The Issue Whether Respondent, Planmac Company, Inc., is entitled to the modification of a previously permitted boat docking facility in a man-made basin on Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1985, Planmac Company, Inc. (Planmac) filed a request with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a dredge and fill permit to construct a boat docking facility consisting of 52 slips in a man-made basin, known as Captain's Cove, located on Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. On October 3, 1985, DER filed a Notice of Intent to Issue the requested permit subject to certain specified conditions. A timely challenge to the permit was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The case was styled Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107. As a result of the formal hearing in Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107, a Recommended Order was submitted to DER which made findings of fact, concluded that all permitting criteria had been met, and recommended that the application be granted subject to certain conditions. Thereafter, on June 3, 1986, DER issued a Final Order which ordered that the application for the permit be granted subject to the recommended conditions. No appeal was taken from the Final Order. On June 18, 1986, DER issued to Planmac Permit #441008425, which authorized Planmac, consistent with drawings and specifications attached to the Permit, to: Construct two (2) 5' x 248' docks, each with fourteen (14) 3' x 40' finger piers and twelve (12) associated mooring piles, providing a total of fifty-two (52) boat slips; and install approximately 590 linear feet of riprap revetment requiring the deposition of approximately 300 cubic yards of rock boulders landward and waterward of MHW, in a man-made basin (Class III Waters), an artificial, navigable waterbody contiguous to Florida Bay in Section 21, Township 64 South, Range 36 East, Monroe County. The following specific conditions were attached by DER to Permit #441008425: The permittee is hereby advised that Florida law states: "No person shall commence any excavation, construction, or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use." Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 16Q-14, if such work is done without consent, or if a person otherwise damages state land or products of state land, the Board of Trustees may levy administrative fines of up to $10,000 per offense. Turbidity screens shall be utilized and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. Only non-commercial, recreational boats shall be allowed to use the proposed marina. The applicant shall incorporate this condition into the condominium document for the proposed marina and supply the Department with a copy of the document prior to any sales of the condominium. No live-aboard boats shall be allowed in the marina. This condition shall also be placed in the condominium document. A portable sewage pumpout wagon shall be provided at the marina. Pumpout effluent shall be properly disposed of by methods acceptable to the department; these methods and locations shall be approved by the department prior to construction. A supply of oil absorbent materials, designed to clean up small oil spills, shall be maintained at the marina office. At least sixty (60) days prior to construction, the applicant shall submit to the Punta Gorda DER office for review, a detailed list of equipment to be permanently maintained on site. This list of equipment shall be modified as necessary and approved by the department prior to construction. The uplands on the permittee's property shall be graded to direct stormwater away from the edge of the boat basin. No fuel facilities nor storage shall be allowed at the project. All craft docked at the marina shall be prohibited from pumping sewage into the waters of the cove. Use of boat slips shall be limited to those person(s) who own the slip. Leasing of boat slips shall be prohibited. Living aboard any boat docked at the marina is prohibited at all times. No boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning shall be allowed at the permitted facility. Only clean rock boulders free from attached sediments or other deleterious compounds, and of a minimum diameter of 2' or greater shall be installed as riprap. The Marathon Department of Environmental Regulation office shall be notified 48 hours prior to the commencement of work. "IDLE SPEED-NO WAKE" signs shall be placed at conspicuous locations at the docking facility with additional language that "this precaution exists throughout the length of the canal channel during ingress and egress". At least two trash receptacles shall be provided on each of the two main walkway piers; these receptacles shall be routinely maintained and emptied. Prior to dockage use by boats, marker buoys shall be established around all vegetated shallow zones within the limits of the submerged property limits with signs advising boaters of "SHALLOW WATERS-NO ENTRY". Prior to construction, the applicant and the Marathon DER office shall meet to discuss acceptable locations for these markers. The project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria. 17.3.121 - Criteria - Class III Waters - Recreation, Propagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife: Surface Waters. After Permit #441008425 was issued to Planmac for the construction of 52 boat slips, an application was filed by Tormac Corporation for 40 additional boat slips to be located on the property adjacent to the Planmac site. Tormac Corporation and Planmac are owned by the same individual. The Tormac application was subsequently withdrawn prior to final action being taken on the application and prior to Planmac filing the subject application for modification. On December 15, 1988, Planmac filed the application for modification that is the subject of this proceeding. A reconfiguration of the project was necessary because Planmac had been unable to obtain title to a portion of the bay bottom over which it had originally planned to construct the project. Permit #441008425 was modified once previously. The prior modification extended the expiration date for the permit from June 15, 1988, to June 18, 1991. At the time of the final hearing, Permit #441008425 was still in effect. The proposed modification will reduce the number of boat slips from 52 to 48. Eight of the reconfigured slips will be located over the originally permitted site. The forty remaining slips will be relocated over the former Tormac site, which is immediately adjacent to, and west of, the originally permitted site. The following findings of fact, made by the Hearing Officer in Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107, are pertinent to the proposed modification: * * * Captain's Cove is a manmade navigable lagoon with access to Florida Bay through a 2,500' long by 100' wide canal located opposite the project site. The waters of Captain's Cove and the canal are designated Class III surface waters, and those of Florida Bay as Outstanding Florida Waters. The controlling depth for access to the proposed marina is found at the mouth of the canal, where Florida Bay is approximately 6' mean low water (MLW). Depths within the canal are typically 1' or 2' deeper that the controlling depth at the mouth. The bottom depth of the cove is variable. The southwestern four-fifths of the cove was typically dredged to a depth of 25' MLW. Within the northeast fifth of the cove (the basin), a gradation in depths is experienced. The northwest portion of the basin, located outside the project site, is typically 5' - 6' MLW, and heavily vegetated by sea grasses (turtle grass, manatee grass, and Cuban shoalweed). The southeast portion of the basin, which abuts the Applicant's property, consists of a shallow shelf 10' - 20' in width. Beyond this shelf, the bottom drops off steeply to a depth of 20' MLW. The shelf abutting the Applicant's property is sparsely vegetated with mangroves, and provides limited habit for aquatic fauna such as domingo mussels and paper oysters. Replacement of these mangroves and other shoreline vegetation with riprap would not significantly affect the biological balance within the cove and would provide suitable habitat for existing species. The waters within the cove are quite clear, and meet the Department's water quality standards except for a thin layer at the deepest part of the cove where dissolved oxygen violations were noted. The proposed marina is, however, to be located in the northeast fifth of the cove, opposite the access canal, where the waters are more shallow and water circulation more prevalent. As sited, the proposed marina will not exacerbate or contribute to a violation of the Department's water quality criteria. DER, following staff review of the application for modification, issued its Intent to Issue on April 21, 1989. In considering the proposed modification, DER staff assumed that Captain's Cove was a closed system whose waters received no cleansing exchange with Florida Bay. Most of the oxygen replenishment and water purification that takes place within the cove occurs through biological activities. The Intent to Issue dated April 21, 1989, advised that DER intended to issue the requested permit modification. The reconfigured project may be described in the following language taken from the Intent to Issue: The applicant, Planmac Company, Inc., applied on December 15, 1988, to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit modification to construct a marina facility consisting of a 280' x 5' wide access walkway, two (2) 160' x 5' wide main piers with twenty (20) 35' x 3' finger piers, two (2) 81' x 5' wide main piers with eight (8) 40' x 3' finger piers, providing a total of 48 boat slips, and to install approximately 300 cubic yards of limerock boulders in a man-made basin (Class III Waters), an artificial waterbody in Section 21, Township 64 South, Range 36 East, Monroe County. The proposed modification is over an area of very sparsely vegetated bottom with water depths between 19 and 27 feet. The reconfigurated project will shade approximately 4,000 square feet less bottom area than the originally permitted project. The reconfigurated project will not exacerbate or contribute to a violation of DER's water quality criteria. The reconfigurated design, as compared to the originally permitted project, will present easier ingress and egress from the docking area and will cause less interference with boat traffic. The reconfigurated design will not affect the manatee that are occasionally sighted in Captain's Cove any differently than the presently permitted design. The Intent to Issue dated April 21, 1989, incorporates all eighteen previously attached conditions to the permit and adds the following additional conditions: No docking is permitted waterward of the terminal finger piers on any of the four (4) main piers to prevent use of adjacent owner's bay bottom. These four (4) terminal docks shall have permanent hand rails constructed and maintained along their waterward edge to further discourage boat mooring. A draft of a legally binding agreement, such as a deed restriction shall be submitted to the Fort Myers DER office for review, modification as necessary, and/or approval within thirty (30) days of permit modification issuance. An approved document shall be recorded into the public records of Monroe County within sixty (60) days of approval by the Department. This agreement shall prohibit any further dock construction on the Planmac/Tormac properties exceeding that authorized by this permit modification. This document shall also prohibit in perpetuity the installation of fueling facilities and boat maintenance facilities, and shall prohibit the mooring of liveaboard vessels throughout the life of the facility. Construction shall not commence until proof of recording has been received by the Fort Myers DER office. The location and configuration of the docks and access walkways shall be modified from the drawings stamped June 18, 1986, to those received December 15, 1988 and attached hereto. The conservation easement, which is incorporated as a condition to the issuance of the modification, has a positive effect because it prohibits further dockage on the Planmac or Tormac properties. Since docks over which DER has no permitting authority could have been placed on these properties, this easement will prevent future unregulated docking there. The reconfiguration of the project and the inclusion of the adjacent lands present no significant environmental concerns that were not present when the original project was permitted. After the issuance of the Notice of Intent by DER on April 21, 1989, the respective Petitioners filed timely challenges to the application. The Petitioners contend that the application constitutes a major modification of the previously permitted project and seek to challenge the project on many of the same grounds that were litigated in Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107. The modifications proposed by the application that is the subject of this proceeding was processed by DER as a routine, minor modification. As a result of Petitioners' challenges, this proceeding was held. The Petitioners and Intervenor were not permitted to relitigate those issues that had been resolved by Townsend v. Planmac and Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Number 86-0107.
The Issue Whether or not the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project meets the requirements of Chapter 403 F.S. and Chapter 17 for issuance of a dredge and fill permit, and if so, how those assurances may be incorporated into the permit as finally issued. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE On May 3, 1989, the applicant, Johnny P. Hires, applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for an "after the fact" dredge and fill permit to authorize the existence of a dock and associated structures which had already been constructed on Miller's Creek in Duval County, Florida. On July 28, 1989 DER executed its Notice of Permit Denial for the project. On May 29, 1990, negotiations between Hires and DER resulted in a Notice of Permit Issuance which approved the project subject to a specific condition (Specific Condition No. 7) to which Mr. Hires had already agreed. On June 8, 1990, DER received Gilmour and Gray's petition challenging DER's approval of the permit. On June 13, 1990, the petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. and was assigned DOAH Case No. 90-3690. Prior to formal hearing, DER personnel reassessed the agency position once again with the result that at formal hearing DER asserted that Specific Condition No. 7 of the proposed permit was not stringent enough and sought to present evidence that Specific Condition No. 7 should be modified if the permit is to be issued at all. Neither Petitioners nor Hires objected to this procedure, so the parties' positions at hearing were, by agreement, as follows: Mr. Hires wanted the proposed permit finalized as drafted; the Department wanted the proposed permit issued, with a modified Specific Condition No. 7; and Petitioners wanted the proposed permit denied.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Hires constructed a dock, boathouse, and three catwalks in February or March of 1989, without a permit, within the landward extent of Miller's Creek. The dock is 40 feet by 5 feet with a 24-foot "L" at the waterward end. The catwalks form two boat slips, which are 16 feet by 32 feet and 8 feet by 24 feet. These slips are more or less covered by a roof 32 feet by 24 feet. The boathouse is as yet incomplete. Miller's Creek flows into the St. Johns River near the base of the Hart Bridge in Jacksonville, Florida. This location subjects the project to DER's jurisdiction of Class III (recreational use) waters. It is also near Atlantic and Beach Boulevards. Mr. Hires' property is on the west side of the Creek. At low tide, the creek bottom is exposed, except for a channel which is located near the eastern edge of the creek. The channel is approximately 110 feet from the boat slips. DER's original permit denial stated: Use of the slips by boats would result in continuous bottom scour by prop dredging of the area within the slips and between the slips and the channel. This area is approximately 110 feet in length. Prop dredging creates turbidity and moves bottom material into other areas of the creek which can alter the physical, chemical and biological nature of the water body. The movement of bottom material into the existing channel will cause shoaling within adjacent sections of the creek, altering habitat and affecting flows of water and navigation. Increased turbidity in the water column results in reduced light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production which together with the resuspension of organic bottom material can increase oxygen demand and release pesticides, heavy metals and hydrogen sulphide into the water column. Therefore the project can be expected to have a long-term detrimental impact on water quality and biological resources of the river. Specific Condition No. 7 of the proposed permit issuance document requires that: At no time shall any motorized vessel utilizing the dock disturb the bottom sediments causing prop dredging or generating turbidity which exceeds the State Water Quality Standard. Mr. Hires has indicated his intent to comply with Specific Condition No. 7 and sincerely believes that he will be able to do so. DER has adopted water quality standards within Ch. 17 F.A.C. These may apply to primary turbidity, that is, turbidity due to actual construction of the project, or secondary turbidity, that is, turbidity resulting from subsequent use of the completed project. Turbidity is the resuspension of bottom material into the water column. Prop dredging from motorboats causes turbidity and changes the bottom contours of a waterway. The amount of turbidity which is generated depends, among other things, upon the kind of sediment which comprises the bottom of a waterway. The bottoms of water bodies in Florida range from fine particles, called mud or silt, to larger particles, known as sand. The creek bottom of Miller's Creek is composed of mud and silt. Because of the lighter weight of mud and silt particles, they are more easily resuspended and stay resuspended longer than the larger, sand particles. The environmental impacts of turbidity depend, among other things, upon pollutants, such as heavy metals, which may become mixed with the natural sediments. Pollutants are more likely to be trapped in fine sediments, such as mud and silt, than they are likely to be trapped in coarser, sandy sediments. Runoff from Beach and Atlantic Boulevards and possible past contamination from a nearby shipyard make sediment contamination in Miller's Creek a distinct possibility. Neither DER nor Mr. Hires has performed a sediment study to determine whether pollutants were present. In approximately May of 1989, a small "access trough" was prop dredged over the 110 foot distance between the channel and Mr. Hires' dock. No permit was issued by DER for this dredging and, if a permit application for such prop dredging were submitted, no permit would be issued. The tidal range of Miller's Creek is approximately 1.5 feet. Thus, at high tide, the water is reasonably expected to be 1.5 feet above the creek bottom that is exposed at low tide. No study of the depth of the water in the access trough was presented to DER, although Mr. Hires estimated its depth at high tide to be 4 feet. Mr. Hires represented, and there is no evidence to refute his statement, that the maximum use of his own boat in this area over the last year preceding formal hearing (September 1989-September 1990) has been twelve times. Despite the credible evidence that the access trough was created by prop dredging, Mr. Hires maintained that it was not possible for his boat, which is equipped with a tunnel hull design, to further dredge the area because he can only operate his boat on idle speed on high tide in this area. Because the props on Mr. Hires' boat are recessed upward from the bottom of the boat, Mr. Hires maintained his boat would not further dredge the access trough or the remainder of Miller's Creek. However, without accurate information as to natural water depth and only vague information as to what might occur if the tide changed while Mr. Hires was out in his boat, what might occur if Mr. Hires used another boat, or what might occur if other types of boats docked at the Hires dock, Mr. Hires' information about his current boat does not constitute a reasonable assurance that no further prop dredging of Miller's Creek will occur. Mr. Tyler submitted that Hires could pole or row his boats from his dock to the channel when there is sufficient water so as to avoid prop dredging. Mr. Hires volunteered to post a bond to ensure that there would be no scouring from his use of motorized boats from his dock to the channel, but there was insufficient expert evidence to establish how high a bond would be reasonable or that DER would regard such bonding as any more substantial assurance than the applicant's policing himself under Specific Condition No. 7 as now drafted. There also was no evidence that bonding has been a successful inhibitor of prop dredging in the past, that any insurer is available to issue such a bond, or that Mr. Hires could post a sufficient cash bond. Upon the expert testimony of Jeremy Tyler and the keen observations of the lay witnesses, it is found that, through natural processes, the access trough may be reasonably expected to, with time, silt in and return to a depth consistent with the existing creek bottom. It is further found that prop dredging may be reasonably expected to cause adverse environmental impacts at this location. Upon Mr. Tyler's expert testimony, it is further found that Hires' dock and the dock's associated structures which have already been installed are not reasonably expected to cause any adverse environmental consequences. Contrary to DER's initial permit denial document, there is no vegetation in the area which might be adversely affected by shade from the dock and associated structures. If the pilings were driven into place at low tide, some temporary turbidity would have been generated by the dock and boathouse construction. However, no evidence of such turbidity can be seen at the present time. The only habitat effects of the constructed items and those planned but not completed would be the loss of the habitat which is displaced by the pilings themselves, an effect which, at this location, is inconsequential. The non-expert testimony of Petitioners with regard to endangered species was without appropriate predicate and is not probative with regard to habitat. No competent evidence was offered by Petitioners to suggest that the dock and associated structures themselves would adversely affect water quality or the public interest test criteria.