The Issue The issue is whether Ponce Marina, Inc., (Ponce Marina) is entitled to a dredge and fill permit and water quality certification number 64-1303059 to construct a marina on the Halifax River in Volusia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department received an application from Ponce Marina on February 6, 1987, for a permit/water quality certification to construct a 178 slip marina facility consisting of two marina basins and two access channels. The work was to be done in primarily existing uplands adjacent to the Intercoastal Waterway (ICW) within the boundaries of the Town of Ponce Inlet, Volusia County, Florida. In response to agency objections, the scope of the project was reduced to include the excavation of a single marina basin and entrance channel and the construction of a 142 slip marina, by: constructing a basin by excavating 153,000 cu. yds. of material landward of mean high water (MHW) to a maximum depth of -6 feet mean low water (MLW); constructing an entrance channel 200 feet long by 80 feet wide by hydraulically dredging 2,100 cu. yds. waterward of MHW to a maximum depth of -7 feet MLW; connecting the head region of the excavated basin to an existing tidal creek by installing a 60 foot long, 36 inch diameter culvert pipe set at invert -2.0 feet NGVD and fitted with a 36 inch flap gate; installing 1,695 linear feet of vertical bulkhead with a riprap toe, 1,200 linear feet of native rock revetment, 680 linear feet of native rock riprap for use as wave-breaks; constructing 3 main piers, 8 feet in width and 140 feet, 180 feet and 210 feet in length, and 66 finger piers 3 feet in width and 30 feet to 50 feet in length, providing 142 wet boatslips; constructing a stormwater treatment system for the upland development associated with the marina facility; filling a 0.53 acre barrow canal with 4,000 cu. yds. of material; impacting 2.44 acres of jurisdictional wetland area; and creating 2.9 acres of jurisdictional wetland area. The application was filed on behalf of Ponce Marina by Robert M. Snyder, P.E., a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. On June 20, 1988, the Department issued its Intent to Issue Permit No. 64-1303059 to Ponce Marina. The Intent to Issue contains 21 Specific Conditions the Department will place on the Permit. All conditions are reasonable and necessary. The project site is located on the eastern side of the Halifax River, 3.5 miles south of the Port Orange Causeway and 2.3 miles north of Ponce Inlet in the Town of Ponce Inlet, Volusia County, Section 24, Township 16 South, Range 33 East, not in aquatic preserve, in Class III waters. The project site was formerly salt marsh associated with the Halifax River. The majority of the project site now consists of fill placed on the salt marsh at some time in the past. This fill created an upland strip approximately 500 feet wide and 2,000 feet long. Running through this upland strip is a central ditch which originates at a stormwater sewer on the east side of South Peninsula Drive and runs toward the west to the Halifax River. The proposed marina basin is to be excavated from the upland strip and central ditch described above. The marina design includes the creation of a wetland area in the head region of the basin as well as the connection of the head region to Live Oak Creek, an existing tidal creek, by installing a 60 feet long, 36 inch diameter culvert set at -2.0 feet NGVD and fitted with a 36 inch flap gate. The estuarine marsh wetland to be created at the head of the marina is designed to provide water quality treatment to incoming tides which reach this area. This treated water will then move through the flap gate into Live Oak Creek, where it will receive further treatment before entering the Halifax River. The entrance to the marina will be 180 feet wide. The dredged access channel through that 180 feet entrance, for the navigation of deeper draft boats, will be 80 feet wide by 200 feet long. Construction of the entrance channel will require the excavation of approximately 2,100 cu. yds. of material from the submerged lands of the Halifax River, however, the areas to be dredged consist of unvegetated sand which is not expected to impact marine resources. Excavation of the marina basin will result in 2.44 acres of direct wetland loss. These wetlands are mainly associated with the central ditch. Some marsh north of the upland strip will also be encroached upon. The wetland area eliminated by construction will be replaced by the creation of 2.9 acres of wetland area to be planted with mangroves and smooth cordgrass. It is expected that the created wetland area will provide those same functions as the replaced wetlands within four to five months of planting and will become fully established within two to three years of planting. There is an extremely high success rate for this type of created wetlands within marina basins. The proposed mitigation provides a 1.3:1 ratio of created saltmarsh and mangrove areas and is consistent with Department policy. Diverse shoreline treatments are proposed which will protect wetland and vegetated areas within the marina basin from boat wakes and high energy exchange. This shoreline treatment will include vertical bulkheads, sloping native rock revetments, and submerged wake breaks. There are two or more boat slips directly adjacent to the created wetland on the south side of the basin. Boats in these slips can easily hit the wetlands and damage them. These slips should be eliminated or redesigned to provide protection for these wetlands. The created wetlands are placed so as to provide nursery habitat adjacent to deep water and to filter and treat tidal waters as they move through them. The location and proximity to open water of the created wetlands and the flushing characteristics of the basin will result in higher quality wetlands than those being replaced. The approximately 94 acres of remaining wetlands surrounding the marina project will be placed in a perpetual conservation easement by Ponce Marina. This conservation easement will include two spoil islands to the south of the main upland portion of the property as well as a nonjurisdictional Oak Hammock to the north of the project. The marina, as designed, is a system which is hydraulically driven by the tide. The tide in this region has a mean range of 2.77, that is, a 2.77 feet amplitude change from slack low water to slack high water. In this particular marina system, flushing is driven by two tidal components: (1) a tidal prism which is nothing more than the ratio of the tide volume to the mean low water volume of the basin and, (2) a flow-through component which occurs because there is an elevation difference from one portion of the system to another. A more rigorous flushing action occurs in a flow- through system. The marina is designed with a flap gate so that the facility will have a flow-through potential. Because a flow- through system generates turbulence, it provides mixing through the water column to eliminate or greatly minimize potential for pockets of water that could become stagnant. This is particularly effective in the head regions of the basin. The flap gate operates not only to ensure that water regularly moves out of the head region, but also to ensure that water from the marsh area will not flow into the marina basin, since such water contains organics which could be transported into the marina basin, thereby increasing the potential to violate dissolved oxygen standards. The marina, as designed, will provide a flushing time of 4.6 days for 100 percent flushing, which is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be degraded in either the marina basin or adjacent waters. The velocity of water going through the flap gate will not cause erosion. While no operational problems are anticipated with the flap gate, its proper operation is critical to the flushing of the basin. An appropriate design and regular maintenance will be necessary for the flap gate to operate as anticipated. There is no condition in the Intent to Issue which addresses the design and maintenance of the flap gate. Such a condition should be included. The east-west portion of an existing L-shaped canal situated in the northern portion of the property will be filled. The area to be filled is .53 acres. The L-shaped canal is within the Department's jurisdiction, is connected to the Halifax River, and is therefore waters of the State. There is a 36-inch culvert coming from under Peninsula Drive which takes stormwater runoff from an existing condominium development and empties that runoff into the L-shaped canal. Currently, untreated water is coming off impervious surfaces and under the highway by pipe directly into waters of the state, with no detention, no retention, no initial treatment. Therefore, the worst pollutant slug is going directly into waters of the state. This stormwater runoff receives no treatment prior to being directly discharged to waters of the state. Such a system would not be permitted by the Department today. State water quality will be improved by removing the direct stormwater drainage to waters of the state. Ponce Marina has provided an alternate plan for the water which is currently coming from off the project site and discharging through the 36-inch culvert directly into waters of the state. The water is to be routed through a considerable length of grassy ditch behind a weir which will retain the water so that it will receive proper treatment before entering the marsh area. This stormwater will not be routed to a retention area in the oak hammock to the north of the project. The water quality in the remaining portion of the L- shaped canal will not be reduced by the filling of the .53 acre east-west segment, nor is it expected to decline after the filling. The proposed stormwater treatment system for the marina project meets the criteria specified by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-25. Further, the stormwater management system for the project was never properly made an issue in this proceeding. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a no jeopardy letter to Ponce Marina on July 11, 1988, indicating that the proposed marina will not endanger the manatee or the Atlantic Saltmarsh snake. Those are the only endangered or threatened species that would be expected to be affected by this project. On September 1, 1987, Colonel Robert M. Brantly, Executive Director of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, issued a letter to Secretary Dale Twachtmann recommending, (1) the southern basin of the original marina project be eliminated; (2) the remaining northern basin be designed to lessen wetland impacts, a hydrographic analysis be performed to ensure adequate flushing, there be a DNR determination of no adverse impact to the manatee; and (3) the oak hammock be preserved before issuance of the permit. These recommendations were followed by the Department and are incorporated in the current proposal for the project. On August 21, 1987, the Florida Department of Natural Resources issued its recommendations to the Department concerning the proposed marina, as it relates to the manatee. The recommendations of the DNR are incorporated in permit conditions 16, 17, and 18a through 181. A March 16, 1987, report prepared by staff of the Environmental Control Division of Volusia County recommended approval of the original marina project with three recommendations. Although Volusia County recommended a 90 percent survival rate, an 80 percent survival rate in the mitigation plan is reasonable. Marina plans provide for a sewage pump-out service for boats, as recommended. A condition prohibiting live-aboards on vessels was inadvertently omitted from the condition in the Intent to Issue. The PAC called as its only witness, Dr. Bernard J. Yokel, who was qualified as an expert in estuarine ecology and fisheries. Although Dr. Yokel expressed concern about the removal of a portion of the L-shaped canal and on the introduction of water from the marina into Live Oak Creek, there was no testimony whatsoever that it would be a violation of any criteria of the Department's Class III Water Standards or any other promulgated departmental standard. In fact, Dr. Yokel was unfamiliar with the provisions of Chapters 17- 3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, and was also unfamiliar with the Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook, the 1985 version published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although Dr. Yokel expressed some concern regarding the impact of the marina on the existing linear wetlands in the ditches, he never rendered any opinion as to whether or not reasonable assurances had been provided that the proposed permit was contrary to the public interest, would cause adverse water quality or have adverse effects on fish, shellfish, crabs, and other wildlife. He rendered no opinion as to whether or not the proposed project, if permitted, would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. The Petitioner, Lawrence Decker, did not testify. He did present Robert Bullard, P.E., as an expert. Mr. Bullard expressed concern about the operation of the flap gate between the marina basin and Live Oak Creek. However, Mr. Bullard expressed no opinion as to whether or not there would be a violation of any criteria contained in Chapters 17-3, 17-4, or 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, or of the Department's Class III Water Quality Standards. The witness, Mr. Bullard, also expressed concern about the hydrographic characteristics of the marina basin and of the L-shaped canal. However, Mr. Bullard never expressed an opinion that the project as designed would degrade State Water Quality Standards below those set in Chapters 17-3, 17-4, and 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, or the Department's Class III Water Quality Standards. Mr. Bullard never expressed any opinion as to whether or not reasonable assurances had been given by the applicant, Ponce Marina, to the Department, that the project would not meet the criteria as provided in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or the rules promulgated by the Department thereunder. The applicant, Ponce Marina, has provided reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards or other standards established pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17-3.051, 17- 3.061, and 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, relating to Class III waters. The project as designed is not contrary to the public interest. The mitigation more than offsets the wetlands lost. There is evidence to establish that the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or property of others; nor adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats; nor adversely affect navigation or flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; nor adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in its vicinity; nor adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resource.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein grant permit number 64-1303059 to Ponce Marina, Inc., with three additional specific conditions added to the twenty-one conditions set forth in the Intent to Issue: No live-aboard vessels are to be allowed at the marina. The applicant shall design and shall provide regular maintenance for the flap gate so as to insure that the flap gate will perform as required as an integral and critical component of the flushing design of the marina basin. The applicant shall eliminate or redesign the boat slips directly abutting the created wetlands on the south side of the basin, so as to protect those wetlands from damage. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 28th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3494 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners, Doris Kralik and Lawrence Decker 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(3); 2(2); 5(19); 10(24); 14(26); 32(26); and 35(27). 2. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 19, 24- 26, 28, 30, 33, 34, and 37-42 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 17, 36, and 43 are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 18, 20-23, 27, 29, and 31 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Ponce Marina, Inc. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 4(11 & 12); 5(10); 6(18); 9(3); 11(36); 15(29-32); 16 (33 & 34); 17(4);0(41) and 25(44). Proposed findings of fact 3, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, and 21-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 15 and 19 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 & 2) and 2-38(3-39). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Volusia-Flagler Environmental Political Action Committee, Inc. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(3); 2(2); 4(8); 5(19); 8(27); 9(28); 21(24); and 22(26). 2. Proposed findings of fact 3, 6, 7, 10-13, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 33-37, 39, and 40 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 14, 16-18, and 25 are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 26, 28-32, 38, and 41-43 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence Decker 6502 John Anderson Road Flagler Beach, Florida 32036 Doris Kralik 31 Oceanview Avenue Ponce Inlet, Florida 32019 Peter B. Heebner Attorney at Law 523 North Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Vivian F. Garfein Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Thomas D. Wright Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1231 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32070 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent, E. Speer and Associates, Inc. (the "Applicant"), should be granted a permit for the construction of a permanent docking facility pursuant to Sections 403.91-403.929, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17.
