the front of Lot 18 and provided residents in the area the 24-hour right to deeper water without restricting them to the tides, and that Mr. Kent was likely to have difficulty obtaining regulatory approval for his dock. While it is impossible to know what might have been going through his mind, the most reasonable inference that can be drawn is that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the boat access channel, and knew that the Lot 18 Dock as he wanted it would sever navigational access for residents along the western canal.5 The First General Permit Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, and proceeded to make application to DEP for the first general permit. Since the Romeo Point subdivision was subject to two SJRWMD permits, the Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP, dated July 1, 2007 (“Joint Agreement”), called for further permits affecting the area to be processed by SJRWMD. That did not occur. Mr. Kent hired C&H Marine, which prepared the application for the permit, submitted it to DEP, and ultimately constructed the Lot 18 Dock. The first general permit application called for the construction of “a single-family dock less than 2,000 sq. feet with one slip.” The application 5 Mr. Goria’s and Lt. Commander Van Hook’s testimony as to Mr. Kent’s statements, offered by Petitioners, constitute admissions of a party opponent, and are, therefore, not hearsay. § 90.803(18). Fla. Stat. Neither Mr. Goria nor Lt. Commander Van Hook has any direct interest in the outcome of this proceeding, and both were credible and persuasive. Their testimony is accepted, and supports the inference of Mr. Kent’s knowledge of the boat access channel and its effect on Petitioners prior to the permitting of the Lot 18 Dock. drawings showed that Lot 18 had 105 feet of frontage on Doctors Lake, and depicted a five-foot wide dock that extended 150 feet into Doctors Lake, with a 20-foot x 10-foot terminal platform and a boat lift totaling 865 square feet for a total structure of 1,665 square feet.6 The dock was depicted as being five feet above the mean high water (“MHW”) elevation. A 25-foot riparian setback was shown between the Lot 18 Dock and the adjacent property to the north. The boat access channel was at least six feet deep at its center, roughly 35 feet wide, and four feet deep only 12 to 15 feet from the bulkhead. Even a minimally competent investigation would have revealed the channel. However, the application identified underwater bottom contours and depths that gradually and evenly sloped from shallow at the bulkhead to four feet deep at the terminus of the Lot 18 Dock. As noted by Ms. Mann, “[i]t showed a smooth -- relatively smooth seafloor bed.” The length of the dock on the permit application drawings was not to scale, with the application drawing being shortened through the use of “continuation marks.” Those continuation marks subsumed the section of lake bottom through which the boat access channel ran. Thus, the channel was not depicted in the application. Regardless of intent or reason, by its use of continuation marks in the application drawings, the contractor quite effectively managed to conceal the channel from DEP.7 Since the application was being filed on his behalf, it was Mr. Kent’s obligation to ensure its accuracy. Mr. Kent, despite having been told of the permitted channel and of the existence of regulatory permits 6 There was no definitive measure of the width of Lot 18. Though the application indicated it was 105 feet, Mr. Kent testified that “I’ve seen 101. I’ve seen 106. I’ve seen 104. So I guess it depends where you measure. I have no idea.” DEP later measured the width as 101 feet. 7 Since Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent that the boat access channel was going to make it difficult to obtain regulatory approval for his dock, the omission of what should have been a patently obvious subsurface feature existing no more than 15 feet off of the bulkhead, and the replacement of that section of lake bottom with continuation marks, seems more than coincidental. authorizing its construction, failed in that obligation, resulting in an application that was, at best, misleading. Furthermore, even accepting that neither Mr. Kent nor the contractor knew of the channel before construction commenced, which is a stretch, its existence absolutely had to have become apparent early on in construction. Mr. Kent or C&H Marine had an obligation at that time to disclose to DEP that the application was false and inaccurate. Neither did so. Upon receipt of the first general permit application, Ms. Mann reviewed the SJRWMD GIS system to determine if there were permits within a one-quarter mile radius of Lot 18. The depiction of that radius on a map appears to encompass most, if not all of the Romeo Point subdivision. The SJRWMD GIS system did not show any permits within the one-quarter mile radius except for a dock permit related to a lot to the north of Lot 18. Ms. Mann did not check the linked permit associated with that lot. Had she done so, she would have discovered the Corps authorization for the boat access channel. DEP’s ERP Checklist incorrectly indicated that the Lot 18 Dock application “was not in a WMD permitted area.” If DEP had correctly noted that the SJRWMD had issued permits for the Romeo Point subdivision, DEP would have had to coordinate the Lot 18 Dock application with the SJRWMD. DEP issued the first general permit on June 17, 2019, to “construct a 1,615 sq ft private residential single family dock consisting of an access pier and a covered boat slip and terminal platform, within Doctors Lake, a Class III Florida waterbody,” which included the Letter of Consent, as well as a State Programmatic General Permit V-R1 on behalf of the Corps. Notice of the first general permit was not provided to Petitioners either by actual notice or by publication. Petitioners’ Notice of the Lot 18 Dock After the first general permit was issued, Petitioners’ became aware of the proposed Lot 18 Dock when, during a homeowners’ association meeting that took place prior to the commencement of construction, Mr. Kent advised Mr. Davis that construction of the Lot 18 Dock was scheduled to begin the following week. That disclosure triggered a second meeting at Mr. Davis’s house that included the president of the homeowners’ association, Mr. Davis, Mr. Sheffler, Mr. Kent, and several other homeowners to discuss the fact that the Lot 18 Dock would block the boat access channel. Mr. Kent’s solution was not to delay the construction of the Lot 18 Dock to come to a solution, but rather, “if you guys ever[ ] get stuck and cannot navigate, I’ll participate in dredging your canal.” Petitioners made their concerns known to Mr. Kent well before the first piling was set for the Lot 18 Dock. Nonetheless, knowing then with certainty that a boat access channel existed along the shoreline in front of Lot 18, knowing that the application was misleading by omission, and knowing of his neighbors’ objections, Mr. Kent made no effort to disclose that information to DEP, and proceeded with construction. Petitioners advised DEP of their concerns on or about June 28, 2019, which included a description of the boat access channel,8 Petitioners expressed their objection to the Lot 18 Dock on the ground that it cut off their access to the permitted boat access channel. DEP took no action, despite then having knowledge that the application was false. Case No. 19-4192 On July 17, 2019, Petitioners filed a petition for hearing to challenge the issuance of the first general permit for the Lot 18 Dock. The petition alleged that DEP provided them with an extension of time to file the petition 8 The exact date on which construction commenced was not disclosed. However, on July 4, 2019, the boat access channel was still passable, with only string marking its path. Thus, by June 28, 2019, DEP had information showing the falsity of the application that should have triggered some inquiry before the boat access channel was severed. on June 28, 2019, which is corroborative of testimony that Petitioners advised DEP of the boat access channel on that date. Three weeks later, on August 7, 2019, the petition was referred to DOAH and assigned as Case No. 19-4192. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the Lot 18 Dock crossed the existing navigational channel that Petitioners used to navigate motorized watercraft to the open waters of Doctor's Lake and the St. John's River, and created unnecessary restrictions on Petitioners’ access to those navigable waters. Case No. 19-4192 was set for hearing to commence on October 17, 2019. On September 27, 2019, DEP filed a Notice of Intent to Change Agency Action and Motion to Put Case Into Abeyance, in which DEP stated that it had taken enforcement action on the Lot 18 Dock as built. The Notice stated that DEP intended to require that Mr. Kent apply for another permit, which Petitioners would be able to contest. On December 18, 2019, the presiding ALJ relinquished jurisdiction over Case No. 19-4192 to DEP. The Lot 18 Dock As-built The Lot 18 Dock, as constructed, deviated materially from the dock as permitted. As important as the fact that the Lot 18 Dock was not compliant with the permit is that, as pilings were being set during the period of construction, it could not have been overlooked9 that the proposed dock was bisecting the deeper water boat access channel. However, no one advised DEP of the existence of the channel, an omission that, given the facts and the record of this proceeding, could only have been intentional, and could only have been to conceal the existence of the deeper water channel from DEP and other regulatory entities while construction of the Lot 18 Dock was completed. 9 It is impossible to conclude that a marine contractor, regardless of their degree of competence, could fail to notice that they were setting pilings in six feet of water rather than two feet of water. The Lot 18 Dock was constructed to a length of 193 feet, exceeding the 160-foot length (which includes the ten feet of terminal platform) depicted in the permit application drawings. Going out that extra length also, as described by Mr. Kent, “gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth.” Therefore, instead of the dock ending at the permitted four-foot (48 inches) depth, he now had up to 53 inches of depth, all the better for a bigger boat. Mr. Kent testified that he directed the contractor to build out to that length, because it would be cheaper to have it done while the equipment was on-site, rather than waiting to have the extra length permitted. The as-built lift was 36 feet in length, rather than the permitted 34 feet, and will hold a boat of 32 feet.10 The walkway of the dock was measured by DEP to be two feet, seven inches above MHW rather than the required five feet as permitted. The as-built structure also included four unpermitted pilings and a second boat lift. Mr. Kent believed that the pilings would be “permittable,” so went ahead and authorized the contractor to install them without waiting for a permit. The second lift will “probably hold a 26-footer.” C&H Marine installed cleats on several pilings for the terminal platform/boat lift that were suitable to allow an additional vessel to tie-up to the dock. Those cleats were -- purportedly -- installed without Mr. Kent’s knowledge, and have been removed. Mr. Kent was on vacation for some of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock.11 Upon his return, the dock was completed despite Petitioners’ objections, and despite a DEP request that he stop work. 10 The size of the boat could likely be greater, since the covered slip/lift was built two feet longer than permitted. 11 Mr. Kent testified to a general lack of knowledge of the course of the construction due to his vacation. However, he knew of the extra pilings, and approved their installation because he thought they would be “permittable.” He testified that during his vacation, he contacted Michelle Neely at DEP to inquire about a “residential bridge,” a discussion memorialized by Ms. Neely on July 24, 2019, in correspondence to Mr. Sheffler, though there was no direct evidence that he advised her of the boat access channel. He was on the site (“I walked out there. And at some point -- I can't give you a date as to when. It was before the big piece was built. That's for sure.”) and authorized C&H Marine to extend the Lot 18 Dock from 160 feet to its as-built 193 feet, stating that “[w]hen I asked him to extend it, I knew that wasn’t permitted yet, but it was permittable.” These issues do not directly apply to the issue of The August Compliance Inspections Reacting to information from Petitioners, DEP conducted site inspections of the Lot 18 Dock on August 21, 2019, and August 27, 2019. The as-built conditions described above were noted by DEP at those times, as was the fact that the dock “appears to be approximately 19 ft from the northern neighbor’s apparent riparian rights lines.” The ERP Inspection Report noted “Significant Non-Compliance” with the Lot 18 Dock. The report identified the SJRWMD permit “to allow for boat access,” but claimed “[d]uring the review process, inquiry on the SJRWMD ERP GIS page did not reveal the existing [sic] of a SJRWMD permit.” The ERP Inspection Report recognized that the western canal homeowners “claim[ed] the dock impedes their ability to use the channel along the shoreline, that was part of the SJRWMD permit #40-019-86850-2, and access Dr’s Lake.” The DEP staff recommendation was to allow Mr. Kent to keep the Lot 18 Dock as constructed, with a monetary fine and a minor corrective measure. The ERP Inspection Report noted that if Mr. Kent wanted three boat slips on the Lot 18 Dock, he would need to apply for a single family lease. The ERP Inspection Report made no further mention of the boat access channel or the SJRWMD permit, and gave no recognition or accommodation for the seemingly legitimate concerns of the western canal homeowners. Based on its observations, DEP issued Warning Letter No. WL19-213 to Mr. Kent noting that the dock “was constructed in a manner not consistent with your permit application and its supporting documentations.” As was the case with the ERP Inspection Report, the Warning Notice made no mention of the boat access channel, the SJRWMD permit, or Petitioners’ navigational concerns. whether the Lot 18 Dock impedes navigability, which it would have done whether it was 93 or 193 feet in length, and whether it has one or three slips. However, these issues demonstrate a general conscious disregard for the permitting authority of DEP, and affect the weight to be given Mr. Kent’s testimony. The October Compliance Inspection On October 15, 2019, following a complaint of a further unpermitted addition, DEP conducted a third compliance inspection. Previously, according to Mr. Durden, DEP “negotiated” with Mr. Kent, advising him that if he removed the unauthorized cleats that had been installed on the Lot 18 Dock, DEP “could issue the permit, because then he would have only two boat slips.” The October inspection revealed that, after DEP issued the Warning Notice, and despite his having been advised of the two-slip limitation, Mr. Kent installed an unpermitted floating personal water craft (PWC) dock midway along the span of the dock that was suitable for landing a jet-ski. Mr. Durden testified that “[h]e removed the cleats [which had been installed to create a third slip on the unpermitted second boat lift pilings]. And then a period of time passed and then he decided to install the ski lift.” Counting the unauthorized PWC lift, the Lot 18 Dock had -- and currently has -- three boat slips under DEP’s jurisdiction. The installation of the unauthorized floating dock while permitting and enforcement were ongoing suggests an ongoing and blatant disregard for DEP’s permitting and enforcement authority. The Consent Order On December 19, 2019, DEP and the BTIITF entered into a Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, with Mr. Kent to resolve all issues, including the unpermitted third PWC dock. Mr. Kent was charged a fine of $2,750.0012 to resolve the issues of non- compliance. Despite by then having information that established, as a matter 12 Mr. Kent was allowed to keep the Lot 18 Dock’s unauthorized “extra 30 feet [and corresponding] 4 or 5 more inches of depth,” the unpermitted second boat lift, and the floating PWC dock that was constructed after enforcement proceedings had commenced, without any corrective measures whatsoever, all for the modest “fine” of a $2,750, of which $250 was the “permit fee.” By the time the Consent Order was executed, DEP knew the Lot 18 Dock was severing a permitted navigational channel, and should have known, through months of involvement with Petitioners, including DOAH Case No. 19-4192 that the of law, that the Lot 18 Dock had three slips and did not qualify for a general permit, DEP nonetheless issued the revised general permit, including the Letter of Consent and water quality certification under the Clean Water Act. Mr. Kent was not required to obtain an individual ERP or a single family lease. At the final hearing, DEP admitted that an individual ERP is required and, in the course of this de novo proceeding, asks that the Lot 18 Dock be measured against those standards. DEP made no mention in the Consent Order of the boat access channel. The Consent Order did not note that severing the channel forces Petitioners to have to navigate through shallow and unsafe waters to get to Doctors Lake from their homes, on which they may -- and have -- run aground. The Consent Order did not acknowledge the existence of the SJRWMD Dash-2 Permit or the Corps permit. DEP had knowledge of all of those things both as a result of its involvement in DOAH Case No. 19-4192 and as evidenced by its August 21, 2019, ERP Inspection Report. The Boat Access Channel as a Navigational Channel The boat access channel was permitted as a navigational channel by the SJRWMD and the Corps, and permission to use state owned lands for that purpose was granted by the BTIITF. When the boat access channel was dredged, its entrance to and from Doctors Lake was marked with two PVC pipes, which remain in their original positions. It is not uncommon for people to mark channels with PVC pipe. While the pipes are by no means “regulation” Coast Guard approved channel channel was customarily used, marked, and provided Petitioners with their only means of reliably safe navigation between the western canal and Doctors Lake. Rather than acknowledging its mistake in permitting an illegal dock, regardless of the circumstances, DEP reacted with casual diffidence, questioning the validity of the SJRWMD’s Dash-2 Permit, overlooking the Corps permit, ignoring that the dock encroached into, and severed, a permitted, marked, and customarily used navigation channel, and generally minimizing Petitioners’ legitimate rights of navigation. Perhaps, as surmised by Mr. Sheffler, DEP was “trying to figure out ways to, you know, kind of save face.” However, the rationale and merits markers, and are not particularly distinctive, they are private markers that are known by and provide navigational and boating information to lot owners and other customary users in the area for whom the boat access channel was designed, permitted, and constructed, and who are customary users of the boat access channel. Ms. Mann testified that “[i]t was [DEP’s] position that this was not marked not in a way that we would determine it to be in a navigable channel. PVC poles in the water don't really mean anything.” However, DEP has no rule defining what constitutes a marker sufficient to establish a “marked channel,” or that would establish a limitation that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term. A preponderance of the evidence in this case demonstrates that the PVC pipes were, prior to its severance by the Lot 18 Dock, channel markers known to persons in and using the area as establishing the entrances to the boat access channel. Ms. Mann continued in her testimony, stating that “we saw plenty of people who went without needing to use the navigation channel, so we determined it was a customarily used navigation channel, that it was not needed.” At the time Ms. Mann visited the site, boaters could not use the navigational channel, since it was blocked. Boaters would not be relying on the markers since they marked the mouth of the channel on the other side of the Lot 18 Dock. Furthermore, Ms. Mann was on-site at close to high tide. That persons may, by necessity, be forced to navigate through unsafe waters or not navigate at all is no evidence that the navigation channel “was not needed.” The evidence in this case establishes by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence that the boat access channel was, before the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, both marked and customarily used. It