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order establishing the Department's proposed permit issuance action as final, provided, however, Specific Condition No. 7 of the draft permit should read: "At no time shall any motorized vessel utilize the dock." DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of October, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 18th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioners' PFOF: Covered in preliminary material. Accepted. Subordinate. Accepted in part; remainder rejected as mere argument. Respondent Hires' PFOF: Covered in preliminary material. First sentence rejected as not proved. Second sentence accepted in part and rejected in part as set out in the Recommended Order. Third sentence accepted so far as it goes but is rejected as a whole for the reasons set forth in FOF 12. Accepted that the offer was made; rejected that it provides reasonable assurances. Respondent DER's PFOF: 1-11 Accepted as modified to more accurately reflect the record evidence as a whole. Copies furnished to: COPIES FURNISHED: Kay E. Gilmour Lois O. Gray 1347 Morier Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Johnny P. Hires 1321 Morier Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 William H. Congdon Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1985, Applicant filed a request with the Department for a permit to construct a marina in a manmade basin (Captain's Cove) located on Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. The permit sought by the Applicant, as modified, would allow it to construct a 52-slip docking facility consisting of two 5' x 248' docks, each with fourteen 3' x 40' finger piers and twelve associated mooring piles; and, approximately 590 linear feet of riprap revertment requiring the disposition of approximately 300 cubic yards of rock boulders landward and waterward of mean high water (MHW). All docks and finger piers would be constructed of prestressed concrete supported by concrete piles; mooring piles would be pressure treated wood. The Applicant proposes to organize the facility as a condominium development; however, live-aboard use will be prohibited. A manager's quarters, office, restrooms and a parking area will be provided on the adjacent uplands. The Department's October 3, 1985, notice of intent to issue, proposed to issue the requested permit subject to the following condition: The permittee is hereby advised that Florida law states: "No person shall commence any excavation, construction, or other activ- ity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use." If such work is done without consent, a fine for each offense in an amount of up to $10,000 may be imposed. Turbidity screens shall be utilized and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. Only non-commercial, recreational boats shall be allowed to use the proposed marina. The applicant shall incorporate this condition into the condominium document for the proposed marina and supply the Department with a copy of the document prior to any sales of the condominium. No live-aboard boats shall be allowed in the marina. This condition shall also be placed in the condominium document. A portable sewage pumpout wagon shall be provided at the marina. Pumpout effluent shall be properly disposed of by methods acceptable to the department; these methods and locations shall be approved by the department prior to construction. A supply of oil absorbent materials, designed to clean up small oil spills, shall be maintained at the marina office. At least sixty (60) days prior to construction, the applicant shall submit to the Punta Gorda DER office for review, a detailed list of equip- ment to be permanently maintained on site. This list of equipment shall be modified as necessary and approved by the department prior to construction. The uplands on the permittee's property shall be graded to direct stormwater away from the edge of the boat basin. No fuel facilities nor storage shall be allowed at the project. Only clean rock boulders free from attached sediments or other deleterious compounds, and of a minimum diameter of 2' or greater shall be installed as riprap. 1O. The Marathon Department of Environmen- tal Regulation office shall be notified 48 hours prior to commencement of work. "IDLE SPEED-NO WAKE" signs shall be placed at conspicuous locations at the docking facility with additional language that "this precaution exists throughout the length of the canal channel during ingress and egress". At least two trash receptacles shall be provided on each of the two main walkway piers: these receptacles shall be routinely maintained and emptied. Prior to dockage use by boats, marker buoys shall be established around all vege- tated shallow zones within the limits of the submerged property limits with signs advising boaters of "SHALLOW WATERS-NO ENTRY". Prior to construction, the applicant and the Mara- thon DER office shall meet to discuss accept- able locations for these markers. The project shall comply with applic- able State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria 17-3.121 - Criteria - Class III Waters - Recreation, Propagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife: Surface Waters. The Applicant has agreed to comply with all conditions established by the Department. The Marina Site Captain's Cove is a manmade navigable lagoon with access to Florida Bay through a 2,500' long by 100' wide canal located opposite the project site. The waters of Captain's Cove and the canal are designated Class III surface waters, and those of Florida Bay as Outstanding Florida Waters. The controlling depth for access to the proposed marina is found at the mouth of the canal, where Florida Bay is approximately 6' mean low water (MLW). Depths within the canal are typically 1' or 2' deeper than the controlling depth at the mouth. Captain's Cove is roughly rectangular in shape. It measures 1,400' northeast to southwest, and up to 500' northwest to southeast. In the vicinity of the Applicant's property, which is located in the northeast fifth of the cove, the cove measures 350' wide. The bottom depth of the cove is variable. The southwestern four-fifths of the cove was typically dredged to a depth of 25' MLW. Within the northeast fifth of the cove (the basin), a gradation in depths is experienced. The northwest portion of the basin, located outside the project site, is typically 5' - 6' MLW, and heavily vegetated by sea grasses (turtle grass, manatee grass, and Cuban shoalweed). The southeast portion of the basin, which abuts the Applicant's property, consists of a shallow shelf 10' - 20' in width. Beyond this shelf, the bottom drops off steeply to a depth of 20' MLW. The shelf abutting the Applicant's property is sparsely vegetated with mangroves, and provides limited habitat for aquatic fauna such as domingo mussels and paper oysters. Replacement of these mangroves and other shoreline vegetation with riprap would not significantly affect the biological balance within the cove and would provide suitable habitat for existing species. The waters within the cove are quite clear, and meet the Department's water quality standards except for a thin layer at the deepest part of the cove where dissolved oxygen violations were noted. The proposed marina is, however, to be located in the northeast fifth of the cove, opposite the access canal, where the waters are more shallow and water circulation more prevelant. As sited, the proposed marina will not exacerbate or contribute to a violation of the Department's water quality criteria. Areas of Concern During construction of the marina elevated turbidity may be expected by disruption of the basin sediments caused by installation of the facility's pilings. This can be adequately controlled, however, by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. Shading of the benthic environment is a long term impact associated with marinas. Since the boat slips will be located in the deeper 20' MLW depth of the basin, where seagrasses are not present, sunlight will be permitted to reach the productive areas of the basin lying at 5' - 6' MLW and no adverse impact from shading will be experienced. Boats by their very existence and operation present potential negative short term and long term impacts to the environment. Potential damage to the seagrass beds in the northwest portion of the basin will be eliminated or minimized by the planned installation of buoys and/or signs prohibiting navigation in that area. Potential damage from wave action generated by boat operation will be eliminated or minimized by designating and posting the marina and access channel as an "idle speed-no wake" zone.[footnote 1] [footnote 1: Intervenors raised some concern regarding possible impact to the Florida manatee. While manatee have been sighted in the access channel, their occurrence is infrequent. Marking the shallow areas and designating the area as an "idle speed-no wake" zone will provide reasonable assurances that the manatee will not be adversely affected by the proposed marina.] The fueling of boats, hull maintenance, boat cleaning (detergents), and sewage discharge are additional pollution sources associated with marinas. While the proposed marina will have no fueling facilities and no live-aboards will be allowed at the marina, additional conditions must be attached to the permit to eliminate or minimize potential impacts from these potential pollution sources. In addition to the conditions established by the Department, the following conditions are necessary: All craft docked at the marina shall be prohibited from pumping sewage into the waters of the cove. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to those person(s) who own the slip. Leasing of boat slips shall be prohibited. Living aboard any boat docked at the marina is prohibited at all times.[footnote 2] [footnote 2: During hearing some concern was raised regarding the definition of live- aboard. The Department's intent in specifying no live-aboards was that no person(s) stay overnight on any boat moored at the marina. The purpose of this condition is to clarify that intent.] No boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning shall be allowed at the permitted facility. Limiting use of the boat slips to owners will provide reasonable assurances that the conditions imposed on the requested permit will be complied with. Prohibiting live- aboards, the pumping of sewage, fish cleaning, boat cleaning and hull maintenance, will provide reasonable assurances that Department standards for bacteriological and water quality will not be violated.
Findings Of Fact Respondent/applicant, James L. Carpenter (applicant or Carpenter), is the owner of upland property bordering on and contiguous to a man-made lagoon in Vaca Key near Marathon, Florida. The property is also adjacent to an artificial man-made canal which connects the lagoon to the open waters of Florida Bay. The lagoon and canal are classified as Class III waters of the State while Florida Bay is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. A more precise location of the property is Section 9, Township 66 South, Range 32 East, Monroe County, Florida. By application dated June 23, 1987 applicant sought the issuance of a dredge and fill permit from respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), authorizing the construction of an "L" shaped 125'x8' commercial dock with a 10'x8' access walkway waterward of mean high water (MHW) in the canal. The dock and walkway will be located on the property described in finding of fact 1. According to the application, Carpenter owns several "landlocked residences" in the vicinity of the proposed dock and desires to provide dockage for residents who rent his houses. Because of DER concerns that shading might affect photosynthetic capabilities in the vicinity of the project, applicant agreed to revise his application. This revision was made on December 21, 1987 and reduced the dock size to 102'x6' while the access walkway was increased slightly to 12'x8'. Thus, the dock will extend eight feet into the canal beyond the MHW. On January 5, 1988 DER's district office issued an Intent to Issue a permit subject to seven specific conditions incorporated in the permit. This prompted the filing of a petition by petitioner, Lillian Berdeal (Berdeal), who owns upland property bordering on and contiguous to the lagoon, canal and Florida Bay. She operates a commercial seafood business directly across the canal from Carpenter. According to her petition, Berdeal asserts that Carpenter's dock would adversely affect navigation in the canal and the health, safety and welfare or the property of others. The water body in question is a man-made canal facing to the north and providing an outlet for the lagoon to Florida Bay. The lagoon, which measures approximately 150'x100', is fairly well developed. On the east and southeast side of the lagoon lie an outdoor restaurant and Carpenter's boat rental business. Petitioner's seafood processing operation lies on the west and southwest sides of the lagoon and lagoon entrance. Photographs of the area have been received in evidence as DER exhibits 1 and 2 and petitioner's exhibit 1. Presently, there are five finger piers (docks) in front of Berdeal's property at the narrowest point of the canal. These piers are directly across the canal from Carpenter's proposed dock addition. They extend out eight feet perpendicular to the shoreline and are now used by commercial fishermen for docking purposes while using Berdeal's facility. Approximately thirty or forty boats use the finger piers during fishing season (August - May) while up to twenty may use them in the off-season (June - July). Berdeal described those boats as ranging from thirty to forty-five feet in length and having beams up to, but not exceeding, sixteen feet. However, vessels at petitioner's facility on the day of DER's inspection had an average beam of ten feet. The evidence is conflicting as to the canal's width at its most narrow point. According to DER's expert, the minimum width is seventy-six feet, and this figure is accepted as being more credible than Berdeal's own measurement of sixty-three feet. If the project is constructed, Carpenter's dock, together with a boat having a ten foot beam, would use around eighteen feet of the channel at its most narrow width while Berdeal's facility, if used by the largest boat, would take up another twenty-three feet. This would still leave around thirty-five feet of channel for navigation purposes between the two docks at the canal's most narrow point. According to applicant's expert in navigation, James J. Morrison, who has piloted boats in the area for over thirty years, a boat may safely operate in the canal if it has five feet of water on each side. This margin of safety is sufficient in all weather conditions up to and including a small craft warning. If the project is approved, the necessary margin of safety would be available. It is noted also that there are no significant currents in the canal that would adversely affect navigation, and under normal weather conditions, the canal and basin are easily navigable. Petitioner presented the testimony of a commercial fisherman, Leonard Quasney, who expressed concerns that northerly winds periodically drive aquatic weeds and grasses into the lagoon and canal thereby impairing the ability of a boat to safely operate. These weeds are shown in photographs received as petitioner's exhibit 1. It was Quasney's contention that, coupled with the periodic influx of weeds, the addition of a dock at the canal's most narrow point will make navigation more hazardous. However, this theory was discounted by expert witness Morrison who pointed out that, while it is true that floating mats of weeds affect the ability of a person to handle a boat by making the boat's rudder and propeller action less responsive, they do not affect the ability to navigate the canal. In other words, as long as the margin of safety is available in the canal, the presence of the weeds would not hinder a ship's ability to enter and exit the lagoon. This testimony is accepted as being more credible on the issue, and it is found that the new dock will not create a navigational hazard as a result of the weeds. Berdeal is concerned also that the new dock would make it more difficult for fishermen to access her property and therefore cause economic harm to both her and the fishermen. However, this contention was not substantiated. The parties have stipulated that, with the following special conditions proposed by DER at hearing regarding limitations on commercial use, liveaboards and scraping boat bottoms, all water quality standards will be met: All temporary and permanent use of liveaboard or liveaboard type vessels for residential use is prohibited. All on site fueling activities are prohibited. All major vessel repair, such as hull scraping and painting, with the boat in the water is prohibited. Only private use of the dock is permitted. All double parking or rafting of boats along the dock is prohibited. General conditions common to all dredge and fill permits. The parties have stipulated that the "public interest" criteria in Subsection 403.918(2)(a)2. and 4.-7., Florida Statutes (1987), have been satisfied. In addition, a registered engineer has certified that the dock's construction and use will not have an adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare or the property of others. Petitioner has applied for the issuance of a permit allowing the construction of additional docks at her facility. If the application is approved, these docks will be used for commercial purposes. The proposed impact of this project, and its cumulative impact on the area, was considered by DER in its evaluation of Carpenter's application. However, conditions to be included in Berdeal's permit will minimize any water quality or navigation impacts of the project, even on a cumulative basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of James L. Carpenter for a dredge and fill permit be granted subject to those specific, special and general conditions imposed by the agency. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1988.