Findings Of Fact Whether Quantified Hydrographic Studies Are Necessary For All Marina Applications To Provide Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion (stated as a finding of fact) that it is not possible to demonstrate adequate flushing without "quantifying flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data." (R.O. at 20, 22-24, 47, 49-50, 54, 57-58; F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38-39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66, and 69) It is clear from the tenor of the entire recommended order that the Hearing Officer believes that as a matter of law an expert's opinion is not sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that flushing will be adequate to prevent violations of water quality standards unless that opinion is based on quantified conclusions generated by objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data. (R.O. at 47, 49-50, 57-58) Thus, for example, the Hearing Officer opines that quantification of flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective measurements of appropriate hydrodynamic data is an essential element of the prima facie showing required to be made by the applicant. (R.O. at 47; C.O.L. No. 11) The Hearing Officer places great significance an the following excerpt from the opinion in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Reculation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990): 1800 Atlantic filed 34 exceptions to the recommended order, most of which were denied in the Department's final order . . . . The final order approved and adopted most of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order and denied the permit. The following stated rulings and reasons there for are significant to the issues on this appeal. (emphasis added) We must note at this point that there is no finding of fact in the hearing officer's recommended order that quantifies how productive the marine habitat may be in this case, and no record support for the suggestion that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of the marine habitat attributable to this project [footnote omitted]. (emphasis added) Exception 23 filed by 1800 Atlantic challenged the hearing officer's finding that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity . . . The Department rejected this exception based upon the hearing officer's general statements, without any quantification whatsoever, of adverse effects upon these matters . . . (emphasis added) 1800 Atlantic, 552 So.2d at 951-952. I do not concur that 1800 Atlantic stands for the proposition that quantified hydrographic measurement of flushing is in all cases an essential element of a prima facie showing that a marina project will not cause violations of water quality standards. Notwithstanding the above noted statement of the court in 1800 Atlantic that "there is no finding of fact . . . that quantifies 'how productive the marine habitat may be' . and no record support . . . that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of marine habitat attributable to [the] project," 552 So.2d 951, the court did not reject the finding that the project adversely affected the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreation values, and marine productivity. Indeed, had the court rejected the above finding due to lack of quantified findings the court would never have gone on to reach the issue of mitigation because in 1800 Atlantic mitigation could only become relevant if the applicant was unable to provide reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the public interest criteria of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. See Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. I do agree that in some cases quantified hydrographic studies of flushing may be required in order to provide reasonable assurances. Thus, in Rudloe v. Dickerson Bavshore, Inc., 10 FALR 3426 (DER Case No. 87-0816, June 9, 1988), my predecessor held that a dye tracer study was necessary to provide quantitative information about dilution rates and directions on dispersion of pollutants emanating from a proposed marina site which was in "close proximity" to Class II waters approved for shellfish harvesting. 10 FALR at 3447-48. However, the need for such quantified studies must be determined on a case by case basis and is not required as a matter of law for all marinas. 5/ Far me to determine as a matter of law that experts may establish a fact only by certain types of evidence would be an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the scientific domain of the expert. Thus, in Kralik v. Ponce Marine, Inc., 11 FALR 669, 671 (DER Final Order, Jan. 11, 1989), my predecessor held that expert testimony with regard to flushing does not lack credibility just because a hydrographic study had not been conducted. Of course, the finder of fact has the ultimate say on how much weight an expert opinion should be given if it is not based on a quantified study. Thus, whether an expert testifying on adequacy of flushing has conducted a quantifiable hydrographic study merely goes to the weight of the evidence. Kralik, 11 FALR at 671. I only conclude that a quantified hydrographic study for a proposed marina is not in all cases essential for a showing of reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Accordingly, to the extent that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact state that a quantified hydrographic study is required in all cases as a prima facie element of a showing of reasonable assurance that a project will not violate water quality standards, I reject such statement as a mislabled and incorrect conclusion of law. Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards I read Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part as taking exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study was needed in order to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards, and that because such a quantified hydrographic study had not been conducted, reasonable assurances had not been provided. (F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38- 39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66 and 69) As noted by the Hearing Officer, the applicant's expert testimony concerning the adequacy of the flushing consisted of general statements describing visual observations of river and tidal flows which, together with past experience and knowledge of the general area of the project, formed the basis for the experts' opinions that a quantified hydrographic study was not necessary for this project. (R.O. at 22-23) Thus, far example, Mr. Charles C. Isiminger, accepted as an expert in marina design and hydrographic engineering testified that based on his knowledge of the area, its riverine and tidal flows, a hydrographic documentation was not needed to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause water quality violations. Mr. Isiminger also testified that any pollutants entering the water from the marina would be flushed out of the area within one tidal cycle. (Tr. at 65-66, 70, 77- 79, 93, 110, 125, 128, 134) Mr. Thomas Franklin, an environmental supervisor from the Department testified that: the hydrographic survey was not really necessary due to the location of the project being in open waters and in close vicinity to the Inlet with a large volume of tidal waters moving in this area, plus the fact that it was further enhanced by flushing due to the St. Lucie River being -- basically coming around Hell Gate point [sic] and funneling out into this estuary. (emphasis added) TR at 437. Other experts also testified that the area was well flushed and that a quantified hydrographic study was not needed in this case. (Jacqueline Kelly, Tr. at 187; John Meyer, Tr. at 319, 322, 341; Gerald Ward, Tr. at 44749) 6/ Speer asserts that the Hearing Officer's finding that a quantified hydrographic study is required in this case cannot stand in light of the unrebutted expert testimony that the marina site will be well flushed and that the rate of flushing provides reasonable assurances the water quality standards will not be violated. I have found no competent substantial evidence in the record which would support a finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study is required. I did note that in Footnote 21 of the Recommended Order (R.O. at 20) the Hearing Officer states: Tidal range is only one of the types of data used to quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. See TR at 78. Other appropriate data include: overall flow rates, mid tide flow, flow amplitude (the magnitude of the flow without regard to direction, i.e., speed as opposed to velocity), horizontal current distribution, downstream plume characteristics, and field verification using a dye tracer. All of this data is needed to fully describe and quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. (citing testimony of Mr. Isiminger at Tr. 88-94) At first blush this may appear to be competent substantial evidence supporting a finding that a quantified hydrographic study is necessary in this case. However, when the testimony is read in its complete context, it is clear that Mr. Isiminger is testifying as to what is necessary to do a hydrographic study when one is needed, and is not testifying that such a study is needed in this case. (Tr. 88-94). I also note that the record contains a memo written by Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer employed by the Department. (Tr. at 67-70) This memo was admitted without objection. (Tr. at 23) The memo states in part that "without . . . hydrographic documentation, reasonable assurance cannot be given that the project will not cause problems." (Tr. at 70; Pet. Exh. No. 10) 7/ Dr. Echternacht was not called as a witness at the hearing and the letter was not offered as evidence of the opinion of Dr. Echternacht or the Department at the time of the de novo hearing. To the contrary, the above noted testimony of Mr. Franklin and the testimony of Jacqueline D. Kelly, an environmental specialist of the Department accepted as an expert in evaluating impacts of environmental dredge and fill projects (Tr. at 187, 195; R.O. at 3), clearly establish that at the time of the de novo hearing the Department was of the opinion that further hydrographic documentation was not needed. The Hearing Officer noted that Mr. Meyer testified that the flushing is a "very, very complicated dynamic situation." (Tr. at 320). The testimony was as follows: Q. So you don't know for sure whether the currents here impact this at all or stay offshore from it? A. Oh, the currents definitelv affect it, and you do have interchange -- as I mentioned before, a very high rate of interchange on a daily basis on every tide. Q. Are you saying that the current that flows through here every day flows right through the site? A. We're dealing with two different things here. We're dealing with your currents, your general migration of waters from the estuary from the inland areas down. You're also dealing with tidal effects coming in and out, and it's a very, very complicated dynamic situation. For me to try to tell you exactly how these things work would be impossible without having a very, very long drawn-out expensive study done on the entire area, and I have not reviewed any studies like that. Tr. at 319-20 (emphasis added) When taken in its context it is clear that Mr. Meyer is testifying that there is a very high rate of exchange on a daily basis on every tide. The fact that he viewed the exact details of the flushing as very complicated in no way retracted his statement that there was a very high rate of exchange on every tide. My review of the record leads me to concur with Speer that no testimony, either on direct, cross-examination, or examination by the Hearing Officer, nor any other evidence was introduced to rebut the expert testimony presented by Speer and the Department that flushing on the site was adequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. 8/ As a general rule, the trier of fact may not arbitrarily reject uncontroverted evidence as proof of a contested fact. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. G. & J. Investments, 506 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. den., 515 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1987); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel, 352 So.2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); In Re: Estate of Hannon, 447 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). This does not mean that a mere scintilla of unrebutted evidence is sufficient to establish a contested fact in an administrative hearing. At least in the context of administrative proceedings, the unrebutted evidence still must be competent substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. 9/ There is no suggestion that the Hearing Officer rejected the unrebutted testimony of the experts of Speer and the Department as not being competent substantial evidence. In fact, in the light of the testimony of Mr. Isiminger (Tr. at 65- 66), Mr. Ward ( Tr. at 447-449), Mr. Meyer (Tr. at 238- 239), and Mr. Franklin (Tr. at 345-350), it is beyond peradventure that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause violations of water quality standards. It is clear from the context of the Recommended Order that the Hearing Officer believed that reasonable assurance had not been provided only because he believed that a quantified hydrographic study was required as a matter of law. Although I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion that a quantified hydrographic study must be conducted as a matter of law for all marina applications, I must still determine whether a quantified hydrographic analysis is required under the facts of this case. In Rudloe v. Dickerson Bayshore, 10 FALR 3426 (DER Final Order, June 9, 1988) it was held that a hydrographic study was not adequate because it did not include a quantified dye tracer study. Id., 10 FALR at 3448. In Rudloe, as in this case, the marina was located in Class III waters, but near Class II waters. However, in Rudloe, the marina site was much closer to the Class II waters (approximately 1,700 feet in Rudloe (10 FAIR at 3430) as compared to approximately 8,000 feet in this case). (R.O. at 16, F.O.F. No. 26) Also, the Rudloe case is significantly different from this case in that competent substantial expert opinion was presented in Rudloe that the marina would adversely impact the Class II shellfish harvesting area. See Rudloe, 10 FALR at 3433-35, 3437-38 (testimony of DNR expert that operation of marina would result in closure of waters to the harvest of shellfish; testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston that the hydrographic drogue studies conducted were inadequate.) In this case, neither expert nor lay testimony was offered by Barringer to show that operation of the marina would result in violation of water quality standards or have any adverse impact on the Class II shellfish waters. 10/ I conclude that the facts of this case as found by the Hearing Officer are not sufficiently similar to the facts of Rudloe so as to justify holding as a matter of law a quantified hydrographic study is necessary to establish the required reasonable assurances. Since the record contains competent substantial evidence that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause water quality violations, and since there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's contrary finding, I must accept the exception of Speer and reject the Hearing Officer's findings of fact to the contrary. In this case I note that I am not so much rejecting findings of fact as rejecting a conclusion of law. As I noted, the Hearing Officer's finding is really based on a conclusion of law which I reject. This leaves only unrebutted competent substantial evidence that there will be adequate flushing to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. There is no rational basis to reject this unrebutted competent substantial evidence. Therefore, I must accept as proven that the applicant has provided the reasonable assurances that operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; Estate of Hannon; supra, Effect On Class II Waters Speer's Exceptions Nos. 7 and 8 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina would not have a "negative effect" an the Class II waters of the St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (F.O.F. No. 43) Rule 17-312.080(6)(b), Fla. Admin. Code provides: The Department also shall deny a permit for dredging and filling in any class of waters where the location of the project is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the dredging or filling will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. In this case expert testimony was presented by Speer and the Department that due to the distance of the marina site from the Class II waters (8,000 feet) the marina site was not in close proximity to the Class II waters, and due to the rapid flushing of the area, the construction and operation of the marina would neither have a negative effect nor would result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters of St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (Isiminger, Tr. at 96, 126-27; Meyer, Tr. at 254-55) I find that the record contains no competent substantial evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by Speer and the Department that the marina will have no negative effect on Class II waters and will not result in violation of water quality standards in Class II waters. Accordingly, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In Re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Reasonable Assurance That Operation Of The Marina Will Not Result In Prop Dredging Or Violations Of The State Water Quality Criterion For Turbidity Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 9-12, and 16 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat traffic from operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. (F.O.F. Nos. 33-34, 45, 48, 52-53, 64, and 67) 11/ On one hand, there was testimony that the depths of the marina, in combination with the size of boats allowed in the various slips, would allow for a one foot clearance from the bottom of the boats to the bottom of the marina, and that this clearance, in combination with speed limits in the marina, would provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not result in prop dredging or turbidity violations. (Isiminger, Tr. at 104-107, 118; Meyer Tr. at 263-65, 299, 304- 305; Kelly, Tr. at 189-190; Ward, Tr. at 460) On the other hand, Bruce Graham, admitted as an expert in marine biology testified that: "A large boat, three feet from the bottom, I think would resuspend sediment." (Graham, Tr. at 378). The Hearing Officer, noting that when asked if one foot clearance is sufficient to prevent prop dredging and resultant turbidity violations, a Department witness, testified: I would have to say that we simply don't have enough documentation to know this for a fact. We know that a foot gives us a degree of comfort that there will not be prop wash. In certain instances -- a tug boat, for instance, you know, with huge engines, you're going to have prop wash over a much -- over a large area and with probably much more than a foot of clearance. But for the normal, typical marina a foot, as I say, gives us a degree of comfort that we have settled on. Neyer, Tr. at 264. The Hearing Officer concluded that the witnesses of Speer and the Department could not explain the reasons or efficacy of the "one foot policy" except to say that in their experience the one foot policy was adequate to prevent prop dredging and turbidity violations. (R.O. at 28 n.35)0 The Hearing Officer thus found that Speer and the Department failed to "prove up" the one foot policy -- i.e., failed to elucidate and explicate the reason for the policy. 