provided safe and reliable navigable access to the western canal for residents -- or lack thereof -- of DEP’s actions are beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is not an enforcement case. and their families and guests. Though sparsely used by the general public for fishing or boating, there is nothing to restrict such use. The boat access channel is, by all factual measures, a “navigational channel” as described by DEP rule. Effects on Navigation When Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, he had every bit as much access to the open waters of Doctors Lake as did Petitioners. He could have, as contemplated and approved by the Corps permit, constructed a parallel dock along the Lot 18 shoreline and freely accessed the navigable waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel in any vessel capable of operating in six feet of water. A preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in the record establishes that the depths along the shoal are not sufficient during all normal periods to safely navigate without a reasonable likelihood of grounding. That evidence is persuasive and accepted. Mr. Durden credibly testified that a person is “allowed to wharf out until you reach a depth of at least four -- well, 5 feet, which [DEP] would consider a safe depth to be able to have a boat.” Furthermore when asked whether it is “the department's policy for issuance of consent to use sovereign land, that you're entitled to get to 4 feet for your dock,” Ms. Mann responded that “I believe that is actually part of our regulatory 62-330.” Mr. Durden testified, and the evidence supports, that the boat access channel varied from between six feet to seven feet, 11 inches in depth when he conducted his on-site measurements at a “rising to high tide.” Thus, even at the lowest lunar tides, the boat access channel provided safe navigational depths to the owners of the western canal lots, and to Lot 18, of greater than four and a half feet. Ms. Mann candidly admitted that before the Lot 18 Dock was constructed, Mr. Kent had more than four feet of access for a dock and boat at his bulkhead. Mr. Kent admitted that Petitioners “don’t have the same water access -- deep water access to Doctors Lake that they had before [he] built [his] dock,” and that “their canal is 4½ feet deep. The channel goes to 6 foot deep, and now that 6-foot depth isn’t there all the way.” In fact, the only means of accessing Doctors Lake in the absence of the boat access channel does not even approach 4 and one half feet in depth, being in most places less than half that at low tide. Ms. Mann’s testimony that “[w]e determined that vessels had plenty of space to maneuver around Mr. Kent's dock” was simply and substantially outweighed by countervailing competent, substantial, and credible evidence. The impairment to navigation in this case could not be clearer. Mr. Kent had no interest in purchasing a canal-front lot because he “didn’t want to be limited” in the boat he could use -- with the Lot 18 Dock being able to accommodate two boats and additional PWC, with one lift suitable for a boat of a minimum of 32 feet, and the other which would “probably hold a 26-footer.” However, neither DEP nor Mr. Kent seemingly have any issue with the fact that Petitioners were previously not limited in owning any vessel that their slips could accommodate (generally up to 24 to 26 feet), and now they are limited to smaller, shallow draft boats that, even then, occasionally ground on the shoal. DEP and Mr. Kent both minimized the effect of the reduced depth for Petitioners to navigate, seemingly arguing that a depth of 29 to 32 inches -- the deepest point along the shoal at or near low tide13 -- is just as good as the four-foot depth acknowledged as being “a safe depth to be able to have a boat” 13 The maximum depth measured by DEP along the shoal was three feet, eight inches at a rising to high tide. Subtracting the normal 12 inch tidal range results in a depth of two feet, eight inches+/- (32 inches) at low tide. Every month for several days during the full moon, tides may vary by up to an additional 0.25 feet (3 inches) on both cycles. Thus, depths at the deepest point along the shoal are regularly reduced to 29 inches+/-. Furthermore, Mr. Sheffler measured depths in the vicinity of the Lot 18 Dock that were closer to two feet (24 inches). Given natural variations that occur on the bottom of natural bodies of water, both sets of measurements are credible. and safe for navigation by Mr. Durden and Ms. Mann, is just as good as the 53 inches of depth gained by Mr. Kent from his unpermitted dock extension, and is just as good as the six-foot depth of the boat access channel. The shallower, unsafe depths across the shoal are not just as good. Even Mr. Kent admitted that inches have navigable value, testifying with regard to the settlement of his illegal dock extension: I paid that fine. But I did that because it gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth. I wouldn't have wasted my money to extend my dock if I didn't get that. ... I'm just saying that I paid the fine and did the extra 30 feet because it got me 4 or 5 more inches of depth. The natural variation of bottom depths, as described by Mr. Tomasi, reveals the fallacy of basing determinations of navigability on small changes in depth measured by inches that can be counted on one hand, and the folly of trading clearance in feet for clearance in inches. Respondents argue that Petitioners should just be satisfied with smaller boats, or plan their outings to correspond to the tides,14 or trim their motors up to the point they may lose control,15 or carefully thread their way through slightly and almost imperceptively deeper areas on the shoal, all while avoiding collision with the Lot 18 Dock16 -- none of which would guarantee that they would not ground their vessels. Meanwhile, DEP proposes to allow Mr. Kent, who already had deep water access to Doctors 14 Mr. Tomasi testified that due to the likelihood of hitting bottom while crossing the shoal at low tide, Petitioners would have to pick the times for boating based on the tides, both coming and going. If they went out at a falling tide, they would have to wait until the tide started coming in to get back. Mr. Tomasi credibly and correctly opined that safe navigation “shouldn't be restricted to tides nor should you be restricted to a moon cycle.” 15 Mr. Hudson is an experienced boater, and credibly explained that to “trim up” a motor on a boat causes navigation to become more “challenging,” and that “with the propeller pushing water behind you, you lose a certain percentage of control or navigation.” Mr. Tomasi echoed that observation. Their testimony is credited. Lake via the boat access channel, to maximize his ability to have more and bigger boats, to the detriment of Petitioners and anyone else desiring to safely access the western canal. Petitioners have not sought permission to recreate in unusually large vessels or vessels not suitable for the area. They are simply asking to be able to safely navigate to and from their homes in boats six to eight feet smaller than Mr. Kent’s 32-footer, i.e. generally the size of his spare. This case is not one in which Petitioners are requesting that Mr. Kent relinquish his riparian right of navigation so that they can have larger vessels, or vessels inconsistent with normal family recreation. Rather, it is Mr. Kent’s desire to have larger and more vessels that has created this dispute. The evidence is clear that Mr. Kent had -- and has -- an unrestricted ability to navigate to and from Lot 18 via the boat access channel. Thus, although the Lot 18 Dock is a clear impairment of Petitioner’s rights to navigation, the denial of the permit and Letter of Consent would create no impairment of Mr. Kent’s right to navigation, and in no way would constitute an unreasonable infringement on Mr. Kent’s riparian rights. As a result of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, the boat access channel, a marked, customarily used, and validly permitted and constructed navigation channel, for which mitigation credits were purchased and severance fees were paid to the state, has been entirely severed with seemingly no concern for the adverse effects on navigation suffered by the persons for whom the ability to safely navigate was intended. The position espoused by Respondents in this case simply creates a substantial and entirely unnecessary impediment to navigation, violating both the plain- language of, and the public policy behind DEP’s ERP rules, and the BTIITF’s sovereignty lands authority. 16 Winds or seas can push a boat around, a situation that is exacerbated when the motor is trimmed up. Therefore, one would generally not want to get close to the Lot 18 Dock, or any Letter of Consent Rule 18-21.004(7)(g) provides that “[s]tructures or activities shall not create a navigational hazard.” As set forth herein, the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence in this proceeding firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock has created a navigational hazard by severing the permitted, marked, and customarily used boat access channel, thus, forcing Petitioners and other persons wanting to use the waters in the area to cross the shallow shoal, which is both unsafe and unnecessary. Ms. Mann testified that, in determining whether the Lot 18 Dock is the “minimum size” necessary, “we had taken that to look at the other docks in the area, and if he is on average with those other docks, then we consider it minimum size for that area.” However, the definition of a “minimum size dock or pier” in BTIITF rule 18-21.003(39) includes a comparison to other permitted docks as but one factor for consideration. The rule provides, in pertinent part, that: “Minimum-size dock or pier” means a dock or pier that is the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming based on consideration of the immediate area’s physical and natural characteristics, customary recreational and navigational practices, and docks and piers previously authorized under this chapter. The evidence in this case firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock is not “the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming.” Mr. Kent had reasonable access to the water for navigating by using the boat access channel, and could have used any vessel with a draft of six feet or less from a shoreline dock as permitted by the Corps in 2003. The Lot 18 Dock did not take into consideration the area’s customary recreational and navigational practices, which previously relied on the boat access channel. Other previously authorized docks in the dock, with the potential to be pushed into the dock, damaging the boat, the dock, or both. area are not appropriate comparators because none have access to the boat access channel, and none encroach into and sever a permitted navigational channel, as does the Lot 18 Dock. The Lot 18 Dock is not, as a factual matter, a “minimum size dock or pier.” The Lot 18 Dock preempts substantially more sovereignty submerged lands than necessary for Mr. Kent to wharf out to four feet of navigable water. Environmental Issues Petitioners argue that substantial resources, predominantly seagrasses, exist in the area along the shoal, which seagrasses would be churned and scoured by vessels navigating across the shoal, and that the Lot 18 Dock is, therefore, contrary to the public interest. Since 1994, submerged vegetation has declined in Doctors Lake as a result of drought, invasive species, and hurricanes, particularly those in 2017 and 2018. DEP notified the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“DACS”) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FFWCC”) of the Lot 18 Dock application. DEP did not receive comments from FFWCC within 30 days, which generally indicates that it did not have objections. See § 20.331(10), Fla. Stat. The response, if any, from DACS was not disclosed. On June 8, 2020, DEP conducted a limited environmental survey of the shoal area adjacent to the Lot 18 Dock and in front of the western canal. The purpose of the survey was to determine if there is plant or animal life in the area, if the shoal area is of any environmental importance, and if it contains any endangered or protected species. Nine samples were taken at various locations along the “top” of the shoal, including dredge samples, a dip net sample, and one Shelby core sample. All were taken from a boat. The DEP sampling revealed that the substrate consists mostly of sand, with less than 2 percent muck or organic material mixed in or on top. There was little animal or plant life, except for some juvenile clams of unknown species that appeared in several of the samples. There was one sample with two small plant fragments, but it was not known whether they rooted in the bottom or if they drifted in. Mr. Durden testified that “[t]here certainly was no substantial amount of vegetation found anywhere.” There were no endangered or protected species. DEP concluded that the shoal is of low environmental value and suitable for authorization for a permit. On June 5, 2020, Mr. Estes conducted a study of the shoal area to determine if there was a presence of submerged aquatic vegetation in the area. He was there less than a half an hour. He generally concentrated his study area to the shallower area of the shoal closer to the mouth of the western canal from the 2’9” to 3’3” readings as depicted on Joint Exhibit 10. He did not pay much attention to the area around the Lot 18 Dock. Mr. Estes found a “very sparse coverage” of eelgrass, which is a species common in Doctors Lake. He also found some clams between 4 and 5 centimeters on average, which he believed to be adults. Mr. Estes was not able to opine whether the clams were important to a blue crab fishery in the area since it was outside of the scope of his study. Mr. Estes could not state that the area was of any current ecological significance. Rather, his testimony was limited to an opinion that conditions at the site were suitable for reestablishment of eelgrass. He believed that boats crossing the shoal could leave “prop scars” which would interfere with submerged vegetation recruiting back into those areas. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the Lot 18 Dock, or navigation across the shoal, will interfere with the current environmental functions of the area, will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or will adversely affect fishing and recreation rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying an environmental resource permit for the Lot 18 Dock, whether it be the revised general permit authorized in the December 6, 2019, Consent Order or an individual ERP; denying the November 19, 2019, Letter of Consent or other form of state lands authorization for the Lot 18 Dock; and requiring measures to reestablish the boat access channel and Petitioners’ rights of navigation in recognition of their riparian rights of navigation and the valid St. Johns River Water Management District Permit No 40-019- 86850-2, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW). DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Zachary Roth, Esquire Ansbacher Law Suite 100 8818 Goodby's Executive Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32217 (eServed) Andrew T. Kent 2059 Castle Point Court Fleming Island, Florida 32003 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Broward County should issue an Environmental Resource Permit (the "ERP" or "Permit") to Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc., for the construction of five finger piers as sized, configured, located and approved by Broward County's Proposed Permit issued in 2007?
Findings Of Fact The Port Laudania Property Port Laudania is a privately-owned marina basin (the "Marina Basin" or the "Basin") in Broward County. Located just off the Dania Cut-off Canal south of Port Everglades, the Marina Basin is not far from the Atlantic Ocean and the Intra-coastal Waterway that lies along all of Florida's east coast. There are no fixed bridges or other impediments to the passage of large sea-going boats and ships between the Basin and the Atlantic. The Marina Basin is an ideal spot to berth large vessels such as yachts and those used in the ocean-freight shipping business. PBPH owns the submerged lands in the western approximate two-thirds of the Basin as well as adjacent uplands. Together, these submerged lands and uplands constitute the parcel located at 750 N.E. 7th Avenue in the City of Dania (the "PBPH Parcel"). Immediately adjacent is a parcel owned by C-Term, a Florida general partnership. Located at 760 N.E. 7th Avenue in Dania, the uplands at the address and the approximate eastern one-third of the Marine Basin (the part not owned by PBPH) comprise the "C-Term Parcel." The PBPH Parcel and the C-Term Parcel make up the Port Laudania Property. Prior to a conveyance in 1987 that divided the Port Laudania Property into two parcels, the property had been under common ownership. The entire property was owned in fee simple by Dennison Marine, Inc. ("DMI"). Just prior to the division of the property into two parcels, DMI conveyed an easement that would ensure that owners and lessees of both parcels would have unhindered access from the Dania Cut-off Canal to their respective parcels: a Cross-use Easement of Ingress and Egress (the "Cross-use Easement"). The Cross-Use Easement for Ingress and Egress On June 29, 1987, DMI executed the Cross-Use Easement.2/ Earlier, DMI had divided the Port Laudania Property into two parcels (Parcel I and Parcel II in the Cross-use Easement, referred-to in this order mainly as the C-Term Parcel and the PBPH Parcel, respectively) and had entered into an Agreement for Deed and Lease with Port Denison, Inc., for the purchase and sale of one of the two parcels. The transaction subject to the agreement had not yet occurred so that DMI remained the sole owner of the Port Laudania Property on the date the Cross-Use Easement was established. The Cross-Use Easement contains the following: WHEREAS, both Parcel I and Parcel II share an inlet off of Dania cut-off Canal, . . . WHEREAS, it is to the mutual advantage of the present and future owners, tenants, invitees, etc. of both Parcel I and Parcel II that the entire inlet be available to the owners of the other parcel for the purposes of ingress and egress; NOW THEREFORE, . . . Denison Marine, Inc., with the consent of Port Denison, Inc., does hereby for itself and its successors and assigns, give and grant to the future owners, tenants and future tenants of all or any portion of the Property, their respective customers, employees, agents, invitees, successors and assigns, a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress over and across the inlet as described in Composite Exhibit "C" hereto. This non-exclusive easement shall run as a covenant with the land and constitute [sic] an appurtenance thereto. Petitioners' Ex. 1 at 0164-0165. Composite Exhibit "C" of the Cross-Use Easement contains sketches and descriptions of both the "Easterly Portion of the Marina," see id. at 170-171, (the C-Term Parcel) and the "Westerly Portion of the Marina," see id. at 172-173 (the PBPH Parcel.) The descriptions include the entire Basin except for that occupied by the boat lift in the northern end of the Basin.3/ Neither the legal descriptions nor the surveys attached to the Cross-Use Easement depict any finger piers, docks or pilings in the Basin. Under the Cross-Use Easement, the ability of the parties to amend the rights granted therein is governed by the following: This Agreement may be altered, amended or terminated by written document executed by all the then fee simple title holders of all portions of the Property and then record holders of any first mortgages then encumbering any of said lands and recorded in the public records of Broward County, Florida. Petitioners' Ex. 1, second page, BK 1490 PG0165. C-Term has not agreed to amend the Cross-Use Easement to permit construction of the docks contemplated by the 2007 Notice of Intent and Proposed Permit. The rights conferred by the Cross-Use Easement are property rights that govern the use of the Basin. The Basin and the Cut-off Canal The Basin is man-made and frequently referred-to in documents that relate to it as an "inlet" off the Dania Cut-off Canal. Small and medium-sized pleasure crafts, large yachts, mega-yachts,4/ and commercial cargo vessels, some of which are as lengthy as 250 feet regularly pass through The Dania Cut-off Canal in the area of the Basin immediately south of its mouth. Aerial photographs show that the Basin was excavated in the early 1960's. Shortly after excavation, the Port Laudania Property was used as a commercial cargo terminal. Since at least 1967, the Basin has accommodated cargo vessels with lengths up to 250 feet give or take 15 feet. Petitioners' Exhibit 145 is an aerial