The Issue The issue here presented concerns the entitlement of the Applicant/Respondent, Walker G. Miller, to construct an addition to his existing boat house of approximately 450 square feet, and an addition to his existing chain link fence, both of which are located on Lake Down, Florida. The Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, has indicated its intention to grant the permit application request and the Petitioners, Milton and Gail Hess, and David Storey and others, have opposed the Department's intention to grant the permit.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in Case No. 80-1769, Milton Hess, is an adjacent landowner to the Applicant/Respondent, Walker G. Miller, with property located on Lake Down, near Windermere, in Orange County, Florida. The Petitioners in Case No. 80-1770, David Storey and others, are also landowners on Lake Down. Applicant's parcel is located on Down Point, which is a peninsular extending from the Lakes's southern shore. The project as contemplated by the Applicant is the construction of a 15 foot by 30 foot unenclosed addition on the north side of an existing dock/boathouse combination located on Lake Down. The 450 square foot addition is to be utilized as a storage room adjacent to the boathouse portion of his existing structure. The present structure has a total surface area of approximately 825 square feet. Additionally, by amendment to the application made on August 13, 1980, Applicant proposes to construct a chain link fence from the south property line to the dock facility. Lake Down is one of the waterbodies that constitutes the Butler Chain- of Lakes. The Lake is characterized by outstanding water quality and diversified biological resources. The Chain-of Lakes is widely recognized as the outstanding aquatic resource in the State, as far as water quality is concerned. Development on Lake Down is light, with widely scattered residential units separated by expanses of citrus groves. The construction of the addition will not significantly impact Lake Down or the Butler Chain-of Lakes, either on a long-term or short-term basis. The shading effect of the structure will result in a slight decline of rooted aguatic vegetation. However, such decline should be minimal. Further, reasonable assurances have been given that the proposed project would not result in any violations of State water quality criteria or standards. The existing dock structure now obstructs a portion of the view of the lake enjoyed by Petitioner Hess. However, by constructing the proposed addition on the north side of the existing boathouse, no further impediment of the view will occur.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a permit be granted by the Department of Environmental Regulation to Walker G. Miller to construct an addition to his boathouse and a chain link Fence on Lake Down as more specifically described in his amended application. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: David Storey Route 3, Box 929 Orlando, Florida 32811 Jack Ezzard and Kathryn Ezzard Route 3, Box 925 Orlando, Florida 32811 Tari Kazaros Route 3, Box 924 Orlando, Florida 32811 Mrs. H. D. Barrarly Post Office Box 203 Gotha, Florida 32734 Paula M. Harrison Post Office Box 203 Gotha, Florida 32734 Ava Careton Route 3, Box 926 Orlando, Florida 32811 Nikki Clagh Route 3, Box 928 Orlando, Florida 32811 Milton and Gail Hess 4413 Down Point Lane Windermere, Florida 32786 Walker G. Miller Post Office Box 348 Windermere, Florida 32786 B. J. Heller, Esquire 644 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Richard D. Lee, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Orange County should be granted Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) No. 940519-1 for the Keene’s Park and Boat Ramp project (also referred to herein as the "R.D. Keene boat ramp") to be located on Lake Isleworth, part of the Butler Chain of Lakes, an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), pursuant to the permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, Chapter 40E- 4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications of the South Florida Water Management District (the “District”).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: THE PARTIES Petitioner Alicia O’Meara and Intervenor Regina Gibbs are the owners of waterfront property on Lake Isleworth. Petitioner James E. Slater is the trustee and legal owner of waterfront property on Lake Isleworth. Orange County is the owner of waterfront property on Lake Isleworth. The Orange County Parks and Recreation Department, which prepared and submitted the ERP application, administers a budget in excess of $36 million and employs more than 425 persons. The District is a public corporation initially established under Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and currently operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, Florida Administrative Code. The District is statutorily responsible for issuance of ERP permits. THE CURRENT SITUATION The Butler Chain of Lakes is a series of interconnected lakes in Orange County, covering in excess of 5,000 acres, and including Lake Down (the northernmost lake in the Butler Chain), Lake Butler, Wauseon Bay, Lake Louise, Lake Isleworth (also known as Lake Palmer), Lake Chase, Lake Blanche, Lake Tibet-Butler, Lake Sheen, Pocket Lake, Little Fish Lake, and their connecting canals. The Butler Chain drains south into the Upper Kissimmee River Basin. The Butler Chain of Lakes is a Class III water body, and has been designated as an OFW since 1984. The Butler Chain of Lakes is surrounded by exclusive residential communities. There are approximately 1,400 docks on the Butler Chain of Lakes, providing private access to at least that many motorized watercraft. At all relevant times, there has been one boat ramp open to the general public on the Butler Chain. That public ramp is located in the southeastern portion of Lake Down, and is immediately adjacent to vehicular traffic on Conroy-Windermere Road. The ramp was deeded to Orange County by a private owner in the 1950s. The Lake Down ramp is an inclined cement or concrete slab that leads down into the shallow water and allows boat trailers to be backed to water’s edge and boats to be unloaded into Lake Down. The ramp has no dock, floating dock, buoys, or any other structure that would provide ease of access to handicapped or disabled persons. The ramp has no mooring facility in its vicinity. Should there be a need to moor a boat, the operator must do so in the shoreline vegetation. The Lake Down ramp has no adjacent parking lot. Orange County leases a vacant lot on the other side of Conroy-Windermere Road for boat ramp parking. This lot is approximately 1,900 feet from the boat ramp. Boaters must unload their boats at the ramp, moor the boats, drive to the lot to park their vehicles and trailers, then walk the 1,900 feet along Conroy-Windermere Road back to the place where they left their boats. The sidewalk along Conroy-Windermere Road does not extend the full 1,900 feet between the Lake Down ramp and the vacant lot. For about 300 feet of the trek to and from the ramp, people must walk on the roadside grass. Orange County leases the vacant lot from Windermere Property Holdings. The term of the lease expires on January 15, 2001. The lease also provides that either party may terminate it by providing 60 days written notice. Absent this lease, Orange County would have no provision for parking vehicles and boat trailers anywhere remotely near the Lake Down ramp. A further problem with the public ramp at Lake Down is that the only access channel from Lake Down to the remainder of the Butler Chain is through Wauseon Bay. The Wauseon Bay channel runs under a low vehicular overpass, which prevents access for all but the smallest boats from Lake Down to the other lakes in the chain when the water level is too high or too low. Thus, there are times when the general public has boating access only to Lake Down, the northernmost lake in the Butler Chain. There are other boat ramps on the Butler Chain, but none of these is available to the general public of Orange County. The Orlando Utility Company owns a private ramp on Lake Down. The Town of Windermere owns a public ramp, but allows its use only by residents of the Town of Windermere. The Sportsman’s Club owns a ramp on Lake Sheen, but access is limited to club members. There is a private ramp on Lake Tibet-Butler at the Bay Hill Lodge, with a fueling system, a marina, and a mooring facility. The Isleworth Country Club owns a recently permitted ramp on Lake Tibet-Butler. THE KEENE'S PARK AND BOAT RAMP SITE The limited public access to the Butler Chain led the Orange County Board of County Commissioners to pursue a policy of obtaining multiple access sites on the Butler Chain. The Keene's Park site, on approximately 52 acres of property owned by Orange County, was the Board’s first choice. The site of the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp is located within an abandoned citrus grove. While the site was being used as a citrus grove, a canal was constructed from Lake Isleworth to the adjacent uplands to provide a source of water for irrigation. The proposed ramp would be located within this previously excavated canal, which is deep enough to permit navigation out into the lake without running over shallow areas and with minimal potential for turbidity. Also on the site was a pump house for a diesel powered pump that was used for irrigating the citrus grove. A site inspection indicated that there was soil contamination caused by a fuel leak from the pump house. At the request of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), Orange County removed the pump house and performed environmental remediation on the site, including the removal, incineration and replacement of 21 tons of soil. DEP issued a Site Rehabilitation Completion Order on February 15, 1995, indicating that Orange County had fully remediated the on-site contamination. On May 19, 1994, Orange County submitted to the District a Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida. The Surface Water Application was numbered 940519-1, and the Dredge and Fill Application was numbered 940519-1-D. The District sent Requests for Additional Information as to both permits to Orange County on August 24, 1994, and Orange County submitted its responses to December 6, 1995. The District sent further Requests for Additional Information to Orange County as to both permits on January 12, 1996, and Orange County responded to both requests on November 6, 1996. On or about November 7, 1996, Orange County converted its Surface Water and Dredge and Fill Permit Applications to an ERP Application. The District issued an ERP Staff Review Summary on December 26, 1996; an Amended ERP Staff Review Summary on October 30, 1997; and a Second Amended ERP Staff Review Summary on February 13, 1998. In each of the Staff Review summaries, District staff recommended that the proposed permit be issued, subject to attached general and special conditions. THE PROPOSED BOAT RAMP The proposed R. D. Keene boat ramp consists of a 30-foot wide boat ramp, two 6-foot wide concrete walks, one floating dock designed to accommodate the handicapped or anyone else who has difficulty getting in or out of a boat, and a mooring system allowing boats to queue for use of the ramp. No boat slips or fueling facilities are proposed for the boat ramp. The installation of the boat ramp will utilize the Tedder Boat Ramp System, which minimizes the amount of dredging and filling required during construction by placing a factory precast concrete slab directly onto the lake bottom, eliminating the need for dewatering during installation. The ramp will be a double ramp, allowing two boats to load or unload simultaneously. The Tedder System is the latest technology in boat ramps. The ramp will be beneath the boats as they get on and off the trailer, minimizing turbidity even if boats “power load,” i.e., use their engines to push the boats on and off the trailer, as opposed to manually cranking the boat on or off the trailer. In any event, power loading will be prohibited at the R.D. Keene boat ramp. This proposal contrasts with the public ramp at Lake Down, where there is no prohibition on power loading and where the boats load and unload directly over the lake bottom, creating the potential for turbidity. During construction of the R.D. Keene ramp, hay bales and a silt fence will be used to protect against erosion, and two turbidity barriers will be used to isolate turbidity caused by the construction. The erosion control devices will be placed landward of an average 25-foot upland buffer zone. The queuing system will be approximately 230-feet long to prevent shoreline mooring and to provide temporary facilities for waiting boats if the ramp is in use. A post and cabling system will be run along the line of vegetation on the northeast side of the proposed ramp, allowing boats to moor in the vicinity of the ramp. Petitioners correctly state that this queuing system, located on the west side of the ramp, will not prevent shoreline mooring on the east side of the ramp. However, Orange County more credibly contends that there is no reason for boaters to moor in the vegetation on the east side. The queuing system will permit 20 to 30 boats conveniently to moor in the vicinity of the ramp. The queuing system is on the west side of the ramp, as is the parking lot. Dale Mudrak of Orange County credibly testified that the queuing system is sufficient for the anticipated use of the ramp, and there will be no need for boaters to moor in vegetation, as they are forced to do at the Lake Down ramp. Boaters have been forced to improvise at the Lake Down ramp due to the paucity of amenities. Petitioners are wrong to assume that boaters will continue these improvised behaviors at the R.D. Keene ramp, a facility that will provide such basics as a place to moor and to park boat trailers. Pursuant to the special conditions of the District’s Staff Review, absorbent booms will be installed on each side of the boat ramp to absorb oils, greases, and petroleum-based byproducts. Each section of the boom is 10 feet long, five inches in diameter, and, according to the manufacturer’s specification, capable of absorbing six to nine gallons of petroleum-based liquid. Between six and eight booms will be in place at any given time, enough to contain small oil spills at the boat ramp. Randall Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental opined that these booms will be inadequate because they will absorb only those pollutants, particularly hydrocarbons, which they come in contact with on the surface of the water. Mr. Armstrong testified that pollutants farther down in the water column will not be absorbed by the booms, rendering the booms ineffective. Mr. Armstrong’s opinion is not credited, because it assumes that Orange County must guarantee that the booms will absorb all water-borne pollutants in the vicinity of the proposed boat ramp. Having the booms in place will obviously be preferable to not having them in place. If the booms work well, as Orange County has credibly testified they will, it is unreasonable to criticize them because they will not work perfectly. Pursuant to the special conditions of the District's Staff Review, an oil-spill emergency response kit will be maintained at the ramp site at all times. Park staff will be trained in proper use of the emergency kit. Contact numbers will be posted at the site for use by the public, should a spill occur when park personnel are not present. In case of a fuel or oil spill, park personnel are required to take immediate measures to notify the appropriate emergency response agency. The construction of the proposed boat ramp utilizes suitable technology for all stationary installations, including those created for drainage, flood control, or by dredging or filling. The parties agree that the storm water management system and the surface water management system for the project meet all applicable criteria for issuance of the ERP, and that the facility will have no adverse wetland impact. Deed restrictions between Orange County and the predecessor title holder of the property limit the number of boat trailer parking spaces to fifty (50) or fewer at all times for the entire 52-acre site. A total of 50 parking spaces are proposed for construction: 47 regular vehicle trailer spaces, two (2) handicapped spaces, and one space for staff. Posts with cabling will be constructed along the entrance roadway and parking areas to prevent parking of boat trailers in undesignated areas. Signage will also indicate that parking along the driveway and main access road is prohibited. Access to the proposed ramp will be limited to daylight hours. The R.D. Keene Park will be locked at night to prevent public access. Petitioners assert that Orange County has not and cannot guarantee that only 49 boats will enter Lake Isleworth from the ramp at any one time, citing the fact that Orange County does not control access to the ramp by way of Chase Road, which is the access road to the R.D. Keene Park. Petitioners speculate that boaters may park their trailers along Chase Road, causing an excess of 49 users of the ramp at a given time. Absent more than speculation, Petitioners’ assertions cannot be credited nor can Orange County be held at fault for failure to anticipate these remote possibilities. Petitioners are once more observing the improvised behaviors at the Lake Down ramp and assuming they will carry over to the R.D. Keene ramp, even though the latter will have adequate parking adjacent to the ramp. Petitioners also cite the fact that Orange County’s construction plans do not include fencing on the south side of the park to prevent pedestrian access from the Keene’s Pointe subdivision. Petitioners speculate that boaters will put their boats in at the R.D. Keene ramp, park their trailers somewhere in that subdivision, then walk back to the ramp to take their boats out on the lake. Again, Petitioners contend this operates to negate Orange County’s assurances there will be only 49 users of the ramp at a given time. Again, these speculations cannot be credited as facts nor can Orange County be found at fault for failure to anticipate these remote possibilities. Petitioners provided no evidence that this ramp will be so overwhelmed with boaters that the overflow will pour out into the nearby neighborhoods. The boat ramp will be staffed by personnel from the Orange County Parks and Recreation Department. Orange County staff will not be present at all times the boat ramp is open. Orange County has made no commitment to have staff present during all hours of weekend