12/ Clearly the Hearing Officer placed more weight on the testimony of Mr. Bruce Graham than that of Isiminger, Meyer, Kelly and Ward. Since I cannot say that the testimony of Graham was not competent substantial evidence, I am not at liberty to reweigh the evidence or reject the Hearing Officer's finding of fact. See, Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sections 120.57(1)(b)10., and 120.68(10), Florida Statutes. Speer contends that Barringer presented no evidence that prop dredging will cause sufficient turbidity to violate the state water quality turbidity criterion of 29 NTUs. 13/ That contention misses the point. The burden is on Speer to establish by the preponderance of evidence that reasonable assurance has been provided that operation of the marina will not result in violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Hearing Officer, as the finder of fact, concluded that Speer failed to do so. Accordingly, I reject the exception of Speer and accept the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the state water quality criterion for turbidity. Manatee Impacts and the Public Interest Test Speer's Exceptions Nos. 13 and 17 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to do a quantified study of impacts to manatees and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat. (F.O.F. Nos. 61, 64 and 68) The Hearing Officer reasoned as follows: Instead of a traffic study, the Applicant and DER presented evidence in the form of general statements that manatees need not migrate north and south through the approach channel. According to the Applicant and DER, manatees can migrate across the project site by one of two alternative routes. They can migrate in one or two feet of water under moored boats and then under wave breaks on the north and east piers, or they can migrate in the shallow water landward of the west boundary of the project. That evidence was not persuasive and was controverted by competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence that manatees would be deterred from migrating under the project footprint by substantial obstacles in their path. Manatees migrating under the project footprint would be exposed to 86 or more moving boats with powerful engines and drafts of four to five feet in waters covering approximately 20,800 square feet. It could be argued, or course, that 86 or more boats would not be moving in and out of the marina at one time. However, it is impossible to estimate occupancy rates, length of stay, and frequency of boat trips without a traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) As Speer's exception notes, there was testimony that because of the width of the river and boat speed restrictions in the project area, there would be no adverse impacts an the manatee from the marina. (Kelly, Tr. at 162; Meyer, Tr. at 255-56, 331- 32; Isiminger, Tr. at 130) The St. Lucie/Jupiter/Hobe Sound waterways are a major travel corridor for manatees. (DER Exh. No. 4) Between 1974 and December 1990, there were ten water craft related manatee fatalities within the boating sphere of influence of the project. (DER Exh. No. 4) In order to reduce impacts on the manatees, the proposed permit contains the following specific conditions: S.C. No. 13: The permittee agrees to install and maintain a minimum of one manatee education/display on the main access pier during and after construction. S.C. No. 15: The permittee agrees that any collision with a manatee shall be reported immediately [to DNR and U.S. Fish and wildlife Service]. S.C. No. 18: The permittee shall post four (4) manatee area/slow speed signs, two of which would be spaced along the perimeter pier and two of which would be located on the outside of the marina for all boating traffic to observe within the marina facility. (DER Exh. No. 3) 14/ There was testimony that the piers, once constructed, would not impair the passage of manatees. (Isiminger, Tr. at 114- 115) On the other hand, there was some testimony that manatees may have to go around the project rather than through it. (Meyer, Tr. at 311) The existing boat traffic past the site of the project to the Inlet was "rough1y estimated" at 50 to 100 boats a day. (Meyer, Tr. at 337) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that "while [the project] may negatively affect, it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian Manatee." (Tr. at 120-21) The Hearing Officer concluded that reasonable assurance as to adverse impacts on manatees could not be provided absent a quantified traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) In Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FAIR 1359 (DER Final Order March 9, 1990), the Department held that the information needed to determine a marina's impact on manatees and the necessary actions to mitigate such impacts must be decided an a case by case basis. For example, in Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 11 FALR 4710 (DER Final Order, Aug. 24, 1989), 15/ a marina sought to expand by adding 113 new wet slips. The marina was required to develop a manatee protection plan far the surrounding portions of the Caloosahatchee River, all new slips were limited to sail boats until the manatee protection plan was implemented and enforced, and power boat occupancy was limited to 75% of the total 174 wetslips in any event. The marina also made available a wet slip for use by the Florida Marine Patrol. In this case there is evidence of significant boat related manatee fatalities in the boating sphere of influence of the proposed marina. There is also evidence of existing traffic of 50-100 boats per day past the project site. In view of the fact that this project would add 86 slips and a public fueling facility, it seems likely that that the project will significantly increase both boat traffic and the threat of manatee collisions. Accordingly, I concur with the Hearing Officer that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that further studies are needed to determine what, if any, additional manatee protection conditions are needed to provide reasonable assurance that manatees will not be adversely affected. I conclude that the applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat, and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore, I reject the exception of Speer. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Speer's Exception No. 15 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse cumulative pacts created either by the cumulative effects of the object and existing similar projects, or by secondary pacts of the project itself. (F.O.F. No. 66) 16/ Cumulative impact analysis takes into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, supra; Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Secondary impact analysis considers the impact of the project itself and of any other relevant activities that are very closely linked or causally related to the permitted project. Conservancy, 580 So.2d at 778; J.T. McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 FALR 960, 980. 17/ Thus, in Conservancy the secondary impact analysis was required to consider the environmental impacts of development of 75 estate homes on an island where the development would be reasonably expected as a result of the permitted laying of a subaqueous sewer line. Similarly, in del Campo v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 452 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the Department was required to consider the environmental impacts of the foreseeable development of an island facilitated by the permitted building of a bridge to the island. In this case there is competent substantial evidence that there are other marinas located 1,750 feet downstream in Willoughby Creek, and 5,000 feet downstream in Manatee Pocket. (R.O. F.O.F. 31; Isiminger, Tr. at 112; Meyer, Tr. at 261) The record contains competent substantial evidence that the cumulative impact of the project and the existing marinas in Willoughby Creek and Manatee Pocket will not result in violations of state water policy. (Isiminger, Tr. at 125; Kelly, Tr. at 167) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly on cumulative impacts is not competent, substantial evidence. In light of the fact that there is no competent substantial evidence to indicate that cumulative impacts would result in water quality violations, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersbur; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. As to secondary impacts, the Hearing Officer pointed out that Speer did not introduce any evidence as to whether there would be secondary impacts to water quality as the result of further development or increased utilization of the uplands facilities. (See F.O.F. 66, n.59, R.O. at 39) Such further development or increased utilization of upland facilities is reasonably foreseeable and would be very closely linked or causally related to the building of an 86 slip marina with public fuel services. As noted above, the applicant has the burden of providing reasonable assurances as to cumulative and secondary impacts. Brown v. DER, supra; Conservancy, supra. However, neither the pleadings nor the pre-hearing stipulation raised the issue of the adequacy of the secondary impact analysis. In a case such as this where the Department's notice of intent to issue a permit has been challenged by a third party, the applicant's prima facie case need only include the application and the accompanying documentation and information relied on by the Department as the basis of its intent to issue. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., 396 So.2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The petitioner challenging the permit must identify the areas of controversy and allege a factual basis for its contentions that the applicant did not provide the necessary reasonable assurances. J.W.C., 396 So.2d at 789. See also Woodholly Assoc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 451 So.2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since Barringer did not identify this issue and did not allege any factual basis for a contention that the secondary impact analysis was inadequate or incorrect, I may not rule on the issue in this order. Miscellaneous Exceptions To Findings of Fact Speer's Exception No. 14 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project will have no adverse impact on (1) the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the project, including seagrasses, shell fish, and fin-fish, and (2) recreational and commercial values in the vicinity. (F.O.F. No. 64) Speer contends that this finding is not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebutted testimony of Ms. Kelly and Mr. Isiminger. (Kelly, Tr. at 159, 161-62, 165-67; Isiminger, Tr. at 73) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly is not competent, substantial evidence, and I find no evidence in the record to rebut the testimony of Kelly and Isiminger. Therefore, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Speer's Exception No. 3 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide a current water quality analysis. (F.O.F. No. 35) A water quality analysis was submitted in April of 1990, shortly after the permit application was filed. (R.O. at 2, 19; F.O.F. No. 34) I find no competent substantial evidence in the record to suggest any reason for believing that the water quality has changed since April of 1990. I agree with Speer that, absent some specific reason for believing that the water quality has changed since the date of a study conducted contemporaneously with the permit application, there is no requirement to provide an updated water quality analysis. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Need For Quantified Hydrographic Study Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 7 and 9, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that a quantified hydrographic study was needed to provide reasonable assurances that the operation of the marina would not result in violations of water quality standards and would would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. For the reasons stated in Parts III(1), (2) and (3) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Introduction Of Issues Not Set Forth In Pleadings Or Pre-Hearing Stipulations Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's consideration of issues of (1) the need for a quantified hydrographic study, (2) the proximity of the site to Class II waters, (3) turbidity and prop dredging, (4) cumulative impacts, and (5) the need for a quantified study on manatee impacts. For the reasons set forth in Part 111(6) above, I agree that, absent waiver, a petitioner challenging an intent to issue a permit may not raise issues at the hearing which were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations. However, in this case the issue of manatee impacts was raised in the pleadings, and Speer was on notice that it had the burden of proof on that issue. As to the other issues, even if I accepted far the sake of argument that they were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations, Speer failed to timely object to the raising of these issues at the hearing and therefore waived any objection. See Sarasota County and Midnight Pass Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 13 FAIR 1727 (DER Final Order, April 4, 1991). Therefore, I reject the above exceptions. Proximity To Class II Waters Speer's Exception No. 2 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer was required to submit a plan which demonstrated that the marina would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. (C.O.L. Nos. 12 and 13) I do not agree that where a proposed marina site is 8,000 feet from Class II waters and where the site is rapidly flushed as noted in Parts 111(1), (2) and (3) above, that the site is in close proximity with the Class II waters within the meaning of Rule 17-312.080(6), Fla. Admin. Code. Accordingly, I accept this exception and reject the above note conclusion of law. Public Interest Test Speer's Exception No. 4 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project was not contrary to the public interest. (C.O.L. Nos. 17 and 20) For the reasons set forth in Parts III(4) and (5) above, I reject this exception. Cumulative Impacts Speer's Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurances that cumulative impacts would not result in water quality violations, and that such assurances could only be provided by a quantified study. For the reasons set forth in Parts III (1), (2), (3) and (6) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Modification Of Permit Conditions Speer's Exception No. 6 takes Exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law Nos. 24-34. These conclusions of law concern questions of the authority of the Hearing Officer and me to modify the conditions of the permit. I agree with Speer that since none of the parties have requested any modifications, these conclusions of law are irrelevant. 18/ Therefore I accept the exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law as irrelevant. Miscellaneous Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that Speer and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurance as to prop dredging and turbidity violations because neither Speer nor the Department sufficiently proved the basis for the one-foot clearance policy. For the reasons set forth in Part III(4) above, I reject this exception. Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the question of whether mitigation is adequate is a question of law. I agree with the Hearing Officer and reject this exception. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, enter a Final Order denying the application for a permit to construct the proposed project and denying the request for determination of improper purposes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1550 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Debra Flynn has submitted an application to the DER to construct a dock extending 190 feet waterward of the mean high water line of waters of the state, which would also extend 80 feet landward of the mean high water line through a transitional wetland area. The landward extent of the dock will completely span the DER's wetland jurisdiction at the project site. A raised "pad" of fill upon which the applicant's house would be constructed and a filled driveway, although originally a part of this application, has been altered in design by the applicant such that those two items have been removed from the geographical extent of the DER's jurisdiction and those two items in the proposed project are no longer at issue. The applicant's lot is approximately 300 feet deep by 100 feet wide. This lot is one of many similarly sized lots which border Niles Channel on the east and Nyles Road on the west, on Summerland Key. These lots vary in nature from tidally inundated mangrove wetlands to a combination of upland and transitional wetlands fringed by mangroves along the water's edge. The portion of the applicant's lot nearest to Nyles Road is primarily characterized by upland vegetation extending approximately 75 to 100 feet in an easterly direction from the road. The elevation gradually decreases toward the waterfront of the lot on Niles Channel, with buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta), dropseed (Sporobolus sp.), key grass (Monanthochloe littoralis), and sea daisy (Borrichia sp.) being the dominant species over most of the applicant's lot. Over the northern side of the property adjacent to adjoining lot 34, a pocket of black mangroves (Avicennia germinans) extends inland, nearly to the upland area described above. As the lot elevation drops toward the shoreline, mangrove growth occurs more frequently, culminating in a dense mangrove fringe bordering Niles Channel. This mangrove fringe becomes well established some 30 feet landward of the approximate mean high water line, being dominated by black and white mangroves. Waterward of the mean high water line, red mangroves dominate for a distance of approximately 30 feet out into Niles Channel. The landward portion of the dock would have only minimal environmental impacts on the transitional wetlands as established by DER's expert witness Meyer and witness Kephart. No contradictory evidence was submitted in this regard. The bottom of Niles Channel extending 65 feet waterward of the mangrove fringe area is characterized by a hard caprock substrate covered with somewhat coarse sediments and loose algaes. In addition to the loose algae, the bottom, attached marine life communities are characterized by red, brown and green algae, sponges, anemones and hard corals. Waterward of this initial 65 foot zone, a relatively narrow zone of seagrasses is encountered. This zone of seagrass extends about 15 to 20 feet in width, forming a somewhat broken, noncontinuous band extending from north to south across the front of the property. Within this seagrass band, the primary growth is turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum). There are smaller amounts of Cuban shoalweed (Halodule wrightii). Continuing waterward of this seagrass growth, the vegetative bottom coverage decreases with sandy patches becoming larger and more frequent. The bottom profile also becomes more rough and irregular, characterized by the presence of dissolved limerock holes as well as outcroppings. These holes and outcroppings provide excellent habitat for shelter-dependent fish and invertebrate species, such as spiny lobster and stone crabs. The area constitutes-prime nursery habitat for spiny lobsters and stone crabs. Water depth where the dock, as originally proposed, would terminate, which is in the area