photograph that shows vessels of approximately 250 feet on both sides of the Basin. For the approximately 250-foot vessel on the east side of the Basin (the C-Term side), the margin of error in measuring the vessels from the aerial is "[p]robably 10 feet, plus or minus." Tr. 1049. G&G has operated numerous vessels in the Basin at lengths of over 200 feet. Of the seven vessels that G&G owned or operated at the time of hearing the maximum length is 234 feet. From April 1999 to March 2006, vessels owned or operated by G&G have struck finger piers or docks on the PBPH side of the Basin "a handful of times." Tr. 893. None of the details of these collisions was produced at hearing. Standard procedure for such incidents would have been to file an internal report or a captain's report, but Mr. Ganoe could not remember whether a report was filed.5/ For his part on the PBPH side of the Basin, Mr. Straub is not aware of any G&G vessels hitting boats moored at the finger piers on the PBPH side of the Basin, indicating that the collisions were not serious. In contrast to evidence that collisions have occurred is evidence from one frequent navigator of the Basin, Jim Steel of Steel Marine Towing. With the exception of the years in college, Mr. Steel has towed vessels in the area of Broward County consistently since 1988 when he began towing with his father at the age of 12. The range in length of the vessels, both commercial and private, that Mr. Steel has towed is from 120 to 250 feet. Mr. Steel has towed hundreds of vessels in and out of the Basin. During those times, he has observed various dock and finger pier configurations. He never collided with the docks on the PBPH side of the Basin with his tugboat or the vessels he towed even when the fifth finger pier was 150 feet long during the time period from 1995-96. Mr. Steel described the Dania Cut-off Canal in the vicinity of the Basin as a congested area with a number of facilities that cater to marine traffic. Large motor yachts (100 feet to 150 feet in length), mega-yachts (longer than 150 feet), commercial vessels (up to 250 feet), smaller pleasure craft as well as other smaller boats comprise the traffic seeking access to facilities along the canal. The facilities include Harbortown Marina across the canal from the Basin, which has some spots for large motor yachts and berths for hundreds of smaller boats up to 90 feet. Facilities in the area that serve mega- yachts are Director's Shipyard, Powell Brothers, and Playboy Marine. In the last five years, new facilities have been opened along the canal for smaller pleasure craft: American Offshore, Dania Beach Club and Dusty's. Mr. Steel described their function, "[t]hey are . . . what you would call rack and stack," (tr. 1562) storing boats sized from 20 to 40 feet pulled in an out of the water and stacked with a forklift. There are eight or nine such facilities west of the Basin. Mr. Steel estimated each of these facilities house at least several hundred boats. Mr. Steel summed up the traffic in the canal: "Some bright sunny days, it is extremely congested, some days it is not as congested, but there's always traffic there." Tr. 1550. 2001: The Delegation Agreement On May 22, 2001, an agreement was entered by three parties. Entitled "Delegation Agreement Among the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, The South Florida Water Management District and Broward County" (the "Delegation Agreement"), it delegated to Broward County's EPD "the authority for permitting, compliance, and enforcement on behalf of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water Management District programs." Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 1, at 11, 12. "Section 11E. of the Delegation Agreement provides that permits issued by the County under the Delegation Agreement 'shall consolidate in a single document the permit under part IV of Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes, and any required Environmental Resource License' ("ERL") required under Chapter 27 of the Broward County Code of Ordinances ("BCC" or "Code").[']" Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 2, at 12. In April of 2002 or thereabouts, Broward Yachts submitted an after-the-fact application to EPD for an ERP and an Environmental Resource License (the "Dock Application"). "The Dock Application sought approval to install six total docks [finger piers] comprised of five [finger piers composed of] floating docks in the Basin, with lengths ranging from 150 feet to 190 feet, and one dock, in the canal parallel to the seawall, with a length of 240 feet." Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 4, at 12. Although the docks were on the PBPH Parcel of the Port Laudania Property, the application was not PBPH's, the owner; instead it was submitted by Broward Yachts, a PBPH tenant. PBPH and C-Term Tenants From November of 1998 to March of 2005, Broward Yachts, Inc. ("Broward Yachts")6/ leased the PBPH Parcel from PBPH for the purpose of manufacture and sale of private yachts and boat dockage. Broward Yachts sold certain of its assets to Lewis Property Investors, Inc., under an Asset Purchase Agreement dated March 2, 2005. On March 8, 2005, Lewis Property Investors' assigned its interest in the Asset Purchase Agreement to Broward Marine. Broward Marine is a Florida limited liability company, formerly engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing private yachts and activities that constituted operation of a marina on the PBPH Property. Broward Marine leased the PBPH Property starting in March of 2005. It continued to occupy the property under a lease-purchase option agreement with PBPH until June of 2009. C-Term's Property is the subject of a tenancy with G&G, an ocean-freight shipping company. G&G, therefore, has shared the Marina Basin with Broward Marine in recent years. Broward Marine's Departure In March 2009, Broward Marine signed an early termination of its lease with PBPH caused by Broward Marine's failure to pay rent. Broward Marine has not been a tenant or otherwise in possession of the PBPH Property since approximately November, 2009.7/ The termination of Broward Marine's lease was effective on June 15, 2009. After termination of the Broward Marine lease, the PBPH Property was re-let to Broward Shipyards, Inc., an entity that is not a party to this proceeding. At the time of the termination, Broward Marine's interests in the 2002 Dock Application and a revision of the application in 2003 (the "2003 Revised Application") were assigned to PBPH.8/ In the meantime, PBPH has pursued the application which had its origin in a complaint about the unpermitted structures and a warning notice issued by the County in 2002. See paragraph 35., et seq., below. The application for the license and permit was for floating docks. Floating Docks The floating docks used by Broward Yachts and others on the PBPH side of the Basin generally come in sections of 8-10 feet. They are secured to existing pilings in the Basin by a collar which slides up and down the piling or, as Mr. Lewis put it at hearing, "[t]hey float up and down . . . as the tide comes in and goes out." Tr. 204. The top of the piling emerges from the water and the rest of the piling extends downward generally into the bedrock at the bottom of the Basin. A series of floating docks make up a finger pier. Finger piers, the structures authorized by the Proposed Permit, can be lengthened or shortened by adding or removing floating docks based on business needs.9/ The ability to easily lengthen or shorten a finger pier in response to the business needs of PBPH or its tenants accounts for one of the main evidentiary features in this proceeding: the many finger pier configurations that appear in aerial photographs over the years and, in particular, since 1998 when PBPH came into ownership of the PBPH Parcel. The floating docks have been constructed of wood and Styrofoam. Those that PBPH seeks to install under the Proposed Permit will be "concrete bathtubs," tr. 580, which "work just as well and are a lot more permanent." Id. Structures made of concrete are of much likely to cause damage in the event of a collision with a vessel than are floating docks made of wood and Styrofoam. Warning Notice and 2002 Dock Application On January 22, 2002, the EPD visited the PHPB Property in response to a complaint about unlicensed docks. Julie Mitchell (then known as "Julie Karczyk"), a Natural Resources Specialist with the County was present on the property during the visit to conduct an inspection. In a Case Summary admitted into evidence, Ms. Mitchell documented the visit with an employee of the State Department of Environmental Protection. The two visitors asked the manager of the property to provide a copy of permits and licenses for the docks on site. If he could not provide them he was advised of the necessity to apply for them. At the time of visit, there were four finger piers composed of floating docks on the PBPH side of the Basin. The four piers protruded into the Basin at an angle similar to the angle of the finger piers shown in the drawings approved by the Proposed Permit. These four docks (from north to south) had lengths of 117, 130, 150 and 150 feet respectively and were each 7.5 feet wide. The northernmost dock was separated from the second dock (the dock immediately to its south) by 52 feet; the second dock was separated from the third by 60 feet; and the third from the fourth by 55 feet. There was also a fifth structure. It may have been a fifth finger pier, but, because of its width which is substantially more than the 7.5 feet, see Petitioners' Ex. 114F (an aerial photograph with a "fly date" of January 2002), it is more likely to have been "work platforms to construct the docks." Tr. 114. Whatever its function, the fifth structure did not protrude into the Basin as far the four others. It was "[r]ight up against the seawall." See id., Petitioners' 125 at 5, and tr. 114. Ms. Mitchell checked the County records and could not locate a license or permit for finger piers or other structures in the Basin. No evidence of a license or permit was provided by either PBPH or any of its tenants. The status of the finger piers and floating docks today remains the same: unlicensed and unpermitted. The County required Broward Yachts as the tenant of the PBPH Property to submit an after-the-fact permit and license application if it wished to keep the structures. Broward Yachts submitted its application for an ERP and Environmental Resource License ("ERL") to the County (the "2002 Dock Application") on April 16, 2002. In the meantime, Broward Yachts installed an additional finger pier in the Basin angled from the seawall just as the four piers observed by Ms. Mitchell. The installation occurred without County authorization. On May 2, 2002, the County issued Warning Notice No. WRN02-0125 (the "Warning Notice"). Directed to both Broward Yachts and PBPH, the Warning Notice contains one count. See Petitioners' Ex. 7. The count reads as follows (bold type in original): Respondent: Broward Yachts, Inc. Respondent: Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. Violated section 27-333(a)(1), BCC, which states: "No person shall conduct or cause to be conducted mangrove alteration, construction, demolition, dredging or filling in regulated aquatic or wetland resources, except in accordance with a currently valid environmental resource license issued by DPEP and all general and specific license conditions therein." By: constructing docks and installing pilings without a valid DPEP Environmental Resource License. Corrective Action: The respondent must apply for an after- the-fact license from the Department for the dock construction and piling installation. The license will not be issued until the respondent obtains a South Florida Water Management District Right-of-Way permit for the pilings located within the Dania Cut-off Canal. Correct within 14 days of this notice. Id. The 2002 Dock Application was filed on April 16, 2002 (prior to the Notice of Warning.) In the meantime and subsequent to the Notice of Warning, the County conducted a review of the 2002 Dock Application. The 2002 Dock Application The 2002 Dock Application was signed by Paul Bichler of Tri County Marine. Mr. Bichler and his company are listed on the application as the "Entity to Receive Permit," see Respondents' Ex. 3 at 3-4, and Bill Thomas of Approved Permit Services, Inc., is listed as the "Agent Authorized to Secure Permit." Id. The owner of the land is shown as Richard Arnold, General Manager of Broward Yachts. Mr. Arnold signed the application in order to give Mr. Thomas the authority to act as the agent of Broward Yachts in securing the permit. There is no mention of PBPH in the application. Part 8 of the 2002 Dock Application requires the applicant to describe in general terms the proposed project, system or activity. Filled in is: "Install Floating Docks!" Id. at 3-5. No other description is offered. The application contains as attachments a map of the site showing the Port Laudania Property and a drawing of Parcel A at the site (the PBPH Parcel.) The drawing shows six finger piers to be installed. Five are attached to the western seawall of the Port Laudania Property at such an angle so that they lie in the Basin in a southwesterly direction (much the same as the four finger piers observed in January of 2002 by Ms. Mitchell). The lengths of the five range from 150 to 190 feet. The fourth and fifth finger piers are proposed to be 180 feet and 155 feet in length, respectively. The sixth pier lies roughly parallel to the southern terminus of the bulkhead on the PBPH Parcel and extends into the mouth of the Basin. Unlike the other five, the sixth structure is not attached to the western seawall. To the south of the bulkhead and with no attachment to the bulkhead, it runs 240 feet in length. At its eastern end, it overlaps the boundary between the Basin and the Dania Cut-off Canal and protrudes into the canal. Id. at 3-9. The drawing also depicts pilings associated with each of the six structures. The floating docks applied for in the 2002 Dock Application were to be made out of Styrofoam and wood. Permitting Criteria/County Review The County's evaluation and processing of the 2002 Dock Application was conducted appropriately pursuant to the Delegation Agreement. Section (1) of Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.30210/ (the "ERP Additional Conditions Rule") requires an applicant to "provide reasonable assurances that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal, and abandonment of a system" will meet conditions contained in subsections (a) through (d).11/ For systems located in, on, or over surface waters that are not Outstanding Florida Waters, such as the finger piers and floating dock systems proposed by PBPH, reasonable assurances must be provided that the activity "will not be contrary to the public interest [the "Public Interest Test"] . . . as determined by balancing"12/ seven criteria listed in the ERP Additional Conditions Rule: 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 endangerment 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. Of the seven criteria, above, the two deemed most relevant and determinative for the EPD in processing the 2002 Dock Application were 1., and 3., that is, whether the activity will adversely affect public safety, the property of others, and navigation. The County considered the proposed sizes, locations and configuration of the docks as shown in the drawing attached to the application. It had no navigational experts on staff and did not consult with outside navigational experts. Nonetheless, the County considered the nature of the use and whether it would adversely affect safety and navigation. The County also considered an objection to the location of certain pilings and a "future floating pier along the south edge of the basin at Port Laudania." Petitioners' Ex. 8 at 4. The objection had been lodged by the Port Everglades Pilot's Association in a letter dated May 1, 2002: Port Everglades Pilots are responsible for insuring the maximum level of safety of commercial vessels transiting the water of Port Everglades and Port Laudania. * * * I am writing to you in reference to some pilings that have been driven by Broward Marine for what appears to be a future floating pier along the south edge of the basin at Port Laudania in Broward County, Florida. This is the basin that is shared by Broward Marine and G&G Shipping and located within the City of Dania Beach. These pilings are affecting the safe navigation of commercial vessels that have already been using the basin at Port Laudania for many years. Vessels docked at this new pier will pose additional risk to navigation. * * * I would like to go on record stating that the location of these pilings and potential pier is not satisfactory as it hinders the navigation of commercial vessels using the basins at Port Laudania. Id. The letter is signed by Captain James J. Ryan, Managing Pilot for the Port Everglades Pilots' Association. The County acknowledged receipt of the application in a letter dated August 16, 2002, and informed Broward Yachts' agent that the "application for license is incomplete." Petitioners' Ex. 8. The letter requested prompt submission of the information listed on an attached sheet and warned that failure to submit it within 60 days of the request could result in denial. Two items were found omitted or incomplete in the application. The first was a "South Florida Water Management District right-of-way permit for the pilings located within the Dania Cut-off Canal." Petitioners' Ex. 8 at 2 of 3. The second was a response to the navigation issue posed by the Port Everglades Pilot Association. Id. The County's letter advised that upon a showing of resolution of issues posed by the omissions, the Department would process the application as an ERP since the applicant was allowed by a state administrative rule to apply for an ERP concurrently with an ERL. To that end, the letter requested payment of an additional $700 fee. Id. Four other items were also requested for submission. Five months later, Broward Yachts' agent wrote Ms. Mitchell listing seven responses as "the additional information you requested." Petitioners' Ex. 9. With regard to Item 2, the letter states: 2. I am working with Dan Boyer who is handling the Right of Way permit @ SFWMD, I am also addressing same issue with him, if I can demonstrate that a boat when moored at the proposed dock will not extend more than 25% into the canal, he will recommend to the Board of Governors that the project be approved. I am waiting for a signed and sealed survey to show the exact width of the waterway at this location. Petitioners' Ex. 9. With regard to Item 3, the agent responded, "[c]heck enclosed." The letter did not respond to all the requested information. For example, with regard to requested information concerning the anticipated use of the dock proposed within the Dania Cut-off Canal, whether boats would be moored on both its sides, and the anticipated length and draft of the boats, the agent responded, "I will need to get back to you about this one!" Id. Together with a memorandum dated July 21, 2003, the agent submitted revised drawings for the permit (the "2003 Revised Dock Application" or the "Revision"). The Revision removed any portion of the structures or pilings from the Dania Cut-off Canal in order to avoid the requirement for a SFWMD Right-of-Way Permit. Instead of the six finger piers shown in the 2002 Dock Application, the Revision showed seven. Six were similar to the five that angled into the Basin in a southwesterly direction from where they touched the western seawall. The six piers ranged from 120 feet in length to 150 feet in length. The seventh was similar to the sixth finger pier in the 2002 Dock Application but was depicted as being only 60 feet in length. It no longer protruded into the Dania Cut-off Canal. See Petitioners' Ex. 10 at 2. A memorandum to the file dated August 11, 2003, shows that Ms. Mitchell faxed the drawings in the 2003 Revised Dock Application to the Port Everglade Port Association. The memorandum reported that Captain Ryan responded by saying "he no longer had any objections to the project because the structures had been removed from the ROW [of the Dania Cut-off Canal]." Petitioners' Ex. 11. The memorandum also reported that Captain Ryan stated that there still may be navigational and safety concerns with the proposed pier lengths and locations, and that there may be special circumstances for ships wanting to use the basin such as, navigation during slack tide only, daylight only, and other factors that would exacerbate the concerns. Six weeks or so later, Ms. Mitchell signed a letter from the County. The letter, dated September 29, 2003, advised Broward Yachts that the additional information submitted in response to the January 2002 request had been