operation. Christi Flood, Manager of the Orange County Parks and Recreation Department, testified that full-time staff will be present on predictably busy weekends. Petitioners contend that the lack of staff present at the ramp during all hours of operation means that Orange County cannot prevent: power loading or unloading; draining, cleaning or washing; discharging of bilge pumps or popping of drain plugs into the water; shoreline mooring or disturbance of shoreline vegetation; fueling at the ramp; watercraft over 27 feet; boats with antifouling paint; or use of the facility by watercraft without permits. However, Petitioners failed to offer hard evidence that the patrols proposed by Orange County will not reasonably enforce the park rules, or support for their assumption that users of the boat ramp will ignore the park rules when staff is absent. Orange County could not guarantee perfect compliance with every rule, even with the full-time staff that Petitioners seek. Orange County staff will be empowered to enforce the park rules with citations, which would include fines or revocation of the privilege to use the boat ramp. Parking restrictions will be enforced by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department. The Butler Chain of Lakes is patrolled by other agencies, including the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Orange County’s Environmental Protection Department, the Windermere Navigational Board, and the Marine Patrol. The special conditions of the District’s Staff Review require Orange County to implement an Operational Plan, the terms of which have been specifically set forth by Orange County in its submissions to the District. To use the ramp, a boater must fill out a Day Use Permit stating that the boater will abide by the park’s rules, and pay a fee. All conditions of the Operational Plan are included in the Day Use Permit. Permitting will be done on the honor system when Orange County staff persons are not actually present. Blank permit forms will be left at the ramp. Boaters will fill out the forms, place their money in an envelope to be deposited in a secure tube provided at the site, then display the permits on their car dashboards while parked at the ramp. Ms. Flood testified that no more than 49 permits will be issued at a given time. A trailer carrying multiple watercraft will be required to obtain a permit for each watercraft. Ms. Flood conceded that more than 49 permits could be issued over the course of a day, as boats come and go from the ramp. As stated in the Operational Plan and the Day Use Permit, the following rules will apply to all watercraft launching at proposed boat ramp: No power loading or unloading. No draining, cleaning or washing at the ramp. No discharging of bilge pumps and opping of drain plugs at the ramp or in the water. No anchoring or parking along shoreline and no disturbance of shoreline vegetation. Use designated queuing system while waiting for ramp availability. No littering. All "No wake" areas must be obeyed (including the No Wake Zone within 100 feet of shoreline, as mandated by Orange County ordinance). No fueling allowed at the ramp for any watercraft. No watercraft over 27 feet will be permitted. No boats with antifouling paint will be permitted. No overnight mooring. The R.D. Keene Park will be closed if the water level falls below 97-feet. Dale Mudrak, the Program Development Supervisor in the Planning and Design section of the Orange County Parks and Recreation Department, testified that 97 feet was chosen to ensure that boats would not use the ramp when the water is too low. Mr. Mudrak stated that when the water elevation is at 97 feet, there is 5-feet of water at the ramp, but only 3-feet of water in the shallow canals leaving Lake Isleworth. He testified that the Windermere Navigational Board recommended closing the ramp when the level reaches 96 feet, but that Orange County conservatively decided to add 1-foot to the recommendation. WETLAND IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The project is expected to result in 0.07 acres of secondary wetland impacts (removal of littoral zone vegetation) above that required for construction. A total of 0.14 acres of wetland impacts will occur from direct construction and secondary wetland impacts. Mitigation for the 0.14 acres of wetland impact includes 0.56 acres of wetland creation. The wetland creation areas are divided into three separate zones (A, B, and D). Both forested and herbaceous species will be planted in each area. The forested species include cypress, red maple, sweet bay, water oak, swamp bay and dahoom. The herbaceous species include soft rush, maidencane, cordgrass, sawgrass, duck-potato, pickerel-weed, and buttonbush. Approximately 1.61 acres of wetland preservation is also provided as mitigation. Pursuant to the special conditions of the District's Staff Review, Orange County will provide a conservation easement. The conservation easement will be placed over the preserved wetlands, mitigation area, and upland buffer zones and deeded to the District. A total of 2.90 acres will be placed under this conservation easement. Elimination and reduction of wetland impacts has been demonstrated. Adverse impacts to aquatic dependent species from wetland impacts are not expected, because the values and functions provided by the proposed mitigation outweigh the wetland loss. AMBIENT WATER QUALITY Orange County has an extensive water quality monitoring program, and has accumulated historic water quality data for over thirty years, including a broad range of physical, chemical and biological parameters, for the Butler Chain of Lakes. In its application, Orange County provided site- specific water quality, sediment, and macroinvertebrate samples. The water quality parameters sampled include four categories: physical properties, inorganics, organics, and microbiology. Orange County also provided historic water quality data for a period of ten years (1984-1994) for Lake Isleworth, Lake Louise (the immediate upstream waterbody), and Lake Tibet-Butler (the immediate downstream waterbody). This data included the year Lake Isleworth was designated as an OFW in 1984 and the year prior to submission of the ERP application. Linda Jennings, the Laboratory Supervisor for the Orange County EPD, testified that the historical data demonstrated that the water quality in the Butler Chain of Lakes has been excellent since at least 1983 and remains so today, even with development and boating steadily increasing over that period. The historical data show some small variances attributable to seasonal and cyclical fluctuations, but no long- term deterioration of water quality in the Butler Chain, despite the heavy recreational use of those lakes during the period in question. The historical water quality data provided by Orange County in this case is far better than is usually submitted to an agency during the application process, even for those projects located in OFWs. This historical data allowed the District to make a more informed decision than usual regarding the long term status of the water quality of the Butler Chain. Orange County provided water quality data for those parameters showing the general water quality, and for those parameters specifically related to boat ramp activity, such as Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds, discussed in more detail below. The historic water quality data demonstrates there have been no major changes in water quality over the ten-year period of record and that, if there is any trend at all, it is a trend toward improved water quality. The water quality of Lake Isleworth and the Butler Chain of Lakes is excellent and has maintained its superior quality since 1983. ORANGE COUNTY’S PAH DATA Orange County provided water quality data from October 1997 and January 1998 for Lake Sheen, Lake Isleworth and Lake Down. Orange County collected and analyzed numerous water and sediment samples for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (“PAHs”), also called Polynuclear Aromatic Compounds, which are compounds found in gasoline and other petroleum products. The presence of PAHs in the water indicates the presence of petroleum products in the water. Starting on October 14, 1997 and continuing through October 20, 1997, Orange County EPD took 84 water samples on seven consecutive days at twelve stations: at the ramp, east edge, and center of Lake Down; at the west edge, center, and east edge of Lake Isleworth; at the ramp, center, and west edge of Lake Sheen; and at the ramp, center, and east edge of Lake Conway, a heavily used Orange County lake outside of the Butler Chain. Orange County EPD also took 28 sediment samples, representing a total of 84 sediment samples, at each of the twelve stations for seven consecutive days, taking composites of the three sites in each of the four lakes: Lake Down, Lake Isleworth, Lake Sheen and Lake Conway. An independent laboratory, Bottorf Associates, Inc., analyzed each of the 84 water samples and the 28 composite sediment samples for 16 different PAH parameters, including naphthalene. This represents a total of 112 samples and a total of 1,792 different PAH tests. Environmental testing laboratories are required by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to file a comprehensive quality assurance plan (“QAP”) for all field and lab procedures they perform. Among the data included in the filed QAP is a statement of the method detection limit ("MDL"), the lowest level of a particular compound that the laboratory can report on a continuing basis using a particular form of test and a particular piece of equipment, with 99 percent confidence that the value is above zero. The MDL is arrived at by assessing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) testing method being used, in conjunction with the particular instrument and the abilities of the analyst, with the goal of stating an MDL that can be achieved on a daily basis in the ordinary operations of the laboratory. The MDL can also be described as that level below which the laboratory cannot be certain whether it is reporting accurate values or whether it is reporting background noise in the sample. The laboratory results reported by Bottorf Associates, using EPA Test Method 610 for PAHs, indicated that every reading for every parameter tested was below the MDL for the following array of PAHs (MDLs are stated in micrograms/liter): Acenaphthene 1.4 Acenaphylene 3.4 Anthracene 4.2 Benzo(a)anthracene 4.0 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3.9 Benzo(ghi)prylene 10.0 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 4.0 Chrysene 4.0 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 6.8 Fluoranthene 1.7 Fluorene 3.0 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 7.5 Naphthalene 1.4 Phenanthrene 1.2 Pyrene 2.4 Orange County’s test results indicated that, as a practical matter, there were no PAHs at any of these locations on the days of testing. In January 1998, Orange County EPD took additional water samples at the following 10 sites: the ramp, east edge, and center of Lake Down; the west edge, center, east edge, and future ramp site on Lake Isleworth; and the ramp, center, and west edge of Lake Sheen. The 10 water samples were tested for 13 different PAH constituents, including naphthalene. All of the constituents tested in January 1998, were below the MDL, confirming the testing done in October 1997. Orange County EPD’s result sheets from the January 1998, sampling included qualifier identifier codes to show that the data was being reported at a level below the MDL. Essentially, the codes indicate that no PAHs could be detected even at a level of one-half the MDL on file with DEP. Orange County’s data indicates that neither the water nor the sediments at Lake Down, which has had a public boat ramp for decades, show any reliably detectable levels of PAHs. Orange County’s data indicates that neither the water nor the sediments from Lake Sheen, which has a boat ramp for a membership club with a fueling facility and dock, show any reliably detectable levels of PAHs. Orange County’s data indicates that neither the water nor the sediments from Lake Conway, which has a heavily used boat ramp, show any reliably detectable levels of PAHs. PETITIONERS’ PAH DATA Petitioners introduced a study performed by Mote Marine, a state certified research laboratory, assessing the levels of hydrocarbon contamination associated with boat launching and loading activities at the Lake Down and Lake Sheen boat ramps. Specifically, Mote Marine sampled for naphthalene, one of the PAHs that is an indicator of petroleum discharges into the water body. Mote Marine collected water samples at the boat ramp, the opposite shoreline, and the center of Lake Down and Lake Sheen. Mote Marine also collected water samples at the site of the proposed boat ramp and near a canal on Lake Isleworth. All of these samples were taken during Labor Day weekend, between August 31 and September 4, 1995. Mote Marine’s QAP indicates that its MDL for naphthalene under either EPA Method 625 for Base/Neutrals and Acids or EPA Method 610 is two micrograms per liter. Mote Marine employed EPA Method 625. Orange County used EPA Method 610. The values for naphthalene reported by Mote Marine were expressed not in terms of micrograms, but in terms of nanograms. A nanogram is one-thousandth of a microgram. Of the 72 individual water samples collected by Mote Marine at Lake Down, Lake Sheen, and Lake Isleworth over the 1995 Labor Day weekend, only one registered a naphthalene concentration above the two micrograms per liter MDL in Mote Marine’s QAP. The majority of the measurements were reported as less than 10 nanograms per liter. Dr. Richard Pierce, the Director of Research at Mote Marine, testified that the QAP on file at DEP is a broad based plan encompassing all the various analyses performed by the laboratory, in effect a “worst case scenario” setting a high MDL that is easy to meet in all cases. Dr. Pierce also testified that DEP and the U.S. EPA allow a laboratory to vary from its filed MDL on specific projects, and that his laboratory was able to establish an MDL of six nanograms per liter for this particular project. Dr. Pierce testified that three major factors are involved in establishing a project specific MDL. The first factor is how “clean” the sample is, i.e., how many interfering compounds are present that may elicit a response from the detector being used. The second factor is the quality of the instrumentation, and the third is the skill of the analytical chemist performing the analysis. Dr. Pierce’s factors coincide with the factors listed by Ms. Jennings of Orange County as to the considerations involved in establishing a comprehensive MDL. Mote Marine did not file a Quality Assurance Project Plan for this project. Dr. Pierce testified that such a filing was not required in order to apply a lower MDL for this project. Orange County contended that such a filing was necessary, but offered no specific reference to a rule that would have required Mote Marine to file a Quality Assurance Project Plan under these circumstances. The undersigned could discover no DEP rule that unequivocally would require the filing of a Quality Assurance Project Plan for the activities conducted by Mote Marine. Thus, Dr. Pierce’s expertise as Director of Research is credited and it is accepted that Mote Marine could establish a project specific MDL in this instance, and properly did so. A chart in the Mote Marine report, purporting to show the average naphthalene concentrations in the subsurface water as determined by Mote Marine’s sampling, contained several inaccuracies. The chart stated that the measurements were being reported in terms of micrograms, when in fact the numbers represented nanograms. In two places, the average concentrations were miscalculated, either because the correct factors were not included or due to simple mathematical error. The Mote Marine report also provided no information on the actual locations of the testing sites in terms of latitude and longitude, thus making it difficult if not impossible to check or repeat the sampling. The problems with methodology and with simple calculations make it difficult confidently to rely on the Mote Marine report as regards naphthalene. However, even if the Mote Marine report had been impeccably accomplished, its results would not establish a definite correlation between naphthalene contamination and boating activities. Petitioners assume that the concentrations of naphthalene that Mote Marine found in the vicinity of the Lake Down and Lake Sheen boat ramps are attributable to boating activity, ignoring the fact that neither of these boat ramps has a storm water management system. Both the Lake Down and Lake Sheen ramps directly adjoin roads, and have no buffering system whatever for storm water runoff from those roads. There was rain on the Butler Chain during the Labor Day weekend of 1995, when Mote Marine took its samples. In fact, a tropical depression had only recently passed through the Orlando area. Dr. Pierce could not determine the relative input of contaminants from automobiles and from boats. Dr. Pierce had no opinion on whether the amount of naphthalene found by his laboratory is environmentally or ecologically significant. Dr. Pierce had no opinion as to whether hydrocarbon contamination is degrading the water quality of Lake Down. Randall Armstrong, a consultant with Phoenix Environmental, opined that the reported naphthalene levels would degrade the water quality, but admitted that he was not an expert in chemistry and was ignorant of Mote’s methodology. Even accepting all of Petitioners' assertions as accurate, it cannot be found that the proposed R.D. Keene ramp and its surface water management system would lead to the introduction of petroleum products into the water column in amounts sufficient to degrade the water quality. Dr. Douglas Durbin, a Senior Ecologist with Biological Research Associates and an expert in lake ecology, defined degradation of water quality as a negative and permanent change in the ecological or recreational status of a water body. Dr. Durbin testified that, even if the Mote Marine data were accurate and reliable, those levels of naphthalene were lower by at least two orders of magnitude than levels that could potentially affect even the most sensitive organisms, as those affective levels have been established by the United States EPA. This is not necessarily the standard for determining degradation, but is indicative that the levels of naphthalene under discussion are infinitesimal. Mr. Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental contended that the impact to water quality by an activity need not be permanent in nature or even ecologically significant in order to violate the water quality standards of the District. Mr. Armstrong's rationale is that any "measurable" lowering of the water quality of the OFW violates the rules, even if that measurement must be accomplished in nanograms and cannot be shown to have any effect whatever on any of the biota of the water system. This rationale would essentially shut down all new activities on OFWs, and is at odds not only with the District's interpretation but with the views expressed by Mr. Armstrong himself on other projects. Dr. Durbin's opinion regarding the nature of degradation is credited over that of Mr. Armstrong. WATER QUALITY MODELING AND IMPACT OF THE PROJECT After establishing the ambient water quality, Orange County performed water quality modeling to determine if the ambient water quality would be lowered by the construction and operation of the boat ramp. The number of boat ramp users will vary based on various factors including temperature and day of the week. The ramp is sized for 144 launch events per day, meaning that a maximum of 72 boats could use the ramp on a given day. Mr. Mudrak testified that the ramp was sized so that parking, not the size of the ramp, will be the limiting factor in ramp usage. The ramp will have 50 parking spaces, one of which will be reserved for Orange County staff use and two of which will be designated for handicapped use. Robert Robbins, the District’s permitting expert, testified that the District’s analysis generally concerns a determination of the amount or rate of input of pollutants that a lake can assimilate without exceeding its assimilation threshold, i.e., lowering the ambient water quality. Mr. Robbins further testified that this determination was unnecessary here because the District found a negative answer to a threshold question: would a boat ramp and 50 boat parking area under any circumstances exceed the assimilation threshold? As part of a grant project that involved a water quality model and water management study, Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., collected data on the geometric characteristics of the lakes, the topographic and ecological characteristics of the basins, and the existing land uses to develop a hydrodynamic and water quality model of the Butler Chain of Lakes, hereafter referred to as the “BCL model.” The BCL model provided a conservative hydrodynamic analysis of the rate of input and dilution of pollutants, and indicated that there is no potential for the accumulation of pollutants in the Butler Chain of Lakes as a result of the project. Parsons Engineering considered the chemical and physical properties of the gasoline constituents and ran the BCL model using the pertinent chemical and physical parameters. The BCL model took into consideration volatilization and adsorption of hydrocarbons from the water. In an effort to reach a conservative result, the BCL model did not include the loss of gasoline constituents through biodegradation or photolysis, processes in which the hydrocarbons dissipate over a longer period of time. The BCL model predicted that no accumulation of gasoline constituents, including naphthalene, would occur in Lake Isleworth at a level equivalent to the expected daily usage of the proposed boat ramp, an average of 25 boats per day. The BCL model predicted that no accumulation of gasoline constituents, including naphthalene, would occur at a constant level of 77 boats using the proposed ramp every day, triple the expected daily usage and five boats more than the capacity of the proposed ramp. At a level equivalent to the expected daily usage, the BCL model predicted that the daily concentration of the PAHs benzene, toluene and naphthalene, would be below the laboratory detection limits. At a level that is triple the expected daily usage, the BCL model predicted that the daily concentration of the PAHs benzene, toluene and naphthalene would be below the laboratory detection limits. In summary, the BCL model predicts that even if the proposed ramp had a capacity of 77 boats per day rather than 72, and if 77 boats were served by the ramp every day of the year, rather than the actual anticipated average of 25 boats, there would be no degradation of water quality caused by introduction of hydrocarbons into the water of Lake Isleworth. Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, a consultant engineer with Phoenix Environmental, also performed a hydrographic study to determine flushing patterns for Lake Isleworth in the vicinity of the proposed boat ramp. Dr. Echternacht testified that, without good flushing, continuous loads of pollutants will build in the water body, lowering water quality. “Flushing” is the time required to reduce the concentration of a “conservative” pollutant to ten percent of its original concentration. A conservative pollutant is one that does not erode, decay, or go through any biological update process. Dr. Echternacht testified that standard engineering practice in Florida is to assume that a flushing time in excess of four days will result in the accumulation of materials. Section 4.2.4.3 of the Basis of Review states that a four day flushing time is “desirable” for docking facilities. The project at issue is not a "docking facility" as that term is used in Section 4.2.4.3, hence there is no requirement or preference in law for a four-day flushing period. Dr. Echternacht’s study concluded that the minimum flushing time for the proposed boat ramp on Lake Isleworth will be 26 days. Dr. Echternacht’s study was limited to a strict one- dimensional appraisal of the physics of Lake Isleworth. Dr. Echternacht professed no expertise in chemistry, and he did not take into account the chemical properties of the pollutants at issue in this proceeding. He assumed that the pollutants would be “conservative,” when in fact petroleum constituents are volatile, and will disappear through volatilization, adsorption, biodegradation, and photolysis. Petitioners failed to establish any connection between Dr. Echternacht’s flushing analysis and the Mote Marine study on PAHs. Dr. Echternacht’s analysis is thus of little practical significance, because no evidence was adduced to show that a 26-day flushing time will result in the accumulation of PAHs and a degradation of water quality, when the PAHs are introduced in the nanogram amounts reported by Mote Marine. The Lake Down ramp has been heavily used by the public for many years, directly adjacent to a reasonably busy road and without any surface water management system, and still the only traces of naphthalene found by any laboratory were measured in nanograms, with no indication that these pollutants will accumulate when introduced in those trace amounts. In summary, the evidence regarding naphthalene concentrations is insufficient to establish that the proposed R.D. Keene ramp will have any adverse effect on the water quality of Lake Isleworth specifically or the Butler Chain generally as regards petroleum contamination. TURBIDITY At the same time they collected water samples regarding PAHs, both Orange County and Petitioners collected turbidity samples. Turbidity is a means of quantifying particular matter in water that absorbs light or otherwise keeps light from passing through the water. It may have natural causes, such as phytoplankton cells or erosion after a storm, or it may be caused by human activity in or adjacent to water bodies. Turbidity is measured in nephelmetric turbidity units, or “NTUs.” The historical water quality data shows a turbidity range of 0.3 NTUs to 2.2 NTUs for Lake Isleworth. These are low levels of turbidity, indicating very clear water in Lake Isleworth. Dr. Durbin testified that natural turbidities can run into the hundreds or even thousands of NTUs, depending on what is happening in the watershed, and that turbidity is not considered a problem until it reaches levels at which there is some effect on the organisms that live in the system. Both Dr. Durbin and Ms. Jennings testified that, in assessing measurements in NTUs, the numbers to the right of the decimal are unreliable; in other words, a measurement of 2.0 NTUs should be considered as virtually identical to a measurement of 2.40 or 2.80 NTUs. In the period from October 14 through October 20, 1997, Orange County took turbidity samples from Lake Down (east edge, center, and boat ramp area), Lake Isleworth (west edge, east edge, and center), Lake Sheen (west edge, center, and boat ramp area), and Lake Conway (east edge, center, and boat ramp area). Seven samples were taken at each location, making a total of 84 turbidity samples. The highest individual measurement was 5.40 NTUs, measured at the Lake Down boat ramp on October 15. This is itself a low level. Dr. Durbin testified that no concerns are raised until turbidity measurements reach 30 NTUs, and that short-term measurements in the hundreds or even thousands of NTUs may cause no harm to the biota of a system. Further, in fewer than 24 hours this measurement of 5.40 NTUs had settled out to a measurement of 1.60 NTUs. None of the other 83 measurements even reached the level of 2.0 NTUs, all within the historical background turbidity range for the Butler Chain of Lakes. No increase in turbidity can be traced to boating activity in the October 1997 sampling. The samplers’ field notes indicate whether and how much boating activity was occurring as the samples were being taken, and no causal connection can be drawn between boating activity and turbidity. Orange County EPD took further turbidity samples on January 23, 1998. These samples were taken in the Wauseon Bay canal, and were an effort by Orange County to deliberately follow in the wake of boats and obtain the maximum possible amount of turbidity. None of the 8 measurements taken in this sampling showed turbidity in excess of the background turbidity, considering Ms. Jennings undisputed testimony that NTUs may be reliably measured only in whole numbers. The measurements taken in the wake of boats ranged from 1.18 NTUs to 1.71 NTUs, as compared with background measurements ranging from 1.05 NTUs to 1.13 NTUs. Phoenix Environmental, in conjunction with Mote Marine, took turbidity samples at the Lake Down boat ramp during the Labor Day weekend of 1995. These samples indicated background turbidity from 1.2 NTUs to 2.5 NTUs, and showed turbidity spiking to levels as high as 29.0 NTUs during extensive launching activity, particularly when the boat operators used the “power loading” technique discussed above. “Power loading” will be prohibited at the proposed R.D. Keene ramp. Further, the Tedder system would minimize turbidity even if boat operators violated the prohibition, because it would eliminate prop dredging directly on the lake bottom. As notable as the turbidity spikes in the Phoenix/Mote samples is the rapidity with which the turbidity diminished. The aforementioned measurement of 29.0 NTUs had diminished to 2.8 NTUs within eight minutes. This is consistent with the testimony of Ms. Jennings that the nature of the sediments in the Butler Chain is such that turbidity settles out very quickly. Michael Henry, a senior chemist at Mote Marine, concurred that three minutes is enough time for boat ramp sediments to clear on Lake Down. The turbidity sampling by Phoenix/Mote over the Labor Day weekend of 1995 was not conducted with an approved quality assurance and control plan. Mr. Armstrong thus made the decision that further turbidity sampling should be done, using the proper protocols. The second turbidity sampling by Mote Marine, performed on October 26, 1997, and corrected on February 13, 1998, showed values much closer to those found in the Orange County sampling. The highest properly recorded value was a reading of 6.54 NTUs at the Lake Down boat ramp, and this value settled to 1.5 NTUs within eight minutes. As to this second Mote Marine study, Orange County contends that Mote Marine used bottles for taking samples that were not laboratory cleaned, did not properly calibrate the equipment, used a blank test sample which their records indicated had expired, and improperly influenced the results of the sampling by wading out to the sample area. None of these contentions is supported by the evidence. Mote Marine ran out of laboratory cleaned bottles before it had completed sampling, and thus was required to field clean and reuse 15 bottles. The weight of the evidence is that Mote Marine properly field cleaned those bottles in accordance with the section of its filed QAP dealing with cleaning procedures for equipment not being used for trace analyses. Orange County’s criticisms might have been well taken had Mote Marine been collecting samples for naphthalene testing, but not for collection of turbidity samples. Mote Marine’s turbidity meter was bench calibrated by a senior chemist at Mote Marine about four days prior to the actual testing. Continuing calibration verification (“CCV”) was performed in the field. Mr. Henry testified that the meter was performing perfectly, and that it is acceptable practice to use a meter over several days without a bench calibration, provided it has not malfunctioned during a CCV. The weight of the evidence supports a finding that Mote Marine properly calibrated its turbidity meter. In calibrating the meter, the senior chemist employs a formazin standard, which is diluted to a specific concentration, placed in the meter and read, generating a calibration curve to which the rest of the unknown samples are calibrated. The calibration was performed on October 23, 1997, but the report prepared by the chemist indicates that two of the formazin standard dilutions used had expiration dates of April 23, 1997. Orange County contends that the use of these apparently expired formazin standards compromised the calibration and rendered unreliable the turbidity sampling conducted by Mote Marine. Mr. Henry testified that the formazin standard in question was purchased and received via express delivery on October 23, 1997, the day the calibration was conducted. The chemist performed the dilutions, which at the levels in question had a six month expiration date. Thus, these dilutions would have had an expiration date of April 23, 1998. Mr. Henry testified that the chemist simply made an error in writing down “4/23/97” rather than the correct date of “4/23/98.” Mr. Henry’s explanation is plausible and is accepted. Mote Marine did not use expired calibration blanks. Mr. Henry testified that the sampling was accomplished by wading into the water to about shin height, opening the lid to the sample bottle, stepping forward, rinsing the bottle, stepping forward again, then collecting the sample. Mr. Henry stated that this was an acceptable procedure. His presence in the water did not itself cause turbidity because sediments do not kick straight up from the bottom, and his reaching out to collect the sample eliminated any potential for collecting samples influenced by his presence. Ms. Jennings correctly pointed out that the better sampling method would involve standing on shore or in a boat and using an extension pole to take the sample, eliminating any remote possibility of taking a sample tainted by sampler-caused turbidity. However, the weight of the evidence, including the essential similarity of results for all the reliably conducted turbidity samplings introduced in this case, is that the method used by Mr. Henry did not influence the results of the October 1997 sampling conducted by Mote Marine. However, Petitioners failed to establish that the minor and very short-term elevations in turbidity found around the Lake Down boat ramp constituted a degradation of water quality, or would be repeated at the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp. There are many distinctions between the existing Lake Down ramp and the proposed R.D. Keene ramp. The Lake Down ramp has no surface water management system. The storm water runoff from the adjacent Conway- Windermere Road and from the boat ramp itself flows directly into Lake Down in the vicinity of the boat ramp. In contrast, the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp will provide dry retention for up to a 25-year, 24-hour storm event, so that unfiltered storm water will not reach the lake system. The Lake Down ramp has no accessory dock, which can reduce turbidity caused by boaters stirring up the bottom when climbing into the boat. The proposed R.D. Keene facility will have such a dock. The Lake Down ramp does not have a concrete ramp extending beneath the launching point to minimize dredging the bottom. The proposed R.D. Keene facility will have such an extended concrete ramp. At the Lake Down ramp, boaters must moor their boats along the shoreline while taking their vehicles and trailers to the parking lot. The proposed R.D. Keene facility will have a queuing system to prevent the erosion and turbidity caused by shoreline mooring, which will be prohibited. There is no prohibition on power loading at the Lake Down ramp, which also is not deep enough to allow boats to float easily on and off their trailers. Power loading will be prohibited at the proposed R.D. Keene ramp, and in any event will not be necessary because the depth of the water and the design of the ramp will enable boats to float on and off their trailers. In conclusion, it is found that none of the samplings taken by any of the parties in this proceeding establishes that the water quality of Lake Isleworth specifically or of the Butler Chain generally will be degraded or lessened by turbidity caused by boating activity around the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp. SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Based on the Operational Plan, the design, the water quality sampling and modeling, the District determined that there will be no adverse secondary impacts from the proposed boat ramp or associated activity. After considering all existing boat ramps, marinas and other projects on the Butler Chain of Lakes, the District concluded that the proposed R.D. Keene boat ramp will not have an accumulation of impacts and pollutants in its home lake system and does not have the potential to contribute any cumulative impacts throughout the Butler Chain of Lakes. At the R.D. Keene Park, Orange County owns 1,780 feet of shoreline. Existing rules provide an exemption that would allow one boat dock for every 65 feet of shoreline, meaning that up to 27 exempt docks could be placed along this 1,780 feet of shoreline if it were in private hands and not subject to the conservation easement that is being granted by Orange County. 