of the lobster and crab habitat, is approximately one and one-half to two feet deep at mean low water. The dock as presently proposed would extend some 30 feet beyond that area, or about 160 feet from the waterward edge of the shoreline mangrove fringe, or 190 feet from the mean high water line. Thus, the dock as presently proposed would terminate in a flat or sandy area which is somewhat deeper or about two to two and one-half feet deep at mean low water. Termination of the dock at that point, with boat traffic involved with the dock beginning and ending at that point will result in less likelihood of damage to the lobster and crab and other more fragile marine life habitat which occurs landward of the 190 foot termination point. At this point, the dominant marine species are patchy growths of red algae (Laurencia sp.). These growths are less susceptible to damage from prop-wash and wakes of boats than are the more landward areas characterized by turtlegrass, Cuban shoalweed and the "hole and outcrop" nursery habitat area for fish, lobsters and stone crabs. The physical and biological characteristics of the water bottom at this 190 foot distance offshore are more compatible with boat usage. The bottom here is characterized by hard caprock close to the surface, with a shallow overlying layer of inorganic, coarse-grained sediment consisting primarily of pulverized rock. There are very little or no seagrasses at this point. The applicant's boat draws approximately 12 inches of water underway and 18 inches at rest, and the dock is for the private use of the applicant only. The water depth at the termination point of the dock effectively precludes the applicant from navigating to and from the proposed dock with a significantly larger, more powerful boat and thus the physical characteristics of the water depth and hard bottom existing at the dock site themselves effectively limit the likelihood of harmful prop scouring or boat grounding damage. Impacts on water quality caused by the installation and operation of the proposed dock to the extent of its use by the applicant's private boat only, will be minimal. Some turbidity and disruption of marine life will inevitably occur during construction, but this will have no serious impact on either water quality or marine resources. The dock, as it is proposed to be constructed, will be at least three feet above mean high water level. It will be sufficiently narrow in width so as to preclude significant shading of seagrasses from sunlight and resultant death or damage to the seagrass beds between the end of the dock and the mean high water line, such that no water quality violation or harm to these marine resources will ensue. The proposed construction will not eliminate valuable marine resources in Niles Channel and will have no immediate or long-term adverse impact on the quantity or quality of the State's natural marine resources through the loss of habitat in the Niles Channel area involved. Because of the varying amounts of wetlands encompassed in the lots in the Niles Channel subdivision, it is unlikely that all of the lots in the area will be developed, or that a great number of docks similar to the proposed dock will be constructed. The Petitioner's expert witness, Mr. Robertson, established that less than half of the lots in this subdivision are suitable for or likely to be developed. The Petitioner's own witness, Fahrer, also established that Monroe County is planning to restrict development in this area through their zoning power. Accordingly, there is no reasonable expectation that many similar docks will be constructed in the Niles Channel area. Further, the recent amendments to the DER's organic statutes and related rules which took effect on October 1, 1984 mandate consideration of additional restrictive criteria involving effects of such projects on wildlife habitat, which will further serve to restrict development along the shoreline in this area. The shoreline in this subdivision is essentially undeveloped, with only one other dock presently in place, which is longer and extends further into Niles Channel than does the proposed dock. Although there was testimony by witnesses for Petitioner that the proposed dock would entail bone fishermen having to navigate out and around the dock, this testimony does not establish the premise that the dock will pose a serious impediment to navigation. The proposed dock may add slightly to the disruption of some recreational fishing navigation, however, since the adjacent property has the longer dock already in place, any disruption caused by this proposed shorter dock will not be significant and will not be contrary to the public interest in terms of navigation impediment.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation grant the application of Debra Flynn for a dock construction permit in accordance with the conditions delineated above. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esq. James L. Torres, Legal Intern Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Hendricks, Esq. 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Joel L. Beardsley Route 2, Box 441 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner L. C. Prevatt is the owner and operator of the Riverview Speed Wash, Inc., a coin operated laundry which has been in existence for over ten years. The facility has twelve top load washers, four double load washers, one triple load washer and seven gas dryers. It is open from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week. The facility is located in a shopping center in space which petitioner rents on a month-by-month basis. The facility utilizes a 0.0075 mgd waste treatment plant with effluent disposal to a county-owned drainage ditch which is connected and discharges to the Alafia River approximately 0.6 miles south of the facility. On or about May 29, 1981, petitioner submitted an application for a temporary operation permit for his Riverview laundry facility. Temporary operation permits are issued by the DER when a facility is not currently meeting State water quality standards and the applicant needs or desires a period of time to bring the facility up to the applicable standards. Here, the petitioner stated on his application that no upgrade of the waste treatment facility was planned. The application further stated that the facility would be connected to an area wide regional waste treatment system when that system became available. After numerous requests for further information from the applicant and various inspections of the facility, the DER issued its notice of intent to deny petitioner's application for a temporary operation permit. Reasons for the intended denial included failure to provide requested background water quality information, failure to provide a proposed water quality standards compliance schedule, failure to provide reasonable assurance that a municipal sewer would be available as an alternative means of disposal and improper and deficient operation and maintenance of the facility. Numerous inspections of the petitioner's facility by personnel from the DER and the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission revealed that the facility was not functional in terms of operating correctly and that the design of the plant was inadequate to meet State water quality standards. Specifically, these inspections revealed that the chlorination equipment was not operational, that the trickling filter was not operational, that the removal rates for BOD and suspended solids were consistently and significantly less than the State standard of 90 percent, that the discharge and effluent were of a milky color and would not meet the State standards for turbidity and color, that the water quality of the drainage ditch was extremely low and that the water quality results were actually worse after going through the existing system. It was determined that the discharge was degrading the quality of the receiving waters and that, even if the petitioner's operational and maintenance problems were solved, the design of the facility is not adequate to assure future compliance with State standards. Petitioner admits that his facility does not currently meet State water quality standards. In mitigation, it is contended that many other laundries in the area also do not meet State standards, that it is not economically feasible to redesign the facility to attain compliance, that he has no land available upon which to discharge effluent and that he would be willing to install a sand filter and did have the permission of the manager (not the owner) of the property to discharge effluent into the parking lot drain ponds. No written evidence of this agreement was adduced and there was no demonstration that such runoff ponds would be able to hold and/or treat effluent from the petitioner's facility. There was also no evidence offered to demonstrate that a municipal or regional sewer system would be available in the near future to serve the laundry facility.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a temporary operation permit for Riverview Speed Wash, Inc. be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 7th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: L. C. Prevatt Post Office Box 998 Gibsonton, Florida 33534 William W. Deane, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Champagne Estates (petitioner or applicant), is a limited partnership that owns a tract of land identified as Lots 1-5, Block 88, PGI Section 9A in Punta Gorda, Florida. The property fronts on the south side of the Peace River, a Class III water body which lies within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, a water body designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Petitioner is in the process of constructing a thirty unit, two phase luxury condominium project on its property. As an added amenity for the unit owners, petitioner proposes to construct a multi-slip dock in a tear shaped basin that juts slightly inward from the Peace River. It is applicant's proposal to build a dock that has created this controversy. By application dated April 4, 1989, petitioner sought the issuance of a dredge and fill permit from respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). If approved, the permit would authorize the construction of the dock. The application was received by DER's Fort Myers district office on April 14, 1989, and was given a staff review for sufficiency. After additional information was requested by DER and filed by the applicant, an on-site inspection was conducted by DER personnel on June 2, 1990. An inspection report was thereafter prepared on July 14, 1990, and was used in the formulation of the agency's preliminary decision. That decision, which was styled as a notice of permit denial, was issued on July 25, 1989, and cited several grounds for DER's preliminary action. They included (a) a fear that degradation of waters would occur, (b) applicant's alleged failure to show that the project was not contrary to the public interest in six respects, and (c) a concern that the project and its cumulative impacts would be contrary to the public interest. The agency's notice of permit denial prompted the applicant to initiate this proceeding. The application and project area Applicant initially sought authorization to build a two hundred sixty- three foot dock with six finger piers, a terminal platform and thirteen boat slips. The agency's intent to deny permit was based on that proposal. After the proposed agency action was issued, petitioner modified its application to downsize the dock to one hundred feet with only four finger piers and eight mooring slips. The structure will have a "T" configuration. Under the modified proposal, the finger piers will have a length of twenty feet while the mooring slips are twelve feet wide. Applicant advises that the boats which will use the facility will average between twenty and twenty-six feet in length with drafts of two to three feet. This size and draft is comparable to commercial fishing boats which now frequent the deep water basin to catch mullet. If the application is approved, applicant proposes to place rock riprap at the toe of the existing vertical concrete seawall and to plant red mangroves in the intertidal areas. It also proposes to prohibit "live aboards", fueling and maintenance at the facility. Despite the above modifications and restrictions, DER advised petitioner on October 5, 1989, that the application was still unacceptable for the same reasons as originally given. The parties have agreed that the modified application is the subject of this proceeding. The basin in which the construction will occur was excavated in the 1960's. A thirteen foot deep east-west channel runs parallel to the shore several hundred feet from the shoreline. There are existing seawalls on both the southern and western shorelines of the project area which form an "L" at the intersection. The basin is tear shaped with a width of approximately one hundred feet and commences some one hundred feet waterward of the shoreline. The "T" finger pier structures will be at the southerly edge of the existing basin thereby giving vessels access to the east-west channel. During low tide the bottom of the water body is exposed for more than one hundred feet seaward of petitioner's property. Thus, most, if not all, of the dock will be over exposed areas during low tide, and even during high tide the water in the surrounding basin area will be no more than a few feet deep. The proposed project has existing condominiums on both sides. Virtually all of the remaining lots on either side of the project stretching a mile or so in both directions are developed with single or multifamily units. If approved, petitioner's dock would be the only such dock in the immediate area on the south side of the river. Water quality concerns An applicant for a dredge and fill permit is obliged to provide "reasonable assurance" that water quality standards will not be violated. Since the proposed project is within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, which is designated as an OFW, special water quality considerations come into play. More specifically, the project must maintain the ambient water quality standards of the OFW. This means that a permit cannot be issued for a project that will lower the ambient water quality, that is, the water quality existing one year prior to the date the body was designated an OFW, or the water quality existing one year prior to the project, whichever is better. One way in which ambient water quality can be degraded is by the resuspension of bottom solids caused by the churning of boat propellers. The likelihood of this condition occurring is made greater when insufficient water depths exist in combination with the existence of mucky, silty bottoms. The bottoms surrounding the proposed docking structure are nonvegetative and vary from hard sand in the shallow areas to a mucky silt layer in the deeper sections of the area. The accumulated sediment in the deeper section of the basin is on the order of twenty-four inches. While the hard sand bottom will readily settle out, the mucky bottom sediments will likely be churned by the boat activity in the absence of sufficient water depths. There is conflicting evidence regarding the depths of the water in the area of the basin where the proposed dock will be constructed. In support of its application, petitioner provided a chart indicating the topography of the sea bottoms at the proposed dock site. However, the geographic survey chart does not establish that sufficient water depth exists for the proposed dock. Rather, the more credible evidence establishes that the bottoms of the basin where the proposed dock will be built are often exposed and during low tides the sea bottoms are exposed up to approximately one hundred to one hundred fifty feet seaward of the seawall. Moreover, in the winter months, the westerly winds push the water out of the basin and cause the exposure of sea bottoms up to two hundred feet seaward of the seawall. When these shallow depths are coupled with the soupy texture of the bottom sediment, it is found that resuspension of the bottom sediment will occur as a result of boat activity at the proposed docking site. To the extent turbidity is now present in the basin due to the activities of the commercial fishermen, these turbidity levels will be exacerbated. If, as applicant suggests, the proposed facility will eliminate the commercial mullet fishing activities within the basin, there is no reasonable assurance that the new levels of turbidity will not exceed those now present. Therefore, it is found that applicant has not given reasonable assurance that the water quality standards will not be degraded. The agency's next concern involves its so-called "free-from" standard, which literally means that assurance must be given by the applicant that a water body will be "free from" various types of man-induced components (e. g., debris, oil, and scum) that float in such amounts as to form a nuisance. Thus, applicant was required to give reasonable assurance that the project would not cause an accumulation of debris and other items on the surface of the water in such amounts as to constitute a nuisance. The project site is "L" shaped, the "L" caused by the intersection of two seawalls on its western side. During the inspections of the project site by DER personnel, an accumulation of debris (grass clippings, styrofoam cups, coconuts, etc.) was observed in the corner of the "L". Indeed, applicant concedes that "some such debris is regularly present in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure" but contends that the docking facility will not cause significant additional floatsom or scum. However, it is found that due to the shape of the basin and its lack of sufficient water depth, the project will exacerbate the accumulation of debris so as to cause a nuisance. Finally, because of the shallow water in the basin, there exists the likelihood that dissolved oil or visible oil will form in the waters and affect its taste or give rise to an odor or otherwise affect the beneficial use of the waters. D. Public Interest Considerations In order for a permit to issue, and because the project is in an OFW, the applicant is obliged to show that the project "will be clearly in the public interest." The public interest test involves a consideration of seven statutory criteria. In this case, DER contends that six of the seven criteria enumerated in the law (s. 403.918(2)(a)1.