received. It also advised that the project required an Environmental Resource License (in addition to the ERP) and that the application for such a license had been received. To fully evaluate the project, additional information was needed. This second request for additional information consisted of one item: [1] A Cross Access Agreement (attached), recorded on October 27, 1987, states that "the entire inlet be available to the owners of the other parcel for the purposed (sic) of ingress and egress." The Department has received objections from the adjacent property owner that the proposed docks, specifically the most southern 150-foot-long dock, may hinder the navigation of commercial vessels using the basin. Please provide evidence that the proposed docks will not negatively affect the safety and navigation of vessels using the basin. Petitioner's Ex. 12, Completeness Summary, Environmental Resource License Application at 2 of 2, (emphasis added.) The additional information requested was not provided by Broward Yachts or any other party. On October 6, 2003, Ms. Mitchell forwarded a copy of the Cross-use Easement to the County Attorney's Office and asked for it to be reviewed "to confirm that the [easement] pertains to both facilities [the applicant's and G&G's] and that G&G has a basis for their objection." Petitioners' Ex. 13. The objection by G&G was expressed as: "the most southern proposed finger pier will hinder [G&G's] ability to safely navigate their vessels." Id. Attached is a drawing that depicts seven docks. Opinion of the Broward County Attorney's Office In response to Ms. Mitchell's request, an opinion of the Broward County attorney's office was issued on October 31, 2003. The opinion addresses two questions: first, does the Cross-use Easement pertain to both facilities operated by Broward Yachts and G&G; and, second, does G&G have a basis for its objection. Both questions were answered in the affirmative with the following elaboration on the second question: The Easement includes granting a non- exclusive right to the successors of Port Denison, Inc. to use "all or any portion of the Property . . . for ingress and egress over and across the inlet as described in Composite Exhibit C. . ." The Property referred to in Exhibit A includes all of Parcels I and II. Composite Exhibit C is made up of a sketch and legal description of the easement area, with each Parcel having its own description and sketch. The physical structures referred to that limit the easement are the wetface of the bulkhead and the boat hoist structure. The easement rights granted are not similarly limited by reference to docks or piers that may have existed around the time that the easement was granted. This reading of the easement is consistent with the intent of the parties, as clearly reflected in the last "Whereas" clause which reads: " . . . it is to the mutual advantage of the present and future owners, tenants, invitees, etc. that the entire inlet be available to the owners of the other parcel for the purposes of ingress and egress." Since G&G Shipping's objection is related to the use of the inlet for ingress and egress with reasonable reference to navigation safety, and G&G Shipping accommodates uses that it does not anticipate will interfere with such activities, its objection to the license application has a basis in its easement rights. While the additional correspondence from Broward Yachts dated October 11, 2003, refers to an undated photo showing floating docks that are asserted to exist "around the time that the agreements were drawn-up for cross access," this photo doesn't control or limit the terms of the Easement, which grants the use of the entire inlet to both parties. Petitioners' Ex. 16 at 1-2. Another RAI On December 16, 2003, the County sent another request for information (RAI) to Broward Yachts (the "December 16, 2003 RAI." The request stated, "[y]our response dated October 14, 2003, does not adequately address the navigational and safety concerns stated in our letter [of September 29, 2003]." Petitioners' Ex. 17. The December 16, 2003, RAI referenced the County attorney's October 31, 2003, Opinion which "concluded that G & G Marine, Inc., does have a legal basis for their objection to the docks." Id. The December 16, 2003, RAI concluded: [T]he Department has not received reasonable assurances that the proposed docks will not negatively affect navigation and safety, nor have we received a response regarding the objections. It is the intent of this letter to inform Broward Yachts, Inc. (applicant) and Mr. Bill Thomas (agent) that the license application will be closed, pursuant to Section 27- 55(d)(4), if all requested information is not provided within ten (10) days of the receipt of this letter. Id. Broward Yachts requested an additional 90 days to provide the information. The request was granted. A second request to extend the time for providing the information another 90 days was denied by the County. The County Holds its Position Correspondence dated July 8, 2004, from Larry Zink, Esquire, requested reconsideration of the County's October 31, 2003, Opinion. The County responded in a letter dated July 21, 2004. See Petitioners' Ex. 22. The July 21, 2004, letter refers to "additional information, such as Mr. Denison's Affidavit and references to Florida case law," id. and then concludes: After consideration and based upon the Easement, Broward Yachts' letter of October 11, 2003, [Mr. Zink's] letters of May 5, 2004, May 21, 2004, and July 8, 2004, Mr. Denison's affidavit, Florida law, and G&G Shipping's objections dated November 5, 2003 and April 13, 2004, the conclusion that G&G has a basis for its objection to the Project is still correct . . . . Id. The July 21, 2004, letter addresses Florida Law with regard to the Cross-Use Easement: Florida Law: You have asserted that "[t]he Florida Court's have held that to determine the scope of an easement the Court's attempt to ascertain the intent of the parties in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time the easement was created," referencing the cases of Hillsborough County vs. Kortum and Florida Power Company vs. Silver Lake Homeowners Assn. However, the following more completely summarizes the relevant case law standards: The construction or interpretation of an easement is not evidentiary; it is a matter of law. Hillsborough Co. v. Kortum, 585 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1991), rev. denied, 598 So.2d 76 (Fla. 1992). The determination of the extent and nature of an easement granted or reserved in express terms by deed depends upon a proper construction of the language of the instrument, for an examination of all of the material parts thereof, and without consideration of extraneous circumstances. Kotick v. Durrant, 143 Fla. 386, 196 So. 802 (1940). An easement holder has the right to do what is reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement, but the right must not be increased to any greater extent than reasonably necessary and contemplated at the time the easement was created. Crutchfield v. F.A. Sebring Realty Co., 69 So.2d 328 (Fla. 1954). However, rights of the owners of an easement are not absolute and unlimited. The owner of the servient estate may use [the] land, including the easement, in such a way that will not interfere with the easement owner's right of passage. Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. v. Roberts, 394 So.2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). (String citations have been omitted for brevity.) As you may know, the Circuit Courts of Florida have exclusive original jurisdiction over all actions involving title and boundaries of property. See Section 26.012(2)(g), Florida Statutes. Therefore, it is the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court that has jurisdiction and authority to determine the relative title interest rights of Broward Yachts and G&G in relation to the Project. The Office of the County Attorney respectfully declines to act in a role which is the proper jurisdiction of that Court. Within the limited scope of the previous and instant reviews, it is merely apparent that G&G objects to the Project and holds a title interest which, on its face, could be negatively affected by the Project. Therefore, it has a basis for its objection. Id., paragraph 2, at page 2 of 3 (emphasis added.) The County determined that Broward Yachts had not provided reasonable assurances that the Project would not adversely affect safety and navigation and would not violate the Cross-Use Easement. In light of the determination, the County sent a memorandum on July 21, 2004, see Petitioners' Ex. 23, requesting such assurances (the "July 21, 2004, RAI"). The July 21, 2004, RAI recognized that the issue with regard to the Cross-Use Easement was the subject of litigation between Broward Yachts and G&G Marine, but in the meantime requested reasonable assurances with regard to the navigation and safety issues or "have your client amend its application to resolve this concern." Id. As with the December 16, 2003, 10 RAI, the July 21, 2004, RAI was required to be answered in 10 days. The County hoped that a response would provide guidance from a navigational expert that the new docks would not affect the ability of other vessels to come in and out of the Basin. Denial and Petition for Review By the end of January 2005, the ten-day period for submitting additional information relative to the 2003 Revised Dock Application had expired. No information relative to safety and navigation concerns or compliance with the Cross-Use Easement had been submitted. By letter dated January 31, 2005 (the "Application Denial"), the Broward County EPD announced its decision to deny the application based on a lack of "reasonable assurance that the proposed docks will not negatively affect navigation and safety, nor violate the Cross-Use Easement . . . ." See Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 7 at 13. The County's intent in issuing the Application Denial was to deny both the ERL and ERP. The parties stipulated to what happened next: Broward Yachts filed a Petition for Review of Final Administrative Determination, Environmental Resource License Application No. DF03-1121, Environmental Resource Permit Application No. 06-0194386-001 (the "Administrative Review Petition") with EPD on February 7, 2005, challenging the denial of its "license and permit applications." The Administrative Review Petition invoked the procedures of Chapter 27, BCC. Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, para. 8 at 13. The Administrative Review Petition did not invoke the procedures of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to an internal procedure, the Administrative Review Petition was reviewed by the Department Director. After an independent review, the Department Director upheld the denial. That decision was communicated to Broward Yachts in a letter dated March 11, 2005, signed by Eric Myers, Director of the Broward County EPD. See Petitioners' Ex. 41. The March 11, 2005, letter proposed a compromise that related to an aerial photograph taken at roughly the time of the submission of the 2002 Dock Application. The photograph showed four finger piers ranging in length from 130 to 150 feet. The County offered to permit such a configuration if Broward Yachts modified its application. Broward Yachts was apparently unwilling to do so. Broward Marine Involvement The denial of the 2002 Dock Application was directed only to the application filed by Broward Yachts. Likewise, the Administrative Review Petition was filed solely by Broward Yachts. In March of 2005, however, Broward Marine took over the possession and operation of the PBPH Property from Broward Yachts. It also purchased the assets of Broward Yachts, including the 2002 Dock Application and the 2003 Revised Application. Response to the County's Proposal In June of 2005, the County met with representatives of Petitioners to discuss acceptable dock configurations. Petitioners advised that they would accept a configuration consisting of four docks extending into the Basin at a southeasterly angle and that they would be amenable to a fifth dock parallel and immediately adjacent to the southern portion of the PBPH bulkhead. The County presented the proposal to Mr. Zink, counsel for Broward Yachts, Broward Marine and PBPH in a letter dated July 11, 2005. Mr. Zink responded by letter dated July 14, 2005. The letter references: "Broward Yachts, Inc. - Floating Docks" even though at the time the 2002 Dock Application and the 2003 Revised Dock Application had been assigned to Broward Marine. The one paragraph letter reads: I am in receipt of Michael Owens July 11, 2005 letter regarding the above matter. Though my client does not agree the 2002 aerial photos are historically representative of the number of floating docks, Broward Yachts is submitting herewith a revised drawing dated July 13, 2005 which accepts what is proposed in paragraph two (2) of Mr. Ownens July 11, 2005 letter. Petitioners' Ex. 54, (emphasis added.) The revised drawing, that was neither signed nor sealed, was attached to Mr. Zink's letter. It shows five floating docks "ALL 7'6" WIDE," id. at second page, four of which are angled into the Basin in a southeasterly direction, none of which are more than 150 feet in length. It also shows a fifth dock that lies immediately adjacent to the eastern seawall of the bulkhead on the PBPH property so that it does not angle into the Basin at all. It is 200 feet long and stops short of the south end of the bulkhead so as to be well clear of the Dania Cut-off Canal. Mr. Zink's acceptance of the proposal on behalf of Broward Yachts did not, however, lead to a resolution. The County asked for two additional matters: signed and sealed drawings from an engineer and that PBPH, as the owner of the property, become the applicant. PBPH Steps In Through a letter dated October 20, 2005, Mr. Zink agreed to the two additional demands of the County. The letter enclosed "sealed drawings for the above applications." Respondents' Ex. 6. The applications were referenced in the letter as ERL and the ERP for "Broward Yachts - Floating Docks," but the letter stated, "[a]s per your E-mail of August 25, 2005, a Revised Application identifying Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. as the property owner will be submitted to you directly by my client." Id. The signed and sealed drawings that were submitted did not reflect the proposal made by the County and agreed to by Mr. Zink on behalf of his client in July of 2005. The drawings showed one finger pier immediately alongside the western seawall of the bulkhead and five finger piers composed of floating docks that angled into the Basin. The signed and sealed drawings showed six finger piers instead of five and five finger piers that angled into the Basin instead of the four envisioned by the agreement finalized by Mr. Zink's letter on July 14, 2005. In a letter dated November 11, 2005, and received on November 16, 2005, that was characterized by Mr. Zink as "a follow up on my October 20, 2005, letter to [the County]," Petitioner's Ex. 7, Mr. Zink enclosed two documents: "1) Original executed Application on behalf of Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. 2) Drawing prepared by Frank L. Bennardo, P.E., depicting the docks." Id. The letter dated November 11, 2005, was not accepted for reasons outlined in an e-mail message from Julie Mitchell to Eric Myers. See Petitioners' Ex. 69. In the wake of the message, the County continued to process the 2003 Revised Dock Application. In a letter dated December 16, 2005, with the same reference line used in his earlier correspondence ("Re: Broward Yachts, Inc. - Floating Docks"), Mr. Zink submitted "(2) Revised Drawings prepared by Frank L. Bennardo, P.E., Inc. dated 11/30/05 depicting the five (5) finger piers as per the July 13, 2005, conceptual drawing approved by DPEP." Petitioners' Ex. 75. As represented by Mr. Zink, the drawings matched the configuration proposed by the County in its letter of July 11, 2005. At this point in the series of events initiated by the Notice of Violation in 2002, the parties would have been justified in thinking that an agreement had been reached, that the ERL and ERP could be issued and that all files on the matter of the Broward County EDP could be successfully closed. Mr. Lewis on behalf of Broward Yachts expressed the sentiment at hearing: [I]n the course of that same period, [Mr. Ganoe] was concerned about turning vessels where the fifth dock was. And we put a buoy in the basin where the length of a boat extending beyond that pier would be, he had given us a radius of what he wanted. We had McLaughlin Engineering take that, and I can't remember how many feet that he wanted clear in that area, plotted it on a drawing, went over it with him, thought we had an agreement. Tr. 181 (emphasis added.) Between the County's July 2005 proposal and Mr. Zink's December 16, 2005, letter that appears to have finalized the proposal's acceptance, however, a disruptive event occurred. The event caused destruction in the Basin, halted businesses on both of its sides and stressed the resources of the County: Hurricane Wilma. Hurricane Wilma Hurricane Wilma destroyed most of the docks and pilings in the Basin. In the wake of the destruction, Broward Marine submitted an application to the County for the issuance of a general license (the "General License") to repair and re- install pilings and ramps. The difference between projects that require an ERL, such as the project at issue in this proceeding (which required both an ERL and an ERP), and those that require only a general license was explained by Ms. Mitchell at hearing: "A general license is for smaller projects, specifically for docks where the total overwater area is less than 500 feet . . . ." Tr. 386. A Broward County general license was also distinguished from the ERP at issue in this case. Projects for which the overwater area is less than 1,000 feet are not subject to ERPs. The general license was approved in a letter issued by EPD's Wetlands/Uplands Resources Section: This letter is to inform you that your request for a General License has been granted. General License No. GL- DAN0512-029 authorizes the installation of ten (10) pilings and five (5) floating ramps, adjacent to 750 NE 7th Avenue, in the City of Dania Beach. Respondents' Ex. 9 at 9-2. The General License authorized pilings and ramps only; it did not authorize floating dock structures such as finger piers. The approved project description was attached to the January 6, 2006, letter. It shows the approved project to be pilings installed within the Basin at certain distances from the seawall. For the northernmost four set of pilings the distances range from 115 feet to 150 feet. The distance from the seawall of the fifth set of pilings (the southernmost set that corresponds to the fifth finger pier applied for in the ERP application) is 75 feet, a distance significant to safety and navigability. Notwithstanding that the General License did not authorize finger piers, Broward County installed finger piers in the Basin. The installation of finger piers was done without an ERL or an ERP. When asked why a Notice of Intent was not issued that reflected the parties' putative agreement at the end of 2005, Ms. Mitchell replied, "To be honest, I don't recall because there was so much settlement going on outside of our department with the attorneys, I don't remember exactly why it ended up going [to hearing.]" Tr. 397. The record is unclear as to why a Notice of Intent was not issued. It may have been because of the interruption and destruction of Hurricane Wilma and the confusion it caused when country resources were diverted to other pressing matters. It may have been because of lack of communication between all of the parties and their attorneys. Or, it may have been because of objections from Broward Marine that are referenced in Petitioners' Ex. 69 as to the November 16, 2005, submission of information. The objections are counter to Mr. Zink's letter of December 16, 2005, and inconsistent with Mr. Lewis' recall of having reached an agreement in mid-2005. Whatever the reason, a Notice of Intent for an ERL and an ERP authorizing finger piers and floating docks as referenced in Mr. Zink's December 16, 2005, letter was not issued. In March of 2006, the 2002 Dock Application and the amendment to it in the 2003 Revised Application proceeded to hearing before a Broward County Hearing Examiner because of their denial by the County. The March 2006 Hearing, the Final Order and the Omnibus Order The hearing was held on March 30, 2006. There were two parties to the proceeding: Broward Yachts, Inc., as the Petitioner, and Broward County Environmental Protection Department. Aside from the County, none of the parties to this proceeding13/ (DOAH Case No. 08-1393) were parties to the proceeding before