Findings Of Fact Pine Island Properties, Ltd., (Petitioner) owns a residential development project identified as "Pelican Inlet" located on Pine Island, Lee County, Florida. The Petitioner seeks a permit to fill 0.78 acres of wetlands to construct the project. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is responsible for reviewing permit applications under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and related administrative rules. The Department file number for this application is 362004755. The Pelican Inlet project is located in Lee County, Florida, Sections 4 and 9, Township 45 South, Range 25 East. The project impact site is immediately adjacent to "Forty Acre Bay/Bay 36" (bay) which is a Class II Outstanding Florida Water and part of the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. There are no other developments on the bay. Access from Pelican Inlet to Pine Island Sound is via the bay. Pine Island Sound is a popularly used water body, with substantial fishing and recreational use. The Pelican Inlet development fronts a man-made canal which runs generally east-west. The canal is between two to ten feet deep. The Petitioner did not construct the canal. It appears that during the dredging of the canal, spoil was deposited along the canal banks, resulting in an upland area in the midst of the wetlands. The spoil is vegetated by Australian pine. The elevation of the property drops approximately 1.5 feet where the higher spoil abuts the wetlands. The Petitioner owns only the north half of the canal. Other parties not involved in this application own the south half of the canal. According to the Petitioner, the south half owners are not interested in assisting in the Petitioner's project. Extensive mangrove growth exists immediately north and south of the project impact area. Immediately along the banks of the canal are red, black, and white mangroves. At the east end of the canal is a dense growth of mature black mangroves. Further to the east lie undeveloped uplands vegetated with slash pine and saw palmetto. Although there has been some trash dumping in the area, the mangroves to be impacted by the proposed development are part of a high quality, functioning, healthy, and productive wetlands system. The area currently provides broad water quality benefits and wildlife habitat. The north part of the impacted wetlands area contained a dirt road. Exotic vegetation, including Brazilian pepper Australian pine and Melaleuca, has invaded the trail area. Away from the road, the wetlands are dominated by buttonwood, seashore dropseed, beach carpet, salt grass, needlerush, and leather fern. The Western end of the canal connects to the bay. Water depths in the bay average approximately 1.5 feet deep, but vary significantly. The bay bottom is composed of fine organic mud. There is evidence of damage caused by boat propellers in some parts of the bay. The bay is used by species of fish, snails, mollusks, crabs and birds and is regarded as a productive marine habitat. Within the development, the Petitioner seeks to locate a total of 23 single family homes. Fourteen of the 23 homes will be located directly along the canal. Of these 14, eight will require placement of fill in the adjacent mangroves; two others are entirely within the mature mangrove wetlands. The remaining nine houses would be placed in the area east of the canal. Within the wetlands and uplands portion of the property, the development will include the 23 houses, driveways, access roads, sewer treatment plant, spreader swale and retention area. Subsequent to the filing of the application, the parties engaged in an extensive dialogue in an attempt to reach a resolution of the matter. The issues raised by the Department essentially centered on two general issues, minimization and mitigation of the wetlands lost through fill and resolution of the anticipated secondary impacts of the project. The parties appear to have resolved concerns related to the mitigation of the wetlands lost and impacted by the fill. At the hearing, there was minimal evidence and testimony related to the wetlands mitigation issues. Based on the apparent lack of conflict related to the wetlands loss mitigation, this Recommended Order is directed towards the cumulative and secondary impacts of the project. On August 21, 1991, the Petitioner filed an application for permit/water quality certification with the agency. On October 28, 1991, the Department conducted a field appraisal of the project. Based on the appraisal, the Department determined that the project was unpermittable as proposed in the application. On December 24, 1991, the Department forwarded to the Petitioner a copy of the site inspection report. In the report, the Department identifies a number of concerns related to the expected environmental impact of the project. Thereafter, the parties began an extensive dialogue regarding the project. On March 12, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. The parties continued to discuss mitigation, and several extensions to the deadline for filing an administrative hearing request were granted by the Department. There is no dispute regarding timeliness of the request for hearing. The Notice of Permit Denial indicates that the Department's concerns center on the potential for turbidity-related water quality violations which could result from unstabilized fill, the adverse floristic impact caused by fill washout into adjacent wetlands, the loss of the filtering benefits provided via the filled wetlands and the adverse impact on wildlife habitat. The Notice of Permit Denial further identifies concerns related to the cumulative and secondary impacts of the project. Such impacts include boat docks in the canal resulting in an increase in the intensity of boating activity in the Bay. The Notice also addresses the precedential impact of permitting this project as it relates to other properties similarly situated, specifically, the property on the south side of the Canal. The expected increases in boat traffic will result in turbidity and damage to the bay bottom through prop dredging, in turn causing injury to the marine habitat's sea grasses and benthic organisms. During the ongoing dialogue with the Department, the Petitioner submitted a mitigation plan. In the Department's letter of June 26, 1992, related to its review of the plan, the Department notes that the proposal failed to address the anticipated impact of boat users on the shallow bay adjacent to the canal. Paragraph #23 of the letter states as follows: Please be advised that the submitted proposal does not adequately address the secondary impacts of the proposed development. There is still a high potential for boat use within the adjacent shallow bay which will significantly degrade this portion of the aquatic preserve, additional boating pressure could also result in requests for dredging a channel within this bay....Before a permit can be issued all of these impacts need to be addressed. One possible way to address these would be to provide easements over adjacent wetlands and the canal that specifically prohibit dock construction...and/or to fill in a portion of the canal to prevent large boats from utilizing the area. In a letter of July 29, 1992 in response to the Department's earlier transmittal, the Petitioner stated: Boat access to coastal waters of Lee is a very important aspect of this project, however only two of the twenty-four lots have direct private property access to the canal and these are lots 1 and 18. Only lot 1 has both canal and natural water frontage. The potential for secondary wetland impacts related to permitting of this project are real and are also a concern of the applicant. As to the issue of boat docks, the Petitioner stated: Pine Island Properties, Limited, the owner of the project, is not proposing to permit or construct any boat docks within the project boundary. Each lot owner must, if they wish to, make application through appropriate state and federal agencies for a boat dock. As to the matter of the shallow adjacent bay, the Petitioner stated: The existing water depths in the adjacent bay system already by itself mandates and places limits on access by large boats, ones with a deeper draft. Local knowledge of both bottom topography as well as tidal conditions and times is necessary for one to travel through these back bay areas. The applicant agrees to place reasonable size, i.e., draft, restrictions on boats allowed into and out of the project. The draft limit restriction for boats would be 24 inches. In additional all boats with engines larger than 35 horsepower would be required to have hydraulic motor/outdrive lifts capable of allowing adjustments in the depth of the operation of the propeller. The applicant also accepts responsibility of placing appropriate depth markers from the western end (exist) (sic) of the unnamed canal to the "between island" passage approximately 750 feet directly to the west. Placement of markers would identify the preferred travel route and inform boaters, through placement of signs, that they are in an aquatic preserve and caution them about damage to bottom of the bay if propellers are set to (sic) deep. By Department letter of September 21, 1992, the Department noted continuing concerns with the impacts of the project. In relevant part, the letter states, "[T]he Department still lacks reasonable assurance that the project's impacts will be offset. Also, you have not yet demonstrated to the Department's satisfaction that the project will be clearly in the public interest." The Department's September 21 letter addresses remaining questions about the wetlands fill area, as well as canal use restrictions. Specifically as to the canal issue, the letter states: Your proposal to place a draft restriction of 24" on boats using the canal to protect adjacent waters which are 18" deep is not acceptable. A deed restriction prohibiting property owners from using or mooring motorized vessels in the canal would be more acceptable....A conservation easement could also prohibit the construction of docks and/or the mooring of motorized vessels on the shoreline by the present owners or by potential future owners such as a homeowners association. Based on the Department's assertion that the shallow bay could not accommodate boat traffic related to the development, the Petitioner conducted a survey of existing water depths in the vicinity of the canal. In its October 28, 1992 letter in response to the Department, the Petitioner responded as follows: In general there is sufficient water for shallow draft motor driven vessels, however local knowledge, proper tidal conditions and informed operators would be essential to a safe and non-habitat damaging passage from the canal mouth to the deeper waters of Pine Island Sound. Evidence of prop scars...provides a longlasting record of past damage to the turtle grass beds by (sic) without proper boat handling skills and knowledge. Sizing of boat draft and the requirement that all boats possess hydraulically adjustable outboards units or if inboard drive units then the outdrives must be adjustable is a must. During lower tidal phases, e.g., mean low water, water levels can be expected to drop another foot which would result in water depth ranges of about 17 to 30 inches, definitly (sic) a problem for boats with a hull draft of 18 inches regardless of what angle the drive unit is positioned. Placement of informational signs as well as placement of channel marks would reduce hull and drive unit impacts to the adjacent bay bottom. In concluding the October 28 letter, the Petitioner makes the following recommendations: Recommendations for consideration: Boats limited to hull drafts of 20 inches. All boats required to have adjustable power units. Channel markers required from the Pelican Inlet canal mouth through to a point midway between the islands and Cork Island. This is approximately 2,800 feet west of the canal mouth. These markers would be spaced, approximately 150 feet apart, on-center,. (sic) Thus under southflorida's (sic) winter foggy conditions or after dark ease of marker detection/direction would be a useful aid to navigation. Informational signs should be installed at "entry points" such as the canal mouth, the between-island pass and between the island headlands. These should inform the boater of the environmental sensitivity, the shallow water conditions, the existence of grass beds and requirement of a slow speed, "no wake" zones. Monitoring of bentic (sic) habitats over the first five years would also determine if the above conditions are effective at protecting the coastal habitats. By Department letter of December 17, 1992, the Department again addressed continuing concern with the impact of the project. Paragraph 14 of the letter states: Thank you for the water depth report. As the report states,"...local knowledge, proper tidal conditions and informed operators would be essential to a safe and non-habitat damaging passage from the canal mouth to the deeper waters of Pine Island Sound." Since it would be extremely difficult to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that all three of these conditions will be present during motorized vehicle operations originating on-site, other assurance that impacts will not occur and degrade the Outstanding Florida waterbody must be provided. As previously stated, legally binding agreements regarding draft and other restrictions may be difficult to enforce. Monitoring of an activity's impacts is only useful if there is some recourse to eliminate or reduce any impacts revealed by monitoring. The submitted report reinforces the Department's position that reasonable assurance, beyond that already proposed, must be provided that boat traffic originating from the project's canal will not adversely impact the adjacent shallow waters. Such assurance could include, but would not be limited to, a mnechanical or physical draft restrictor in the canal, an agreement not to seek permits to expand the existing canal, and authorization from the Department of Natural Resources for the proposed channel markers and informational signs. Please note that additional assurance beyond these may also be required. Paragraph 15 of the Department's December 17, letter states: Although not proposed as part of this application, construction of boat docks in the canal is a secondary impact which could be reasonably expected to occur as a result of issuing a permit for the proposed activities. Please provide reasonable assurance that construction of docks in the canal and subsequent mooring of boats will not contribute to a degradation of water quality below State water quality standards in the canal and in the adjacent waters. By letter of February 1, 1993, the Petitioner responded to paragraph 14 of the Department's December 17 letter as follows: The applicant does agree not to seek permits to expand the existing channel and will seek authorization from the Department of Natural Resources for the proposed channel markers and informational signs. In a twenty page letter, dated July 29, 1992, also answering questions of the FDER, Kathleen Parker Greenwood, the applicant stated that he was in agreement as to the placement of restrictions on the draft of boats allowed into and out of the project. This draft limit was set at 24 inches. In addition boats having engines larger that 35 horsepower, would have to have a hydraulic motor/outdrive lift, this to allow adjustments in the depth of propeller operation when operating in or during low water conditions. The applicant may accept the proposal of placement of a draft restrictor at the mouth of the unnamed canal, however would like additional information regarding available designs. Are there any floating types, ones that could be moored permanently at the mouth of the project canal, and rise and fall with the tide, similar in concept to the method used to moor floating docks, i.e., a collar/ring freely moving up and down on a stationary piling? This would allow the setting of a uniform depth regardless of tidal or wind induced depth of water conditions. The Petitioner responded to paragraph 15 of the Department's December 17 letter as follows: The applicant also does not want to degrade existing water quality and agrees to implement both design determined as well as behavioral directing programs to insure that this does not happen. The central issues are: a.) Oil and gas leaks and spills. b.) Leakage of the active chemicals found in anti-fouling bottom paints. c.) "Wolmerized" substances placed in marine piling which, over time, leak into the water column. d.) Shading of shoreline bottom communities due to the installation of docks with associated floating boats. and e.) Physical, one-time, impacts occurring during the installation of pilings and dolphines. The applicant, wishing to minimize potential onetime (sic) as well as cumulative impacts proposes the following: The applicant will attach to documents/lot sales contract a notice that clearly informs the prospective land owner of his/her responsibilities regarding the use and storage, handing and disposal of hazardous wastes, especially boat fuel and oil. This document will warn residents against the discharge overboard of bilge water known to contain fuel/oil mixtures. Each dock will display, in a prominent mannor (sic), a sign with essentially the same warning. The Pelican Inlet property owner(s) will also develop, and have in place and operational, prior to any authorization for the construction of boad (sic) docks, an emergency response program designed to handle in-project fuel spells (sic). This program will include the storage of equipment suitable for emergency containment until, and if necessary, a local response can be made by the appropriate Lee County and/or state officials. Boats will be lifted, when not actively in use, via davits or elevating hoist platforms completely