166. The water quality sampling performed in this case demonstrated that existing projects and activities have not resulted in an accumulation of impacts to the Butler Chain of Lakes. The historic water quality data demonstrate there have been no major changes in water quality over the 10-year period of record and that the trend is, if anything, toward improved water quality. The water quality is excellent and has maintained its superior quality since 1983, even though residential development and boat usage on the Butler Chain of Lakes has steadily increased over the last ten years. There is no boat ramp currently located at the property owned by Orange County on Lake Sheen. The Lake Sheen site has three homes and two docks on it at present. The District has no applications pending for similar projects that would be considered as part of the cumulative impact review. No applications for a boat ramp at Lake Sheen have been submitted by Orange County nor is there a boat ramp currently under construction at that site. No applications for a public boat ramp, other than the one at issue in this proceeding, have been submitted to the District by Orange County. The east side of the Butler Chain of Lakes is fully developed. There is no evidence of any Development of Regional Impact that would include a boat ramp for the west portion of the Chain. The zoning and land use designations of the property owned by Orange County on Lake Sheen are rural country estate on part of the property and low density residential on the other part of the property. There is no evidence that the Lake Sheen site is under review, vested or approved as a Development of Regional Impact. PUBLIC INTEREST TEST As further described in the Conclusions of Law below, an applicant for a project located in an OFW must provide reasonable assurances that the project is clearly in the public interest. The public interest test weighs and balances seven factors, as listed in the subheadings below. Extensive testimony was elicited from several expert witnesses who offered their applications of the public interest test. Anna Hacha-Long, Manager of Orange County EPD, and Pamela Thomas, Senior Environmental Specialist of Orange County EPD, both concluded that the proposed project was clearly in the public interest. Dale Mudrak, Orange County’s construction, design and project management expert, concluded that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. Dr. Douglas Durbin, Orange County’s expert in limnology, ecology, water quality and permitting, concluded that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. Robert Robbins, Director of the Natural Resource Management Division of the District, concluded on the District’s behalf that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. The only expert who concluded that the project is not in the public interest was Randall Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental. PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OR PROPERTY OF OTHERS The parties stipulated that the proposed boat ramp facility will not adversely affect the public health. The proposed ramp will improve public safety as follows: The proposed ramp, centrally located in the Butler Chain, will provide quicker access for emergency rescue in the case of injuries to boaters or skiers. The proposed ramp should somewhat alleviate the traffic concern at the Lake Down ramp by shifting some traffic away from the Lake Down ramp. The proposed ramp will enhance public welfare by: increasing the recreational opportunities to the Butler Chain of Lakes; allowing access to the Butler Chain of Lakes by handicapped and disabled individuals; and the clean up of diesel fuel contamination that Orange County has already performed on the site. Orange County EPD performs extensive aquatic plant management activities on the Butler Chain, including spraying for harmful exotic plants. If Orange County were to lose access to the Butler Chain -- a real possibility should the proposed project not be built and the lease for parking at the Lake Down ramp expire -- it could also lose public grant money for aquatic plant management. The proposed project will not impact the property of others because: Orange County owns the land on which the ramp will be built, and the State of Florida owns the water into which the boats will be launched. Orange County EPD has received no complaints from property owners related to the existing use of the Butler Chain of Lakes by boaters. No-wake zone regulations prohibit high speed boating activities within 100 feet of the shoreline, protecting boaters and the property of adjacent landowners. The area is extensively regulated by both the Butler Patrol and full-time Orange County EPD staff. The canals connecting the lakes are wide enough that there will be no safety problems related to boating through the canals. CONSERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, INCLUDING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES, OR THEIR HABITATS Orange County is providing 0.56 acres of mitigation by way of wetland creation, which offsets not only the 0.07 acres of direct wetland impact from construction and 0.07 acres of secondary impacts caused by removal of littoral zone vegetation, but also the District’s doubling of the usual two-to-one mitigation ratio for wetlands impacts. The District doubled the usual mitigation ratio as a conservative measure to account for the slight possibility of boats disturbing the area in the vicinity of the boat ramp. The parties have stipulated that the proposed boat ramp facility will not adversely affect the conservation of endangered species or their habitats, will not affect the conservation of threatened species or their habitats, and will not adversely impact gopher tortoises. The proposed project benefits the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats. Some habitat will be impacted by the construction of the boat ramp, but Orange County is providing mitigation many times larger than the area being developed, and is placing 1.61 acres of wetlands under a conservation easement to ensure that the land cannot be altered from its natural state. A total of 2.90 acres of wetland preservation, wetland creation, and upland buffer areas will be placed under conservation easement. Thus, habitat will enjoy a net enhancement from the project. Multiple evaluations of plant and animal parameters in the ecosystem led the District reasonably to conclude that the increase in habitat and habitat diversity due to the mitigation and conservation easements will provide net benefits to wildlife. The proposed boat ramp and associated activity will not cause any negative impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats, except for the unavoidable immediate impacts caused by the footprint of the ramp itself. As described above, these impacts are addressed in Orange County’s mitigation plan. Orange County EPD has not seen a decline in fish populations, nor any fish kills, nor any type of damage due to increased turbidity from natural or man-made causes in the Butler Chain of Lakes. It is reasonable to find that this project is unlikely to lead to such impacts. NAVIGATION OR FLOW OF WATER OR HARMFUL EROSION OR SHOALING The parties have stipulated that the proposed boat ramp and associated activities will not adversely affect the flow of water. There is no evidence of harmful erosion or shoaling from the existing boat traffic, even though the traffic has steadily increased over the years. Orange County EPD has not seen sand bar formation or erosion at first hand, nor has it received complaints about erosion. Orange County has not been required to dredge the canals interconnecting the lakes since the 1980s. The proposed project will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling because the dimensions of the canals are sufficient for boats to pass, and the edges of the canals are well vegetated. Mr. Armstrong's contrary testimony, based on a single visit to the Butler Chain over the past ten years, is not credited. It is reasonable to believe that the ramp will reduce traffic through the canals by providing a public point of access that is more centrally located than the current one at Lake Down. Boaters will be able to enter the Butler Chain at a point nearer their intended destination. At the very least, the flow of boating traffic should be more evenly distributed, as all boats entering the Butler Chain will no longer be forced to proceed through the canals connected to Lake Down. The main cause of harmful erosion on the Butler Chain is residents’ failure to use turbidity or erosion barriers when they pull up aquatic or semi-aquatic plants along the shoreline. This project is thus unrelated to the true causes of turbidity in the Butler Chain. The proposed project is designed and will be managed to minimize the potential for dredging or erosion from boat propellers, as follows: The boat ramp itself is designed to accommodate two boats launching simultaneously. The boat ramp has adjacent docks and structures so that boats can raft to these structures during launching and loading, rather than running into the shoreline or tying to vegetation. The proposed project will also have a 230-foot long queuing system for mooring boats on the west side of the ramp. The queuing system will also act as a barrier to prevent boaters from using the shoreline to access their vehicles. The Operational Plan prohibits power loading and unloading, minimizing the potential for erosion at the ramp. Officer Jeffrey Hudson of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the Windermere Water and Navigational Control District, regularly patrols the Butler Chain of Lakes. He foresees no navigational problems arising from the placement of the boat ramp, because of the no-wake zones and because people will be launching from a cove that gives them a good view of traffic in the lake before they enter. Because of the size of the Butler Chain of Lakes, there is a natural timing factor that will regulate the sequence of boaters returning to the proposed ramp. Even if a large storm arose suddenly, all the boats in the water would not arrive at the proposed R.D. Keene ramp at once because of the differing amounts of time it would take boats to arrive from their dispersed positions on the Butler Chain. The only expert witness who testified that the third factor weighed negatively against the public interest was Mr. Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental. Mr. Armstrong’s testimony that the connecting canals are too narrow for boats to comfortably pass each other is rejected as unsupported by the weight of the documentary and other testimonial evidence. Mr. Armstrong’s characterization of the potential for increased boating traffic in the southern portion of the Butler Chain as a negative factor is likewise rejected. Providing increased recreational access for the general public is one of the chief positive aspects of this project. Mr. Armstrong also expressed concern that the ramp’s location on a small, pass-through lake, and its placement therein, would mean that boats coming into or away from the ramp would be crossing directly into the path of boats passing through. Officer Hudson’s contrary testimony that the placement of the new ramp will not cause navigational or safety problems is accepted as based on superior knowledge of the Butler Chain of Lakes and greater expertise in boating and navigational safety. Mr. Armstrong testified that boat wakes would cause erosion. He testified that on his visit to the Butler Chain, he saw banks in canals undercut and roots exposed in areas where the vegetation was not heavy. As noted above, Mr. Armstrong has been on the Butler Chain once in the past ten years. Pamela Thomas of Orange County EPD, who has spent hundreds of hours studying the Butler Chain and regularly boats on the lakes in connection with her job, testified that the main cause of erosion is the clearing of vegetation by residents who wish to have beaches. Boat wakes cause few problems, particularly in the canals, because of the no-wake zones and their strict enforcement. Ms. Thomas’ testimony is accepted as based on superior knowledge and expertise regarding erosion in the Butler Chain of Lakes. FISHING OR RECREATIONAL VALUES OR MARINE PRODUCTIVITY The January 1984 DEP report recommending designation of the Butler Chain of Lakes as an OFW cited the need for increased public access to the Butler Chain. The report specifically noted the fact that there was only one public boat ramp on the Butler Chain and that this ramp had limited parking. This situation has remained unchanged in the intervening 14 years. The Lake Down ramp remains the only point of access for the general public to the Butler Chain of Lakes, and provides only limited access to the entire chain during the periods when Lake Down is waterlocked by the low bridge over the Wauseon Bay canal. The proposed boat ramp will enhance the fishing and recreational value by providing increased and easier public access to the Butler Chain of Lakes for fishing and recreational purposes. Even though "marine” productivity is typically applied to saltwater rather than freshwater systems, the proposed project will actually enhance productivity due to the amount of mitigation. Mr. Armstrong of Phoenix Environmental contended that this factor should be viewed negatively because there will be less opportunity for fishing in the cove immediately adjacent to the proposed boat ramp, due to the launching and loading activity. It may be true that providing greater public access will inconvenience those who already have access to the Butler Chain by other means, but it is implausible to suggest that improved public access be considered a negative aspect of the proposed project. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT The proposed boat ramp facility will be permanent. The increased mitigation, conservation easement and public access are also permanent. HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES The proposed boat ramp facility will neither adversely affect nor enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. CURRENT CONDITION AND RELATIVE VALUE OF FUNCTIONS BEING PERFORMED BY AREAS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY The proposed ramp will be placed in a section of the lake shoreline that was previously dredged out as a canal. Thus, Orange County has chosen an area already impacted by development rather than an environmentally pristine location for the boat ramp. The site was originally used as a citrus grove and will be enhanced by the wetlands creation. When Orange County acquired the site, it had a pump house with a leaking diesel fuel pump that was contaminating both the soil and Lake Isleworth. Orange County performed environmental remediation on the site preparatory to installing the proposed boat ramp. The removal of 21 tons of contaminated soil is a positive factor in terms of fish and wildlife. Petitioners attempted to minimize this aspect by arguing that Orange County, as the owner of the contaminated property, would have been required by law to perform the remediation regardless of whether the boat ramp is ever built. This argument is rejected, because the weight of the evidence is that Orange County purchased this property for the express purpose of placing a park and boat ramp on it. Orange County’s ownership of the property, and the consequent duty to remediate the contamination, are inextricably linked with Orange County’s plans to build a boat ramp on the site. The mitigation associated with the proposed ramp will increase wetland habitat and thus improve the ecological value of the site, another positive factor under this heading. In summary, every judgmental factor in the public interest test weighs in favor of a finding that this project is clearly in the public interest. ALTERNATIVE SITES Subject to the relevance objections of the District and Orange County, on which a ruling was withheld at the time of hearing, Petitioners offered evidence regarding Orange County’s consideration of boat ramp sites other than the R.D. Keene site. Orange County owns property on Lake Sheen, a large lake on the southern end of the Butler Chain of Lakes. Orange County intends to construct a boat ramp on this property, as part of its strategy to enhance public access to the Butler Chain by way of offering public ramps in the northern, central, and southern portions of the lake system. The District is and has been aware that Orange County eventually plans to build a boat ramp on Lake Sheen, though the formal permitting process has yet to commence. Orange County EPD has estimated the cost of developing the R.D. Keene boat ramp at $1,068,000, and the cost of developing the Lake Sheen ramp at $560,000. Orange County has prepared a scope of services for the design of the proposed Lake Sheen ramp, selected a design firm, issued a notice to proceed with design. The design firm is currently designing the Lake Sheen ramp. Petitioners assert, and the District admits, that the District did not consider the planned Lake Sheen ramp as an alternative to the R.D. Keene site. For reasons explained in the Conclusions of Law below, the District was not required to consider alternatives to the proposed R.D. Keene ramp. The evidence presented by Petitioners regarding the planned Lake Sheen ramp is irrelevant insofar as Petitioners seek to establish an obligation on the part of the District to review alternative project sites to the one proposed by Orange County and/or to require Orange County to modify its ERP application to propose a different site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order issuing Environmental Resource Permit No. 940519-1 to Orange County, subject to the general and special conditions set forth in the District's Staff Review Summaries. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Duke Woodson, Esquire Mary A. Doty, Esquire Foley & Lardner Post Office Box 2193 Orlando, Florida 32802-2193 Linda Brehmer Lanosa, Esquire Assistant County Attorney LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1998. Orange County Attorney’s Office 315 East Robinson Street, Suite 650 Orlando, Florida 32801 William Palmer, Esquire Palmer & Palmer, P.A. 3117-B Edgewater Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Julie Kendig-Schrader, Esquire John Fumero, Esquire Douglas MacLaughlin, Esquire Office of Counsel, South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406
The Issue The issue in Case No. 89-1706 is whether the Stearns violated provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, in the construction of a dock on the Indian River. The issue in Case No. 89-1707 is whether Mr. Stearns is entitled to a dredge and fill permit for the construction of the above-described dock.