-5. and 7., F.S.) have not been satisfied. The first criterion requires an inquiry as to whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the property of others. In this regard, it is noted that the proposed activity will take place in an OFW, a pristine water body. According to the agency, the maintenance of that water body "is in the welfare of all the citizens of the State of Florida, not just the residents of Champagne Estates or the adjacent condominium owners." Because the operation of boats will cause a degradation of the waters in the basin area, this will have an adverse effect on the public welfare. While applicant proposes to offer mitigation in the form of riprap and new mangroves, the success rates for mitigation proposals such as this are less than fifty per cent and do not offer sufficient assurance to counter the adverse effect on the public welfare. The second criterion concerns whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Uncontradicted testimony established that stingray, bait fish, sheepshead, minnows, brown pelican, osprey, bottlenosed dolphin, and loggerhead turtles habitat the project area. In addition, the proposed dock has been designated as a critical habitat for the manatee. Due to the resuspension of bottom solids caused by boat traffic in the shallow waters, the wildlife and fish in the area of the proposed dock will be adversely impacted. This is because elevated levels of turbidity are detrimental to aquatic species that breath water, especially for those that filter feed and pass the fluid through their bodies. The next relevant criterion is whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (i. e., cause an area to shallow in). As to this criterion, applicant's uncontradicted evidence that the project will not affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling is accepted, and it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The fourth criterion in issue is whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. While the fishing or recreational values should not be adversely affected, the turbidity caused by the boats propellors will impact the marine productivity in an adverse manner. Therefore, this criterion has not been met. The next criterion concerns whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The evidence shows that the project will be of a permanent nature, that is, once constructed, the applicant does not plan on tearing down the structure. However, neither party offered evidence as to how this consideration comes into play in the context of the public interest test, and it is accordingly found that applicant has not satisfied this requirement. The last disputed criterion concerns the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. By virtue of the increased turbidity levels, it is found that the relative value and use of the area will be degraded. E. Cumulative Impacts In its proposed agency action, the agency contended that "the project and its cumulative impacts . . . also fail to be clearly in the public interest." This objection is grounded on the statutory requirement that the agency consider the "other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations." (s. 403.419(3), F.S.) According to an agency witness, applicant's project, if approved, would be the only docking facility on the south shoreline of the Peace River for some distance in either direction. Although DER does not have any pending applications for docks, and knows of none that will be filed, it "felt" there was a potential cumulative impact in that other condominium projects in the area would seek a docking permit once it became known that applicant had constructed such a facility. However, this "feeling" is insufficient to establish a finding that there is a potential adverse cumulative impact related to the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Champagne Estates for a dredge and fill permit be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 4-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 12-13. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 17. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 18-19. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. 23-24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. Respondent: Partially adopted in finding of fact l. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 3-5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 6-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 9-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 15-41. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6-11. 42-53. Partially adopted in findings of fact 12-18. 54-56. Partially adopted in findings of fact 19-20. 57-62. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 63-64. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P. O. Box 2159 Punta Gorda, Florida 33949 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to a maintenance dredging exemption from environmental resource permitting. The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-5409 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the construction of a surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. (Applicant), owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge Applicant's claim of an exemption to maintenance dredge three canals serving the marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-5409, Petitioner challenges Applicant's request for an environmental resource permit to construct and operate a surface water management system on the uplands on which the marina is located. By stipulation, Petitioner has standing. Intervenor is a nonprofit organization of natural persons, hundreds of whom reside in Lee County. The primary purpose of Intervenor is to protect manatees and their habitat. Many of the members of Intervenor use and enjoy the waters of the State of Florida, in and about Deep Lagoon Marina, and would be substantially affected by an adverse impact to these waters or associated natural resources, including manatees and their habitat. Deep Lagoon Marina is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). By agreement with SFWMD, Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (collectively, with the predecessor agency, DEP) is the agency with permitting jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. The Marina Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove-lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Lagoon Marina is on Deep Lagoon, less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns the uplands and either owns the submerged bottoms of the canals or has a legitimate claim to such ownership. The attorney who examined the title at the time of the 1997 conveyance testified that the canals are entirely landward of the original mean high water line, so that the then-owner excavated the canals out of privately owned upland. Thus, the attorney opined that the canal bottom is privately owned. Some question may exist as to the delineation of the historic mean high water line, especially regarding its location relative to the waterward edge of the red mangrove fringe, which DEP would consider part of the historic natural waterbody. There may be some question specifically concerning title to the bottom of the northernmost canal where it joins Deep Lagoon. However, the proof required of Applicant for present purposes is considerably short of the proof required to prove title, and the attorney's testimony, absent proof to the contrary, is sufficient to demonstrate the requisite ownership interest to seek the exemption and permit that are the subject of these cases. From north to south, Deep Lagoon Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Manatees and Boating The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. Water Quality The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one-day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. Original Permit There are three types of permits relevant to these cases. The first is a dredge and fill permit (sometimes referred to in the record as a wetland resource permit or water resource permit)(DAF permit). The second is a surface water management (sometimes referred to in the record as a management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permit or stormwater management permit)(SWM permit). The third is an environmental resource permit (ERP). Several years ago, responding to a mandate from the Legislature, DEP and the water management districts consolidated DAF permits, which historically were issued by DEP, and SWM permits, which historically were issued by the water management districts, into ERPs. At the time of this change, DEP adopted, within the jurisdictional areas of each water management district, certain of the rules of each district. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF permit to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips, with an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking, so as to raise its marina capacity to 150-174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. In general, the Original Permit authorizes Applicant to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The record contains various references to "MLW" or "mean low water," "MHW" or "mean high water," and "NGVD" or "National Geodetic Vertical Datum." The drawings attached to the Original Permit state that MHW equals 0.96 feet NGVD and MLW equals about 0.40 feet NGVD. The Original Permit authorizes activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposes several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among these requirements is that Applicant must obtain the ERP that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 98-5409 (New Permit). Specific Condition 5 states: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. [As cited, this subparagraph contains modifications stated in a letter dated March 26, 1997, from DEP to Applicant's predecessor in interest.] Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addresses the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provides: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. * * * Specific Condition 11 adds: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 requires the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibits liveaboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 adds various manatee-protection provisions. Plan Views C and D, which are part of the Original Permit, depict submerged bottom elevations for the north and central canals, as well as from the south canal at its intersection with the central canal. Dated August 30, 1995, these "existing" bottom elevations across the mouth of the north canal are about -7, -8, and -4 feet (presumably MLW; see second note to Plan View B). The western two-thirds of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -6 feet MLW. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens to -7 to -9 feet MLW before it tapers up to -7, -6, and finally -3 feet MLW at the head; and the eastern third of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -7 feet MLW that tapers up to -6 feet and -3 feet MLW. The submerged bottom at the mouth of the central canal is about -8 to -9 feet MLW. The bottom drops to -6 to -10 feet MLW at the intersection with the south canal. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens slightly as it reaches the head, where it is -8 feet MLW. The submerged bottom of the south canal runs from -9 feet MLW at the intersection with the central canal and runs about 0.5 feet deeper at the head. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the Original Permit in 1988. The permit challengers appealed a final order granting the Original Permit and certifying, under the federal Clean Water Act, that state water quality standards were met. DEP premised its certification on the concept that water quality standards encompassed a net improvement in water quality of the poorly flushed canals. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the above-described 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the Original Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DEP's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following remand, DEP issued a final order issuing the Original Permit. On the certification issue, the final order revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341 as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Maintenance Dredging: DOAH Case No. 98-3901 Background The contentions of Petitioner and Intervenor as to maintenance dredging are: the proposed dredging exceeded what was necessary to restore the canals to original design specifications or original configurations; the proposed dredging exceeded the maximum depth allowable for maintenance dredging of canals; the work was not conducted in compliance with Section 370.12(2)(d), Florida Statutes; the spoil was not deposited on a self-contained upland site to prevent the escape of the spoil into waters of the state; and the dredge contractor did not use control devices and best management practices for erosion and sediment control to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter describes the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assures that Applicant's contractor will use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advises that the contractor will unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter states that the dredging "will be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the Original Permit, and will be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [Original Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divide the dredging into two areas. For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals (for the south canal, a portion running from the head along the northeast half of the canal) and then replace these materials with clean backfill material. This information is for background only, as the Original Permit authorized this contaminant dredging. For 4.84 acres, which run through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. The cross-sections for the north canal reveal relatively extensive dredging beyond the vegetation lines on both sides of the canal bottom. The dredging would extend up to, but not beyond, the edges of the prop roots of the mangroves on both sides of the canal bottom. The contours reveal variable, proposed slope profiles for the submerged sides of the canals, but the dredging would substantially steepen the submerged slopes of the north canal. It is difficult to estimate from the cross-sections the average depth and width to be dredged from the north canal, but it appears that the cross-sections proposed the removal of substantial spoil (an average of 4-6 feet) from areas from 20-40 feet from each side of the deepest point in the north canal. The dredging would alter the two most affected cross-sections, which are just inside the mouth of the north canal, by widening the deepest part of the canal bottom by 85 feet--from about 15 feet to about 100 feet. The drawings proposed much smaller alterations to the bottoms of the central and south canals: typically, spoil about 2 feet deep and 20 feet wide. All but one of the cross-sections revealed that spoil would be dredged only from one side of the deepest point. Additionally, the dredging in these canals would not involve any submerged vegetation; all but one of the canal sides was lined by existing seawalls. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated that it had determined that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement that the Applicant obtain an ERP. The letter warns that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter adds that DEP may revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provides a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Following receipt of DEP's letter acknowledging the exemption, Applicant's contractor proceeded to maintenance dredge the three canals. The dredging of the north canal took eight weeks. Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the Original Permit. As indicated in the March 3 letter and permitted in the Original Permit, the contaminant dredging took place at the dead-end heads of the north and central canals and along the northeast half of a slightly longer section of the south canal, starting from its dead-end head. In maintenance dredging the canals, Applicant's contractor did not exceed the specifications regarding depth and width stated in its March 3 letter. To the contrary, the contractor sometimes dredged slightly narrower or slightly shallower profiles than stated in the March 3 letter. For example, the contractor dredged the north canal to -6 feet NGVD (or -5.6 feet MLW), rather than -7 feet NGVD, as shown in the March 3 letter. The Depths, Widths, and Lengths of Dredging The March 3 letter asserts that -7 feet NGVD is the permitted elevation of the canal bottoms, pursuant to the Original Permit. This is incorrect in two respects. First, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect for all but the relatively small part of each canal that DEP has determined is contaminated. The Original Permit specifies design elevations for canal bottoms only in the contaminated area within each canal. Nothing in the Original Permit permits bottom elevations for any portion of the bottoms of the three canals outside of these three contaminated areas. Second, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect, even for the contaminated areas. The March 3 letter states -7 feet NGVD, but the Original Permit specifies bottom elevations, for contaminated areas only, of -7 feet MLW in the south and central canals and -6 feet MLW in the north canal. Thus, due to the differences between NGVD and MLW, the March 3 letter proposes dredging that would deepen the south and central canals by about five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit and the north canal by one foot five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit. Moreover, nothing in the record clearly establishes all aspects of the original design specifications of the three canals, whether permitted or not, or even all aspects of their original dredged configurations, if not permitted. There is no dispute concerning one aspect of the dredged configuration of the three canals: their lengths. Although there may be some dispute as to the original mean high water line near the mouths of the north and central canals, the original length of the canals is evident from the uplands that presently define them. As to the depth of the canals, although direct evidence is slight, Applicant has sufficiently proved indirectly the depths of the mouths of the canals pursuant to original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. The proved bottom elevations are -7 feet NGVD for each canal. Applicant proved these depths based on the prevailing elevations in Deep Lagoon in the vicinity of the mouths of the north and central canal and bottom elevations in areas of Deep Lagoon that are not prone to sedimentation. Additional proof of the bottom elevation of -7 feet NGVD at the mouths of the canals is present in the slightly higher permitted bottom elevations at the dead- ends of the north and central canals and landward portion of the south canal. There is some problem, though, with the proof of the depth of the canal bottoms between their mouths and heads (or, for the south canal, its landward portion of known contamination). Although the problem of the depth of the canals between their heads and mouths might be resolved by inferring a constant bottom elevation change from the deeper mouth to the shallower head, an unresolveable issue remains: the width of this maximum depth. As already noted, without deepening the deepest part of either cross-section, the contractor widened the deepest points along two cross-sections by 85 feet each. In terms of navigability and environmental impact, the width of the maximum depth of a canal is as important as its maximum depth. As to the width of the lowest bottom elevations of the canals, Applicant has produced no proof of original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. Nor has Applicant produced indirect proof of historic widths. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor in interest originally dredged the canal bottoms as wide as Applicant "maintenance" dredged them under the claimed exemption. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor geometrically dredged the canals so that their sides were perpendicular to their bottoms. Nothing in the record describes a sedimentation problem that might have narrowed the canals by such an extent that the dredging of the present widths, especially in the north canal, would be restorative. Nothing in the record even suggests that the original motive in dredging was navigability, which might have yielded relatively wide canal bottoms, versus upland fill, which would yield canal bottoms as wide as needed, not for navigability, but for uplands- creation. After consideration of all the evidence, no evidence supports a finding that the proposed dredging profiles, in terms of the widening of the areas of lowest elevation in each canal bottom, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original canal profiles, as originally (or at any later point) designed or, if not designed, as originally (or at any later point) configured. It is at least as likely as not that this is the first time that these canal bottoms, especially the north canal bottom, have ever been so wide at any bottom elevation approaching -7 feet NGVD. There is simply no notion of restoration or maintenance in the dredging that produced these new bottom profiles for these three canals. Transforming MLW to NGVD, -5 feet MLW is -4.6 feet NGVD. All proposed and actual maintenance dredging in the three canals dredged the canal bottoms to elevations lower than -5 feet MLW (or -4.6 feet NGVD), despite the absence of any previous permit for construction or maintenance of the canal from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Impact of Dredging on Manatees and Spoil Containment Prior to dredging, Applicant deployed turbidity curtains around the mouths of the two canals that discharge directly into Deep Lagoon. In this case, the turbidity curtains performed two functions. They contained turbidity and resuspended bottom contaminants within the mixing zone behind (or landward of) the curtains, and they excluded manatees from the dangerous area behind the curtains where the dredging was taking place. Petitioner and Intervenor object to the use of the turbidity curtains on two general grounds. First, they claim that the curtains failed to contain turbidity and resuspended contaminants from escaping the mixing zone. Second, they claim that the curtains adversely affected manatees. As executed, the maintenance dredging did not result in the release of turbidity or resuspended contaminants outside of the mixing zone due to the use of turbidity curtains. Applicant's contractor ensured that the curtains extended from the water surface to the canal bottom and sufficiently on the sides to prevent the escape of turbidity or resuspended contaminants. Although the March 3 letter did not indicate where the contractor would deploy the turbidity curtains, the important point, in retrospect, is that the contractor properly deployed the curtains. There is some question whether turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed across the mangrove fringe and into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Applicant's witness testified that water flows across the fringe only during the highest three or four tides per month. Petitioner and Intervenor's witness testified that water flows across the fringe as often as twice per day. The actual frequency is likely somewhere between these two extremes, but, regardless of the frequency, there is insufficient evidence to find that any turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed from the north canal into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Nor did the deployment of the turbidity curtains injure, harm, possess, annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any manatees. Applicant and its contractor carefully checked each canal for manatees before raising the turbidity curtains at the mouth of each canal, so as not to trap any manatees in the area behind the curtains. By ensuring that the curtains extended to the canal bottom and extended fully from side to side, they ensured that the curtains excluded manatees during the dredging. There is no evidence that a manatee could have entered the north canal from the Iona Drainage District ditch by crossing the red mangrove fringe; any breaks in the fringe were obstructed by prop roots that prevented even a kayaker from crossing the fringe without portaging. Applicant and its contractor checked for manatees during dredging operations. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the mere presence of the turbidity curtains in an area frequented by manatees adversely affected the animals. However, this argument elevates a speculative concern with a manatee's response to encountering an obstruction in its normal path over the practical purpose of curtains in physically obstructing the animal so as to prevent it from entering the dangerous area in which the dredge is operating, as well as the unhealthy area of turbidity and resuspended contaminants in the mixing zone. Under the circumstances, the use of the turbidity curtains to obstruct the manatees from visiting the dredging site or mixing zone did not adversely affect the manatees. In general, there is no evidence of any actual injury or harm to any manatees in the course of the dredging or the preparation for the dredging, including the deployment of the turbidity curtains. Petitioner and Intervenor offered evidence that maintenance dredging would result in more and larger boats and deterioration of water quality, which would both injure the manatees. However, as noted in the conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge excluded from DOAH Case No. 98-3901 such evidence concerning long-term impacts upon the manatees following the dredging. As for spoil containment, Applicant's contractor segregated the contaminated spoil from noncontaminated spoil by placing the contaminated spoil in a lined pit in the uplands. The contractor also brought onto the uplands clean fill mined from a sand quarry for backfilling into the dredged contaminated areas. There is evidence of the clean fill subsiding from its upland storage site and entering the canal waters in the mixing zone. Partly, this occurred during the loading of the barge, which transported the clean fill to the dead-end heads of the canals where the fill was placed over the newly dredged bottoms. The fill escaped into the water at a location about 100 feet long along the north seawall of the central canal, but the evidence does not establish whether this location was within the contaminated area at the head of the canal or whether the maintenance or contaminant dredging had already taken place. If the fill subsided into the water inside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water inside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor intended to add the fill at this location. If the fill subsided into the water outside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water outside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because it restored the canal bottom to a higher elevation following the dredging to an excessively low elevation. The subsidence of the clean fill into the water along the north side of the central canal is the only material that entered the water from the uplands during the dredging. Specifically, there is no evidence of dredged spoil entering the water from the uplands during or after the dredging. There is also no evidence that the maintenance dredging significantly impacted previously undisturbed natural areas. There is no evidence of such areas within the vicinity of Deep Lagoon Marina. New Permit: DOAH Case No. 98-5409 New Permit Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Original Permit Specific Condition 5, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an ERP and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. Prior to its reformulation as an ERP, the New Permit sought by Applicant would have been a SWM permit. The application notes that the general upland elevation is 5 feet NGVD and that stormwater runoff presently sheetflows directly to adjacent waterways without any treatment. During the application process, Applicant's engineer Christopher Wright, submitted a letter dated February 27, 1998, to Jack Myers, who is a Professional Engineer II for DEP. In response to a request from DEP for a "written procedure . . . to assure the proper functioning of the proposed . . . system," the letter states: Since the system is not designed as a retention system and does not rely upon infiltration to operate properly[,] operation and maintenance is minimal. Items that will need regular maintenance are limited to removal of silt and debris from the bottom of the drainage structures and the bleed down orifice of the control structure. A maintenance and inspection schedule has been included in this re-submittal as part of Exhibit 14. In relevant part, Exhibit 14 consists of a document provided Mr. Wright from the manufacturer of the components of the surface water management system. The document states that the manufacturer "recommends that the landowner use this schedule for periodic system maintenance . . .." The document lists 16 sediment-control items, but it is unclear whether all of them are incorporated into the proposed system. Four items, including sediment basins, require inspections quarterly or after "large storm events" and maintenance consisting of the removal of sediment; the "water quality inlet" requires inspections quarterly and maintenance consisting of "pump[ing] or vacuum[ing]"; the "maximizer settling chamber" requires inspection biannually and maintenance consisting of "vacuum[ing] or inject[ing] water, suspend silt and pump chamber"; and the "chamber" requires inspection annually and the same maintenance as the maximizer settling chamber. The proposed system includes the water quality inlet and one of the two types of chambers. By Notice of Intent to Issue dated November 5, 1998, DEP provided notice of its intent to issue the New Permit and certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code Section 1341. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the Original Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification. This waiver is consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The notices of intent (collectively, NOI) recite the recent permitting history of the marina. This history includes the Original Permit, a since-expired MSSW permit issued in 1988 by SFWMD, and then-pending requests--apparently all since granted--to revise the Original Permit by replacing the flushing canal with culverts, relocating a travel lift from the main canal to the north canal, and adding liveaboards to the marina. (Although mentioned below, these revisions, in and of themselves, do not determine the outcome of DOAH Case No. 98-5409.) Reviewing the proposed development for the site, the NOI states that the northerly part of the project would contain an indoor dry boat storage barn, a marina service operation consisting of a ship store and miscellaneous buildings, a harbor master building, an upgraded fueling facility, a parts and service center, a restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, and paved parking areas. The southerly part of the project would contain a new indoor dry boat storage barn, a boat dealership building, and paved parking areas in place of the existing buildings. The NOI states that the proposed water quality treatment system would comprise dry detention systems of several underground vaults with an overall capacity based on the total impervious area, including roofs, receiving 2.5 inches of rain times the percentage of imperviousness. Given the relatively high imperviousness of the finished development, this recommended order considers the percentage of imperviousness to be 100, but ignores the extent to which the post-development pervious surfaces would absorb any rainfall. For storms producing up to 2.5 inches of runoff, the proposed surface water management system, of which the underground vaults are a part, would trap the runoff and provide treatment, as sufficiently sized contaminants settled into the bottom of the vaults. Because the vaults have unenclosed bottoms, the proposed system would provide incidental additional treatment by allowing stormwater to percolate through the ground and into the water table. However, the system is essentially a dry detention system, and volumetric calculations of system capacity properly ignored the incidental treatment available through percolation into the water table. The New Permit notes that the wet season water table is 1.2 feet NGVD, and the bottom of the dry detention system is 2.5 feet NGVD. This relatively thin layer of soil probably explains why DEP's volumetric calculations ignored the treatment potential offered by percolation. The relatively high water table raises the possibility, especially if Applicant does not frequently remove the settled contaminants, that the proposed system could cause groundwater contamination after the thin layer of soil is saturated with contaminants. In any event, the system is not designed for the elimination of the settled contaminants through percolation. The treatment system for the boat wash areas would be self-contained, loop-recycle systems that would permit the separation of oil and free-settling solids prior to reuse. However, the NOI warns that, "during heavy storm events"-- probably again referring to more than 2.5 inches of runoff--the loop-recycle systems would release untreated water to one of the underground vaults, which would, in turn, release the untreated water into the canals. Due to the location of the boat wash areas, the receiving waters would probably be the north canal. As reflected in the drawings and the testimony of Mr. Wright, the surface water management system would discharge at three points: two in the north canal and one in the south canal. (Vol. I, p. 206; future references to the Transcript shall cite only the volume and page as, for example, Vol. I, p. 206). 67. The NOI concludes that Applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance of an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62-330, and Sections SFWMD--40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade ambient water quality in Outstanding Florida Waters pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. However, the design capacity of the proposed surface water management system raises serious questions concerning the water quality of the discharges into the canals. Mr. Wright initially testified that the surface water management system would be over-taxed by "an extreme storm event, probably a 25- year storm event . . .." (Vol. I, pp. 208-09). The record contains no evidence of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of runoff for the relatively impervious post- development uplands; the record contains no evidence even of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of rainfall. According to Mr. Wright, the 25-year storm would typically produce 8-10 inches of rain. (Vol. I, pp. 223 and 233). As already noted, the relatively large area of imperviousness following upland development and the relative imperviousness of the upland soils present at the site suggest that the runoff will be a relatively large percentage of the rainfall produced by any given storm event. It thus appears that the design capacity of the system is for a storm substantially smaller and substantially more frequent than the 25-year storm. Attached to the NOI is a draft of the New Permit, which contains numerous specific conditions and conforms in all respects with the NOI. Omitting any mention of SFWMD's Basis of Review, the New Permit addresses, among other things, the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the components of the proposed system. As set forth in the testimony of Michael Bateman, who is a Professional Engineer III and statewide stormwater coordinator for DEP, the surface water management system's operation depends on periodic pumping of the "thick, fine sediment," which appears to be a "cross between mud and sand" and will be laden with oil, grease, metals, and other contaminants. (Vol. II, p. 66). However, contrary to Mr. Bateman's assurance that the New Permit requires the periodic pumping or removal of contaminants that have precipitated out of the runoff in the dry detention system and dropped to the bottom sediment (Vol. II, p. 20), neither the NOI nor the New Permit requires, in clear and enforceable language, the periodic removal of settled solids from the underground vaults or their manner of disposal. New Permit Specific Condition 8 requires that Applicant maintain the boat wash area in "functioning condition," although specific inspection and maintenance requirements are omitted from the New Permit. New Permit Specific Condition 7 requires that Applicant "inspect and clean" all stormwater inlets "as necessary, at least once a month and after all large storm events," although the New Permit fails to specify that cleaning shall be by either pumping or vacuuming. By contrast to the marginally adequate inspection and maintenance provisions applicable to the boat wash area (inspections are required in Specific Condition 6, cited below) and stormwater inlets, the New Permit completely fails to specify enforceable inspection and maintenance requirements for the underground vaults. New Permit Specific Condition 6 addresses the operation of the vault as follows: Upon completion of the construction of the stormwater collection and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems and on an annual basis thereafter by September 30 of each year, the Permittee shall submit reports to the Department as to the storage/treatment volume adequacy of the permitted system. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the condition of stormwater inlets and control structures as to silt and debris removal and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens to function properly. The boat wash down areas shall be inspected for proper operation, i.e., no signs of wash water overflows from the containment area, condition of the containment area curbing, etc. Such reports shall include proposal of technique and schedule for the maintenance and/or repair of any deficiencies noted and shall be signed and sealed by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. A report of compliance with the aforementioned proposal shall be submitted by the Professional Engineer to the Department upon completion of the proposed work which shall be accomplished within three months of the initial report for each year. New Permit Specific Condition 6 requires annual reports concerning the sufficiency of the capacity of the underground vaults (first sentence), annual reports of the status of silt- and debris-removal from the inlets and control structures and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens (second sentence), inspection at no stated intervals of the boat wash area (third sentence), and annual reports with suggestions of maintenance schedules and repairs for the items mentioned in the first two sentences (fourth sentence). New Permit Specific Condition 6 promises only the preparation of a maintenance schedule at some point in the future. Failing to supply an enforceable inspection and maintenance program, Specific Condition 6 indicates that Applicant shall consider in the future techniques and scheduling of maintenance, presumably based on the report concerning system capacity. Such a requirement may or may not impose upon Applicant an enforceable obligation to adopt an enforceable inspection and maintenance program in the future, but it does not do so now. There is no reason why the New Permit should not impose upon Applicant an initial, enforceable inspection and maintenance program incorporating, for example, the clear and enforceable requirements that Applicant inspect all of the underground vaults no less frequently that once (or twice, if this is the applicable recommendation of the manufacturer) annually and, at clearly specified intervals, remove the sediments by resuspending the sediments in the water, pumping out the water, and disposing of the effluent and sediments so they do not reenter waters of the state. Although the record does not disclose such requirements, Applicant could possibly find manufacturer's recommendations for the boat wash components and incorporate them into an enforceable inspection and maintenance program more detailed than that contained in Specific Condition 8. However, for the reasons noted below, water quality considerations require a substantial strengthening of such a program beyond what is set forth in this paragraph as otherwise acceptable. At present, the bottom line on inspection and maintenance is simple: the New Permit does not even incorporate by reference the manufacturer's recommended inspection and maintenance schedule, which Mr. Wright provided to Mr. Myers. Nor was this shortcoming of the New Permit in its treatment of inspection and maintenance necessarily missed by Mr. Wright. He testified that he submitted to DEP the manufacturer's maintenance program (Vol. I, p. 205), but when asked, on direct, if the "permit in any way incorporate[s] the commitment in your application to this maintenance?" Mr. Wright candidly replied, "That I don't know." (Vol. I, p. 206). Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 5 Basis of Review Section 5--specifically Section 5.2.1(a)--imposes the "volumetric" requirement of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, as discussed above and in the conclusions of law. Petitioner does not dispute Applicant's compliance with this volumetric requirement, and the record amply demonstrates such compliance. Applicability of Basis of Review Section 4 The main issues in this case are whether the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 apply to the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. Because the record lacks any indication of other relevant pending or vested permits, without which, as noted in the conclusions of law, one cannot assess cumulative impacts, the remainder of the findings of fact will not discuss cumulative impacts, although, to some extent, increased boating pressure constitutes a secondary impact and a cumulative impact. Without regard to the differences between direct and secondary impacts, DEP has taken the position in this case that it could lawfully issue the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5 and without consideration of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In large part, DEP's witnesses justify this position by reliance on the historic differences between DAF permits and SWM permits and the fact that the New Permit is a former-SWM ERP. As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, the Basis of Review imposes different requirements upon former-DAF and former-SWM ERPs, although the Basis of Review does not refer to DAF or SWM permits by their former names. The identifying language used in the Basis of Review for former-DAF ERPs is "regulated activity" "located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands." References to "regulated activity" without the qualifying clause indicate that the following requirement applies to former-DAF ERPs and former-SWM ERPs. Several witnesses for DEP and Applicant testified that Applicant was entitled to the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5. For example, Mr. Wright testified that the water quality requirements for the New Permit required only a "cookbook calculation" to determine volume. (Vol. I, p. 204). Agreeing with a question that analysis of the water quality portion of the system requires "simply a straightforward mathematical calculation," Mr. Wright testified that the quality of discharged water, following treatment, will comply with state water quality standards in storms producing no more than 2.5 inches of runoff. (Vol. I, pp. 210-11). When asked to explain his answer, Mr. Wright testified, "It's kind of an implied situation, in that if you follow the guidelines that you are required to follow with respect to the calculations of water quality, that the end product is going to be in compliance with state standards." (Vol. I, p. 211). DEP witnesses agreed with Mr. Wright's analysis. For instance, Mr. Bateman testified, "The stormwater portion of the Basis of Review gets at that question [meeting water quality standards] by stating, 'if you follow the design criteria in the basis, you are presumed to meet water quality standards.'" (Vol. II, p. 40). Mr. John Iglehart, the program administrator for DEP's South District Office in Fort Myers, testified on the same point: "if . . . you meet the criteria, the engineering criteria, than you have met the presumption that you meet the rule." (Vol. III, p. 52). Mr. Myers also agreed, testifying, "with the stormwater management system, it's for the most part, let's say, fairly cut and dried as far as meeting criteria that is established within these rules and Basis of Review." (Vol. III, p. 144). He added: "Since the criteria for reviewing stormwater management systems and the discharge is based upon a presumed compliance with stormwater criteria and with state water quality, it is presumed it [the proposed system] does meet it." (Vol. III, p. 148). Mr. Bateman explained the historic basis for the water quality presumption given surface water management systems that meet the volumetric requirements: the ERP is a combination of the surface water management rules and the environmental . . ., the dredge-and-fill, and they didn't merge, they didn't marry very well in certain areas. In stormwater we look at--it's a technology- based criteria. We say, "If you build it this way, treat 80 percent of the average annual pollutant load, we're going to give you the permit on the presumption that you're doing the best you can. You're going to meet standards. Once you get into the wetlands, we take--we put on whole new sets of glasses. ALJ: Are you saying that the old dredge-and- fill is more performance-based, and the old MSSW is more technology-based, in that if you've put in the required technology, you've done your job? WITNESS: That is--yes. Dredge-and-fill is a more case by case. We look at the water quality. We look at ambient conditions. We look at hydrographics [here, largely tidal flushing]. It's more like a waste load allocation in that we're very specific. In stormwater, we can't afford to be. MS. HOLMES: So what you're saying is you can't point to the specific rule provision or regulation that excludes these criteria from surface water management systems? WITNESS: Well, you have to read [Basis of Review] Section 4 as a whole. 4.1 is specific to wetlands and other surface waters. 4.2 is environmental review. I mean, if you look at the thing in total, and the--and I realize it's confusing. But these rules are exactly the same in all the water management districts. They were developed together as the wetland criteria, the new dredge-and-fill criteria. They're exactly the same. The stormwater rules of all the [water management districts] is all different. That is for another day, making those all consistent. So these environmental wetland- type dredge-and-fill criteria are all the same, and they refer to in-water impact. [All references in the transcript to "end water" should have been "in-water."] ALJ: What do you mean by that term, "in- water impact?" WITNESS: In other words, dredge-and-fill impact. Construct and--I can't-- MS. HOLMES: May I continue, then? ALJ: Let him answer. What were you going to say? WITNESS: I think it takes a little knowledge of how these [rules] developed to know how they're applied, unfortunately. In other water management districts, it's clearer that these are in-water impacts. (Vol. II, pp. 57-59). In testifying to the exclusivity of the volumetric requirements in Basis of Review Section 5, with respect to former-SWM ERPs, these witnesses likewise opined that the secondary-impact analysis required in Basis of Review Section 4 also was inapplicable to the New Permit. For example, after testifying both ways on the necessity of considering secondary impacts in issuing former-SWM ERPs, Mr. Bateman concluded, "I'm not sure that [the requirement of considering secondary impacts] applies in this case. Certainty the rules apply, I mean, the rules apply. But certain rules are not applicable in this particular instance. I mean, I'm trying to think of a secondary impact associated with stormwater system, and it's difficult for me to do so." (Vol. II, p. 45). Mr. Bateman then testified that DEP did not consider such secondary impacts, as additional boat traffic, and probably did not consider cumulative impacts, such as other marinas. (Vol. II, pp. 51-52). In response to a question asking to what extent DEP considered post-development inputs of contaminants, such as heavy metals, when issuing a former-SWM ERP, Mr. Bateman testified: I have to tell you, very little. I mean, we--stormwater is pretty black and white. The link to secondary and cumulative impact is generally associated with in-water impact. And I realize the line is a little grey here. When we build a Wal-Mart, we don't think about how many cars it's going to put on [U.S. Route] 41 and what the impact might be to an adjacent lake. We just don't. It would be a little burdensome. In this case, I mean, it's a little greyer. (Vol. II, p. 47). Mr. Bateman was then asked to compare the relative impacts from a vacant, but developed, upland without a surface water management system with a proposed activity that would add a surface water management system to facilitate an intensification of land uses on the site so as to add new contaminants to the runoff. Mr. Bateman testified that DEP would apply only the volumetric requirement and not address the complex issue of weighing the potential environmental benefit of a new surface water system against the potential environmental detriment of contaminant loading (at least in storm events greater than the design storm event). Mr. Bateman explained: "The way it works, it is not a water quality-based standard. In other words, we don't go in and say it's so many pounds [of contaminants] per acre per year now. We're going to make it this many pounds per acre per year, and look at it in a detailed fashion. We do the [Best Management Practices], retain an inch and you're there." (Vol. II, p. 49). Agreeing with Mr. Bateman that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts resulting from the regulated activity, Mr. Iglehart testified: "It's our thought that we don't really look at secondary and cumulative impacts for the stormwater permit. . . . If it [the former-SWM ERP application] meets the criteria, it gets the permit. That--in the ERP, the previous dredge-and-fill side looks at the secondary and cumulative. The stormwater just--like Mr. Bateman testified." (Vol. III, p. 52). After some ambivalence, Mr. Myers also testified that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts for the New Permit: WITNESS: . . . I did not or I do not consider secondary impacts for the stormwater management system. MS. HOLMES: So, what about cumulative impacts? WITNESS: No. MS. HOLMES: So it's your testimony that you did not review secondary and cumulative impacts-- WITNESS: That's correct. MS. HOLMES: --of this system? WITNESS: What I can say is that the existing system out there, from what I can tell, does not have any stormwater treatment. Basically, it's running off into the canals. The proposed project will provide stormwater treatment for, not only the new construction, which is proposed mainly on the northern peninsula, but it is also provided for that area which is now existing, it will provide stormwater treatment for that area also. And I consider that--I don't consider that to be a secondary impact. I see it as an offsetting improvement to potential as far as the water quality. (Vol. III, pp. 144-45). As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, these witnesses have misread the provisions of the Basis of Review applicable to the New Permit. As noted in the conclusions of law, the requirements in the Basis of Review of analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts upon water quality and manatees are not limited to in-water or former-DAF activities. Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 4 Direct vs. Secondary Impacts In terms of construction, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the proposed system will violate any of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In terms of maintenance, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible, except for the omission from the New Permit of any provision for the safe disposition of the contaminant removed from the underground vaults. However, the maintenance issues are better treated with the operation issues. In terms of operation, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are substantial. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the analysis of the direct impacts of the operation of the proposed system is limited to the current level of uplands and marine activity at the marina. These direct impacts involve two aspects of the operation of the proposed system: the design capacity and the inspection and maintenance (including disposal of sediment) of the system components. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the secondary impacts involve the intended and reasonably expected uses of the proposed system. These impacts consist of the increased uplands and marine uses associated with the addition of 100 new wet slips, 227 new dry slips, and 115,000 square feet of building space with a restaurant. Apart from their contention that Applicant is required only to satisfy the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5, Applicant and DEP have contended that Petitioner is estopped from raising direct and secondary impacts because DEP considered these impacts when issuing the Original Permit four years ago. Perhaps the most obvious factual problem with this contention is that it ignores that the New Permit authorizes, for the first time, the construction of the 227 new dry slips and 115,000 square feet of buildings. As counsel for DEP pointed out during the hearing, the Original Permit was a DAF permit and did not extend to these upland uses. The contention that DEP considered these developments as secondary impacts because they were shown on drawings attached to the Original Permit gives too much significance to nonjurisdictional background items shown in drawings without corresponding textual analysis. More generally, the efforts of DEP and Applicant to restrict the scope of this case rely on a misreading of Original Permit Specific Condition 5. The purpose of Original Permit Specific Condition 5 is to "ensure a net improvement to water quality." The purpose of each of the requirements under Specific Condition 5 is to achieve an actual, not presumptive, improvement in water quality. Prohibiting the issuing agency from fully analyzing the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system reduces the likelihood that the ensuing New Permit will perform its role, as envisioned in the Original Permit, of helping to achieve an actual, net improvement in water quality. The concept of a "net" improvement is exactly what DEP's witnesses disclaim having done in this case--balancing the potential environmental benefits to the water resources from the proposed surface water management system against the potential environmental detriments to the water resources from the development and land uses that are intended or reasonably expected to result from the construction of the proposed system. The failure to analyze the net gain or loss inherent in this important provision of Specific Condition 5.B undermines the likelihood that the effect of Specific Condition 5.B--a net improvement in water quality--will be achieved. It is therefore illogical to rely on Specific Condition 5.B, as DEP does, as authority for an artificially constrained analysis of the eligibility of the proposed system for a former-SWM ERP. The estoppel argument also ignores that Original Permit Specific Condition 5.B anticipated that the issuing agency would be SFWMD. It is unclear how the parties to the Original Permit, including DEP, would bind what appeared at the time to have to be SFWMD in the exercise of its lawful authority in issuing SWMs or former-SWM ERPs. The attempt of Applicant and DEP trying to limit the scope of this case also overlooks numerous changed circumstances since the issuance of the Original Permit. Changed circumstances militating in favor of the comprehensive analysis mandated for former-SWM ERPs include: increased trends in manatee mortality; increased boating pressure; persistent water quality violations in terms of dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria; a dramatic deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels; the initial presentation for environmental permitting of the previously unpermitted 227 additional dry slips and the 115,000 square feet of buildings; the current canal bottom profiles resulting from excessively deep maintenance dredging; the absence of an updated flushing study; and the failure to dredge the flushing canal required by the Original Permit. Disregarding the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 in this case would thus repudiate Specific Condition 5.B, especially when, among other things, the water quality of the canals has deteriorated dramatically with respect to dissolved oxygen, the canals continue to suffer from serious copper violations, the canals were recently maintenance dredged to excessive depths, no flushing study has examined these subsequent developments, and the intended uses to be facilitated by the New Permit more than double the capacity of the existing marina. 