out of the water. This will minimize water/hull contact in the case of anti-fouling paints and bottom coatings. Dock pilings and dolphines will utilize non-toxic structural components, wolmerized and other petroleum based substances will not be allowed to come in contact with the water column. Such Structural members as concrete or PVC or other known non-toxic items will be utilized for all vertical supports. Dock access platforms/boardwalks will be minimized, this in order to reduce potential shading. Consideration will be given to the use of translucent "boards" now on the construction market, this again to further minimize shading. By Department letter of February 15, 1993, the Department addressed continuing and additional concerns related to project impact. Paragraph 9 of the letter states: Regarding the issue of boat access from the canal out to Pine Island Sound, it should be noted that [the Petitioner agent's] access study was done at a time when the water elevation was provided as +1.91' NGVD. The mean high water elevation, as provided, is +1.47' NGVD. Thus is appears that at mean high water, there will be a little more than 5 inches less water that what was present during that study. The mean low water elevation provided is -1.2' NGVD which seems low. However, using this figure, at mean low water there will be 3' less water between the canal and the sound. Using a more reasonable tidal range of approximately 1', there would still be a difference of almost 1.5' between the observed and the low water levels, yielding lowest depths of approximately 3" in segment 1, the unvegetated areas, 10" in segment 2, where turtle grass and shoal grass...exist within the "channel", and 24" or greater out in the sound (along the sampled channel). The Department's own informal depth survey, taken during a full moon low tide, showed water depths of approximately 3" to 6" in segment 1 and 10" to 36" (in the remnant channel) along segment 2. Most importantly, many of the shallow areas in segment 2 showed dense seagrass growth, especially out by the "island headlands", where no channel exists and where prop scarring of the grassbeds already appears to be a major problem. Also, the shallowest area, segment 1, where turbidity would be expected to occur almost every time a boat went through until the channel was prop dredged, was observed to be a highly productive and diverse area, despite the fact that it is unvegetated. Other concerns which this site visit brought up include the potential for increased erosion of shorelines adjacent to the proposed channel, and disturbance of wading bird rookeries or roosting areas along the channel's path. Reasonable assurance that boats crossing the areas between the canal and the sound will not cause violations of water quality, including turbidity and loss of diversity, and loss of non-mitigable wetland resources, seagrass beds, has not been provided. Without this, a permit may still not be issued for this project. By response dated April 11, 1993, the Petitioner responded to the Department's December 17 letter. As to the conflicting high water calculations, the Petitioner offered a further refinement of the figures and noted: Both of the above are relatively minor corrections and any reasonable person would still agree that water depths along the recommended boating channel corridor are, at best, minimal. Only one with local knowledge and possessing common boating skills and sense would be able to navigate the passage without disruption or damage to the bottom habitat. As to the application of a 1' "tidal range," the Petitioner suggests that the Department meant to identify the figure as the range below mean sea level. Citing to 1993 tidal tables, the Petitioner recalculated the water depths and opined that the lowest depth in segment 1 would be 6.7", in segment 2 would be 21.1" and in segment 3 would be over 30". The Petitioner noted that the calculations did not account for neap or spring tides, periods of even lower water conditions. As to the Department's informal depth survey showing water depths of approximately 3" to 6" in segment 1 and 10" to 36" (in the remnant channel) along segment 2, the response states "[t]hese value ranges and conclusion seem reasonable to the applicant. Only after a series of repeated depth measurements have been taken over a variety of tidal and weather conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction) would a more detailed analysis be available. " As to the Department's statement concern for potential increased erosion of shorelines adjacent to the proposed channel, and disturbance of wading bird rookeries or roosting areas along the channel's path, the Petitioner responded as follows: The applicant previously agreed to a mandatory "no wake, slow speed" zone condition within segments I, II, and III out past the western most headlands to a position due north of Cork Island. Signs along the proposed boat corridor would notify boaters of this and other environmentally related restrictions. Disturbances to in place bird rookeries during the nesting season are of concern in southwest Florida. Parents frightened off active nests do greatly decrease the success for fledging of subadult birds. Generally rookeries occur on islands rather than headlands, thus the applicant would committ (sic) to a vigerous (sic) environmental sensitivity education program directed towards project initiated boaters in order to gain citizen appreciation, support and consideration for island areas of nesting wading birds. Part of the on-going monitoring that the applicant commits to would also track near-shore rookeries in the vacinity (sic) of the proposed boat traffic corridor. As to the Department's statement that reasonable assurance that boats crossing the areas between the canal and the sound would not cause violations of water quality had not been provided, the Petitioner responded as follows: The issue and standard, reasonable assurance, is very difficult to meet, however the applicants proposed residential project design is sensitive to on-site and near shore environmental conditions in the following mannor (sic): The applicant is aware that without full cooperation,, support, appreciation and participation by the future project resident boat operators there will defintly (sic) be negative impacts to the tidally related natural resource base. The natural resource setting is the major selling point for prospective owners and its continued health and sustainability is a good business practice Toward these ends the applicant clearly committs (sic) to: The marking and maintaining of a path along which all boat traffic must follow when exiting or entering the near-shore boat corridor lane. Placement and maintaining of a series of informational "No Wake, Slow Speed" signs along the required boat corridor out to just north of Cork Island. A mandatory requirement stating that all resident owned boats, proposed to enter and exit the site will: Be restricted to a maximum hull draft of 20 inches. Will possess adjustable hydraulic motor/shaft outdrive lifts. Predevelopment base-line and post development monitoring of the conditions and any changes, of the benthic habitats along and adjacent (250' on either side of the centerline) to the proposed boat corridor. This monitoring, with quarterly reports, will continue for five consecutive years. By letter dated May 19, 1993, the Department replied in relevant part to the Petitioner's response as follows: ...The second issue is that of navigable access from the canal to Pine Island Sound. The one specific point to be made here is that a proposed draft restriction of 20" to cross an area as shallow as 6.7" (using your figures) at mean low water is not acceptable as this would cause scarring even when a motor was not in use. More general concerns, as previously discussed, involve whether or not placement of no wake signs, deed restrictions requiring outboard lift units and maximum keel drafts, and monitoring to document boating impacts on adjacent resources provide reasonable assurance that impacts will not occur, and if they do occur, they can be offset. Currently, the Department's view is that only by strict legal (e.g., conservation easement) and physical (e.g., pilings at the end of the canal) measures can impacts to the adjacent OFW resources be avoided or minimized. If there is new information concerning this aspect of this project which demonstrates to the Department's satisfaction that there will not be impacts associated with boat traffic or that these impacts can be offset, then please submit such, since this is not considered a closed issue. " By letter dated June 2, 1993, the Petitioner responded to the Department's May 19 letter. Paragraph 2 of the response states: Our client has agreed to put his half of the canal in a conservation easement without limiting the future construction of boat docks and the ability to obtain a permit for dredging maintenance of the canal. Also, he agreed to drive draft restricting pilings at the west end of the canal. In order to do this, our client is trying to get in touch with the owner of the south half of the existing canal. The construction of these pilings will depend on the adjacent lot owner's response. If required the "No Wake" sign will be installed. Deed restrictions requiring outboard lift units and maximum keel drafts will be provided." The adjacent lot owner is not cooperative with the Petitioner. The evidence establishes that permitting of this project will lead to increased boat traffic in the shallow bay, resulting in prop scarring of the bay bottom, erosion of adjacent shoreline, and damage to the wildlife habitat provided therein. The use of a draft restrictor appears to be integral to the Department and to the Petitioner's ability to protect the shallow bay from damage. Although discussed frequently, the Petitioner provided no detailed draft restrictor design until immediately prior to the hearing. The draft restrictor would limit boat passage in or out of the canal mouth unless the water depth was sufficient to prevent harm to the bay bottom. The greater evidence fails to establish that a draft restrictor placed at the opening to the canal into the shallow bay is sufficient to prevent damage to the bay habitat. Placement of a restrictor only at the mouth of the canal provides no protection to the marine resource once boaters exit the canal and are in the bay. The proposed marking of a "channel" which is marginally sufficient to permit access to deeper waters, fails to protect the resource. A draft restrictor at the canal mouth further provides no protection against damage caused by boaters returning from deeper waters who will be able to travel through the shallow bay before perhaps discovering at the canal mouth that the water is too shallow to permit passage over the restrictor. It is reasonable to assume at that point, the bay will have been damaged by the excessive draft. It is also reasonable to assume that the damage would be exacerbated by the boater who, unable to enter the canal, either exits the too shallow bay, or remains until the water rises sufficiently to permit passage over the restrictor. The evidence fails to establish that it is possible to police the users of the bay to provide that due care is used to prevent bay damage. The Petitioner asserts that the bay is already being used and damaged by other boaters. Even if correct, this project must meet the applicable criteria to be permitted. As set forth herein, the criteria are not met. Based on the evidence and on consideration and balancing of the following criteria, the project is not clearly in and is contrary to the public interest: WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OR THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS-- The Department does not assert that the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CONSERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, INCLUDING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES, OR THEIR HABITATS-- The evidence establishes that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Pine Island Sound provides habitat for endangered species including manatees, roseate spoonbills, and wood storks. Additionally, bald eagles have been seen in the project site and Pine Island Sound. The direct loss of wetland habitat resulting from this project will adversely affect the conservation of such species. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. The increased boat traffic which may reasonably be expected to result from award of the permit sought will cause damage to the shallow bay waters and result in harm to the health and function of the bay habitat. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NAVIGATION OR THE FLOW OF WATER OR CAUSE HARMFUL EROSION OR SHOALING-- The Notice of Permit Denial suggests a likelihood of turbidity-related water quality violations which could result from unstabilized fill, the adverse floristic impact caused by fill washout into adjacent wetlands, the loss of the filtering benefits provided via the filled wetlands and the adverse impact on wildlife habitat. The evidence establishes that the parties have resolved concerns related to the mitigation of the wetlands lost and impacted by the fill. The Department does not currently assert that the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the project will increase travel through the shallow bay to adjacent waters by boaters residing in the project. The prop dredging which will occur in the shallow water will result in harmful erosion of the bay bottom. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FISHING OR RECREATIONAL VALUES OR MARINE PRODUCTIVITY IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT-- The project will likely result in an increase in the number of boaters utilizing the bay and adjacent waters. The turbidity caused by prop dredging in the bay will degrade the water quality and adversely affect the productivity of the impacted marine resource, in turn reducing the fishing values in the vicinity of the project. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL BE OF A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT NATURE-- The project will cause a permanent alteration to the existing condition of the property and will cause a continuing adverse impact to the affected area. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT OR WILL ENHANCE SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 267.061-- The Department does not assert that this project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. THE CURRENT CONDITION AND RELATIVE VALUE OF FUNCTIONS BEING PERFORMED BY AREAS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY-- The current condition and relative values of the functions being performed in the affected areas will be adversely affected by the granting of this application. The project will result in an adverse impact to and degradation of an Outstanding Florida Water. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. The evidence establishes that adverse secondary and cumulative impacts will result from permitting this project. Aside from the adverse affect of increased boating related to residents of the development, it is reasonable to expect that similarly-situated applicants could seek permits under these circumstances, resulting in additional boating activity and related damage to an Outstanding Florida Waterbody.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying the application of Pine Island Properties, Ltd., for a water quality certification permit in DEP File No. 362004755. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 28th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-2713 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1. Rejected, unnecessary. 12. Rejected. Evidence is insufficient to determine whether use of bay by public is "regular." Rejected. The map attached to the application identifies 23 homesites. The Notice of Permit Denial references 23 homesites. Petitioner's exhibit 92 is a set of drawings which indicate 24 homesites, however it is unclear as to why the lots were replatted. Rejected as to reference to South Florida Water Management District, irrelevant. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the project is contrary to public interest. Rejected, argumentative, subordinate. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was the first detailed drawing of the draft restrictor. 32-33. Rejected, irrelevant as to whether project meets permitting criteria. 37-38. Rejected, unnecessary. 39-40. Rejected. The evidence fails to establish that filling in the canal is the "only solution" suggested by the Department. 42. Rejected as to assertion that the Department did not question the conclusion or accuracy of the Petitioner's water depth study, contrary to evidence including the Department's site visit. The conclusion to which the Department agreed is that "local knowledge, proper tidal conditions and informed operators would be essential to a safe and non-habitat damaging passage from the canal mouth to the deeper waters of Pine Island Sound." Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. The Department noted in correspondence that monitoring would not protect the resource. 46-48. Rejected The easement has not been executed or recorded. Rejected. Contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Nothing in the correspondence indicates that all other issues have been resolved. Rejected, immaterial. 56. Rejected, irrelevant. The easement has not been executed or recorded. 57-58. Rejected, immaterial. 60-61. Rejected. Contrary to the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence. The testimony of the cited witness is not credited. 62. Rejected, immaterial. Respondent The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. There is no citation to record to support the recalculation. 23. Rejected, contrary to evidence which establishes that the Notice of Permit Denial was issued on March 12, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Harry Blair, Esquire BLAIR & BLAIR, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 John L. Chaves, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9730