Findings Of Fact The Stearns reside at Sunrise Landing Condominium in Cocoa, Florida. The condominium complex lies on the western shore of the Indian River in north Brevard County. At this location, the Indian River is classified as a Class III water and is conditionally approved by the Department of Natural Resources for shellfish harvesting. By Purchase Agreement dated February 18, 1987, the Stearns agreed to purchase a unit at Sunrise Landings Condominiums from the developer. By subsequent Purchase Agreement Modification, the parties agreed that the Stearns had "permission to build a private boat dock providing buyer obtains all proper permits from the Army Corps of engineers and all other proper authorities." By Warranty Deed dated April 16, 1987, the developer conveyed the unit to the Stearns. The deed, which conveys a 1/72nd interest in the common elements, does not convey any right to build a dock. The deed states that the conveyance is subject to the Declaration of Condominium of Sunrise Landing II. The declaration, which was recorded prior to the deed to the Stearns, defines as Common Element the land lying adjacent and upland to the dock that the Stearns constructed. The declaration states that each unit owner owns an undivided share of the Common Element. Article III, Section 7 states: The Owner of a Unit . . . shall be entitled to use the Common Elements in accordance with the purposes for which they are intended, but no such use shall hinder or encroach upon the lawful rights of Owners of other Units. There shall be a joint use of the Common Elements . . . and a joint mutual easement for that purpose is hereby created. In February, 1987, prior to closing on their unit, the Stearns arranged with an individual named Kurt Ramseyer to construct the dock. Mr. Ramseyer completed construction of the dock on or about July 3, 1987. On or about February 22, 1987, Mr. Stearns executed an application for permit for activities in the waters of the State of Florida. The application warned the applicant that he must obtain all applicable authorizations before commencing work. The application, as well as all others completed by Mr. Stearns, was the joint Department of the Army/Department of Environmental Regulation form, effective November 30, 1982. The application describes the project as a dock consisting of two boat slips measuring 24 feet by 10 feet, a 24 foot by 4 foot pier, and a 12 foot by 12 foot deck. The application identifies as the adjacent property owners the individuals owning condominium units on either side of the Stearns' unit. Mr. Stearns did not complete the affidavit of ownership or control, in which the applicant attests that he is the record owner or, if not, will have "the requisite interest . . .before undertaking the proposed work." The Department of the Army received the application on May 11, 1987. At this time, a copy of the application was forwarded to the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER") without the required application fee. By letter dated May 18, 1987, DER notified Mr. Ramseyer that the application fee had not been received and, until received, the application had not been officially received. DER received the application fee on May 28, 1987. By letter dated June 25, 1987, DER informed Mr. Stearns, through his designated agent, Mr. Ramseyer, that the proposed project would require a permit under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and that his application was incomplete. Among other items requested were descriptions of water depths within a 300-foot radius of the proposed structure, shoreline structures within 100 feet of the proposed dock, and the boats intended to be moored at the facility. By letter dated July 10, 1987, Mr. Stearns provided DER with additional information. Submitting a new application, Mr. Stearns represented this time that the proposed use was private single dwelling, rather than private multi- dwelling, as previously indicated. He also stated that the adjoining landowners were Sunrise Landings Condominium. Again, he failed to complete the affidavit of ownership or control. A partial site plan of the condominium complex shows the dock as five feet north and 45 feet south of the next nearest docks at the complex. As he had on the February 22 application, Mr. Stearns certified as true that he knew that he had to obtain all required authorization prior to commencing construction, although construction had already been completed at this time. In fact, Mr. Stearns indicated on the application, as he did on the October 27 application described below, that construction was "proposed to commence" on June 22, 1987, and was "to be completed" on July 3, 1987. The application explains a four foot increase in the length of the dock as necessitated by "water depth." Elsewhere, the application states that the river had receded four inches since March, 1987. In justifying the construction of the dock in two sections, Mr. Stearns explained that the "shallow depth of the water . . . could result in possible environmental damage to the river bottom, if power boats were allowed to be moored in close proximatity [sic] to the area of the bulkhead line." Mr. Stearns described the boats that he proposed to moor at the dock. At maximum capacity, one boat has a draft of 10 inches, and the other has a draft of 14 inches. Attached to the application is a diagram showing maximum/minimum water depths. The depths are 13"/9" at the bulkhead, 19"/15" at 10', 21"/17" at 20', 23"/19" at 30 `, 25"/21" at 40', and 26"/22" at 50'. Mr. Stearns explained: In order to minimumize [sic] the possible environmental damage to the river bottom aquatic growth, it was necessary to place the power boat mooring section of the dock a minimum of 20 feet away from the bulkhead line. Another diagram shows water depths of 22" to 26" from 50 feet to 300 feet from the bulkhead to the north and south of the dock. 15. By letter dated June 17, 1987, which Mr. Stearns attached to the July 10 application, the Department of the Army issued him a general permit for the proposed project. The letter warns that "it appears that a permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation may be required." The attached diagram shows a structure with a total length of 36 feet. By letter dated July 30, 1987, DER informed Mr. Stearns that, among other things, the affidavit of ownership or control was incomplete; discrepancies existed between the original application and the most recent application, such as with respect to the names of different adjoining landowners and different proposed uses from private multi-dwelling to private single dwelling; it was unclear whether all permits were received prior to dock construction; and it was unclear what portion of the deed entitled the applicant to place the dock in its proposed location. By letter dated October 27, 1987, Mr. Stearns provided DER with additional information and submitted a partial new application. He attested to the fact that he was the record owner of the property, although he failed to provide the required legal description. As to the question involving different adjoining property owners, Mr. Stearns indicated that he believed that because the dock was located more than 25 feet from the nearest living unit, the approval of other property owners was not required. He explained that the private single dwelling unit was a condominium unit in an eight-unit building. He advised that construction of the dock was completed on July 3, 1987. As to water depths, he showed a depth of 9 inches at the bulkhead and 26 inches at 500 feet. Additionally, he showed mean low water of 12 inches at 10 feet, 16 inches at 20 feet, 23 inches at 30 feet, and 26 inches at 40 feet. By letter dated December 8, 1987, DER informed Mr. Stearns that his application was deemed complete as of October 29, 1987. By Intent to Deny dated January 8, 1988, DER notified Mr. Stearns of its intent to deny his application for a permit. The notice states that the project is not exempt from permitting procedures. The notice acknowledges the presence of about 40 piers installed at the condominium complex without the appropriate permits. The notice states that water depths within visual distance of the shoreline are relatively shallow with scattered marine grass/algae clumps in the vicinity due to the shallow water. In this regard, the notice concludes: Installation of a pier in such shallow water, less than 24 inches deep, for permanent mooring of a small watercraft will probably cause localized disturbance of the benthic community by prop wash. This situation is already evident at several of the nonpermitted piers. Additionally, the Notice of Intent raised the issue of ownership or control. Citing an earlier final order, the notice states that "`the Department will not knowingly issue a permit for dredging and filling or other activities which would constitute a trespass on private property."' By Petition for Administrative Hearing filed January 19, 1988, Mr. Stearns requested an administrative hearing on the Intent to Deny his application for a permit. By letter dated January 27, 1988, assistant general counsel for DER confirmed a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Stearns and stated that, pursuant to that conversation I will hold your petition pending further action by the Department towards resolution of the situation. If it appears that an amicable resolution cannot be reached, I will forward the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer. By Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated December 19, 1988, DER notified Mr. and Mrs. Stearns and 101 other persons owning or having owned units at Sunrise Landing Condominiums that an investigation of the property on June 2, 1987, had disclosed that 43 docks had been installed and placed less than 65 feet apart with 75 boat slips. These docks had been constructed without permits. A meeting with unit owners on March 15, 1988, had not produced a resolution of the dispute. The Notice of Violation alleges that the docks extended up to 20 feet waterward of the bulkhead through water depths of 8-24 inches. The docks allegedly were constructed within an area conditionally approved by the Department of Natural Resources for shellfish harvesting, but without a Department variance. The docks allegedly resulted in damage to state waters and pollution through localized disturbance of the benthic community by associated boat traffic prop wash in shallow water. The adversely impacted submerged bottom allegedly is highly productive with scattered seagrasses providing valuable fishery resources for the Indian River. Lastly, DER alleges that it had incurred investigatory expenses of at least $1500. After reciting the statutes allegedly violated by the construction of the docks, the Notice of Violation demands, among other things, the removal of all of the docks. By Petition for Formal Proceeding filed January 12, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. Stearns requested a formal administrative hearing on the Notice of Violation. Pursuant to notice, DER held an informal conference with numerous owners of docks, including Mr. and Mrs. Stearns, on February 9, 1989. At the conclusion of the meeting, DER agreed to hold open the informal conference period for an additional 30 days to allow settlement negotiations to be concluded. By Amended Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action dated March 23, 1989, DER issued another notice of violation against the ten remaining dock owners, including Mr. and Mrs. Stearns, who had not yet removed or agreed to remove their docks. The allegations are substantially identical to those of the original Notice of Violation. Because of the failure of settlement negotiations, DER transmitted both files involving the Stearns to the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 31, 1989. In several prior cases, DER had previously informed other unit owners seeking to build a dock off of the bulkhead adjoining the Common Element that no permit was required because the project was exempt under Section 403.813(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In March or April, 1987, DER changed its position on this point. The docks 45 feet north and 5 feet south of the Stearns' dock were constructed without a dredge and fill permit, apparently in reliance upon the same exemption to which the Stearns claim to be entitled in the subject cases. The operation of boats in the vicinity of the dock constructed by Mr. and Mrs. Stearns would stir up the submerged bottom and result in prop dredging of critical vegetation. In sum, the intended use of the dock would disrupt the benthic community. At times, the Stearns have been unable to reach their dock with their boats due to the shallowness of the water. The waters of the Indian River surrounding the Stearns' dock are Class III waters that the Department of Natural Resources has conditionally approved for shellfish harvesting. The Department of Natural Resources has not granted the Stearns a variance for the construction of the dock. The dock is less than 500 square feet of total coverage. The moorings from the dock five feet to the south of the subject dock remained in place following the removal of the remainder of the structure. At the time of the application, the Stearns dock, whose construction had begun no later than June 22, 1987, and been completed on July 3, 1987, was 45 feet south of the nearest dock to the north and 5 feet north of the nearest dock to the south. Both of these docks had been built under claims of exemption. The Stearns dock was maintained for the exclusive use of the Stearns and was not available to other unit owners. DER has failed to prove any investigatory expenses directly attributable to the Stearns, as opposed to the 103 unit owners in general. Moreover, given the pending applications, which disclosed most of the specifics of the subject dock, including inadequate water depths, no portion of the investigation could properly be attributed to the Stearns, especially when the sole witness for DER could not testify to any specific damage to submerged bottom and vegetation caused by boats using the Stearns' dock. Additionally, actual damage and the investigatory expenses attributable thereto are divisible and could have been attributed to a particular violator, but were not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the subject permit and ordering Mr. and Mrs. Stearns to remove their dock, upon such conditions as are necessary to avoid damage to the environment, but not imposing any administrative fine. ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DER 1-11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12: adopted as to general shallowness and excessive shallowness with respect to the passage of boats. 13-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16: rejected as irrelevant. 17-24: adopted. 25: rejected as recitation of testimony, unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of the Stearns 1-3: adopted or adopted in substance, except that last sentence of Paragraph 3 is rejected as subordinate. 4: adopted. 5: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. Placing a dock in water too shallow for safe boating may arguably constitute a navigational hazard. 6: adopted. 7: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. In the first place, the facts at the time of the application should control whether the project was, at the time of its actual construction, exempt from the permitting requirements. In addition, the evidence showed that the pilings of at least the closer dock remained in the water following the removal of the decking. 8: first two sentences adopted. Second sentence rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. 9: [omitted.] 10: rejected as unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. It is clear from the operative documents--namely, the warranty deed and declaration of condominium--that Mr. and Mrs. Stearns lack the legal right to use the Common Element in the manner that they have used it. A clause in an unrecorded contract, which probably does not survive closing, cannot diminish the rights of other Unit Owners in their undivided shares of the Common Element, which, in part, the Stearns have seized for their private use. 11: first paragraph adopted. Second paragraph rejected as irrelevant and unsupported by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Steven A. Medina Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Frank J Griffith, Jr. Cianfronga, Telfer & Reda 815 South Washington Avenue Titusville, FL 32780
The Issue The issue for resolution in this proceeding is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) should approve Petitioner's construction of a dock on Lake Kissimmee in Polk County, Florida. Such approval would require the grant of an after-the-fact permit.