the Hearing Examiner. In his Final Order, the Hearing Examiner described those who participated or were present: At the hearing, the Environmental Protection Department was represented by Michael Owens, Esquire, who presented the testimony of Julie Krawczyk, Natural Resource Specialist II. The Petitioner was represented by Larry Zink, Esquire, who presented the testimony of Glenn Straubb [sic], the President of Palm Beach Holdings, Inc. Also in attendance at the hearing was Steve Ganoe, President of G&G Marine, Inc. ("G&G") Respondents' Ex. 10. The Hearing Examiner entered the Final Order on June 5, 2006. The Final Order found that "these docks, is some shape or form, have existed in this area for over twenty one years and have been used for substantially the same purpose for those years." Id. at 10-2. The order further found "that no competent substantial evidence was presented that would support or warrant the denial of the license and permit sought by the Petitioner [Broward Yachts] to maintain its existing docks." Id. at 10-3. The order concluded, "The administrative decision denying the license/permit to maintain the docks is quashed and the matter is remanded to EPD to take appropriate action in accordance with the terms of this Final Order." Id. The order is based on the following finding: The only relevant standard to this proceeding . . . is . . . whether the docks will adversely affect public safety or welfare or the property of others. No evidence was presented that the docks, which have been in existence since 1985, have ever caused an accident or that they impede G&G's reasonable use of the easement. Moreover, while the EPD does have the right to regulate these docks and the navigable water upon which the docks rest, the easement area is not generally travelled by the public and more or less serves as an entrance to only two businesses, G&G and that of the Petitioner. Id. Broward County filed a motion for reconsideration of the Final Order. G&G filed a motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration as a "nonparty." See Respondents' Ex. 11. Both motions were considered in an order entitled "Omnibus Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Post Hearing Motions." Respondents' Ex. 12. The County's motion was denied. The motion of G&G's was granted in part. The motion was found to request relief not inconsistent with the Final Order. "Specifically, G&G requests that the Final Order prohibit the installation of additional docks and prohibit increasing the size of the existing docks." Id. at 12-2. The Omnibus Order grants the following relief: Petitioner may maintain the five existing docks and repair and replace them, but may not do so in a manner that causes any of the docks to protrude at a greater length or distance into the waterway. Additionally, Petitioner may not construct or maintain any docks other that the five existing docks. Id. at 12-2, 12-3. Neither the Final Order nor the Omnibus Order contains a finding of fact as to the configuration of docks at the time of the hearing conducted by the Hearing Examiner. There is evidence in the record of this case (DOAH Case No. 08-1393) that the five docks existing on March 30, 2006, were configured consistently with the pilings authorized by the General License, that is, they had lengths beginning with the northernmost dock of 135, 135, 150, 150 and 75 feet, respectively. At the time of the final hearing in this proceeding, moreover, the docks were present in the Basin in approximately the same configuration as existed in March of 2006. The 2006 and the 2007 NOIs On October 23, 2006, the County issued a Notice of Intent (the "2006 Notice of Intent") to issue a combined permit/license for the construction of the five docks ranging from 132 feet to 192 feet in length. The 2006 Notice of Intent was issued solely because the County believed it was required by the Hearing Examiner's Final and Omnibus Orders. See Tr. 405. The configuration of docks authorized by the 2006 Notice of Intent resembled the July 2005 Proposal accepted by Mr. Zink on behalf of Broward Yachts: four docks angled into the Basin in a southwesterly direction with one additional dock parallel and adjacent to the seawall. The County did not conduct any evaluation of its own between the dates of the Hearing Examiner's Final and Omnibus Orders as to whether the configuration authorized by the 2006 Notice of Intent had unacceptable impacts to navigation and safety. The draft permit attached to the 2006 Notice of Intent contains several sets of conditions. DEP General Conditions, Broward County EPD General Conditions and ERP and ERL Specific Conditions ("Specific Conditions"). The Specific Conditions were included under the County's authority to impose conditions necessary to carry out the intent of the ERP and ERL permitting regulations. Specific Condition 18 is "Mooring of vessels with lengths exceeding the length of the permitted structures is prohibited." Respondents' Ex. 13 at 13-17. The purpose of including Specific Condition 18, as testified by Eric Myers, Director of the Broward County EPD at the time the 2006 Notice of Intent was issued, "was to make sure that . . . adequate navigation was maintained within the Basin." Tr. 560. G&G challenged the 2006 Notice of Intent by filing a petition for formal proceedings with EPD seeking a clarification in interpretation with regard to the lengths of vessels to be moored in the PBPH side of the Basin vis- à-vis the length of the permitted structures. Broward Marine also filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings challenging the 2006 NOI. In furtherance of discussions with the County, Broward Marine, by letter dated June 26, 2007, submitted four surveys for consideration by the County. The first purported to show the dock configuration existing after Ms. Mitchell's January 2002 visit but before the submission of the Permit Application; the second purported to show the dock configuration on December 11, 2003; the third showed the dock configurations sought by Broward Marine; and the fourth showed all configurations overlapping. None of the surveys depicted the dock configuration existing on January 22, 2002, the date of the Ms. Mitchell's visit, which was the configuration the County had requested Broward Yachts to submit for approval. The County did not transmit the G&G petition or the Broward Marine petition to DOAH. Instead, on or about August 23, 2007, EPD issued another Notice of Intent to Issue Permit/License (the "2007 NOI") to PBPH. The 2007 NOI identifies the proposed project as the Broward Yachts Marine Facility, with permit No. 06-0194386-001 and License No. DF03-1121 and lists the Permittee/Licensee as "Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc." Respondents' Ex. 14 at 14-9. With respect to the factors considered by the County in issuing the 2007 NOI, it provides: The Department reviewed the information presented in the petitions, the Hearing Examiner's Final Orders, and surveys provided by Broward Marine with a letter dated June 25, 2007, and as a result has reformulated the draft permit and agency action. Respondents' Ex. 14 at 14-3. The 2007 NOI also referred to an earlier NOI and draft permit issued on August 2, 2007. On August 8, 2007, EPD was notified of typographical errors in the August 2, 2007, NOI. As a result of the typographical errors and other previous errors, the 2007 NOI stated, "this Notice hereby supersedes the October 23, 2006, and August 2, 2007, Notices of Intent to Issue and draft permits/licenses." Id. The Proposed Permit and the draft Environmental Resource License attached to the 2007 NOI allows PBPH to construct five floating finger piers as detailed in a section of the Proposed Permit entitled "PROPOSED PROJECT DESIGN," as follows: The proposed project is to construct five (5) floating finger piers in an existing privately-owned marina basin. From north to south, the finger piers shall have the following sizes: (1) 7.5-foot-wide by 122-foot-long pier; (2)7.5-foot-wide by 135.8-foot-long pier; (3) 7.5-foot-wide by 150.5-foot- long pier; (4) 7.5-foot-wide by 150.5- foot-long pier; and (5) 7.5-foot-wide by 152.6-foot-long pier. All five (5) finger piers shall be placed sixty-five (65) feet apart and angled in a southeasterly direction from the existing seawall, as depicted on the attached drawing. The total over-water area of the structures shall be 5,378.25 square feet Respondents' Ex. 14 at 14-10. The dock configuration authorized in the Proposed Permit is the same dock plan depicted in Exhibit C to the June 25, 2007, letter from Broward Marine to the County. The County issued the 2007 NOI, revising the dock configuration from what it had authorized in the 2006 NOI, due to objections from Broward Marine that the configuration in the 2006 NOI was not consistent with the Final Order and the Omnibus Order. The Proposed Permit also eliminated Specific Condition 18 that was in the 2006 NOI. It did not impose any restriction or limitation on the length of vessels that may be moored at the proposed finger piers, and PBPH indicated at hearing that it would moor vessels alongside the finger piers whose lengths exceeded the piers.14/ In addition to elimination of Specific Condition 18, there were other significant differences between the 2006 NOI and the 2007 NOI. For example, the 2007 NOI allows all five finger piers to be placed 65 feet apart and angled in a southeasterly direction from the seawall. In contrast, the 2006 NOI provided that the southernmost pier of the five would be placed immediately parallel to the seawall so that it did not jut out at all into the Basin. The 2007 NOI contemplates that the structure of the finger piers would be more permanent. The 2003 Revised Application had sought floating docks, of the type existing at the time made of Styrofoam and wood, as opposed to fixed piers. The concrete pilings and the concrete tub floating docks contemplated by the 2007 NOI are more permanent than the existing wood pilings and the wood and Styrofoam docks. Eric Myers, Director of EPD at the time, signed the 2007 NOI. When he did so on August 26, 2007, he believed that the issues regarding safety and navigation that had been raised by G&G and C-Term had been resolved "based on the advice of staff." Tr. 529. Historical Configuration of Docks in the Basin PBPH contends that the finger pier and dock configuration authorized by the 2007 NOI is consistent with historical lengths and configurations of piers and docks in the Basin. The evidence establishes that the length, number, configuration and locations of docks within the Basin varied greatly over time. As Mr. Straub testified in response to a question about the dock configuration when the property was acquired by PBPH, "Whatever we wanted them to be. It could change from day-to-day and month-to- month." Tr. 582. Aerials taken by Broward County dating back to 1998 demonstrate that the docks in the Basin ranged in number, length and location until 2006 when docks were installed following issuance of the General License. Until 1998, there were many different configurations. Since 2006, the number, lengths, and sizes of the docks have remained fairly consistent to the time of hearing. In the January 2007 Broward County aerial photograph, the five docks (from north to south) have lengths of 151.5, 136, 156, 156 and 88 feet, respectively. These lengths are roughly similar to the piling configuration authorized by the General License.15/ Safety and Navigation16/ The multiplicity of factors that affect navigation in the Dania Cut-off Canal "makes maneuvering extremely tricky" in the canal. Tr. 1574. These same factors affect Basin ingress and egress of G&G vessels and other vessels that have access to the Basin. Wind near the Basin comes from any direction. The predominant wind in the area of the Basin is out of the east/southeast at average speeds of 10-12 knots. From time-to-time, of course, the wind shifts. When cold fronts come through the area, for example, they generally come from the west/northwest and the wind blows mainly from the north. Strongest winds associated with a cold front are usually "anywhere from 20 to 30 knots. Constant winds with a good cold front, usually 15 to 20 knots." Tr. 1260. Direction and strength of wind affects stability and handling capacity of vessels entering and exiting the Basin. The bow of the vessel is affected the most. In the front, it is the narrowest part of the vessel, the least heavy, and has the least draft (depth in the water). Vessels entering and exiting the Basin are affected by leeway defined by Mr. Danti at hearing: "[L]eeway is the physical amount of sideways motion that is going to be activated on a vessel by the wind. It is the amount of side motion created by the wind on a vessel." Tr. 1268-9. Leeway varies depending on a number of factors, among them, the strength and direction of the wind, the angle of the vessel, and its draft. Ocean-freight shipping vessels have different handling characteristics from yachts. The effect of leeway on vessels in the Basin varies from vessel to vessel. Typically, the effect of leeway is greater on G&G vessels than on the PBPH vessels. The current in the Dania Cut-off Canal is 2.0 to 2.5 knots. The current in the canal in the immediate vicinity of the Basin has significant effects on the maneuverability of vessels. Because of the current in the canal, it is advisable for vessels entering and exiting the Basin to perform the majority of turns and other maneuvers in the Basin rather than in the canal. Another factor that makes turning maneuvers by G&G vessels safer in the Basin is boat traffic in the Dania Cut-off Canal. That traffic has increased greatly in recent years, as Mr. Steele testified. Vessels exiting the Basin, furthermore, must yield to vessels in the canal. Boat traffic is not visible to the typical G&G vessel until the vessel has committed to exiting the canal. Once committed, the G&G vessel cannot stop and wait for traffic to pass. It must complete the exit maneuver. It is much better, therefore, for the G&G vessel to turn in the Basin before committing to an exit so that it can emerge bow-first with a better view of canal traffic rather than emerge by backing out. Another factor that makes turning in the Basin safer is the Harbortown Marina, located directly across the canal from the Basin. There is a greater chance for collision the farther the G&G vessels must go into the Dania Cut-off Canal before beginning maneuvers necessary to head out to sea. Vessels will have to go closer to the southern side of the canal, that is, farther into the canal, when emerging from the Basin if they back out and turn in the canal rather than turn in the Basin before heading out toward the Atlantic Ocean. The Basin has a width of 320 feet at the north end and a width of 323 feet at the south end. Mr. Danti fashioned an "Unobstructed Line," depicted on Petitioners Ex. 114A and superimposed on Exhibits 114B through 114"O", fourteen aerial photographs of the Basin taken between 1998 and 2008.17/ The line commences at the north end of the Basin 162' from the Basin's western seawall and runs to the south with two "jogs" to the west before it ends at a projected bulkhead line in the mouth of the Basin just north of the Dania Cut- off Canal. The two jogs run perpendicular to the western seawall; the first, to the tip of the fourth finger pier allowed by the 2007 NOI and the second to a point 59.90 feet east of the western seawall in the approximate middle of the fifth and southernmost finger pier allowed by the 2007 NOI. The part of the Basin to the east of the Unobstructed Line is a navigational safe area (the "Safety Zone") created by Mr. Danti in which it is safe, in his opinion, for G&G vessels to turn and take maneuvers necessary to safely enter and exit the Basin. The Unobstructed Line and the Safety Zone were determined by Mr. Danti in a calculation that took into consideration factors including wind, current and tide, as well as the length, width, draft, maneuverability and handling characteristics of the bulk of G&G vessels and the fact that G&G vessels entering and exiting the Basin need the use of a minimum amount of space in the southern part of the Basin to initiate and complete safe entry and exit navigation maneuvers. Ultimately, the Safety Zone provides a minimum distance for a vessel 190 feet in length determined as half the beam of a vessel18/ from the bow, stern or either side of a vessel to any other vessel, dock, piling or seawall. It does not take into account factors that may require a greater distance such as wind, current and traffic under conditions that are less desirable than the best conditions experienced in the area of the Basin ("Best Conditions"). In order for vessels of the size and character that enter and exit the Basin to do so safely under Best Conditions, no finger piers, docks or moored vessels should protrude from the PBPH side of the Unobstructed Line into the Safety Zone. Under ideal wind, current, and weather conditions, the lengths of the first four finger piers from north to south as authorized by the Proposed Permit will not result in adverse effects to safety and navigation of vessels in and around the Basin. The fifth finger pier, however, is another matter. Authorized to be 152.60 feet in length as depicted in the Proposed Permit, it will protrude by more than 77 feet into the Safety Zone developed by Mr. Danti. Put another way, the fifth finger pier will adversely affect safety and navigation unless it is 75 feet or less in length given its southeasterly angle depicted in the Proposed Permit.19/ The authorized length of the fifth finger pier is not the only navigation and safety issue about which Mr. Danti testified. The length of vessels moored at the finger piers in the Proposed Permit, if too long, can present safety and navigation issues, as well, for G&G's vessels coming in and out of the Basin. With respect to the three northernmost finger piers, moored vessels should not extend past the Unobstructed Line, that is, they should not extend more than 162 feet measured perpendicularly from the Basin's western seawall. With respect to the fourth finger pier, vessels moored there should not extend past the 150.50 feet allowed for the length of the pier as depicted in the Proposed Permit. Similarly, no vessels moored at the fifth finger pier should extend past the end of a longest possible safe fifth finger pier, that is, one that is no more than 75 feet in length at the angle depicted in the 2007 NOI. The adverse affects on safety and navigation caused by the fifth finger pier at the length and as configured in the Proposed Permit would not be alleviated by G&G's use of tugboats to assist vessels entering and exiting the Basin. Tugboats are connected to the vessels they tug by tow lines at the bow and stern of the vessels. Such an arrangement adds approximately 85 feet to a typical G&G vessel of 190 feet, thereby requiring more room in the Basin for maneuvering than the vessel would need under its own power. The use of tugboats would require an even more expansive Safety Zone than was developed by Mr. Danti.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Broward County: modify the Proposed Permit attached to the 2007 Notice of Intent to shorten the length of the fifth finger pier to 75 feet and then issue the permit with the modification; or absent such a modification, deny the issuance of the Proposed Permit as applied for by PBPH. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether ADR of Pensacola should be issued a wetland resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization allowing the construction of a 30-slip docking facility on Big Lagoon, Escambia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this environmental permitting dispute, Petitioner, Michael L. Guttmann, who lives less than one mile from the project site, has challenged the proposed issuance by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), of a Wetland Resource Permit (permit) and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization (authorization) which would allow Respondent, ADR of Pensacola (applicant), to construct a 30-slip docking facility on Big Lagoon, Escambia County, Florida. The facility will be part of a condominium project to be constructed on the upland portion of the property. As grounds for contesting the permit, Petitioner contended that the Department failed to consider "the long term health of Big Lagoon," navigational hazards created by the project, or public safety; failed to impose an adequate "monitoring program"; did not provide for a "contingency plan for hurricane activity"; failed to consider that the activity will degrade a nearby Outstanding Florida Water [OFW]; and failed to take into account "existing unused marina slips close by." The petition further alleged that the foregoing concerns constituted violations of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes (2000), and Rules 62-4.242, 62-302.300, 62-302.700, and 62- 312.080, Florida Administrative Code. The cited statute identifies "additional criteria" for issuing a permit while the first three rules pertain to OFWs. The last rule contains general standards for the issuance or denial of a permit. Petitioner raised no issues concerning the issuance of the authorization in his initial pleading. Until April 2000, the upland property was owned by the applicant. It was then sold to Harbour Pointe of Pensacola, Inc., which has subsequently entered into an agreement with the applicant allowing the applicant to construct the dock, operate the permit, and purchase a condominium unit. If the application is approved, applicant intends to construct a 442 feet x 4 feet access pier with seventeen 30 feet x 1.5 feet finger piers, thirteen 40 feet x 1.5 feet finger piers, and a 74 feet x 1.5 feet terminal platform, to form a 30-slip docking facility at 10901 Gulf Beach Highway on Big Lagoon, a Class III water in Escambia County, Florida. Approval to use the submerged lands is found in the authorization. The dock will be located in a "fairly pristine area" in Big Lagoon a few miles southwest of Pensacola, Florida. That body of water is six miles in length and is separated from the Gulf of Mexico by a slender coastal barrier island known as Perdido Key, which lies approximately one statute mile south of the project. Continuing west along the shoreline next to the project site are a string of single-family homes with small dock facilities, most of which are less than 1,000 square feet in size and thus exempt from Department permitting requirements. To the east of the undeveloped property are more undeveloped lots and a private yacht club with extensive docking facilities. The facility being challenged here will not be a public marina; rather, it will serve the residents of a proposed upland condominium (consisting of two buildings) to be constructed at the same location. The project is more commonly referred to as the Harbour Pointe Marina. It is fair to infer that Petitioner and adjoining property owners object not only to the dock, but also to the condominium project. The application and project When the application was originally filed with the Department in July 1995, it contained plans for a longer dock and more slips. Due to a reduction in the length of the pier and number of slips to conform to Department rules, other technical changes, and various requests by the Department for additional information, the draft permit was not issued by the Department until May 2000. The Department considers this a "major project" with "major [hydrographic and water quality] issues connected with it." In reviewing the application, the Department considered whether reasonable assurance had been given by the applicant that water quality standards would not be violated, and whether the additional criteria in Section 373.414(1)(a)1.-7., Florida Statutes (2000), had been satisfied. The Department concluded that water quality standards would not be degraded, and that the project, as designed and permitted, was not contrary to the public interest. In making the public interest determination, the Department typically assigns a plus, minus, or neutral score to each of the seven statutory factors. In this case, a neutral score was given to historical and archaeological resources [paragraph 373.414(1)(a)6.] since there were none, while the permanent nature of the project [paragraph 373.414(1)(a)5.] caused it to be rated "a little bit on the minus side"; all other factors were given a plus. Department witness Athnos then concluded that on balance the project "was a plus because it will not adversely affect any of these things." The access pier (dock) runs perpendicular from the shoreline and stretches out some 442 feet to where the water reaches a depth of seventeen feet, which is the deepest point in Big Lagoon. The unusual length of the dock is required so that the boat slips will begin past the seagrass colony (which lies closer to the shore), to prevent boat propeller blades from cutting the top of the seagrass, and to reduce the amount of sedimentation stirred up by the boat propellers. Aerial photographs confirm that when completed, the dock will probably be the largest in Big Lagoon, and much larger than the neighboring docks to the west. The use of boat slips will be limited to condominium owners. Only 19 slips will be constructed initially, since the applicant has secured approval at this time for only the first phase of the condominium project. When approval for the second phase is secured, the applicant intends to add an additional 11 slips. Water quality In his initial pleading, Petitioner made a general allegation that the Department failed to consider "the long term health of Big Lagoon"; there were no specific allegations regarding water quality standards. In his Proposed Recommended Order, however, he argues that the [a]pplicant failed to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated." Assuming arguendo that the issue has been properly raised, Petitioner has still failed to substantiate his allegation. That portion of Big Lagoon where the project will be located is a Class III water of the State. Studies on metals, greases, oils, and the like submitted by the applicant reflected that the "water quality [in that area] did not exceed the standards in Rule 62-302." To provide further reasonable assurance regarding water quality standards, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to use concrete piling and aluminum docks. Unlike wooden piling and docks, these types of materials do not leach toxic substances such as arsenic, copper, and acromiom into the water. In addition, special permit conditions require that sewage pumpout equipment be located at the site so that boats will not discharge raw sewage into the waters. Liveaboards are prohibited, and fueling will not be available at the facility. Finally, the cleaning of fish is not allowed, and boat owners cannot scrape their boat bottoms while docked at the facility. All of these conditions are designed to ensure that water quality standards will not be violated. Enforcement mechanisms for the above conditions are found in either the permit itself or Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Also, one of the conditions in the draft permit expressly states that the applicant is not relieved of liability for harm or injury to humans, plants, or property caused by the construction of the dock. However, if a permit is issued, Condition 9 of the permit should be modified to require that trained personnel be available twenty-four hours per day, rather than just during standard business hours, to assist boaters with, and ensure that they use, the sewage pumpout equipment. Any permit issued should also require that boats be placed on lifts while using the docking facilities. This will prevent any leaching of paint from the boat bottoms into the waters. Otherwise, the paint would cause a degradation of the water. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, with the additional conditions, reasonable assurance has been given that the state water quality standards applicable to Class III waters will not be violated. Outstanding Florida Waters In his complaint, Petitioner has contended that "the proposed activity will degrade an [OFW] as a result of its close proximity to the Gulf Islands National Seashore," and that the"[D]epartment has made no analysis of this project['s] impact on the [OFW] which is adjacent to the proposed activity." The record discloses that the southern portion of Big Lagoon has been designated as an OFW. This area includes the waters around Gulf Islands National Seashore and Big Lagoon State Park; they begin approximately 650 to 700 feet south of the end of the dock. As noted earlier, the project is located within Class III waters. Because the Department found that no violation of state water quality standards in those waters would occur, it likewise concluded, properly in this case, that the project would have no impact on any OFW, even though such waters begin some 650 or 700 feet away. Under these circumstances, there would be no reason to assess the water quality in the OFWs or the projected impacts on those waters, as Petitioner suggests. In the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, it is found that the project will not adversely impact an OFW. Hydrographic characteristics If a dock has more than ten boat slips, the Department routinely conducts a hydrographic (flushing) study to determine whether the structure will adversely affect the flow of the water in the area or cause erosion or shoaling on adjacent properties. In the summer of 1999, a Department engineer conducted a hydrographic study using a dye tracer and concluded that flushing characteristics were excellent and that there would be no adverse effects caused by the project. This conclusion has not been credibly contradicted. Therefore, it is found that the dock will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Navigational issues In his initial pleading, Petitioner raised a contention that the project will create "navigational hazards" because the dock "extends nearly into a navigation channel which routinely carries commercial towboats transporting hazardous material, the spill of which would adversely affect Big Lagoon." He also alleges that the rupture of a vessel could impact public safety. Channel markers placed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Intracoastal Waterway (of which Big Lagoon is a part) define a navigational channel for boats approximately 400- 500 feet south of the end of the proposed dock. That channel is used by both recreational and commercial traffic, including barges and other large watercraft which regularly haul oil, chemicals, and other products through the Intracoastal Waterway to and from Pensacola, Panama City, and St. Marks, Florida. The water in the marked channel is only thirteen feet deep. Because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over the maintenance of the marked channel, the Department defers to that entity's judgment in determining whether a proposed structure will impede navigation in the marked channel. The proposed dock ends near the deepest part of the natural channel where the water reaches a depth of seventeen feet. Because of the deeper water to the north, which allows the boat captain to "get better steerage," the commercial boat traffic sometimes tends to follow the natural channel, rather than the marked channel formed by the navigational aids. When they do so, however, they are straying from the so-called "legal" channel. Petitioner's expert, a retired tugboat captain, opined that in a storm or squall, a commercial boat using the natural rather than the marked navigational channel might be blown extremely close to the dock or even strike it, thus causing a hazardous situation. He acknowledged, however, that he was not predicting more accidents because of the construction of the dock; he also admitted that the dock would not cause ships to "sudden[ly] have problems navigating that Big Lagoon." The location of the proposed dock was shown to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Marine Patrol, and there were no adverse comments regarding this issue by either agency. In the absence of any negative comments by those agencies, and the acknowledgement by Petitioner's own witness that the dock will not cause accidents or create navigational problems for other boaters, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the project will not adversely affect navigation or public safety in Big Lagoon. Seagrass and monitoring Petitioner has alleged that Big Lagoon "is the healthiest body of water in Escambia County with a white sand bottom and abundant seagrass," and that the proposed project will adversely affect its "long term health." He also alleges that the Department has failed to provide a "remedy or punishment should the results [of the Department's monitoring plan] indicate that the seagrass has been harmed"; that the Department's monitoring plan is not "of sufficient duration to reasonably report the long-term effect of concentrated mooring and traffic" or "sufficiently specific to insure usable data"; and that the data relied upon by the Department [such as photographs] were not "sufficient" to determine the existing health of the seagrass. The evidence reflects that a "nice, healthy seagrass community" is found in the area where the dock will be constructed. It stretches out several hundred feet from the shoreline to where the water reaches a depth of around six feet. The Department considers seagrass to be a "most important resource" which should be protected. This is because seagrass is essential for "binding" the shoreline and stabilizing the sediments, and it serves as a nursery area for juvenile fish and shellfish. Indeed, due to these beneficial effects, far more species of shellfish are found in areas where seagrass thrives than in areas where no seagrass exists. To protect the seagrass, the dock has been extended out 442 feet from the shoreline so that the first boat slip begins at a depth of seven feet, or just past where the seagrass ends. This will prevent the scarring of the grass by boat propellers and reduce turbidity that is typically caused by propeller dredging and boat wakes. Thus, at least theoretically, no boat activity by condominium owners is contemplated in waters of less than seven feet. Because seagrass requires as much light as possible to survive, educational signs will be posted in the area to warn boaters that seagrass is found closer to the shoreline, and that mooring in that area is prohibited. There is, however, no enforcement mechanism to ensure that condominium owners or nonresidents comply with these warnings. Under the draft permit, the Department is allowed to access the premises at reasonable times for sampling or monitoring purposes. A special section of the draft permit includes a number of requirements pertaining to the monitoring of turbidity levels during dock construction while another section requires the applicant to take photographs of the existing seagrass beds at numerous locations before, during, and after construction of the dock. Condition 14 requires that the permittee maintain "records of monitoring information" for at least three years. The evidence supports a finding that if a permit is issued, a mapping of the seagrass should be made prior to construction of the dock and during the height of the growing season (September and October). When the photographing of the area is performed, the applicant should use a sampling protocol that is based on a scientifically determined method. Also, both affected and unaffected areas should be monitored to compare the effect of the additional boat traffic on the seagrass after the dock is constructed. All of these conditions should be incorporated into any issued permit. According to Dr. Heck, a marine biologist who specializes in the study of seagrass and testified as an expert on behalf of Petitioner, seagrass beds in Big Lagoon have been "shallowing up" or thinning out in recent years due to decreasing water clarity. In other words, as the water becomes cloudier from more and more boat activity, the sunlight cannot penetrate and the seagrass will not thrive. The seagrasses most susceptible to disappearing are those that are found at the deepest depth. Doctor Heck attributed the decline in seagrass to increased human activity in the area. This activity is related not only to the existing homeowners in the area, but also to the non-resident boaters (both recreational and commercial) who use the waters in that area. A Department study conducted in 1995 confirmed that the only seagrass area in North Florida "significantly affected" by propeller scarring was an area in Big Lagoon known as Scallop Cove, near Spanish Point. This study is consistent with those studies performed by Dr. Heck in the late 1990's, and one as recently as last year, that support a finding that seagrass in Big Lagoon is on the decline due to both propeller scarring and increased turbidity caused by wakes from larger recreational boats. For this reason, Dr. Heck concluded that the addition of thirty boats at the project site, some of which would be as large as 30 feet or so, would have a "negative effect" on the seagrass colony. This in turn will cause a negative effect on the marine productivity in the area, as well as the conservation of fish and their habitat. Doctor Heck's testimony on this issue is found to be the most persuasive. Other concerns Petitioner further contends that the Department failed to provide a "meaningful contingency plan for hurricane activity." This matter, however, is beyond the permitting jurisdiction of the Department. Petitioner has also contended that the Department failed to take into account "existing unused marina slips close by" which could be used by the condominium owners. Like the prior issue, this matter is not a consideration in the permitting scheme. Another issue raised by Petitioner, albeit untimely, was that the construction of this dock could lead to further development in Big Lagoon. There was, however, no evidentiary support for this contention. Indeed, there is no evidence that future permit applications with impacts similar to this application can reasonably be expected in the area. At hearing, Petitioner raised for the first time a contention that the applicant no longer owns the upland property and thus a permit/authorization cannot be issued to that entity. Aside from this issue being untimely, the fact that a permit holder does not own the upland property is not unusual. If this occurs, permits and authorizations (leases) are routinely transferred to the new owner once the Department receives the necessary title information. It is not a ground to defeat the application. Petitioner also raised for the first time at hearing a contention that the site plan approval for the condominium has expired under a provision of the Escambia County Land Development Code and therefore the permit should be denied. Again, the issue is untimely; more importantly, it should be addressed in another forum since the Department has no jurisdiction over this issue. Likewise, a legitimate concern by an adjoining property owner, witness Hobgood, and an area realtor, that Hobgood's single-family property would probably decline in value if the project is built is nonetheless beyond the Department's jurisdiction. Finally, a contention that the Department improperly calculated the maximum number of boat slips for an 88-unit condominium project has been rejected. The record contains a lengthy explanation by witness Athnos which shows that the Department's calculation under Rule 18-21.004(4)1., Florida Administrative Code, was correct. Those calculations are also detailed in Respondents' Exhibit 14.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application of ADR of Pensacola for a wetland resource permit and sovereign submerged lands authorization. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael L. Guttmann, Esquire 314 South Baylen Street, Suite 201 Pensacola, Florida 32501-5949 Charles T. Collette, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David A. Sapp, Esquire 1017 North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501-3306 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the applicant for the dredge and fill permit at issue has provided reasonable assurances that the project involved will comport with state water quality standards and public interest standards for purposes of Section 403.918(1)&(2), Florida Statutes. Specifically, it must be demonstrated that the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the project is clearly in the public interest for purposes of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, and related rules; whether Citrus County has standing to challenge the project; and whether the Department is required or authorized to enforce the provisions of the Citrus County Comprehensive Plan.