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on the uncontested facts alleged in Petitioner's Motion For Summary Recommended Order and from the Final Orders issued in Bayshore Homeowners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. On December 29, 1980 DER entered a Final Order on the application of Petitioner for a 90 slip marina in Biscayne Bay, Florida. The Order denied the permit because Grove Isle had not demonstrated that the project is "affirmatively in the public interest" and because the applicant had not demonstrated that it "can meet ambient water quality standards within the project area itself." In the Recommended Order on Remand the Hearing Officer had defined "existing ambient waters" to be the area in the cove between Grove Isle and the Miami mainland. The Final Order rejected that concept and held if any waters others than those contained within the immediate project site were to be considered as ambient, Petitioner must request a mixing zone as part of its application. See Section 17-4.242, (1)(a)2.b. and Section 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code. By a letter received at the Department of Environmental Regulation on May 20, 1981, Grove Isle reapplied for the boat dock permit which was the subject of the foregoing proceedings. Petitioner's application, which was in the form of a letter from counsel, stated: May 18, 1981 Mr. Larry O'Donnell Department of Environmental Regulation Post Office Box 3858 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 RE: GROVE ISLE - Application for Boat Dock Dear Mr. O'Donnell: On behalf of Grove Isle, LTD, I am reapplying for the boat dock permit previously applied for by Grove Isle, LTD. Please consider this a short-form application. Your office designated a previous file number, DF 13-7956, to this matter. In conjunction with that application I am applying for a mixing zone, pursuant to Rule 17-4.244, for both the construction and operation of this marina. Please refer to your file on the previous application and incorporate said documents into this reapplication. I am submitting with this application: A scale drawing (one inch = 100') of the proposed facility. (which you have) A certified survey of the proposed mixing zone. (one inch = 100') An application fee of $20.00 A copy of the Final Order issued by Jacob D. Varn, former secretary of DER, on the previous application. A copy of the Notice of Intent previously issued for this project, dated 9/23/79. (which you have) As you will note from reading Mr. Varn's Final Order, he concluded that issuance of this permit was not appropriate inasmuch as the applicant had not applied for nor received a designated mixing zone. We do not necessarily agree with this order and have, in fact, appealed this decision to the First District Court of Appeal. However, in an attempt to keep this matter from becoming any more complicated, we have decided to reapply for the permit and to apply for a mixing zone. We do not concede that a mixing zone should be required for this project or that the facility will result in the release of any pollutants so as to significantly degrade ambient water quality. However, should this project, through its construction or operation, result in the release of any pollutants, I believe they would be limited to: Bottom sediments placed in suspension by the installation of the concrete piles used to support the docking facility during construction; Minimal amounts of oil and grease which may escape from the various vessels moored to the docks; The constituants of anti-fouling paint which may be applied to the hulls of the various vessels moored at the docks. Turbidity will be controlled by the use of curtains during construction. If lowered water quality occurs at all in this project it would only occur within the designated mixing zone, as per Rule 17-4.242 (2)(b) F.A.C. Please advise me should additional information be needed to process this re-application. Yours truly, /s/ KENNETH G. OERTEL On June 19, 1981, DER sent a "completeness summary letter" to Petitioner which requested the following information: Your project is in Outstanding Florida Waters. Please provide the following items demonstrating compliance with Section 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Please demonstrate that this project is clearly in the public interest and that this project will not result in the degradation of ambient water quality beyond the 30 day construction period. Petitioner responded by letter dated June 22, 1981 and which was received at DER on June 25, 1981. Petitioner said in pertinent part: Dear Mr. Duke: If you would check your previous file no. DF-13-7956, I believe you will find all the information you have requested has previously been provided to your office either in that permit file or through the administrative hearings held in pursuit of this application. I think it would be more fruitful if you would communicate with Al Clark, Attorney for DER, with regard to the status of this application. As I do not wish to speak on behalf of Mr. Clark, I believe you should confirm the status of this application with him, particularly in view of our attempt to comply with Secretary Varn's Final Order which suggests the application for this mixing zone. The record reflects no further correspondence between the parties until September 23, 1981 when the Department entered a Final Order Denying Application for Permit. The Order provided that: This project was reviewed previously (DF 13-7956) and was determined not to be clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. No further evidence upon resubmittal, has been provided to clearly demonstrate that this project is in the public interest. Furthermore, the requested mixing zone exceeds that allowable pursuant to Section 17-4.244, F.A.C. and can be applied only during the construction period, pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. During the operation of this facility ambient water quality is expected to be degraded in violation of Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. This order was entered ninety-one days after DER received Petitioner's June 22, 1981 letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the permit applied for by Petitioner, Grove Isle, Ltd. on May 20, 1981 subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent To Issue Permit dated October 23, 1979 which is a part of the record in Bayshore Homeowners Association et al., v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 12th day of February, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Homeport Homeowners Association, represents the property owners of Homeport Development. Homeport Development is a planned unit development consisting of eighty single family lots. The development is located at Navarre Beach, Florida, on the south shore of Santa Rosa Sound. At least six of the development's lots are located on the water. The area surrounding Homeport development is primarily residential in character, with some condominiums adjoining the residential area and a canal leading to a public boat ramp within several hundred feet of the development. The area is fairly pristine. However, there are several piers of varying lengths located in the surrounding area. At least one of those piers is close to 400 feet in length. None of the piers have posed any significant pollution or water quality problems and have not had an adverse impact on the public as a whole. Nor were any of these piers shown to adversely impact the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, cause harmful erosion or shoaling or pose a navigational hazard to boats using the area. Water depths offshore are shallow and do not get over three to four feet for approximately 650 feet. On May 25, 1989, the applicant submitted an application (permit application No. 17-165358-1) to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a dredge and fill permit to construct a 727 foot by five foot pier with a 100 foot by four foot "T", ten boat slips and a hexagonal gazebo. The pier would be constructed out of wood and rest on wooden pilings. The pilings are spaced so as not to impede the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The wood used to construct the pier would be marine treated lumber. The wood would not be treated using creosote. The evidence did not demonstrate that the marine treated wood the applicant intends to use in the construction of the pier would cause any significant pollution or water quality problems or adversely affect fish or wildlife. The proposed pier would be located on property leased to the the Association as part of Homeport Development. The pier would extend from the road adjacent to the lot on which the pier is located, would cross an area of wetlands which is under the jurisdiction of the department and would cross over the adjoining beach to reach the waters of Santa Rosa Sound. The pier would have a stair ingress and egress to the beach and the public may use these stairs to cross over the pier. The water portion of the dock would cross over a sandy bottom; and therefore, would not adversely affect vegetation. The pier is intended to be a permanent amenity of the development. Construction of other piers by lot owners who have waterfront property is limited and this pier is intended to be a substitute for such private docks. After evaluating the application for consistency with the relevant pollution control standards, the Department determined that the pier, as it was originally proposed, did not meet departmental standards for water quality and the public interest. Specifically, the Department determined that the 727 foot pier would likely pose a hazard to the navigation of small boats in the area and that the gazebo would have an adverse impact on the salt marsh in which it would be located. On August 8, 1989, the Department issued an Intent to Deny based on its assessment of the proposed project. The Intent to Deny provided that the project could be permitted if the gazebo were moved to an upland location not within the jurisdiction of the Department and the pier shortened to approximately 400 feet to remove the hazard to navigation posed by the 727 foot pier. The applicant took the Department's advice and modified its application. Specifically, the applicant modified the project to relocate the gazebo to an upland site and shorten the pier to 400 feet. The applicant also eliminated the ten boat slips. All other specifics of the original application remained the same. On August 9, 1990, the Department issued an Intent to Issue with a draft permit authorizing the construction of a 400 foot pier subject to several permit conditions. The modifications of the application along with the permit conditions provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards as provided in 403.918, Florida Statutes. Additionally, the historical evidence the Department has gained through observing the impact of other piers in a similar environment on water quality provides strong support for the above conclusion and in itself is a reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be adversely impacted by the construction of this pier. For similar reasons, the evidence demonstrated that the proposed pier would not be contrary to the public interest. In essence, the better evidence demonstrated that the pier would not adversely impact the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, the current condition or relative value of the area surrounding the proposed project, the conservation of fish or wildlife and their habitats, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, or involve historical or archaeological resources. The evidence demonstrated that some temporary impact on the vegetation of the wetlands would occur in the immediate path of construction of the pier. However, the evidence also demonstrated that the impact would not be significant and would repair itself within a reasonable period of time. The length of the pier does not pose a hazard to navigation of either small or large boats, or motorized or non-mechanized craft. However, the permit does not require the pier to be lighted during periods of darkness or adverse conditions. Given the fact that the location of the proposed pier does not appear to be in a well lit area, and because of the pier's proximity to a canal leading to a public boat ramp that is subject to periodic high use, the pier would likely pose a hazard to navigation should adequate lighting not be required. Therefore, a condition that the pier be constructed with lights sufficient to illuminate it to a person in the water during periods of darkness or poor viewing conditions should be added to the draft permit attached to the Department's Intent to Issue. Subject to the addition of the above condition, permit application NO. 17-165358-1 sought by Homeport Homeowners Association, for a permit to construct a 400 foot pier should be issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing a permit to construct a 400 foot pier as sought by Homeport Homeowners Association in permit application NO. 17-165358-1 and subject to the additional permit condition that lighting be added to the pier. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-6184 The facts contained in the third sentence of paragraph 1 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in the first two sentences of paragraph one were not shown by the evidence and are not appropriate facts for official recognition. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 11, 13, 14 and 19 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 6, 7, 15, 17 and 18 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 5, 12 and 16 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant or immaterial. The facts contained in the first paragraph of finding number 4 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the second paragraph of finding 4 are adopted. Paragraph 2 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are legal argument. The facts contained in paragraph 7 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate except for the fact referencing the a navigational hazard which fact was not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the first sentence of paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in the second sentence of paragraph 8 were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in the second, third and fifth sentences of paragraph 10 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in the first and fourth sentences of paragraph 10 were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraph 10 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except for the fact relating a navigation hazard which was not shown by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Callaway P.O. Box 36097 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Bruce A. McDonald 700 South Palafox Street Suite 3C Pensacola, Florida 32501 Michael P. Donaldson Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-2400 Barbara Ownes 113 Riverdale Covington, Louisiana 70433 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact 1. Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1 provides: All docking facilities, whether for private residential single-family docks, private residential multi-slip docks, or commercial, industrial, or other revenue generating/income-related docks or public docks or piers, shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: no dock shall extend waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line more than 500 feet or 20 percent of the width of the waterbody at that particular location whichever is less; * * * Pursuant to stipulation, Petitioner has standing, a dock, and upland access to his property. The parties also stipulated that Petitioner's dock is limited by the 500-foot criterion, as the proposed dock extension would not exceed 20 percent of the width of the waterbody. Petitioner's upland property consists of a single family residence and is located adjacent to sovereign submerged lands located in the Gasparilla Island/Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve. He has lawfully constructed a dock extending about 500 feet from the mean high water mark and into the waters of Charlotte Harbor. The consent of use granted Petitioner acknowledges the relative shallowness of the water adjacent to his property and correspondingly limits the draft of vessels to be moored to the dock. At mean low tide, the depth of the water at the end of Petitioner's dock is about two feet. Petitioner requested authorization to extend his dock waterward another 100 feet. On December 15, 1993, Respondents denied the request, in reliance upon the challenged rule and Section 258.42(3)(e)1, which allows the erection in an aquatic preserve of private residential docks for "reasonable ingress and egress of riparian owners." In a separate administrative proceeding, DOAH Case No. 94-2140, Petitioner is contesting the denial of his request to extend the dock. No single family docks in aquatic preserves extend over 500 feet into the water. In Charlotte Harbor, the average length of a single-family residential dock is 200 feet. Nearby Petitioner's dock is a 600-foot long public fishing pier, which was constructed before the subject 500-foot rule was promulgated. From mean high water waterward, the first habitat surrounding Petitioner's dock is an intertidal sand flat that extends about 100-150 waterward from shore. The next habitat is mostly unvegetated submerged bottom with patches of submerged aquatic vegetation that extends from the end of the intertidal sand flat to about 350-400 feet from shore. The vegetation of the latter habitat is mostly Cuban shoal grass, which occurs in no more than four patches of about 50 square feet, in an area measuring 25 feet in both directions from the dock. Last, extending from 350-400 feet waterward to the end of the dock, is a largely unvegetated area with sporadic pieces of attached algae. Unvegetated bottoms play no role in the propagation of fish or wildlife. The biological or scientific value of unvegetated bottoms is unaffected by a dock, although there is some evidence that toxic substances may leach from the construction materials and adversely impact nearby vegetation. However, the dredging caused by boat propellers scouring any form of submerged bottom suspends sediment that can be carried to areas of vegetated bottom, where the increase in turbidity may reduce the penetration of sunlight and thereby harm the aquatic vegetation. In the vicinity of Petitioner's dock, though, there is no evidence of significant prop dredging from recreational boating. The absence of submerged vegetation is more likely a feature of the high-energy shoreline where wave energy disrupts sediments and provides unsuitable habitat. In promulgating the predecessor to Rule 18- 20.004(5)(a)1, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund attempted to balance interests that sometimes are competing, such as environmental, aesthetic, recreational, and private commercial. There was some concern that previously authorized docks in sovereign submerged lands had infringed upon the riparian access of adjacent upland owners. The 500-foot limitation was not in the original rule, which was promulgated in 1981, but was added by an amendment in 1985. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund tried to set thresholds that would not result in the denial of more than a negligible number of dock applications, based on historic dock application data and predominant vessel lengths of under 27 feet. However, the record does not explain how the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund analyzed the above-described data so as to arrive at the 500-foot limitation now under challenge. Without providing more detail concerning the data and analysis, it is possible that a limitation of 100 feet or 900 feet would have satisfied the considerations stated in the preceding paragraph. Shallow water predominates in the aquatic preserves, and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund realized that a dock extending no more than 500 feet might not reach water depths that are readily navigable. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund could not rationally adopt a rule to ensure minimum water depths for all docks, and chose the 500-foot limitation evidently to provide an easy-to-administer standard.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the adjoining neighbor of Harrie E. Smith, the applicant, and runs the Coral Lagoon Resort. This is a commercial establishment which consists of rental units fronting on Bonefish Bay with an interior canal and a series of small boat docking facilities which give each unit docking space and water access. The Petitioner keeps two tame porpoises at the end of this canal which are a tourist attraction. The Petitioner's operation is tourist oriented particularly to those who come to the Keys for fishing or diving excursions. The application to the Department of Environmental Regulation is to the installation of a wooden dock which runs parallel to the Petitioner's northern boundary line. The applicant, Mr. Smith, runs a commercial boat repair facility alongside Mr. Goss' establishment and it is clear there have been misunderstandings between them in the past. The dock has been installed and as noted above, the application to the Department of Environmental Regulation is for an after-the-fact authorization. The department has indicated it intends to grant the permit as it does not see that the dock will degrade water quality or create a condition adverse to the public interest. The petition maintains that the dock will cause water quality problems in that it will encourage the docking of boats which will spill oil, gas and other contaminants into the waters and thereby degrade water quality. It should be noted that the Petitioner maintains extensive docking facilities in his establishment and could be subjected to the same argument.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the City's application for permit be granted subject to the conditions set forth in the Conclusions of Law. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Association, represents 1,053 condominium homeowners located in the Old Port Cove Community, a residential development in Palm Beach County, Florida. Old Port Cove Community consists of seven separate condominium buildings and associations. Many of the individual condominium homes/apartments within the complex border on arid overlook the Old Port Cove area of north Lake Worth which is the location of the two existing marinas operated by the Respondent Applicant and the site of the proposed marina expansion. The water in question is an essential part of the residential community and was, in many cases, a major factor considered by the homeowners purchasing in this community. At the time of development, going back a minimum of seven years, property owners were advised by the developer/Applicant (or its predecessor) that the marinas constructed or to be constructed would be for the exclusive use of the residents of the condominium apartment houses within the complex. On or about March 12, 1986, Respondent DER, received an application from the Applicant for a dredge and fill permit for the construction of a commercial addition to the northernmost marina currently existing at Old Port Cove Complex. The new construction was to consist of 1 pier of a total length of 911 feet with 50 boat slips and 26 finger piers. The new slips will be 45 feet in length of which 15 feet will consist of pier and the remaining 30 feet of open water terminated by a piling. The main pier would extend in a northeast direction from the easternmost point of the existing north pier for a total of 171 feet, then turn northwest for a total of 490 feet, and then turn southwest for an additional 250 feet to enclose an area of water leaving a 90 foot wide space for entry of boats into the enclosed area. The application for the permit contains as an attachment thereto an engineering drawing depicting the proposed marina expansion and its relationship to the existing marina. This expansion was proposed because of the growing need for boat slips in the area. The operator, currently providing a total of 289 slips in both marinas, (197 in the south and 92 in the north) proposes to construct 50 new slips for pleasure boats from 25 to 120 feet in length. Applicant proposes and commits itself to utilize the new slips for sailboats only. Notwithstanding the fact that there are approximately 1,261 additional slips available within a one mile area of the proposed site, the applicant contends it has been continuously turning away applicants for slip rentals in its facilities. If approved, the proposed new facility will constitute an approximate 4 percent increase in the total number of boat slips in the area, not counting the free moorings offshore in the Federal mooring in the center of the cove. Applicant presently operates one diesel fuel pump at the South Marina. No other fueling facilities exist at either marina operated by Applicant nor are any additional fueling facilities intended. Applicant has also entered into a contract with a local fuel spill control company to provide spill cleanup if necessary. At the present time, there are no pump-out stations for sewage at either the North or South Marina. Applicant proposes to install sewage facilities as a part of the approval package. Leasing agreements currently in effect require all boats using the marinas to certify they have U.S. Coast Guard approved heads on board before being allowed to dock at the marina. This requirement is not actively enforced, however. Most boats utilizing the facility are pleasure/non-commercial fishing boats. Individuals, mainly residents of the apartment complex, use the docks for fishing but there is some question as to the nature and availability of the fish population in the area. Manatees do frequent the area, however, not necessarily as far north as the marina in any great numbers, but several hundred yards to the south, congregating at times around the entrance to the intracoastal waterway which forks off to the northwest somewhat south of the south marina. Subsequent to the receipt of the Association's Petition herein, DER had numerous water quality tests performed and requested certain assurances from the Applicant designed to remedy or rectify numerous objections made by the Association in its Petition. Thereafter, on February 16, 1987, DER issued a Revised Intent to Issue in this case in which it addressed the Association's concerns and specified certain conditions to be included in the permit to protect the water quality and biological resources in the project area. These conditions included: A prohibition against commencement of any excavation or other construction activity prior to receipt of evidence of permission from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or DNR; A requirement for notification of the Division of Archives in the event any historical or archaeological artifacts are discovered within the project site; Provision for permanent sewage pump-out facilities to be provided at the south marina to replace portable facilities currently available, within 90 days of permit issuance, and the provision of temporary sewage pump-out facilities at the north marina which shall be in place and functioning prior to any work being commenced under the permit; The requirement for use of turbidity screens around the project site during construction to remain in place until turbidity behind. The screens falls to an acceptable level; The placing of educational signs, the content of which shall be coordinated with DNR, at both the north and south marinas, informing boaters that manatee may be in the area and requesting that care be taken; The posting of manatee warning signs in both marinas; The establishment of idle speed and no wake zones in both marinas and the access channels; A provision that permanent liveaboards connect their vessels with permanent sewage hook-ups at all times when the vessel is docked; and A provision against refueling facilities at the expanded north marina. Applicant and DER are satisfied that the conditions imposed by the terms of the Revised Intent to Issue satisfy all the current requirements of the statute and rules relevant to dredge and fill permits for projects of this nature. Many of the apartment owners, banding together as the Petitioner Association herein, strongly resist approval of the permit to construct the new marina for numerous reasons. They contend, first, that the construction of the new marina and the greater number of boats resulting therefrom, constitute a threat to the manatee population in the area. The Association is also concerned with water quality in the area, fire safety, wake damage, and noise pollution as a result of the proposal. Other considerations of the residents include parking and a diminishment in the resale value of their property. Several of the residents have seen manatee in the area swimming in the waters adjacent to the marina and in the "key" area on the other side of the peninsula. Many have scars on them and appear to have been injured by collisions with boats. Several residents have seen trash and debris in the water and have observed boats traveling at a high rate of speed just outside the existing marinas. In addition to debris, residents have seen oil and grease floating on the water and contend that the proposed wave baffles hanging down into the water from the extended pier will interfere with the natural flushing action of the winds and tides. Many of these same individuals complain of an extremely bad odor coming from the marina and they have observed boat owners either pumping their bilges directly into the marina water or washing their boats with detergents which are allowed to run overboard into the water. At least one resident, speaking for others as well, referred to a green space, an area of grass outside and between the buildings and the water. Originally, this area was supposed to be gardens and a recreational area for the residential complex, and the yacht club was to be a secondary appurtenance for the property owners. Now, with apartment owners making up no more than 10 percent of the occupants of the marina slips, for it seems as though the apartment residence owners are being shunted to the background and commercial activities, including the marina, are becoming paramount in the eyes of the applicant which still operates it. This green space is now proposed to be converted by the applicant to parking for the use of the marina patrons; all to the detriment of the apartment owners. There is some evidence that boat owners utilize the grounds of the apartment complex as a place to walk their dogs for canine toilet purposes and there is some evidence that numerous liveaboard boat owners, who do not have adequate toilet and bathing facilities on board their boats, utilize the pool, showers, and toilets ordinarily reserved for residents of the apartment complex. Noise from parties on the boats is often both excessive and disturbing and to the knowledge of at least some of those testifying on behalf of the Association, efforts by security personnel employed by the condominium associations to get the boat owners to curb the noise and disruption have been totally unsuccessful. One resident summed up the feelings of his co-owners when he indicated that these various factors translate to property value and because of the current situation with pollution, noise, lack of security, and the increasing commercialism, the result has been a substantial drop in property value. This witness feels that the more slips that are made available, along with their related annoyances, the less the value of the individual apartments will be. All feel that the addition of 50 more slips will increase the existing problems and none of the residents who testified for the association were of the opinion that the developer's controls will be adequate to alleviate or minimize the untenable situation which they now face. However, there was no evidence presented to substantiate the layman opinion of reduction in property value and it cannot be said, therefore, that this has or will really happen, and the amount of loss. Turning to the issue of water quality as effected by refueling operations and sewage disposal at the marina, the question of fueling facilities was not raised by the Association other than to object basically because of the potential for fuel spills. Applicant and DER contend that this problem should be taken care of through the contracting for the services of Glasgow Equipment Service, providing for 24 hour emergency response for fuel spills of any type. It is unreasonable to expect that a marina providing dockage for potentially as many as 289 motor vessels can be expected to be totally spill free. If proper refueling procedures are followed, and there is no evidence to indicate that they would not be, the incidence of fuel spills should be minimal and the contract with the clean-up service providing for around the clock response in case of a spill, appears to be adequate action to remedy the effects of any spill. There have been very few fuel spills in the history of the marina operation. The most recent resulted in a spill of no more than 3 to 5 gallons and clean-up was successfully accomplished with little damage. The Association made much of the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against the offender and that the boat in question is still an occupant of the marina. This incident is still under investigation, however, and final action has not yet been taken. At the current time, there are no pump-out stations for sewage at either the north or south marina. The applicants propose to install a pump-out sewage facility tied to each vessel berth in the south marina and to provide a portable pumpout facility which can be rolled to a particular spot to meet the needs of any vessel at the north marina. The Applicant has agreed to fund the project completely and has agreed to the special conditions contained in the Revised Intent to Issue regarding the pumping stations. Applicant and DER both arranged for testing of the water quality at the north marina to determine the current condition of the water. Dr. John D. Wang, an expert in coastal hydrodynamics on the faculty at the University of Miami, is familiar with the site of the proposed expansion and visited it last in November, 1986. At that time, he did a study on the flow exchange caused by tides and wind over a two day period. As a part of his test, he placed instruments in the water to take measurements of water motion, temperature, and salinity on the outer side of the current pier at the north marina and inside that marina at different depths. On the first day of the test, the tide was an ebb tide (receding) pulling water out of the marina area. However, at the same time, the wind was from the southeast which directly opposed the tide action. At the surface, the drogues (instruments) followed the wind. Those deeper in the water went with the tide. When the tide came in the next day, the drogues went to the north under the power of both wind and tide. Dr. Wang's experiment confirmed not only that the water moved in and out of the marina area, but also that the water circulated clockwise north along the west side of Lake Worth and south