Findings Of Fact Earl W. Thomas, the Petitioner, owns approximately 15.5 acres on the western shore of Lake Kissimmee near Lake Wales, in Polk County, Florida. On March 15, 1984, Petitioner filed an application with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a 3,160 square foot dock at his property on Lake Kissimmee. The dock is described in drawings attached to the application as 550 feet long with a 60 foot "T" segment at the end. The application form is styled, "Joint Application, Department of the Army/Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for Activities in Waters of the State of Florida". The activity described in the application is "proposed pier for mooring private boat -- no fuel pumps or toilet facilities to be constructed on pier". (Petitioner's exhibit #5) Thomas received a letter dated March 28, 1984 from the Army Corps of Engineers acknowledging the application and granting General Permit SAJ-20. The letter authorized construction but provided that it did not obviate the need for any other required federal, state or local permits. A form letter from the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR) dated April 26, 1984, informed Thomas that a letter of consent from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund would be required. A form letter from DER dated May 10, 1984 acknowledged receipt of the application and stated that evaluation of the project would be delayed until receipt of DNR consent. The DNR letter of consent was issued on June 28, 1984, signed by Ted Forsgren, Chief, Bureau of State Lands Management, and referencing the use of approximately 2,366 square feet of state-owned submerged land for a private docking facility. The letter states, "Please consider this the authority sought under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, to pursue this project." (Petitioner's exhibit #9) Thomas commenced construction, and the dock was completed by July 28, 1984. As completed, the dock is approximately 480 feet long, with a 24 foot "T" cross at the end. During construction, in a letter dated July 24, 1984, to the DER Tampa office, Ed Moyer, then Fishery Biologist with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission stated, "Our office is opposed to the issuance of a permit to construct a 600' [sic] dock on the west shore of Lake Kissimmee. " (Respondent's exhibit #2) Basis for the opposition was that the structure would obstruct boat traffic along a navigable path parallel to Mr. Thomas' shoreline. In a letter dated September 17, 1984, signed by James W. MacFarland, Director, Division of State Lands, DNR informed Thomas that it was rescinding its prior consent due to receipt of additional information from DER and conversations with the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. The letter also states "...It appears that the information represented to us did not actually represent your proposed activity or address the severe navigational problems caused by your construction of a facility approximately 600 feet [sic] in length. ..." (Petitioner's exhibit #10) On September 18, 1984, DER issued its Intent to Deny Thomas' application. This document provides, in pertinent part: * * * On October 14, 1984 [sic] Bill Ackerman, Field Inspector for Polk County, inspected the proposed pier site and the adjacent lake. Approximately 200' waterward from the west shore of the lake is a 20' wide approximately 4' deep navigation channel which is used by area boaters during sudden winds from the east as a safe haven path which protects them from the chop of the open lake. Based on his personal experiences and site inspection on this lake and the opinion and the recommenda- tion of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the agency has come to the conclu- sion that the proposed dock will both obstruct and hinder navigation in this natural lake channel, contrary to the provision of Chapter 253.123, F.S. In addition, the proposed dock's obstruction of the existing channel will cause boaters to prop dredge a new access channel around the dock, causing substantial wetland losses, resuspension of nutrient laden bottom sedi- ments and turbidity. * * * [Petitioner's exhibit #11] In response to this notice, Petitioner requested a formal hearing. Nothing in the record of this proceeding explains the inconsistency in the dates in the notice of intent to deny. The notice itself was issued on September 18, 1984 and the October 14, 1984, reference is clearly in error. The permit file of the DER includes a form dated 6/11/84, styled "Permit Application Appraisal", referencing an on-site inspection by Bill Ackerman on 10/14/82. [Respondent's exhibit #3] This form appraisal describes the project as a 600' long private dock, with a 48 square foot "T" at the end, and 2400 square feet of over-water surface area. The appraisal references a fence that Thomas built allegedly on state submerged lands in the lake, and a dispute with DNR over that fence. The appraisal also describes a boat path about 200' from shore and parallel to the shore within the grassy weeds, providing a safe passage for small boats caught in the lake in sudden storms or high waves. The appraisal recommends denial of the permit for navigation reasons, but recommends that the permit could be approved if the fence were removed and the length of the dock were reduced. The inspector and apparent author of the appraisal report, Bill Ackerman, died several years ago. No witness could explain the source of the various references to a 600' dock, since the application was for a 550' long dock, including the width of the "T" cross, and the dock that was built was 480' long. The appraisal report is the only evidence from DER's file of that agency's review of the project, and it is evident that the site visit was conducted approximately 1 1/2 years prior to the application in issue, perhaps related to the fence, which is not at issue in this proceeding. However, Edwin Moyer, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff person who wrote the July 1984 opposition letter, testified and confirmed that the boat trail described in the appraisal did exist in 1984. This trail, called a "kicker trail", was not a dredged path, but rather was created like many others by the operation of boat propellors through the weeds and grasses along the shore of the lake. If unused, these trails disappear, and new ones are created. At the Thomas site, Lake Kissimmee is approximately 5 miles wide. Small boats need the trails as the vegetation protects them from high waves. Thomas' dock intersected the kicker trail described in the DER appraisal report and by Edwin Moyer. New trails, however, now exist beyond the end of Thomas' dock and still within the dense vegetation which extends some 360 feet waterward from the end of the dock. An "outside" trail runs parallel to the shoreline, approximately 350 feet beyond the dock, and is used by small to medium motorboats. An "inside" trail is located about 60 feet beyond the end of the dock and is used exclusively by airboaters, who can run in just inches of water and who experience severe handling problems in deep water or heavy waves. Airboats don't require trails, as they can travel on top of the vegetation. Regular motorboats, such as bass boats and jon-boats, require more water. The water depth at the end of Thomas' dock fluctuates from about one to five feet deep; not including the approximate 1.5 feet of muck on top of the sand at the lake bottom at the Thomas site. The water elevation in Lake Kissimmee is controlled by the South Florida Water Management District, with a regulated high of 52.5 ft. NGVD to a regulated low of 49.0 ft. NGVD, with an even lower 48.5 ft. NGVD every three years. At the time of hearing, the water level was 50.3 ft. NGVD, or approximately 2.4 ft. deep at the end of Thomas' dock, not including the depth of the muck. Even if the Thomas dock did not exist, regular motor boats would have trouble navigating closer to shore, due to the shallowness of the water. Moreover, there are stumps and posts closer to shore, which present a greater danger to boaters, including seasoned airboaters, than Thomas' dock which is fully visible and which includes a light at the end which remains lit, with reflectors along the edges. Airboats running close to the shore have to veer out into deeper water as they approach the Thomas site, to avoid the dock. This is a nuisance, according to Garrett Whatley, an airboat operator who races on Saturday evenings. But the greater nuisance, as he concedes, are the posts and steel pipes in the water near the shore which are not marked and which can crack up a boat. In bypassing the dock, these obstructions are also avoided. Some Lake Kissimmee boaters consider Thomas' dock a navigational aid. The west side of the lake is not developed and the dock provides a prominent landmark, particularly for snail fishermen and other night boaters. The Gleasons and the Gilberts are neighbors of Earl Thomas. They each have 200 ft. docks which have been permitted by DER. The Gleasons have a 24 ft. pontoon boat which they moor at the end of a 70 ft. catwalk extending from the end of their dock. Even then, the water is only about 12 inches deep and they have to pole the boat out to avoid plowing into the muck on the lake bottom. The vegetation line at Thomas' site is thicker and farther out than at the Gleason's. George Gilbert also has a pontoon boat which he has to pole to access his dock. He has a kicker trail at the end of his dock, but the water is too shallow to use it. DER has granted him a permit to extend his dock another 100 feet. DER considers 300 feet a reasonable length for docks in the area and the agency tries to keep them a uniform length for navigational purposes. Removal of all or a portion of Thomas' dock can be accomplished without water quality damage so long as the removal is closely controlled. The pilings would have to be enclosed with a screen to limit turbidity during the removal process. Even if the act of removal could be controlled, the turbidity caused by boats interacting with the sediment closer to shore would be a recurring problem without the dock as it now exists. A shorter dock would necessitate the use of catwalks or other temporary access to boats unable to navigate the shallow water. Those boats moored away from the dock would still be an obstruction, and if unlit, would be less visible to night fishermen than the existing structure. The Thomas dock, as it now exists, is not a navigational hazard. Its removal would be more damaging than to permit it to remain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Department issue its final order granting Petitioner's application for the dock as it now exists. That is, the application for a 550 foot dock should be deemed amended to provide for a 480 foot dock, as built. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-4164 The following constitute specific rulings on findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings of Fact Proposed by Petitioner Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 7. 10.-14. Adopted in paragraph 17. 15.-18. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 16 and 20. Findings of Fact Proposed by Respondent Adopted in paragraph 2, except that the dock was to be 550 feet long. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 16 and 20. 6.-9. Adopted in summary in paragraph 17. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16, by implication. Adopted in paragraph 18. 14. Rejected as unnecessary. 15.-16. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. 17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18. Adopted in paragraph 16. 19. Adopted in paragraph 18. 20. Rejected as unnecessary. 21. Adopted in paragraph 22. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlyn Harper, Esquire P.O. Box 2807 Orlando, FL 32802 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina is entitled to be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection for its project application submitted July 29, 1992, and revised November 15, 1993, to enlarge an existing marina and add new slips.
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1992, Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina (Respondent Jupiter Hills) submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent DEP) for a permit to enlarge an existing dock facility to 488 feet and to increase the existing 6 slips to 48 new slips. Respondent Jupiter Hills is located 0.7 miles north of Martin County Line Road, on U. S. Highway One, Indian River Lagoon, Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, more particularly described as Martin County, Section 19, Township 40 South, Range 43 East, Indian River Lagoon Class III Waters. On November 15, 1993, Respondent Jupiter Hills amended its application at the request of Respondent DEP. The revised proposed project increases the dock facility from 6 slips to 18 slips, restricting 12 of the 18 slips for sailboat use; and proposes a new 149 foot long T-shaped pier from the existing pier, creating a total dimension of 180 feet by 60 feet. Further, Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to remove four existing finger piers and 10 existing mooring pilings, to add eight finger piers and 34 new mooring pilings, and to place riprap along the existing seawall and new pier. The proposed project is located in an Outstanding Florida Water (a designated aquatic preserve), the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, which is a part of the Indian River Preserve. Significant water quality parameters for this proposed project include coliform bacteria, heavy metals, and oil and grease. Water quality standards for oil and grease are not being currently met. However, to address this noncompliance, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to include, as part of this project, the installation of an exfiltration trench to trap grease coming from the uplands. This trench will improve water quality, causing a net improvement of water quality in the proposed project area. Stormwater from the area, including a portion of U. S. Highway One and parking areas within U. S. Highway One right-of-way, discharge directly into Respondent Jupiter Hills. This stormwater then drains directly into tidal waters. The exfiltration trench is designed to intercept up to three-fourths of an inch of the stormwater flow currently draining into the basin. The owners of Respondent Jupiter Hills will maintain the exfiltration trench. They have signed a long-term agreement with Respondent DEP for the maintenance of the trench, and the agreement is included in Respondent DEP's Intent to Issue. Water quality standards for fecal coliform are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills has proposed a sewage pump-out station which is not currently in the area and which will encourage boaters to pump boat sewage into the city treatment area instead of dumping the sewage into the water. The pump-out station will be connected to the central sewage system, but boaters will not be required to use the sewage pump-out station. However, since liveaboards are more likely to cause fecal coliform violations, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed that no liveaboards will be permitted in the proposed project. Water quality standards for heavy metals are currently being met. The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing compliance with these standards. Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to use construction materials which have not been treated by heavy metals. Also, because the proposed project area flushes in one tidal cycle, any additional metals from the boats themselves would be swept away quickly. The proposed project will not adversely impact or affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will be met, continue to be met, and not violated. As a result, the public health and safety are protected. The proposed pump-out facility will reduce the incidences of illegal head discharges into the Jupiter Sound. Thus, this facility will benefit the health and safety of swimmers or others participating in water-related activities in the Jupiter Sound. The proposed project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to several measures designed to reduce any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and the measures have been incorporated into the Intent to Issue. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to not allow new power boats to dock at the proposed facility, which will prevent adverse affects on the manatee population in the area. Additionally, the proposed pump-out facility will improve the water quality, resulting in a benefit to fish and wildlife, including the Benthic habitat and seagrasses. Respondent Jupiter Hills has further agreed to install navigational signs, directing boaters away from manatees, and no wake signs, indicating the presence of manatees; these signs do not presently exist. Furthermore, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to post signs directing boaters away from any seagrasses located in the proposed project area. Whether seagrasses in the proposed project area will be adversely affected is also a factor to be considered. Inspections and surveys of the proposed project area in December 1992 and mid-March 1993 revealed one patch of Halophila decipiens and Halophila johnsonii at the 100 foot contour but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. A survey of the area in late April 1994 revealed some seagrasses in the proposed project area but no seagrasses within the footprint of the proposed project. In September 1995, an examination of the area revealed Halophila decipiens just waterward of the existing slips down to the southern property boundaries 20 to 30 feet wide and revealed sparse seagrasses approximately 300 to 500 feet from the shoreline. Halophila decipiens is more abundant and thick in the summer and tends to die off and at its thinnest in the winter. Neither Halophila decipiens nor Halophila johnsonii are threatened or endangered species of seagrasses. The seagrasses provide a significant environmental benefit. The benefits include nutrient recycling in the area and providing habitat for Benthic invertebrates, such as crabs, which are at the bottom of the food chain. Also, other plants grow on the seagrasses, such as algae, and the other plants provide food for other organisms. Manatees eat several seagrasses, including Halophia decipiens but it is not one of the manatees preferred seagrasses. Seagrasses can be adversely affected in two ways. One way is that prop dredging could scar the seagrasses. However, as to the proposed project, the depth of the water in the area of the seagrasses will prevent any adverse affects from prop dredging. The second way that seagrasses can, and will, be adversely affected is being shaded by the proposed dock or by boats tied-up to the dock. The density of the seagrass, pertaining to this proposed project, is thin and low and approximately one percent of actual coverage. In determining whether the proposed project is clearly in the public interest, Respondent DEP uses a balancing test which consists of taking the public interest criteria and weighing the pros and cons of the proposed project. Balancing the adverse impacts on the seagrasses and the positive effects of the public interest criteria, the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. The slips in the proposed project will increase by 12; however, the slips can only be used by sailboats. Since sailboats move slowly, the manatees in the area will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Neither navigation nor the flow of water will be adversely affected by the proposed project. Further, no harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the proposed project. Adequate depths are off of the end of the dock for boats to safely navigate. Shoaling is not a potential problem, and therefore, any potential shoaling which may develop will not adversely affect navigation. The proposed dock will not impact navigation into the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) because the dock will not extend into the ICW and because Respondent Jupiter Hills will provide navigational aids to guide boaters to access the Atlantic ICW. Furthermore, there is sufficient depth for navigation between the end of the proposed dock and the sandbar where the seagrasses are located. Boat traffic coming from the south will primarily originate from the residences to the south. The proposed dock will force these boaters 200 feet offshore where the natural channel is located. Additionally, the dock will keep boaters further offshore from the riparian land owners to the north, including the Petitioners. To improve the public interest aspects of the project, Respondent DEP proposed that Respondent Jupiter Hills install riprap, which Respondent Jupiter Hills agreed to do. Installation of the riprap will be 367 feet along the perimeter of the proposed dock and in a 10 by 50 foot area along the bulkhead north of the dock. Some shoaling will result but will not affect navigation. The riprap will provide substrate and shelter for marine life. The fishing or recreational values or marine productivity will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Marine productivity will increase because the sewage pump-out station will improve the water quality which will benefit the Benthic community. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature. Significant historical and archaeological resources will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. The Department of State, which is responsible for historical and archaeological resources, reviewed the Notice of Intent and has no objection to the proposed project. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project will be increased and, therefore, benefited. No cumulative impacts are associated with the proposed project. The proposed project is not in an area of pristine shoreline; the area is highly developed. Approximately 1,200 feet to the south of the proposed project is a 270 foot dock with about 50 slips. When considered with the other docks in the area, the extension of the dock in the proposed project will not significantly or measurably further violate the water quality. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order issuing Permit No. 432170499 to Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. See, conclusion of law 43. Also, partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27, 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Rejected as being unnecessary. Also, see finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8, 9, and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. See, conclusion of law 46. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29 and 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejectd as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Respondent Jupiter Hills' Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29, 30 and 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4, 5, 8, and 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5, 8, and 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9, 14, 15, and 16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18, 24, and 27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33 Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Rejected as being unnecessary, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 27 and 41. Respondent DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25 and 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35 Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. NOTE: Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainer has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not supported by the evidence presented, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. Jurgens, Esquire Post Office Box 1178 Winter Park, Florida 32790-1178 Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire Sears and Manuel, P.A. 1218 Mount Vernon Street Orlando, Florida 32803 M.Tracy Biagiotti, Esquire Scott Hawkins, Esquire Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. Post Office Box 3475 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 (Attorney for Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina) Lynette L. Ciardulli Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Douglas MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