Findings Of Fact Kline filed an application for grant of a permit to construct a private boat dock with a roof, designed to cover a boat, in the Withlacoochee River. The Department has permitting jurisdiction, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and related rules, inasmuch as the Withlacoochee River is a natural water body designed as Class III waters of the state, as well as an Outstanding Florida Water. The landward extent of the Department's jurisdiction is the wetland line depicted in Kline's exhibits 1 and 2 in evidence and in the testimony of Rose Poynor. The proposed installation consists of a private boat dock with boathouse or cover measuring 22 feet by 43 feet mounted on 12-inch diameter pilings. The boat cover roof would be approximately 14 feet above the surface of the Withlacoochee River at mean high tide. Portions of a presently- existing dock will be removed, leaving behind a walkway and terminal platform 6 feet wide and extending 6.5 feet from the wetland jurisdictional line out to the boat cover facility. The dock presently extends 6.5 feet from the wetlands jurisdictional line riverward. The existing dock shades the shoreline, including a non- jurisdictional area on the top of the bank. Kline proposes to remove a portion of this existing dock consisting of an area 10.75 feet by 12 feet on one side of the line and approximately 10.75 feet by 5 feet on the other side. This will include removing portions of the existing dock landward of the jurisdictional wetland line. The shoreline area that will be exposed upon removal of portions of the existing dock will be replanted with native plant species. The entire length of Kline's shoreline along the top of the existing bank will be cleared of nuisance species and planted with the required number of native plant species delineated in specific condition #18 of the intent to issue. More plants will be planted as necessary in order to maintain a 90 percent survival density of the required plants over a five-year period as specified in specific condition #21. Kline will also grant a perpetual conservation easement to the Department for the entire length of the shoreline extending a minimum of 4 feet waterward from the top of the bank. The conservation easement will insure protection of the planted shoreline and prevent any opportunity of shoreline hardening through construction of a seawall or other structures. The project will be constructed using best management practices for erosion control, including having the pilings driven from a barge over a period of three to five days so as to minimize the generation of turbidity. A floating turbidity curtain will also be used so as to surround the entire project area to prevent migration of turbidity off the site and which will not interfere with navigation. The total construction time is estimated to be three weeks. During construction, specific actions will be taken to avoid any impacts to manatees traveling the Withlacoochee River near the property. A turbidity curtain will not block manatee entry or exit from essential habitat and will be made of material in which manatees cannot become entangled or injured. Boats in the project area will operate at "no wake/idle speeds" at all times. Upon the sighting of a manatee, all construction activities will cease until the manatee has left the project area. Logs and details of manatee sightings will be maintained and reported to the Department's Marine Mammal Section. During construction, temporary signs will be installed and maintained; and after completion of the project, permanent signs and a permanent informational display will be located in areas specified by the Department's Marine Mammal Section. The specific actions to be taken to avoid impacts to Manatees during construction were developed by the Department's Marine Mammal Section and are imposed on the proposed project in specific condition #13 of the intent to issue as a condition upon a grant of the permit, and Kline has agreed to these conditions. Kline's property is located on the Withlacoochee River in Inglis, Levy County, Florida. The proposed project extends waterward of Kline's shoreline and the waterward portion of the project is located within the boundaries of Citrus County. Kline's property is approximately 7 to 8 miles from Yankeetown, which is downstream on the Withlacoochee River from Inglis. Yankeetown is located on the lower reaches of the Withlacoochee River near the point where it enters the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. 19 Highway bridge is 900 to 1,000 feet upstream of the Kline property. Kline's shoreline is relatively steep with areas of exposed limestone. Vegetation along that shore consists of red maple, laurel oak, and other identifiable wetland species. Water depth drops off relatively quickly varying from 6 to 10 feet at the edge of the existing dock. The river is approximately 121.5 feet wide at the project site. The project's construction will extend approximately 21.7 percent of the width of the river at the project site after completion. On the opposite shore from the Kline property and project site, there is also a boat dock with a small boat basin which was dredged landward into the river bank at some time in the past. On the opposite shoreline, a fallen log projects into the river which does impede navigation to some extent on that side of the river but it is an easily removable obstruction. The log presently remains just below the water surface at high tide. The Cross Florida Barge Canal and spillway are located approximately 2 miles upstream from the Kline property and eastward from the U.S. 19 bridge. An island exists in the river around a bend downstream from the Kline property. The island prevents the passage of boats larger than 16-foot beam around the island and upriver toward the Kline property. The Withlacoochee River is a slow-moving, tannic-acid tinged river and historically was extensively shaded by a tree canopy. In the last half century or so, many of the trees have been removed to accommodate shoreline development which is characterized primarily by vacation homes, weekend retreats, and retirement homes with attendant docks, boathouses, seawalls, and similar private river and boat access facilities serving residential owners. The docks and boathouses existing in the river occur on both sides of the river from the Gulf of Mexico up at least as far as the U.S. 19 bridge. The historical character of the river has thus changed in the last several decades such that extensive numbers of docks, seawalls, boathouses and residences presently characterize the river margin. Water Quality Impacts The water quality impacts of this project will be minimal. The dock and boathouse installation will be placed upon pilings inserted into the river bottom. Installation of the pilings during construction will cause some temporary turbidity. The temporary turbidity that may be occasioned as a result of installation of the pilings will last only a few days at most, and a turbidity curtain will be used to control the turbidity, to prevent it from disbursing over a large area of the river. Turbidity curtains are a well- recognized, proven method for minimizing short-term water pollution violations due to turbidity occasioned by the setting of pilings for such projects. Requiring the applicant to re-vegetate the shoreline and maintain the natural vegetation will enhance natural shoreline pollution up-take processes, as well as erosion prevention. Water quality will be maintained, therefore, and possibly improve somewhat at the site after the re-vegetation of the shoreline and littoral margin. No other water quality parameters were shown to be potentially violated by the installation proposed. So long as no boat maintenance operations which involve the potential spillage of oils and greases, solvents, or bottom paint into the water are practiced, no violations were shown to potentially occur. The permit, if granted, should be restricted against such activities. Public Interest Standards and Considerations The issues and inquiry concerning the public interest standards as to this project related to the question of impacts on recreational uses of the river and navigational uses, as well as the issue of any impacts on manatees. The Department's biology expert, as well as manatee experts presented by the Intervenor, established that the Withlacoochee River is frequented by manatees, but is not a warm-water habitat for manatees. Manatees use the Withlacoochee River during the spring and summer months, but rarely during the winter because it is not a warm-water habitat. The river has been designated as an essential habit for manatees, however. This means that the area is used by them as a food source and as a breeding and rearing area. Although manatees have been seen throughout the length of the river and the immediate vicinity of the project site, the animals mostly use the estuarine mouth or lower reaches of the river. The project on the Kline property is approximately 8 miles upstream from the mouth of the river. There is no question that boats pose definite hazards to manatees through striking manatees with boats and propellers. Boats have been the cause of manatee deaths in Citrus County in the past. Manatees are an endangered species. The Withlacoochee River currently has speed zone regulations involving the requirement of boat operation with no wake, and Citrus County imposes certain dock design criteria on residents seeking to construct new boat docks. The Intervenor's manatee experts participated in the development of these dock design criteria and agree that general adherence to these criteria minimizes potential impacts on manatees. The expert witnesses produced by the Intervenor were mainly concerned with projects of this type causing possible impacts on manatee travel patterns if the dock projects too far from the shore, as well as potential loss of food sources from shading of the water bottom and the question of attendant boats adhering to speed zone regulations. The evidence establishes that the proposed dock will not exceed in a significant way the dock design criteria which the manatee experts agree would minimize any potential impacts on the animals. The experts testifying for the Intervenor had never visited the proposed project site and are unable to do more than make general observations and conclusions regarding any potential adverse impacts to manatees that the proposed project might have. One of the Intervenor's witnesses agreed, however, that the removal of portions of the existing dock structure would help revitalize aquatic vegetation to increase sunlight penetration which would benefit shoreline vegetation and the manatee habitat. The proposed project was shown not to affect manatee travel patterns and it will not have adverse shading impacts on aquatic vegetation due to the design of the facility, which will allow maximum sunlight penetration of the water column. Appropriate speed zones will be maintained during and after construction with the aid of signage warning Kline and the boating public of the need to adhere to "manatee friendly" boat operation practices. The testimony of both Kline and the Petitioner's witnesses establishes that both residents along the river and visitors frequently boat on the Withlacoochee River and there is a significant amount of boat traffic. Certain geographical restrictions such as river width, already existing dock and boathouse structures, the U.S. 19 Highway bridge, and the island between the Kline's property and the mouth of the river at Yankeetown act to limit the size of boats that can traverse this section of the river, as well as their speed. The witnesses agreed that two 16-foot beam boats could safely pass each other in front of the Kline dock even after completion of the project. The proposed project will be visibly marked with reflectors around its entire parameter with a minimum of one reflector on each piling as required by specific condition #15 in the intent to issue the proposed permit. Testimony from licensed boat captains presented by both the Petitioner and Kline establishes that reflectors are a normal requirement and are adequate for structures of this type and size. Kline presented evidence from a longtime native of Inglis, Bill Hart, that a structure with similar dimensions to the proposed project is located in the river at a point where the river is only 95 feet wide, significantly narrower than the width at the project site and yet does not obstruct navigation. That structure also is marked with reflectors and was shown not to pose a hazard to navigation. Witnesses adduced by Petitioner expressed concern that during high tide, the Kline's boat would be moored outside the boat cover and further decrease the river width available for navigation. The evidence showed, however, that Kline's boat would only be moored at the designated mooring location as required by specific condition #14 of the intent to issue. If necessary, Kline will be required to move the boat and anchor it down the river in an area of sufficient width if it should prove that his boat cannot be accommodated under the boat cover during some high tide conditions. Petitioner's witnesses also expressed concern that boats could not turn around in front of the Kline property when the installation is completed. The evidence showed, however, that boats can travel downstream and turn at the island or travel upstream to the U.S. 19 bridge. The U.S. 19 bridge pilings are approximately 20 feet apart which allows easy boat passage between them. The presence of Kline's boat will not represent any increase in boating traffic on the river. The previous owners of the same property used an existing dock to moor their boat. The evidence establishes that the proposed project will not cause a serious impediment to navigation more than is already the case and will not constitute a navigational hazard. The Petitioner's witnesses also expressed fears concerning reduction in the aesthetic quality of the view of the river and its banks. The river still enjoys some portion of tree canopy but is now largely characterized by man-made structures along both banks. Most residents in the vicinity of the Kline property already have docks, seawalls and/or boathouses. The installation of the proposed dock and boathouse or cover will not in any significant degree further impair the aesthetic quality of the view of the river and its banks from its present character. Cumulative Impacts Testimony from the Intervenor's expert witnesses showed concern regarding cumulative impacts of the proposed project on manatees and the "precedent" of granting Kline a permit. The Intervenor's witness feared that many people would apply for more boat docks on the Withlacoochee River and that Kline's project would set a bad precedent, if granted, as to cumulative impact. No evidence was presented to substantiate these concerns, however, and there was no showing that more such permit applications are pending before the relevant regulatory agency. The Department's expert witness established that no cumulative impacts could be expected from this project with regard to water quality, as well as the various public interest standards embodied in Section 403.918(2),(1-7), Florida Statutes. The Department itself has not received any other applications for similar projects in the vicinity.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Protection directing that the Respondent/applicant, William Kline's application for the above-referenced dock terminal platform and boat cover be granted under the conditions found hereinabove and contained in the intent to issue. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-264 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner does not state separate proposed findings of fact. Any proposed factual findings are inextricably entangled with extensive argument on the quantity and quality of testimony and other evidence and attempts to argue the Petitioner's position from the standpoint of documents referenced in the proposed findings of fact without an indication whether those documents are admitted into evidence or not. The Recommended Order can only be based upon testimony and evidence actually admitted and subject to cross-examination at hearing. The relevant and material issues raised in this case are delineated in the Recommended Order and have been fairly addressed and ruled upon and to the extent that the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are in agreement with the findings of fact enunciated by the Hearing Officer, they are accepted. To the extent that they are not they are subordinate thereto and not supported by preponderant evidence and are rejected. Citrus County (Intervenor) Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted to the extent not inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer concerning standing. 2. Accepted to the extent not inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer concerning standing. 3-7. Accepted. 8. Rejected, as irrelevant and immaterial. This is a de novo proceeding and the evidence adduced by a party, including the Department of Environmental Regulation, now known as the Department of Environmental Protection, at hearing and subject to cross-examination, is the only evidence or information upon which findings of fact and conclusions of law may be made. 9-10. Rejected, as irrelevant and immaterial. This is a de novo proceeding and the evidence adduced by a party, including the Department of Environmental Regulation, now known as the Department of Environmental Protection, at hearing and subject to cross-examination, is the only evidence or information upon which findings of fact and conclusions of law may be made. 11. Rejected, as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence and for the reason that these are de novo proceedings and the quantity, quality, and credibility of testimony and evidence adduced at hearing is the basis for findings of fact and conclusions of law adjudicating this proceeding. 12. Rejected, as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence and for the reason that these are de novo proceedings and the quantity, quality, and credibility of testimony and evidence adduced at hearing is the basis for findings of fact and conclusions of law adjudicating this proceeding. 13-14. Rejected, as immaterial and irrelevant in this de novo proceeding involving Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive of the issues to be adjudicated in this proceeding. Accepted, but not materially dispositive of the issues material and relevant to adjudication of this proceeding. Rejected, in accordance with the ruling on motion in limine in this proceeding as immaterial, as not supported by the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. The competent, substantial evidence of record adduced at the hearing shows that the water quality considerations and public interest considerations embodied in Section 403.918(1)&(2), Florida Statutes, Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder will be complied with by the project, as it is described in the evidence adduced at hearing. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the credible evidence. Respondent Kline's Proposed Findings of Fact Any proposed findings of fact contained in the "Recommended Order" submitted by Respondent Kline cannot be separately and independently ruled upon. The document denominated "Recommended Order" submitted by Respondent Kline contains discussion and argument concerning the quantity and quality of the testimony in evidence, legal argument and, at best, is a discussion of the testimony of various witnesses, rather than coherent proposed findings. Therefore, the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent Kline to the extent they are proposed findings of fact are rejected as being incapable of coherent, cogent, separate rulings. Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation's Proposed Findings of Fact The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department of Environmental Regulation, now known as the Department of Environmental Protection, to the extent they are consistent with the proposed findings of fact of the Hearing Officer are accepted. To the extent that those proposed findings of fact are inconsistent with those made by the Hearing Officer on the same issues and subject matter, they are rejected as being subordinate thereto or immaterial or not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Sarah Berger Post Office Box 83 Inglis, Florida 34449 William A. Kline, Jr. 398 South Inglis Avenue Inglis, Florida 34449 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Richard W. Wesch, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 107 North Park Avenue, Suite 8 Inverness, Florida 34450 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Respondent, Planmac Company, Inc., is entitled to the modification of a previously permitted boat docking facility in a man-made basin on Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1985, Planmac Company, Inc. (Planmac) filed a request with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a dredge and fill permit to construct a boat docking facility consisting of 52 slips in a man-made basin, known as Captain's Cove, located on Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. On October 3, 1985, DER filed a Notice of Intent to Issue the requested permit subject to certain specified conditions. A timely challenge to the permit was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The case was styled Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107. As a result of the formal hearing in Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107, a Recommended Order was submitted to DER which made findings of fact, concluded that all permitting criteria had been met, and recommended that the application be granted subject to certain conditions. Thereafter, on June 3, 1986, DER issued a Final Order which ordered that the application for the permit be granted subject to the recommended conditions. No appeal was taken from the Final Order. On June 18, 1986, DER issued to Planmac Permit #441008425, which authorized Planmac, consistent with drawings and specifications attached to the Permit, to: Construct two (2) 5' x 248' docks, each with fourteen (14) 3' x 40' finger piers and twelve (12) associated mooring piles, providing a total of fifty-two (52) boat slips; and install approximately 590 linear feet of riprap revetment requiring the deposition of approximately 300 cubic yards of rock boulders landward and waterward of MHW, in a man-made basin (Class III Waters), an artificial, navigable waterbody contiguous to Florida Bay in Section 21, Township 64 South, Range 36 East, Monroe County. The following specific conditions were attached by DER to Permit #441008425: The permittee is hereby advised that Florida law states: "No person shall commence any excavation, construction, or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use." Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 16Q-14, if such work is done without consent, or if a person otherwise damages state land or products of state land, the Board of Trustees may levy administrative fines of up to $10,000 per offense. Turbidity screens shall be utilized and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. Only non-commercial, recreational boats shall be allowed to use the proposed marina. The applicant shall incorporate this condition into the condominium document for the proposed marina and supply the Department with a copy of the document prior to any sales of the condominium. No live-aboard boats shall be allowed in the marina. This condition shall also be placed in the condominium document. A portable sewage pumpout wagon shall be provided at the marina. Pumpout effluent shall be properly disposed of by methods acceptable to the department; these methods and locations shall be approved by the department prior to construction. A supply of oil absorbent materials, designed to clean up small oil spills, shall be maintained at the marina office. At least sixty (60) days prior to construction, the applicant shall submit to the Punta Gorda DER office for review, a detailed list of equipment to be permanently maintained on site. This list of equipment shall be modified as necessary and approved by the department prior to construction. The uplands on the permittee's property shall be graded to direct stormwater away from the edge of the boat basin. No fuel facilities nor storage shall be allowed at the project. All craft docked at the marina shall be prohibited from pumping sewage into the waters of the cove. Use of boat slips shall be limited to those person(s) who own the slip. Leasing of boat slips shall be prohibited. Living aboard any boat docked at the marina is prohibited at all times. No boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning shall be allowed at the permitted facility. Only clean rock boulders free from attached sediments or other deleterious compounds, and of a minimum diameter of 2' or greater shall be installed as riprap. The Marathon Department of Environmental Regulation office shall be notified 48 hours prior to the commencement of work. "IDLE SPEED-NO WAKE" signs shall be placed at conspicuous locations at the docking facility with additional language that "this precaution exists throughout the length of the canal channel during ingress and egress". At least two trash receptacles shall be provided on each of the two main walkway piers; these receptacles shall be routinely maintained and emptied. Prior to dockage use by boats, marker buoys shall be established around all vegetated shallow zones within the limits of the submerged property limits with signs advising boaters of "SHALLOW WATERS-NO ENTRY". Prior to construction, the applicant and the Marathon DER office shall meet to discuss acceptable locations for these markers. The project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria. 17.3.121 - Criteria - Class III Waters - Recreation, Propagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife: Surface Waters. After Permit #441008425 was issued to Planmac for the construction of 52 boat slips, an application was filed by Tormac Corporation for 40 additional boat slips to be located on the property adjacent to the Planmac site. Tormac Corporation and Planmac are owned by the same individual. The Tormac application was subsequently withdrawn prior to final action being taken on the application and prior to Planmac filing the subject application for modification. On December 15, 1988, Planmac filed the application for modification that is the subject of this proceeding. A reconfiguration of the project was necessary because Planmac had been unable to obtain title to a portion of the bay bottom over which it had originally planned to construct the project. Permit #441008425 was modified once previously. The prior modification extended the expiration date for the permit from June 15, 1988, to June 18, 1991. At the time of the final hearing, Permit #441008425 was still in effect. The proposed modification will reduce the number of boat slips from 52 to 48. Eight of the reconfigured slips will be located over the originally permitted site. The forty remaining slips will be relocated over the former Tormac site, which is immediately adjacent to, and west of, the originally permitted site. The following findings of fact, made by the Hearing Officer in Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107, are pertinent to the proposed modification: * * * Captain's Cove is a manmade navigable lagoon with access to Florida Bay through a 2,500' long by 100' wide canal located opposite the project site. The waters of Captain's Cove and the canal are designated Class III surface waters, and those of Florida Bay as Outstanding Florida Waters. The controlling depth for access to the proposed marina is found at the mouth of the canal, where Florida Bay is approximately 6' mean low water (MLW). Depths within the canal are typically 1' or 2' deeper that the controlling depth at the mouth. The bottom depth of the cove is variable. The southwestern four-fifths of the cove was typically dredged to a depth of 25' MLW. Within the northeast fifth of the cove (the basin), a gradation in depths is experienced. The northwest portion of the basin, located outside the project site, is typically 5' - 6' MLW, and heavily vegetated by sea grasses (turtle grass, manatee grass, and Cuban shoalweed). The southeast portion of the basin, which abuts the Applicant's property, consists of a shallow shelf 10' - 20' in width. Beyond this shelf, the bottom drops off steeply to a depth of 20' MLW. The shelf abutting the Applicant's property is sparsely vegetated with mangroves, and provides limited habit for aquatic fauna such as domingo mussels and paper oysters. Replacement of these mangroves and other shoreline vegetation with riprap would not significantly affect the biological balance within the cove and would provide suitable habitat for existing species. The waters within the cove are quite clear, and meet the Department's water quality standards except for a thin layer at the deepest part of the cove where dissolved oxygen violations were noted. The proposed marina is, however, to be located in the northeast fifth of the cove, opposite the access canal, where the waters are more shallow and water circulation more prevalent. As sited, the proposed marina will not exacerbate or contribute to a violation of the Department's water quality criteria. DER, following staff review of the application for modification, issued its Intent to Issue on April 21, 1989. In considering the proposed modification, DER staff assumed that Captain's Cove was a closed system whose waters received no cleansing exchange with Florida Bay. Most of the oxygen replenishment and water purification that takes place within the cove occurs through biological activities. The Intent to Issue dated April 21, 1989, advised that DER intended to issue the requested permit modification. The reconfigured project may be described in the following language taken from the Intent to Issue: The applicant, Planmac Company, Inc., applied on December 15, 1988, to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit modification to construct a marina facility consisting of a 280' x 5' wide access walkway, two (2) 160' x 5' wide main piers with twenty (20) 35' x 3' finger piers, two (2) 81' x 5' wide main piers with eight (8) 40' x 3' finger piers, providing a total of 48 boat slips, and to install approximately 300 cubic yards of limerock boulders in a man-made basin (Class III Waters), an artificial waterbody in Section 21, Township 64 South, Range 36 East, Monroe County. The proposed modification is over an area of very sparsely vegetated bottom with water depths between 19 and 27 feet. The reconfigurated project will shade approximately 4,000 square feet less bottom area than the originally permitted project. The reconfigurated project will not exacerbate or contribute to a violation of DER's water quality criteria. The reconfigurated design, as compared to the originally permitted project, will present easier ingress and egress from the docking area and will cause less interference with boat traffic. The reconfigurated design will not affect the manatee that are occasionally sighted in Captain's Cove any differently than the presently permitted design. The Intent to Issue dated April 21, 1989, incorporates all eighteen previously attached conditions to the permit and adds the following additional conditions: No docking is permitted waterward of the terminal finger piers on any of the four (4) main piers to prevent use of adjacent owner's bay bottom. These four (4) terminal docks shall have permanent hand rails constructed and maintained along their waterward edge to further discourage boat mooring. A draft of a legally binding agreement, such as a deed restriction shall be submitted to the Fort Myers DER office for review, modification as necessary, and/or approval within thirty (30) days of permit modification issuance. An approved document shall be recorded into the public records of Monroe County within sixty (60) days of approval by the Department. This agreement shall prohibit any further dock construction on the Planmac/Tormac properties exceeding that authorized by this permit modification. This document shall also prohibit in perpetuity the installation of fueling facilities and boat maintenance facilities, and shall prohibit the mooring of liveaboard vessels throughout the life of the facility. Construction shall not commence until proof of recording has been received by the Fort Myers DER office. The location and configuration of the docks and access walkways shall be modified from the drawings stamped June 18, 1986, to those received December 15, 1988 and attached hereto. The conservation easement, which is incorporated as a condition to the issuance of the modification, has a positive effect because it prohibits further dockage on the Planmac or Tormac properties. Since docks over which DER has no permitting authority could have been placed on these properties, this easement will prevent future unregulated docking there. The reconfiguration of the project and the inclusion of the adjacent lands present no significant environmental concerns that were not present when the original project was permitted. After the issuance of the Notice of Intent by DER on April 21, 1989, the respective Petitioners filed timely challenges to the application. The Petitioners contend that the application constitutes a major modification of the previously permitted project and seek to challenge the project on many of the same grounds that were litigated in Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107. The modifications proposed by the application that is the subject of this proceeding was processed by DER as a routine, minor modification. As a result of Petitioners' challenges, this proceeding was held. The Petitioners and Intervenor were not permitted to relitigate those issues that had been resolved by Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are seeking a permit to cut a channel from a boat basin to the Caloosahatchee River. The basin, which has been constructed, is located approximately forty to sixty feet inland from the Caloosahatchee River. Petitioners are also seeking a permit to operate the proposed basin. The basin would serve as a recreational facility for a trailer park. The proposed basin has dimensions of approximately 140 feet by 148 feet. It is surrounded by a concrete seawall. The basin would provide facilities for approximately 20 boats no larger than twenty-two feet in length. The trailer park is located across the street from the river and basin. The street is approximately 600 feet from the river. Sewage treatment and water treatment plants for the trailer park are located in the corners of the park farthest from the river. The basin is surrounded by vegetation. All water going into the basin would be filtered through grass. The project is located approximately one mile east of the City of Alva, fourteen miles from the City of Tice, and seventeen miles from the City of Ft. Myers. The basin is eight and one-half miles up river from Lee County's pumping stations, which are used to pump water from the river to wells which augment the county's water supply. The Caloosahatchee River was channelized approximately twenty years ago. It no longer follows a natural course. The river is a part of the Cross Florida system connecting with Lake Okeechobee. The proposed boat basin would not enhance the waters of the Caloosahatchee River. The project could reasonably be expected to be a source of water pollution unless rules and regulations, which Petitioners have adopted, are scrupulously followed. These rules and regulations are set out in Figure 3 attached to Petitioner's Exhibit 7. If the rules and regulations are followed, the basin would not be a source of pollutants. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary. If the rules and regulations are not followed then there is a likelihood that the basin will be a source of pollutants, and that the pollutants would be discharged into the Caloosahatchee River. Petitioners do not object to having the proposed rules and regulations made a part and a condition of any permits issued by Respondent.
The Issue Whether petitioners have timely availed themselves of a clear point of entry into administrative proceedings on Mr. and Mrs. Rankin's application for a permit to build a dock and, if so, whether the permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On April 12, 1982, Frederick W. Rankin applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock six feet wide and 300 feet long in the waters of Bayou Chico in Escambia County, Florida. Paralleling the dock on either side of the outboard end, two rows of mooring pilings 19.5 feet distance from the dock were proposed in the application. On April 20, 1983, Mark N. Snowdon, an employee of the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) inspected the site, and, in an official DER permit application appraisal dated April 23, 1982, reported: Two large support vessels (crew boats) are moored at a small pier immediately east of the site. A commercial marina facility i[s] located directly across the bayou (north) from the project site. Bayou Chico is approximately 0.25 mile wide at this point. DER Exhibit No. 4. Between the crew boats' dock (Gulfwater Marine) and the site proposed for the Rankins' dock is the mouth of a small embayment (the bayouette). The Holzbauers own a house and lot, separated from the Rankins' lot by a parcel less than 75 feet wide, that fronts on the bayouette. PERMIT ISSUES DER issued a permit on June 9, 1982, and work began on the Rankins' dock on June 12, 1982. On the same day, Mr. Holzbauer inquired of the men putting in pilings whether DER had issued a permit for the work, then telephoned DER and asked DER's Mr. Fancher the same question. Mr. Fancher told Mr. Holzbauer that a permit had been issued, which was the first Mr. Holzbauer was told of issuance of the permit. As far as the evidence revealed, no notice of intent to issue preceded issuance of the permit. On June 26, 1982, the Holzbauers received a letter from W. Richard Fancher on behalf of DER, dated June 24, 1982, in which he stated: It is my understanding that, until recently, you had no knowledge of this private dock project. If this is correct, you may consider this formal notice of the activity. Should you object to this permit, including any and all of the conditions contained therein, you may file an appropriate petition for administrative hearing. This petition must be filed within 14 days of the receipt of this letter. Further, the petition must conform to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 17-1 and Section 28-5.201, Florida Administrative Code (copies enclosed). The petition must be filed with the Office of General Counsel, Department of Environmental Regulation, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. If no petition is filed within the prescribed time, you will be deemed to have waived your right to request an administrative hearing on this matter. DER Exhibit No. 1. A copy of Mr. Fancher's letter to the Holzbauers was also sent to Mr. Rankin. On July 8, 1982, a letter from the Holzbauers to Ms. Tschinkel reached DER's Office of the Secretary, protesting issuance of the permit and alleging that the dock did not conform to permit conditions. 1/ This letter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, whose Director entered an order, sua sponte, on July 28, 1982, that "[t]his matter is dismissed without prejudice." No. 82-1947. An amended petition dated August 4, 1982, reached DER's Office of the Secretary on August 9, 1982, and the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 20, 1982. No. 82-2314. NO PERMIT RELIANCE The dock has been continued to completion, at a cost of $11,000.00. As built, the dock veers out from shore at a more easterly angle than the permit purported to allow. Whereas the permit contemplated construction at an angle several degrees west of north, the dock has in fact been built at an angle about 15 degrees east of north. One result is that the end is some 90 feet east of the point contemplated by the permit. Although a DER employee testified that this deviation was "within reason," it is clearly a significant departure from what the permit putatively allowed. The Rankins only own 86 feet of bayou frontage. The mouth of the bayouette is no more than 110 feet across. The mooring pilings, moreover, have been set in two rows parallel to the dock not 19.5 feet on either side, but 40 feet from the west side of the dock and 30 feet from the east side. If any of the landowners on the bayouette (with one exception) tried to build a pier perpendicular to their shore line extending even half the length of the Rankins' dock, it would intersect the Rankins' dock. NAVIGATION While the dock does not seal off the bayouette, it makes access considerably more difficult, especially for Mr. Holzbauer who sails in and out in his 14 foot boat. The dock juts out from the point at the western edge of the entrance into the bayouette at such an angle that it comes within 70 feet of the eastern edge of the entrance into the bayouette. Petitioner's Exhibit No. The crew boats moored to the east of the Rankins' dock have overall lengths ranging from 65 to 85 feet and there were three of them moored at Gulfwater Marine last summer. When the crew boats are docked, the distance between the westernmost one and the most inboard mooring piling next to the Rankins' dock is 81.5 to 103 feet. Where traffic from Bayou Chico to Pensacola Bay passes under a bridge, the channel is only 80 feet wide and the crew boats sometimes hit the bridge. The greatest problem the Rankins' dock has caused the crew boats is making docking more difficult. It is not always easy to turn an 85 foot boat around in the wind. The root of the problem, according to Mr. Kingry, who owns the crew boats, is that a patch of slightly deeper water in this generally shoaled area has been cut or blocked by the Rankins' dock. Sooner or later, Mr. Kingry predicted, a crew boat will "wipe out" the Rankins' mooring pilings.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation deny the application for a dredge and fill permit for a dock located and aligned as this dock is. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1983.