on eastern side. Dr. Wang thought this might be due to wind force, but regardless of the cause, it was a good indication that water was exchanged in the area. Dr. Wang concluded that the water in the marina was completely taken out within one hour and joined the circulatory pattern, being replaced by other water. The baffles placed on the piers to reduce wave motion will have some effect on the water circulation tending to reduce surface flow, but these baffles will not prevent the exchange of water due to circulation because they are limited to the top three feet of the water. In Dr. Wang's opinion, they may have some positive effect on circulation by preventing wave water from flowing back out. By the same token, the presence of boats in the marina will have but a marginal effect on water exchange. The draft of the boats utilizing this area is not much more than the wave baffles and there will still be ample water underneath to permit flow and exchange. In fact, in Dr. Wang's opinion, the location of this marina is almost optimal. By virtue of the fact that it is out in the open, water can flow freely through the area and no dredging is required. The flat, sloping bottom promotes water exchange. No evidence was presented to contradict this opinion and it is hereby accepted. Additional tests on water quality were run by Dr. Paul R. McGinnes, head of an independent consultant laboratory specializing in water quality and motion who visited the site several times doing three separate studies of dissolved oxygen, salinity, and water temperature at various depths and at different hours. As a part of his examinations, he also looked for oil (pollutants), and bacterial components. The water subject to tests for bacterial components was taken from the top foot at several locations in each of the three studies. In the 1983 study, tests showed fecal and coliform bacteria were present in sufficient quantities to constitute a few violations. In 1986, when he sampled for fecal bacteria only, the count was very low. In the 1987 test of samples taken twenty times over 24 hours, the fecal bacteria count was, in each case, within state limits. As to heavy metals, in 1983, levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, and zinc were not present. There was no evidence as to current levels. As to oils and greases, all studies showed very little present (below 5mg per litre) and what grease was there could consist of animal or vegetable fats. This is considered unlikely and it is found there is petroleum product in the water, though in insignificant quantities. Regarding dissolved oxygen, all tests showed compliance with state standards. Levels were comparable to other areas of Lake Worth. Dr. McGinnes is generally familiar with the state standards for Class III waters and believes the construction and operation of the new 50 slips at the north marina will in no way result in violation of state water quality standards. His opinion as to this construction is based on his tests, his conversations with applicant's personnel, and his experience with other similar projects. Granted, boats do tend to leak oil and that situation will raise the oil level in the immediate area of the leak. However, not all boats leak in all marinas and what leaks there are will tend to dissipate to a safe level within a very short period of time. In February, 1983, the coliform bacteria in the south marina were higher than in the north marina or in Lake forth in general. However, coliform bacteria does not appear to be a major problem in this case. In response to cross examination, Dr. McGinnes concluded that even if five boats dumped raw sewage in the north marina, it would not have any major negative impact on the overall water quality there. It would, of course, affect the sample taken in the area immediately after dumping, but not the overall quality over the long run. Dr. McGinnes' last sample was taken in February, 1987, which is a time of highest use. The water quality in and around the marina is generally as good as in the northern end of Lake Worth which is better than in the southern end of the lake. His examination of the water quality indicated no recognized violations of Florida water quality standards in the last two reports. The association's expert, Mr. Timmer, went to Old Port Cove in January, 1987 and saw numerous boats in the slips. He looked for inlets opening into the marine and for a bird population, either one of which could cause an increase in undesirable bacteria in the area. He found none. He took water samples for testing to see if the fecal coliform bacteria level in the marina was higher than outside it. During his tests, he took samples from 14 sites at three separate depths at each. His samples were duplicated for safety in case any one sample was compromised. Six of his samples were taken inside the dock area of the north marina; one was taken to the north several thousand yards; and four more were taken outside the area of the proposed marina. One was taken in the federal anchorage; several across the cove on the east side of the lake and one outside the cove, south of the Intracoastal Waterway inlet and west of the channel. The furthest test site was approximately one mile from the marina. When Mr. Timmer got his samples, he isolated the sets from each other; "refrigerated" them (placing them in a cooler without any ice), and upon completion of his sampling, took them to the McGinnes lab where analyses were done for fecal coliform bacteria. As a result of his tests, and relying on the report received from McGinnes Laboratories, Mr. Timmer concluded that the fecal coliform level within the marina was higher than outside the marina by 5 to 10 times. Surface samples, he felt, averaged out in excess of what he considered to be the state standard. Some of the lower level samples were high also. In no case, however, did any sample exceed a count of 15 outside the marina. Coliform standards, according to state rules, are to be averaged over a month's period of taking. In fact, the report received from the McGinnes lab concluded that because testing was not done over a month's period, the standard was not exceeded. These samples, even that one reflecting a reading of 560 bacteria per 100 ml at site 3a, did not come anywhere near the upper limits of the state standard and in fact was well within it. Mr. Churchill, a zoologist and ecologist and expert in marine biology made various studies of the benthic communities and fish population in the area of the proposed construction. He studied the soft bottom communities and took samples of the bottom in different areas both inside and outside the current marina and in the area where the extension is proposed. He found that the outside and the outer inside communities were much the same and had a low number of species. The inner inside was considerably different. It had a higher number of both species and individuals. A larger number is a better system and DER rules provide that one cannot build a project which would tend to reduce the number. Here, since the area where the construction is planned is outside the area of high species count and similar to the rest of the cove area, the construction would most likely not violate the state's rule. In fact, in Mr. Churchill's opinion, concurred in by other experts, the proposed project will, rather than negatively impact the environment for wildlife, enhance it by providing additional habitat. The pilings, forming supports for the piers and ties for the boats will provided habitat for small marine life which in turn provide food for larger life which is attracted. This testimony would tend to contradict the testimony of at least one of the residents who indicated that in his experience, the fish population in the area had declined radically over the years since he moved in and that about all one can catch in the immediate area now are some small sheepshead. This is in comparison to the larger variety and size of fish available to the angler several years in the past. No doubt, the fish selection and availability has diminished since the area was developed, but the question is whether the new construction will aggravate that situation and the answer appears to be that it will not. An additional water quality study was conducted by Dr. Martin Roessler, a marine scientist who did a water quality study in the area consistent with that done by Dr. McGinnes. He also did several of his own on- site inspections as to water clarity and marine plant and other life including reptiles and birds in the area. On his third visit to the site, he took water quality samples for testing for bacteria and other marine life. As a result of his tests, he concluded that water quality in the area should not be diminished by construction of the marina. During construction, the use of turbidity curtains and booms will tend to keep any temporary disruption to a minimum. He agrees with Dr. McGinnes and Mr. Churchill that the nature of marine life within the area should not be disturbed by the construction. He was unable to observe any sea grasses in the area (they are on the other side of the cove and not where he observed) and dredging would not be involved; only the driving of pilings which will disrupt the bottom only in the immediate area of the piling. Dr. Roessler's credibility was not damaged by the Association's evidence that a previous study done for another agency was rejected and he was not paid for the work done. There was insufficient evidence of detail and a broad-brush smear can not be held effective here. When Old Port Cove submitted it's application for its permit, it included the original draft and all requested information in a final product. This project documentation was evaluated by Ms. Janet Llewellyn, a supervisor with DER, who is an individual fully conversant and familiar with the dredge and fill rules and standards set forth in the statutes and the F.A.C. As to water quality, Ms. Llewellyn analyzed the information submitted by the applicant in response to her request for water samples at certain locations she had identified. These samples showed no current violation of the rules governing dissolved oxygen and fecal or coliform bacteria even with the boats that are currently in the marina. DER also requested "hydrographic information as a part of the reasonable assurance" test and this information was to deal with existing water quality and the flushing action of the tides and winds. Ms. Llewellyn has visited the site, albeit only shortly before the hearing, and as a result believes that the drawings submitted with the permit application are correct and represent the work to be done accurately. Recognizing that the field inspection report submitted by on-scene local DER personnel is somewhat negative in its evaluation of the project, she nonetheless disagrees with certain portions of this report which say that boats and piers will interfere with the flushing action of the wind and tide. She also disagrees with the statement that oil and grease will continue to degrade water quality. She feels that the inspector who did the report did not have available to him the hydrographic and water quality tests that she had. This information, submitted somewhat earlier, was sent to Tallahassee by the experts and was not forwarded to the field representative when the request for the survey was laid on. The Revised Intent to Issue, including as it does, the additional requirements laid on the applicant in such areas as sewage pump-out, liveaboards, fueling facility prohibitions, and the like came about as a result of misunderstandings between DER and the applicant and culminated in the applicant agreeing to try to ameliorate the situation and the issuance of the permit by compromise as suggested. DER is satisfied with the proposals contained in the Revised Intent to Issue and feels that approval of this permit will upgrade the facilities at the south marina as well as insure compliance with state water quality standards at the north marina. Together it will result in an upgrade in the water quality in the area. Ms. Llewellyn is convinced that there will be no negative effects on the water quality by the construction at the north marina and that the criteria contained in both the statutes and the rules, from an environmental standpoint, will not be violated. DER has no authority to consider other factors which appear to be among the most substantial complaints of the association members. She did not consider the possibility of damage to the scenic view by the addition because she did not consider it to be an issue. In her opinion, the question of damage to the property of others relates to damage to structure, property, wildlife, etc., and the impacts to these would be negligible. What she considers important is that the permit involved here is for construction, not operation of the marina and enforcement of continuing operational rules is another consideration entirely. When using the term "assurance" as a requirement for an applicant, the assurance required is not that the new slips will have no adverse impact, but that any adverse impact will not reduce the water quality below standards set out in the statutes and rules. Though not envisioned, water quality can be reduced from very high quality to high quality (a reduction in quality) and still be within standards. Additional scientific examination of the water and the immediate site was conducted by Dr. Kenneth L. Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer, physicist, and physical water quality expert with DER who reviewed the hydrographic study submitted with the application. He found that the drogue study showed water speeds of between .05 to .1 feet per second which was typical of the area. The placing of drogues and the resultant study and conclusions was not flawed by the lack of education of the individual who did the placing at the direction of the scientist. What is important is the education and knowledge of the supervising scientist who will take the information gathered and examine it. Considering that prevailing winds in this area during daylight hours are from the sea to the land, (SE to M), and at night the reverse occurs, any study made only during daylight or during nighttime would be flawed to the extent that it would examine only one part of the equation. Given the baseline information available to him, Dr. Echternacht concluded the project as described would not adversely effect water quality from a hydrographic standpoint. Flushing and circulation are important to water quality. If the water does not move, the pollutants added by outside factors, (here boats), accumulate and build up. On the other hand, the faster the water moves, mixed with turbulence, the faster the pollutant is disbursed and prevented from accumulating. At .05 f/sec, a particle of water would move 180 feet per hour. As a result, water will move the length of the marina, (450') in 2 1/2 hours. Therefore, if a spill occurred at the south boundary during an incoming tide, it would move to the north boundary of the marina within 2 1/2 hours and given a tide cycle of 6 1/2 hours, would still have 3 1/2 to 4 hours to move even further away, mix with other water, and be disbursed before being brought back to the marina by the outgoing tide. (However, there is evidence that the water moves in a clockwise direction and the likelihood is great that the contaminated water would not even come back to the marina but would head out down the eastern side of the cove.) This is a worst case situation because of the slow water movement rate utilized and it is, itself, a relatively fast movement. Admittedly, this water movement will be affected by obstacles in the water such as boat hulls, posts, pilings, and baffles. However, while these factors would slow up the water, they would also create turbulence and vortices in the water which, themselves, help mixing. From a practical standpoint, other factors are involved such as the size of the obstacle, etc. Here we are faced with a situation where the marina is not enclosed and the water flows freely. The water quality can be expected to be better than in an enclosed marina and even better in the new area than in the existing areas because it will be further away from the seawall. Taken together, in light of the evidence presented by both sides, it is found that a diminishment in water quality as a result of the construction of the proposed facility here would be minimal and would in no case, likely result in a reduction of the water quality to a level below that considered acceptable in the state statutes and rules. In addition to water quality, the residents were concerned about the threat of injury to the manatee population which, while not appearing in the immediate area of the proposed construction on a regular basis, does visit the area periodically. In addition, there is substantial evidence to establish that boats coming into and out of the marina, going down through the channel into the main part of Lake Worth and out through the cut, would pass through areas actively populated and visited by manatees and therefore, the opening of 50 additional slips for new boats, even in this less populated area, could have a substantial impact on the manatee population. There is no doubt that manatees do visit the area. There are sea grasses, if not in the immediate area of the proposed marina, certainly on the opposite shore of the north part of Lake Worth. It is uncontroverted as well that manatees have been seen near the marina and in the key area on the other side of the peninsula. However, the evidence introduced by the association's own witnesses, Mr. Rose and Dr. Odell, indicates that the manatee population tends to congregate in areas south of the entrance to the Intracoastal Waterway which, itself, is south of the Old Port Cove area. Many manatee congregate in the warm waters produced by the Riviera Beach power plant in the southern part of Lake Worth and go from there to other areas within the Lake Worth area to feed, even as far north as Hobe Sound and Loxahatchee. Generally, there are not enough sea grasses in the local area to keep them there. Manatees can range up to 12 feet in length and up to 3500 pounds in weight. Manatee deaths in Palm Beach County, of which boat deaths account for approximately 50 percent, are a serious danger to the survival of the manatee population. The greatest danger to manatees comes from power boats. While there is no evidence that sailboats are dangerous since they move slowly enough for the manatee normally to evade then, there nonetheless may be some danger as a result of their presence. Some manatees are crushed by barges and larger power boats. Some are killed by impact with medium and larger boats. In approximately 40 percent of the cases, impact kills without propeller injuries and it is hard to tell the size of the boat which did the damage. As to propeller deaths, boats from 24 feet up can kill by this method. The number of manatee deaths has increased lately as a result of boat and other man related causes and if this trend continues, the manatee population will decline and, possibly, become extinct. Mr. Rose, who is quite familiar with the habits of the manatee in this area, states that it is most likely that in traveling north to Hobe Sound and environs, the manatee would travel up the Intracoastal Waterway (the entrance to which is south of the proposed construction) and not go into the Old Port Cove area. Even if they were following the grass which runs along the east and north shores of Old Port Cove, the grass does not grow on the marina side and it is unlikely the manatees would come to the marina in the west to feed though they might come for other reasons and in fact have been seen in the "key" area. Dr. Odell, perhaps the foremost authority on manatees in the United States, has visited the area and, at this hearing, heard the testimony of the other witnesses. He contends that because of the food available in the form of sea grasses and mangrove seeds, primarily on the eastern side of the cove, the likelihood is that manatees would be found in that area. This is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Rose. Consequently, it is found that while manatees come to the area of the proposed marina from time to time, it is more the stray manatee than evidence of continued habitat. Dr. Odell's studies indicate that between 1974 and 1985, there were no manatee deaths recorded in north Lake Worth. However, it is possible that the dead manatee found elsewhere may have been injured or even died elsewhere, (possibly near Old Port Cove) and there well may have been others who were injured in the area who went elsewhere to die. There is, however, no evidence that this is the case. Dr. Odell considers that boats with a draft of between 5 and 7 feet would leave little clearance from the bottom in the bottleneck area south of the marina where the water depth is no more than 9 or 10 feet, to allow room for the manatee to avoid them. In fact, he feels that large, inboard powered boats pose the greatest threat to the manatee. While sailboats generally do not create a risk to the mammal, if the new 50 slips were to be limited to sailboats but all existing slips were to be converted to power boats, this would constitute a severe threat to the manatee population. Further, a change in use patterns, creating more traffic, would increase the risk to the manatee. The real issue is, however, how much time boats spend in manatee habitats. The more boats there are, the less desirable the situation. (Both experts agree, however that if the 50 new slips are limited to sailboats and the ratio of power boats to sailboats in the existing slips is not increased, there is really no legitimate reason, based on a threat to the manatee population, to deny this construction permit.) It would appear, then, that the risk to the manatee population is acceptable. Signs advising boaters to slow down and beware of manatee are good only so long as they promote awareness. There is, according to Dr. Odell, no evidence that they have reduced manatee mortality and given present trends of more power boats and the destruction of the manatee's habitat, one can expect the manatee population to decrease even further.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a dredge and fill permit to the applicant to construct an additional 50 slips at its north marina as proposed. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 20th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner, Old Port Cove Property Owners Association: 1. Accepted except that the undersigned would quell at the right of an individual who wore 44 foot "boots." 2-7. Accepted. 8. Accepted except for the Finding that sea grasses grow as close as 50 feet to the north marina. 9-10. Accepted. The north marina contains 92 slips which includes 66. Other findings contained herein are accepted. Accepted. Accepted but more in the nature of argument than fact and qualified by the fact that new liveaboards must agree to connect to the proposed central sewage system. Accepted. Rejected as argument rather than Finding of Fact. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 17-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence as relates to the first sentence. Accepted as to the cited contents of the survey. 22-23. Accepted. 24. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 25-26. Accepted. 27-37. Accepted. 38. Immaterial. By Respondent, Old Port Cove Properties, Limited: 1-7. Accepted. 8-11. Accepted. 12-19. Accepted. 16-19. Accepted as recitations of testimony presented. Rejected as to a shortage of marina slips, accepted as to the rest. Accepted. Accepted as argument. By Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation: 23-25. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel S. Rosenbaum, Esquire Suite 720 450 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Douglas Wyckoff, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert A. Routa, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner is entitled to an environmental resource permit and modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the construction of commercial marinas and related structures at Petitioners property in Lee County, Florida. PRELIMARY STATEMENT On October 23, 2006, Petitioner applied to the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) for an environmental resource permit (“ERP”). Petitioner also sought modification of its sovereignty submerged land lease ("Lease") from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees). On September 28, 2007, the District issued a Staff Report recommending that the ERP and Lease be denied. The Governing Board of the District adopted the staff’s recommendation on October 11, 2007. On October 12, 2007, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing challenging the agency action. The District referred the petition to DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The case was abated for an extended period of time during which the parties attempted to settle their disputes. In October 2009, Intervenors' petition to intervene was granted. Intervenors were subsequently granted leave to amend their petition. Following notice from the parties that they were unable to settle their disputes, a final hearing was scheduled. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of: Michael Morris, Jr.; David Depew; and Hans Wilson, accepted as an expert in ocean engineering, environmental sciences and navigation. Petitioner presented the testimony of Anita Bain through the introduction of her deposition. Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 8, 9, 14 through 16, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30, 34, 35, 40 through 43, 46 through 50, 52, and 56 through 58, were admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 35 was accepted as a proffer. The District presented the testimony of: Holly Bauer- Windhorst, accepted as an expert in environmental biology; Melinda Parrott, accepted as an expert in marine biology and environmental impact analysis; Anita Bain, accepted as an expert in biology and environmental impact assessments; Robert Brantly, a professional engineer and Director of the Department's Bureau of Coastal Engineering; and Mary Duncan, accepted as an expert in biology and manatee impact assessment. The testimony of Peter Eckenrode was presented through his deposition. The District's Exhibits 5, 10, 12, and 14 through 18 were admitted into evidence. Intervenors presented the testimony of: Leonardo Nero, accepted as an expert in marine biology, seagrass conservation, oceanography, navigation, and vessel operation and maintenance; Gary Shelton; Sally Eastman; and Christine Desjarlais-Leuth. Intervenors' Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 14 were admitted into evidence. The two-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH. The parties filed proposed recommended orders. Petitioner filed revised pages to its proposed recommended order to correct scrivener's errors. Petitioner moved to strike an issue that was raised for the first time in the District and Intervenors' Joint Proposed Recommended Order. The motion to strike is granted as discussed in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Highpoint Tower Technology, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its mailing address at 800 South Osprey Avenue, Building B, Sarasota, Florida 34246. Petitioner is the owner of property located in Section 25, Township 45 South, Range 22 East, in Lee County, Florida, consisting of approximately eight acres. The property is on Bokeelia Island, on the northern tip of Pine Island. Petitioner is the applicant for the ERP and Lease which is the subject of this proceeding. The District is a regional water management agency with powers and duties established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Its principal office is located at 3301 Gun Club Road in West Palm Beach. The District regulates certain construction activities in waters of the state pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E. The District has also been delegated authority from the Board of Trustees to process applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities on or over sovereignty submerged lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051. Intervenor Sally Eastman resides on property adjacent to the proposed project. Intervenors, Christine Desjarlias-Leuth and Ron Leuth, own and reside on riparian property approximately 400 feet from the proposed project. Intervenor Gary Shelton owns and resides on riparian property near the proposed project. All Intervenors use the waters of Charlotte Harbor for water-based recreational activities, including fishing, swimming, boating, wading, and nature observation. The Affected Waterbodies The north side of Petitioner's property is adjacent to Charlotte Harbor. The south side of the property is adjacent to Back Bay. Both waterbodies are within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. The aquatic preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water. Aquatic preserves are so designated because they have exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. It is the intent of the Legislature that aquatic preserves be set aside forever as sanctuaries for the benefit of the public. See § 258.36, Fla. Stat. Aquatic preserves were established for the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.001(1). Charlotte Harbor in this location is a large expanse of open water with 10 to 12 miles of fetch to the north, making it subject to high winds and waves during storms. The water bottom of Charlotte Harbor is sandy. There are many areas of Charlotte Harbor with "prop scars," which are caused when boats travel in shallow waters and impact the bottom with boat motor propellers. There are seagrasses growing in the vicinity of Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, mostly Thallasia testudinum (turtle grass) and Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass). Healthy turtle grass beds are growing near the proposed marina structures in Charlotte Harbor. There was some dispute about whether the turtle grass is 12 inches or 18 inches in length. The more persuasive evidence is that mature turtle grass is 18 inches in length. If there is turtle grass of shorter length in the area of the proposed project, it will eventually mature to a length of 18 inches. These seagrass communities qualify as a Resource Protection Area ("RPA") 1, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(54) as "[a]reas in aquatic preserves which have resources of the highest quality and condition for that area." There is also small patch of soft whip coral offshore, as well as some sea lettuce and interstitial algae on the sandy bottom. No water quality data for this area of Charlotte Harbor was presented by Petitioner. West Indian manatees are known to forage and move in the area near Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, as well as in Back Bay. The manatee is a "listed" species. Back Bay is a small, semi-enclosed bay. It is shallow, averaging around four feet in depth at mean low water. A narrow passage known as Jug Creek leads out of Back Bay to Pine Island Sound. There are no seagrasses along Petitioner's shoreline on Back Bay, but there are seagrasses elsewhere in Back Bay. There are many prop scars in the shallower areas of Back Bay. The water bottom in Back Bay is silty and organic. It can be easily stirred up by boats and propeller action. No water quality data for Back was presented by Petitioner. Existing Structures A public access fishing pier extends about 400 feet from Petitioner's property into Charlotte Harbor, generally forming a "T." The pier has existed for decades and was one of the first landing and offloading piers in the region for commercial fishing activities, with fish houses on the adjacent uplands. The riparian owner obtained title to the submerged lands beneath the fishing pier by operation of the Butler Act, which vests title in the riparian upland owner to submerged lands if structures were erected over or upon the submerged lands before 1951. Therefore, a submerged land lease from the Board of Trustees is not required for the fishing pier. However, Petitioner obtained a submerged lands lease in 2000 for two recreational boat slips along the east side of the pier. There is a seawall along Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline. Petitioner's upland was formerly occupied by approximately 120 mobile homes, which were served by septic tanks. The mobile homes were removed two or three years ago and Petitioner obtained a separate environmental resource permit from the District in May 2006 for a proposed new residential and commercial development on the uplands called Bokeelia Harbor Resort. Construction of the new development, which would include single-family homes, multi-family buildings, a swimming facility, and a restaurant, has not yet begun. In Back Bay, Petitioner's shoreline has a seawall and a number of finger piers extending off the seawall. Petitioner has two submerged land leases in Back Bay, one that authorizes 50 boat slips and another that authorizes 10 slips. Only about a dozen boats have been using these slips in recent years. There are two boat ramps on Petitioner's property for access to Back Bay. The record evidence leaves unclear whether the ramps were for the exclusive use of the former mobile home residents or were used by the general public. The historical and current use of the boat ramps, in terms of the average number of launches per month or year, was not established in the record. There is a man-made, seawalled canal or basin on Petitioner's property that connects to Back Bay. There are piers and slips in the canal, which Petitioner claims could accommodate about 30 boats. Aerial photographs of the canal indicate that 20 to 25 boats is a more reasonable estimate. The water bottom of the canal is privately owned and, therefore, does not require a submerged lands lease. Petitioner presented inconsistent information about the number of existing boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner claimed that there are as many as 108 slips in Back Bay. That number seems impossible, given that only 60 slips are authorized by the two submerged land leases. There was no exhibit presented to show where the 108 slips are located. The Department of Community Affairs determined that 85 slips in Back Bay were "vested" for purposes of the development of regional impact review program in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which means the slips were constructed before July 1, 1973. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission thinks there are now 82 boat slips in Back Bay. The Department of Environmental Protection thinks there are 80. Petitioner had a motive to exaggerate the number of existing slips. The unsupported testimony of Petitioner's witness that there are 108 slips in Back Bay was not substantial evidence.1/ It is found that Petitioner currently has approximately 82 boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner is not currently controlling the use of the slips in Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay, such as by limiting the size or draft of vessels. There are no signs that inform boaters about seagrasses or manatees. There are currently no sewage pump-out facilities. Petitioner is not currently controlling boaters' uses of fuel or other chemicals. However, no evidence was presented to show the extent of any past or current polluting activities. Petitioner sought to show that the septic tanks that had been removed from the upland property were a source of nutrients and other pollutants to Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors objected to this evidence as irrelevant because the ERP and Lease applications do not involve the removal of the septic tanks and their replacement with a central sewage collection system, and because Petitioner removed the septic tanks some years ago as part of its re-development of the uplands. The objection was sustained, but Petitioner was allowed to make a proffer that the removal of the septic tanks improved the water quality of the adjacent waterbodies. The issue was one of relevancy alone, because it was apparently undisputed that the removal of the septic tanks resulted in some unquantified improvement in the water quality of adjacent waterbodies.2/ The Proposed Project Petitioner proposes to construct new commercial docks and related structures (marinas) in both Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay. The Charlotte Harbor marina would have 24 boat slips, which is 22 more slips than currently exist. The Back Bay marina would have 43 slips, which is 39 fewer slips than currently exist. Overall, the proposed project would result in a reduction of about 17 slips. Petitioner would make all boat slips in the marinas available to the public on a “first come - first served” basis. Some slips would be leased on an annual basis. An unspecified number of slips would be for day rental, primarily to accommodate patrons of the restaurant on the uplands. In Charlotte Harbor, a long pier would extend to a dock configuration that forms a marina basin, with concrete panels on three sides extending from above the water line to below the sandy bottom to act as a breakwater. The opening into the marina basin for ingress and egress by boaters would be to the southeast. On the west side of the marina basin would be a 1500 square foot fishing platform. Slips 1 through 5 would be along the east side of the pier and would have boat hoists to raise the boats out of the water. Because seagrasses are growing near slips 1 through 5, Petitioner agreed to limit the draft of boats using these slips to 30 inches. Slips 6 through 24 would be within the protected marina basin. These slips are intended to accommodate larger boats than the kinds of boats that can safely navigate in the shallow waters of Back Bay. However, boats using slips 6 through 24 would not be allowed to have drafts greater than five feet. These slips would not have hoists. All the new slips in Back Bay are designed for a maximum boat length of 30 feet, but the slips vary with regard to maximum allowed draft, from 16 inches to three feet, depending on the depth of the adjacent waters. The Charlotte Harbor marina would extend about 100 feet more waterward so that it would be 500 feet from the shoreline, which is the maximum extension allowed under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1. No boats slips or mooring would be allowed beyond the 500-foot limit. The canal connected to Back Bay would be filled in, and three additional residential units would be placed on the uplands created by the filling. Petitioner suggested that the canal has poor water quality, such as low dissolved oxygen, and that elimination of the canal would be a benefit for the water quality of Back Bay. Petitioner presented no water quality data to support this allegation, but the elimination of the canal would more likely than not have some small water quality benefit for Back Bay. The boat ramps on the upland would be removed. A new seawall would be installed along Petitioner's Back Bay shoreline and approximately 400 reef balls would be placed in the water along the face of the seawall. The reef balls are three feet tall and four feet wide, made of cement, and have openings. It is expected that oysters and barnacles would colonize the reef balls. Because there are oysters, barnacles, and other filter feeders in Back Bay, that expectation is a reasonable one. Fish are likely to be attracted to the reef balls. Petitioner contends that the reef balls, after they are colonized by oysters, will provide water quality benefits, because oysters filter the water when feeding. Although there was some support in the record for this general proposition, there was no evidence presented about the types of pollutants that can be removed from the water by oysters, or the level of water quality improvement that reasonably could be expected. Reef balls have been used at another marina in the region and were determined by the regulatory agencies to provide some public benefit, but Intervenors' expert, Leonard Nero, believes that the value of reef balls is exaggerated. It is his opinion that reef balls do not function like a natural habitat because there is no primary food production or sustainable biological interrelationships. It is found that the proposed reef balls would provide some small environmental benefits to the Back Bay ecosystem. In Back Bay, there are currently no channel markers except in Jug Creek. Petitioner proposes to provide channel markers so that boats entering and leaving the marina would be guided away from shallower waters and away from seagrasses. Petitioner prepared a Marina Management Plan to govern the operation of the marinas, including the use of the slips. The management plan requires waste receptacles and restricts the use and storage of fuel and other chemicals. The plan also includes an education program to inform marina users about water quality and habitat protection. A harbor master would be employed to oversee the operation of the marinas. The harbor master would be responsible for assuring compliance with the requirements in the Marina Management Plan, including maximum boat drafts, fuel spill prevention and clean-up, proper use of sewage pump-out facilities, prevention of hull cleaning and use of deleterious boat cleaning products, and proper disposal of fish cleaning wastes. The harbor master's office would be located on the docks over Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors are not impressed with Petitioner's proposal to employ a harbor master to control marina activities because the harbor master would not be at the marinas 24 hours a day and could not be present at both marinas at the same time. However, the employment of a harbor master would strengthen the use and enforcement of the Marina Management Plan. There would be educational signs for boaters with information about manatees and seagrasses. Petitioner proposes to install sewage pump-out facilities at both marinas that would be connected to the sewage collection system that will serve the upland development. The proposed project includes modifying the proposed upland residential development to add three residential units and a cul de sac, and enlarging a stormwater retention area to accommodate the associated stormwater impacts. Project Impacts Seagrasses It is usually difficult and sometimes impossible for seagrasses to re-colonize an area that has been prop-scarred. Seagrasses are the primary food of manatees, so an adverse impact to seagrasses is an adverse impact to manatees. The seagrasses to the east of the entrance of the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina are subject to disturbance from boats entering and leaving the marina. Boats approaching or departing from slips 1 through 5 are likely to cross these seagrasses from time to time. The water depth in the area of slips 1 and 2 is about minus five feet (mean low water) at the shallowest. For any seagrasses growing at minus five feet, and assuming the seagrasses are 18 inches in length, the clearance between the bottom of a boat with a 30-inch draft and the top of seagrasses would be 12 inches at mean low water. District and Intervenors are also concerned about the potential impacts to the seagrasses near the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina from large boats using slips 6 through 24, which could have a draft of five feet. About 260 feet to the east of Petitioner's pier is another pier, known as Captain Mac's Pier. There are seagrasses between the two piers. Boaters wanting to reach slips 6 through 24 would have to navigate past Petitioner's marina basin, into the area between Petitioner's pier and Cap'n Mac's pier, and then make nearly a 180 degree turn to enter the marina basin. The more persuasive record evidence indicates that this maneuver would sometimes be difficult for inexperienced or inattentive boaters even in relatively calm conditions. In windy and storm conditions, the maneuver would be difficult even for experienced boaters. If there are tethered buoys marking the limits of the seagrasses, as proposed by Petitioner, the buoys would add to the navigational challenge. The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that it is likely that boaters in vessels with drafts greater than 30 inches, when entering or leaving the marina basin, would sometimes cross the seagrasses and do damage to the seagrasses and other submerged resources. Another potential adverse impact to seagrasses is shading caused by structures. Shading caused by the existing fishing pier in Charlotte Harbor appears to have impeded the growth of seagrasses in some areas near the pier. The proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina presents a relatively unique shading issue. Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that shading from the proposed structures in Charlotte Harbor would not adversely affect seagrasses. The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would also cause adverse impacts to seagrasses in Back Bay. However, because Petitioner has reduced the numbers of slips in Back Bay and eliminated the boat ramps, the boat traffic in Back Bay should be reduced. Furthermore, Petitioner would restrict boat drafts and mark a channel to guide boaters to deeper waters and away from seagrasses. Therefore, the proposed project would likely reduce the risk of damage to seagrasses and other submerged resources in Back Bay. The District and Intervenors describe Petitioner's proposal to install channel markers in Back Bay as too "tentative" because there is another developer that has proposed to install channel markers and Petitioner's proposal is to install the markers if the other developer does not. However, the details of the channel marking are in evidence. If the channel marking is made a condition for construction of the proposed project, it can be considered a part of the reasonable assurance of compliance with relevant permitting criteria. No specific evidence regarding the general health and value of the seagrasses in Back Bay was presented. The seagrasses in Back Bay are not designated as an RPA. There was no evidence presented that there is soft coral or other submerged resources in Back Bay. Therefore, the reduced risk of harm to the seagrasses in Back Bay does not offset the potential harm that the proposed project would cause to the seagrasses and other submerged resources in Charlotte Harbor. Manatees Petitioner agreed to comply with all of the conditions recommended by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission related to the protection of manatees: In order [to] ensure a minimum clearance of 12 inches above the top of seagrass so as to avoid damage located in the project ingress/egress route, the maximum draft, including propeller(s), for vessels associated with slips 1-5 in Charlotte Harbor shall be 30 inches. The Standard Manatee Conditions for In- Water Work (revision 2009) shall be followed for all in-water activity. Handrails shall be constructed and maintained along the access pier and the landward side of the terminal platform to prevent mooring outside of the designated slip areas. The Permittee shall develop and implement a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-approved marina educational program prior to slip occupancy. The Permittee shall develop this educational program with the assistance of FWC, and FWC shall approve this education plan prior to its implementation. The program may include (at a minimum) the posting of permanent manatee educational signs and the display of brochures in a prominent location. The educational program must be maintained for the life of the facility. The [Permittee] shall install and maintain seagrass marker buoys as depicted in the site plan for the docks in Charlotte Harbor. The buoys must be permitted by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Boating and Waterways Section, and maintained for the life of the project. The [P]ermittee shall provide bins for the disposal of or recycling of monofilament line or other used fishing gear. The [P]ermittee shall also provide educational signs encouraging the use of these bins. Larger boats are generally more lethal in collisions with manatees because there is usually more momentum involved. Greater momentum generally causes deeper propeller cuts and other serious physical injury. Slips 6 through 24 in the Charlotte Harbor marina would accommodate boats of greater size (up to five-foot draft) than would have used the slips that would be eliminated in Back Bay, creating some small, unquantified additional risk of increased injury or death to manatees in Charlotte Harbor and other area waters. Lee County reviewed the proposed project against the Lee County Manatee Protection Plan and scored the project as "Preferred." The factors that the County considered in scoring the project were not explained. The reduction of boat traffic in Back Bay that would result from the eliminating boat slips and removing the boat ramps, and the marking of a channel away from seagrasses in Back Bay, would reduce the current risk to manatees using Back Bay. However, that reduction of risk is offset by the increased risk of injury to manatees associated with the addition of 17 larger slips in the Charlotte Harbor marina, the potential for collisions with any manatees foraging in the seagrass near the Charlotte Harbor marina, and the potential loss of seagrasses from boat impacts and shading. The overall effect of the proposed project on manatees would probably be negative. Water Quality The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would cause additional pollution associated with boating activity and, therefore, would violate the water quality standard applicable in Outstanding Florida Waters that ambient water quality cannot be degraded. However, Petitioner would reduce the total number of boats that could operate out of the marinas and would implement a number of prohibitions and other management practices that would reduce the potential for pollution when compared to the current situation. There was no evidence presented to quantify the pollution that might now be occurring as a result of the absence of pump-out facilities at the marinas, or the presence of related pollution in Charlotte Harbor or Back Bay. However, it was undisputed that the availability of pump-out facilities is generally a benefit for water quality. Petitioner has not indicated where the sewage pump-out facilities would be located. Although this is a relatively minor issue, the location of these facilities can affect the potential for pollution and, therefore, it is reasonable for the District to require this information before the ERP can be approved. Although the District and Intervenors contend that insufficient information was presented regarding flushing characteristics in Charlotte Harbor, that contention is inconsistent with their claim that strong winds, waves, and tidal forces that occur in this area of Charlotte Harbor would cause shoaling and scour at the breakwater. There is sufficient evidence that the Charlotte Harbor marina would be well flushed. An issue was also raised about the potential for turbidity problems in Back Bay caused by disturbance of the silty bottom by boats using the Back Bay slips. However, the reduction of the number of boats that would operate out of the Back Bay marina, the marina management proposals, and the channel marking would likely reduce such incidents in Back Bay. As discussed above, some small water quality benefits to Back Bay would be realized by the reef balls and the elimination of the canal. The overall effect of the proposed project would be to reduce the potential water quality impacts associated with the marinas, resulting in some small net improvement to the ambient water quality of the Pine Island Aquatic Preserve. Shoaling and Scour Shoaling is generally the accumulation of unconsolidated sediments that occur because of their movement by hydrodynamic forces of water flow, waves and currents. Scour is a type of erosion that occurs when current forces, when moving around a structure, push sediments away. Petitioner's expert, Hans Wilson, testified that it would take a relatively extreme amount of wave energy to create scour at the bottom of the breakwater. He said that the proposed breakwater was similar to one used at Royal Palm Yacht Club in Charlotte Harbor, which has not caused shoaling or scour. Robert Brantly, of the Department of Environmental Protection, believes that the proposed breakwater could cause shoaling and scour. While not agreeing with Mr. Brantly's concern, Petitioner offered to place reef balls at the base of the breakwater to further dissipate wave energy. Petitioner's evidence on this issue lacked much detail, but the evidence offered by the District was speculation -- Mr. Brantly thought there might be a problem and wanted to see more information. The District failed to rebut Petitioner's prima facie case that the breakwater would not cause shoaling or scour. Public Uses The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would reduce access by the general public to the aquatic preserve because the boat ramps would be eliminated and the fishing platform would be smaller than the area now available to the public on the fishing pier. The evidence shows some small reduction in public access to the aquatic preserve would likely result from the proposed project. Fill The District and Intervenors claimed for the first time in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order that the proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina is prohibited fill. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(1)(c) prohibits "filling waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line." "Fill" is defined in Rule 18-20.003(27): "Fill" means materials from any source, deposited by any means onto sovereignty lands, either for the purpose of creating new uplands or for any other purpose, including the spoiling of dredged materials. For the purpose of this rule, the placement of pilings or riprap shall not be considered to be filling. The District claims that the breakwater is "clearly prohibited" and that no additional factual evidence needs to be presented to determine the issue. However, although it is clear that the rule prohibits the deposition of fill materials such as dirt or sand into the water, it is not clear what other activities are prohibited by the rule.3/ Docks and marinas are clearly allowed by the aquatic preserve rules. Whether the breakwater is a piling structure is not answered by the record evidence. Evidence regarding the practices of the Board of Trustees, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the District in the interpretation and application of the rule is also absent from the record. Therefore, even if the issue had been timely raised by the District and Intervenors, the record evidence is insufficient to prove their claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District deny the ERP and Lease requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Debra Flynn has submitted an application to the DER to construct a dock extending 190 feet waterward of the mean high water line of waters of the state, which would also extend 80 feet landward of the mean high water line through a transitional wetland area. The landward extent of the dock will completely span the DER's wetland jurisdiction at the project site. A raised "pad" of fill upon which the applicant's house would be constructed and a filled driveway, although originally a part of this application, has been altered in design by the applicant such that those two items have been removed from the geographical extent of the DER's jurisdiction and those two items in the proposed project are no longer at issue. The applicant's lot is approximately 300 feet deep by 100 feet wide. This lot is one of many similarly sized lots which border Niles Channel on the east and Nyles Road on the west, on Summerland Key. These lots vary in nature from tidally inundated mangrove wetlands to a combination of upland and transitional wetlands fringed by mangroves along the water's edge. The portion of the applicant's lot nearest to Nyles Road is primarily characterized by upland vegetation extending approximately 75 to 100 feet in an easterly direction from the road. The elevation gradually decreases toward the waterfront of the lot on Niles Channel, with buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta), dropseed (Sporobolus sp.), key grass (Monanthochloe littoralis), and sea daisy (Borrichia sp.) being the dominant species over most of the applicant's lot. Over the northern side of the property adjacent to adjoining lot 34, a pocket of black mangroves (Avicennia germinans) extends inland, nearly to the upland area described above. As the lot elevation drops toward the shoreline, mangrove growth occurs more frequently, culminating in a dense mangrove fringe bordering Niles Channel. This mangrove fringe becomes well established some 30 feet landward of the approximate mean high water line, being dominated by black and white mangroves. Waterward of the mean high water line, red mangroves dominate for a distance of approximately 30 feet out into Niles Channel. The landward portion of the dock would have only minimal environmental impacts on the transitional wetlands as established by DER's expert witness Meyer and witness Kephart. No contradictory evidence was submitted in this regard. The bottom of Niles Channel extending 65 feet waterward of the mangrove fringe area is characterized by a hard caprock substrate covered with somewhat coarse sediments and loose algaes. In addition to the loose algae, the bottom, attached marine life communities are characterized by red, brown and green algae, sponges, anemones and hard corals. Waterward of this initial 65 foot zone, a relatively narrow zone of seagrasses is encountered. This zone of seagrass extends about 15 to 20 feet in width, forming a somewhat broken, noncontinuous band extending from north to south across the front of the property. Within this seagrass band, the primary growth is turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum). There are smaller amounts of Cuban shoalweed (Halodule wrightii). Continuing waterward of this seagrass growth, the vegetative bottom coverage decreases with sandy patches becoming larger and more frequent. The bottom profile also becomes more rough and irregular, characterized by the presence of dissolved limerock holes as well as outcroppings. These holes and outcroppings provide excellent habitat for shelter-dependent fish and invertebrate species, such as spiny lobster and stone crabs. The area constitutes-prime nursery habitat for spiny lobsters and stone crabs. Water depth where the dock, as originally proposed, would terminate, which is in the area of the lobster and crab habitat, is approximately one and one-half to two feet deep at mean low water. The dock as presently proposed would extend some 30 feet beyond that area, or about 160 feet from the waterward edge of the shoreline mangrove fringe, or 190 feet from the mean high water line. Thus, the dock as presently proposed would terminate in a flat or sandy area which is somewhat deeper or about two to two and one-half feet deep at mean low water. Termination of the dock at that point, with boat traffic involved with the dock beginning and ending at that point will result in less likelihood of damage to the lobster and crab and other more fragile marine life habitat which occurs landward of the 190 foot termination point. At this point, the dominant marine species are patchy growths of red algae (Laurencia sp.). These growths are less susceptible to damage from prop-wash and wakes of boats than are the more landward areas characterized by turtlegrass, Cuban shoalweed and the "hole and outcrop" nursery habitat area for fish, lobsters and stone crabs. The physical and biological characteristics of the water bottom at this 190 foot distance offshore are more compatible with boat usage. The bottom here is characterized by hard caprock close to the surface, with a shallow overlying layer of inorganic, coarse-grained sediment consisting primarily of pulverized rock. There are very little or no seagrasses at this point. The applicant's boat draws approximately 12 inches of water underway and 18 inches at rest, and the dock is for the private use of the applicant only. The water depth at the termination point of the dock effectively precludes the applicant from navigating to and from the proposed dock with a significantly larger, more powerful boat and thus the physical characteristics of the water depth and hard bottom existing at the dock site themselves effectively limit the likelihood of harmful prop scouring or boat grounding damage. Impacts on water quality caused by the installation and operation of the proposed dock to the extent of its use by the applicant's private boat only, will be minimal. Some turbidity and disruption of marine life will inevitably occur during construction, but this will have no serious impact on either water quality or marine resources. The dock, as it is proposed to be constructed, will be at least three feet above mean high water level. It will be sufficiently narrow in width so as to preclude significant shading of seagrasses from sunlight and resultant death or damage to the seagrass beds between the end of the dock and the mean high water line, such that no water quality violation or harm to these marine resources will ensue. The proposed construction will not eliminate valuable marine resources in Niles Channel and will have no immediate or long-term adverse impact on the quantity or quality of the State's natural marine resources through the loss of habitat in the Niles Channel area involved. Because of the varying amounts of wetlands encompassed in the lots in the Niles Channel subdivision, it is unlikely that all of the lots in the area will be developed, or that a great number of docks similar to the proposed dock will be constructed. The Petitioner's expert witness, Mr. Robertson, established that less than half of the lots in this subdivision are suitable for or likely to be developed. The Petitioner's own witness, Fahrer, also established that Monroe County is planning to restrict development in this area through their zoning power. Accordingly, there is no reasonable expectation that many similar docks will be constructed in the Niles Channel area. Further, the recent amendments to the DER's organic statutes and related rules which took effect on October 1, 1984 mandate consideration of additional restrictive criteria involving effects of such projects on wildlife habitat, which will further serve to restrict development along the shoreline in this area. The shoreline in this subdivision is essentially undeveloped, with only one other dock presently in place, which is longer and extends further into Niles Channel than does the proposed dock. Although there was testimony by witnesses for Petitioner that the proposed dock would entail bone fishermen having to navigate out and around the dock, this testimony does not establish the premise that the dock will pose a serious impediment to navigation. The proposed dock may add slightly to the disruption of some recreational fishing navigation, however, since the adjacent property has the longer dock already in place, any disruption caused by this proposed shorter dock will not be significant and will not be contrary to the public interest in terms of navigation impediment.
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 State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation grant the application of Debra Flynn for a dock construction permit in accordance with the conditions delineated above. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esq. James L. Torres, Legal Intern Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Hendricks, Esq. 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Joel L. Beardsley Route 2, Box 441 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners are, and at all times material hereto were, owners of residential real property adjoining the site of the proposed construction to the northwest. The City of Cape Coral is, and at all times material hereto was, the applicant for the permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation for the construction of the proposed project, which is a public boat ramp. This boat ramp is located within the corporate limits of the City of Cape Coral. The Department of Environmental Regulation is, and at all times material hereto was, the agency of the State of Florida which has the authority to issue permits for dredging, filling or other activities of a similar nature to include construction of boat ramps on the shores or banks of navigable waterways of the state. The Caloosahatchee River is a navigable, Class III waterway of the State of Florida. Lands covered by the waters of the Caloosahatchee River at the location of the proposed project are submerged lands of the State of Florida. The City applied to the Department on March 27, 1980, for a permit to construct a boat ramp on the Caloosahatchee River at the Cape Coral Yacht Club. A boat ramp currently is located at the site of the proposed project. The existing ramp was initially partially constructed in 1964, and subsequently a seawall was removed and the two existing seawalls projecting into the water were constructed in 1969. The City's application was initially incomplete, lacking evidence of approval by the City Council. At the request of the Department, the City submitted additional information. The application as originally proposed contemplated dredging waterward of the mean high water line at the proposed project site. The dredged material was to be placed along a beach area adjacent to the proposed boat ramp, and the spoil would have projected waterward of the mean high water line. The proposed project was revised in September, 1980, to delete placing the dredged material on the adjacent beach. The revised project would retain the dredged material landward on the mean high water line until it had dried, at which time it would be removed from the site. After the dredging described above has been completed, the revised project calls for the construction of a concrete boat ramp 42 feet wide and 58 feet long extending approximately 28 feet waterward of the mean high water line of the Caloosahatchee River. In addition, three timber poling walkways at the sides of and in the middle of the boat ramp will be constructed extending waterward of the mean high water line. On May 10, 1980, Dan Garlick, an employee of the Department, conducted a Permit Application Appraisal and concluded the project would have an insignificant impact on biological resources or water quality, and would comply with Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Garlick recommended approval of the project. David Key, another employee of the Department, conducted an on-site investigation and expressed concurrence with the findings contained in Garlick's report. Key also noted that no adverse impact on navigation was anticipated as a result of the project. On July 1, 1980, the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service investigated the proposed project. These federal agencies had no objection to the proposed boat ramp or the dredging aspects of the proposed project. These agencies had no objection to the proposed spoil basis located in the upland area of the site required to dry the dredged material. These agencies objected only to placement of the dredged material on the adjoining beach, which proposal was deleted in the City's revised plan. Petitioners introduced no expert testimony relating to the effects of the proposed project on water quality, marine resources or navigation. Lay testimony was received regarding conditions around the site of the existing boat ramp. Garbage, dead fish and flotsam accumulate at or near the site in the water and on the land. The existing seawalls extending perpendicular from the shore prevent matter in the water from being flushed by the current and tides. In the proposed project the seawall to the right of the existing boat ramp would not be removed. Prior to January, 1981, the existing ramp site was not regularly cleaned by the City. Since that date the area has been cleaned regularly; however, after weekends when the facility is most heavily used there are large quantities of refuse and garbage around the site. The City has requested and received permission from and payment has been made to the Department of Natural Resources for use of sovereignty submerged lands and the removal of 215 cubic yards of fill. After a review of the revised application, the Department gave notice of its intent to issue a permit for the proposed project by letter dated November 10, 1980. The Department based its intent to issue on a determination that the project would not adversely affect navigation, marine resources or water quality, provided the conditions set in the letter were met. The Department's Exhibit 2 is the only documentation presented by the City reflecting the City Council's action on the application. Exhibit 2 contains no findings by the local government that the proposed project would not violate any statute, zoning or ordinances; makes no findings that the project would present no harmful or increased erosion, shoaling of channels or stagnation of waters; and contains no findings that no material injury or monetary damage will result to adjoining land. The Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Minutes of the City Council for the City of Cape Coral Meeting of June 18, 1980, does not reflect that the final reports on the ecological effects of the proposed project were read into the record, and does not reflect that those reports were duly considered by the Council. It was at this meeting that final action on the application for permitting of the proposed project was presumably taken. However, the motion approved at that meeting did not authorize approval of the proposed project nor issuance of the permit. The motion empowered the Mayor to write a letter expressing approval. This motion presumable resulted in the letter of June 17, 1980, the Department's Exhibit 2, which was signed by the City Manager and not the Mayor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the agency head withhold final action on the application for a reasonable period of time to permit the applicant to cure the procedural defects. Upon curing the procedural defects, the Hearing Officer would recommend issuance of the permits originally requested. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Sasso, Esquire Post Office Box 1422 1413 Cape Coral Parkway Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Richard Roosa, Esquire 1714 Cape Coral Parkway Post Office Box 535 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Paul R. Ezatoff, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ERICH SCHLACHTA and ESTER SCHLACHTA, husband and wife, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 80-2258 CITY OF CAPE CORAL, PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT and STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