2. Water Quality The direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system, based on current levels of uplands and marine use at the marina, would adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters, in violation of Basis of Review Section 4.1.1(c). The excessively increased depths of the canals, especially with respect to the substantially widened depths of the north canal, raise the potential of water quality violations, especially given the history of this site. Potential sources of contaminants exist today in the canal bottoms, uplands, and marine activity associated with the marina. The potential for water quality violations, especially with respect to dissolved oxygen, increases in the absence of an updated flushing study. The potential also increases with the introduction of liveaboards and failure to dredge the flushing canal (or its replacement with culverts). In the face of these current threats to water quality, the New Permit fails to require a system with adequate capacity to accommodate fairly frequent storm events and fails to impose clear and enforceable inspection, maintenance, and disposal requirements for the underground vaults. Although better, the inspection and maintenance requirements for the stormwater inlets and boat wash area unnecessarily present enforcement problems. The effect of these failures in design capacity and inspection and maintenance is synergistic. Deficiencies in vault capacity mean that storms will more frequently resuspend the settled contaminants in the vaults and flush them out into the canal waters. Excessively long maintenance intervals and poor maintenance procedures will increase the volume of contaminants available to be flushed out into the canal waters. Improper disposition of removed contaminants endangers other water resources. The introduction of untreated or inadequately treated water into the canals means the introduction of two substances that will contribute to the current water quality violations. Organics, such as from the boat wash operations and other uplands uses, will raise biochemical oxygen demand, which will accelerate the deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels. Copper removed during boat wash operations, leaching from painted hulls, or remaining in the uplands from past marina operations will also enter the canals in this fashion. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the proposed surface water management system will not result, in the long-term, in water quality violations. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed system, even as limited to existing levels of use of the uplands and marine waters, will not contribute to existing violations of dissolved oxygen and copper levels. Obviously, the situation is exacerbated by consideration of the uses intended and reasonably expected to follow the construction of the proposed system. With the growing popularity of boating in Lee County over the past 20 years, it is reasonably likely that an expanded marina operation, located close to downtown Fort Myers, will successfully market itself. Thus, many more boats will use the marina because it will offer more wet and dry slips and new buildings, including a restaurant, and the pressure on water quality will intensify with the intensification of these uses. The added intensity of upland and marine uses will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and copper, probably will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for total coliform bacteria and lead, and may contribute to the recurrence of water quality violations for other parameters for which the canals were previously in violation. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely affect the water quality of the canals. 3. Manatees and Manatee Habitat By letter dated June 26, 1998, from a DEP Environmental Specialist to a DEP permitting employee, the Environmental Specialist provided an initial opinion concerning the revisions that Applicant sought to the Original Permit so as to allow liveaboards, replace the flushing canal with culverts, and relocate the travel lift to the north canal. The letter accompanies a Manatee Impact Review Report, also dated June 26, 1998. The Manatee Impact Review Report notes the pending application for the New Permit. The report considers at length the extent of manatee use of Deep Lagoon and the nearby portions of the Caloosahatchee River. The Manatee Impact Review Report states: This project [i.e., the relocation of the boat lift to the north canal, addition of liveaboards, and conversion of the flushing canal to flushing culverts] is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft-related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. The secondary impacts expected with this project are compounded by the cumulative secondary effects from other facilities in this system. Just south of this project site, another marina was recently constructed (Sun City Corporation aka Gulf Harbor Marina aka River's Edge), which has approximately 190 wet slips. Since October 1995, there have been seven watercraft-related deaths within five miles of this project location. The Gulf Harbor Marina was constructed in late 1995, and was almost fully occupied during 1996. Watercraft-related manatee deaths increased significantly during this time, with one in December 1995, two in 1996 and four in 1997. Additional on-water enforcement by the City of Cape Coral was considered part of the offsetting measures to address the expected impacts to manatees from increases in boat density. This offsetting measure, however, appears to be ineffectual at this time. The Manatee Impact Review Report concludes that the north canal and its mouth are "particularly important" for manatee because of the availability of freshwater from the adjoining Iona Drainage District ditch immediately north of the north canal and "historical use indicates that this area appears to be the most frequently used area in the Deep Lagoon system." The report cautions that the relocated travel lift may significantly increase the number of boats in the little-used north canal, whose narrowness, coupled with moored, large boats on the one side, "would produce significant, adverse impacts to the endangered manatee." The Manatee Impact Review Report finds that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, unless several new conditions were added. These conditions include prohibitions against boat launching along the shoreline of the north canal and the addition of manatee-exclusion grating to any culverts that may be approved. As defined in this recommended order, the direct impacts upon manatees from the proposed surface water management system would be moderate. As defined in this recommended order, direct impacts would not involve any increase in boating pressure. The greater impacts would be in the deterioration of two measures of water quality that are crucial to manatees: dissolved oxygen and copper. However, the secondary impacts are dramatic, not de minimis, and arise from the intended and reasonably expected uses to follow from the construction of the proposed surface water management system. The increased boat traffic intended and reasonably expected from more than doubling the marina capacity, through the addition of 100 wet slips and 227 dry slips, and the addition of 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant, would adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters. Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial numbers of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species. 4. Minimization and Mitigation Due to their contention that Basis of Review Section 4 does not apply to this case, DEP and Applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the minimization and mitigation sections of Basis of Review Section 4. However, the record supports the possibility of design alternatives for water quality impacts, if not manatee impacts, that DEP and Applicant must consider before reanalyzing the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed system on the water resources and, if appropriate, potential mitigation options. Mr. Bateman testified that SFWMD is the only district that permits surface water management systems relying on the settling out of sediments in the bottom of a storage-type detention system. (Vol. II, p. 18). He explained that other districts rely on systems that, taking advantage of the three to four feet typically minimally available between ground surface and the top of the water table, retain the runoff and allow it to percolate into the ground. (Vol. II, p. 19). One relatively straightforward design alternative, which would address water quality issues, would be to perform a flushing study; analyze applicable drainage level of service standards imposed by state, regional, and local authorities; and increase the capacity of the surface water management system to accommodate the runoff from storms of sufficient size and frequency that would be accommodated by the proposed system. Another feature of this design alternative would be to impose for each component of the system a detailed, enforceable program of inspection, maintenance, and contaminant-disposal. This program would incorporate the manufacturer's recommendations for the manner and minimum frequency of inspection and maintenance, but would require more frequent removal of contaminated sediments during periods when larger storms are more numerous (e.g., a specified wet season) or more intense (e.g., a specified hurricane season), as well as any periods of the year when the marine and upland uses are greatest (e.g., during the winter season, if this is the period of greatest use). As testified by Mr. Bateman, the proximity of the water table to the surface, as well as South Florida land costs, discourage reliance upon a conventional percolation-treatment system, even though the site's uplands are 5 feet NGVD and the water table is 1.2 feet NGVD. The bottom of the proposed system is 2.5 feet NGVD, which leaves little soil for absorption. If the nature of the contaminants, such as copper, does not preclude reliance upon a percolation-treatment system, DEP and Applicant could explore design alternatives that incorporate more, shallower vaults, which would increase the soil layer between the bottom of the vaults and the top of the water table. If the technology or contaminants preclude reliance upon such an alternative, the parties could consider the relatively costly alternative, described by Mr. Bateman, of pool-like filters with an "actual filtration device." (Vol. II, pp. 19-20). The preceding design alternatives would address water quality concerns, including as they apply to manatees, but would not address the impact of increased boating upon manatees. The record is not well developed in this regard, but DEP and Intervenor have considerable experience in this area, and it is premature to find no suitable means of eliminating or at least adequately reducing the secondary impacts of the proposed system in this crucial regard as well. In any event, Applicant has failed to consider any design alternatives to eliminate or adequately reduce the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system. Having failed to consider minimization, DEP and Applicant have failed to identify the residual direct and secondary impacts that might be offset by mitigation. Applicant has thus failed to mitigate the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking its determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the application for an environmental resource permit in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 T. Elaine Holmes, Attorney 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
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 This cause concerns a dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondents concerning whether a permit ("dredge and fill") and water-quality certification should be issued by the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter referred to as "Department" or "DER"), authorizing the construction of a private dock with terminal deck and platform, in conjunction with the construction of a 250-foot "privacy fence" in the adjacent salt marsh, and whether construction, installation and operation of the facility will violate State water-quality standards and the public-interest standards embodied in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact LaRae Hays, the Respondent/applicant, owns real property to be used for residential purposes, which adjoins a salt marsh and tidal creek contiguous to the Nassau River in Duval County, Florida. The Respondent/applicant applied for a permit and water-quality certification so as to authorize the construction of a private dock with a terminal deck and "stepdown" platform. The applicant also seeks authority to construct a 250-foot by 8-foot wooden ??privacy fence", parallel to that dock. The structures are to be built on a tidal creek and within a salt marsh contiguous to the Nassau River. The application is opposed by the Petitioner, who is an adjoining property owner. The Petitioner opposes the application for the reasons referenced in the above Preliminary Statement. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and permitting activities which may be sources of pollution, such as the instant project, which are constructed, operated or installed in waters of the State, as defined in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Title 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Department is charged, as pertinent hereto, with reviewing applications, such as the subject application, to insure that the water-quality standards and public-interest standards embodied in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 17-3 and 17-312, Florida Administrative Code, are complied with before issuing a permit authorizing the construction of the proposed facility. Mr. Tyler was called as the first witness for the Department. The parties stipulated that the Department could put on its case first in the order of proof. Mr. Tyler was accepted as an expert witness in the field of the "impact of dredge and fill projects on the environment~?. It was thus established that the Respondent/applicant's project is proposed for a piece of property in the adjacent salt marsh on Black Hammock Island in Duval County, Florida. The Respondent/applicant proposes to construct a private dock, 184 feet by 4 feet, with a 12-foot by 12-foot terminal deck and a 12-foot by 5-foot "stepdown" platform. A portion of the dock is already constructed and is included in the permit sought. The deck is proposed to be surrounded on three sides with a six-foot-high lattice wall covered with a pitched roof. During the course of the proceeding, however, the Respondent/applicant conceded that she would abandon the proposal to construct the lattice walls, would rather leave the terminal deck and roofed area open so that the neighbors' view of the salt marsh and river would not be obstructed and that she would rather install blinds which can be raised or lowered for the roofed portion of the proposed terminal deck. The Respondent/applicant previously dredged and placed fill on a portion of the wetlands in question and dredged a drainage ditch along the perimeter of the wetlands and the Respondent/applicant1s property. The fill was for the purpose of creating a sort of "causeway" leading from the upland property owned by the Respondent/applicant to the landward extent of the already-existing dock. Pursuant to informal enforcement action by the Department, the Respondent/applicant agreed to, and has, removed that fill material and corrected, or is about to correct, the dredging activity done without permit in the drainage ditch in question. The proposed project is located in Class II waters, classified as "conditionally approved" for shellfish harvesting. Normally, under the provisions of Rule 17-312.080(7), Florida Administrative Code, a dredge and fill permit for the proposed project and its construction could not be authorized in such Class II shellfish harvesting waters. However, the Department has granted a variance from that rule so that the activity sought to be permitted can be authorized as a result of the instant permit application, by its notice of intent to grant the variance entered on June 5, 1990. That variance became embodied in a Final Order of the Department authorizing it, entered on July 31, 1990. No interested party responded to due and appropriate notice of the intent to grant the variance, hence, the Final Order approving it. The variance was accompanied by mandatory conditions involving the protection of historical or archaeological artifacts, the prohibition of more than two boats being moored at the dock; of any overboard discharges of trash, animal or human waste or fuel; against any non-water dependent structure such as gazebos or fish-cleaning stations, which must be located on the uplands and against boat shelters having enclosed sides. Additional conditions were that any dock over grass beds should be constructed as to allow for maximum light penetration and that water depth at the mooring area for the dock shall be sufficient to prevent bottom scouring by boat propellers. Additionally, in the notice of intent to grant document, the Department has required that in order for the permit at issue to be granted, in addition to the general conditions applicable to any such permit, the following specific conditions shall be observed by the Respondent/applicant during and after construction: Historical and archeological artifacts shall be reported to the Department, as well as the Bureau of Historic Preservation, Division of Archives History and Records; Prior to commencement of the work, the permittee shall provide written notification of commencement to the Department; turbidity control shall be utilized throughout the project to contain any turbidity generated; The waterward end of the dock shall be marked by a sufficient number of reflectors as to be visible from the water at night by reflected light; All work shall be done during periods of average or low water in order to minimize turbidity; All disturbed areas shall be re-vegetated with indigenous vegetation in order to prevent erosion or unstabilized material entering into State waters; and Finally, that the project shall comply with applicable State water- quality standards. The Respondent/applicant has agreed to these conditions. Moreover, the testimony of Mr. Tyler establishes that no water-quality violations of the standards contained in Chapter 17-312 and 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, will be occasioned by the construction or operation of this facility. The pilings necessary to perform the construction involved will be installed at periods of low or average tide, such that the installation area will not generate turbidity in the State waters involved at the site. The dock is so designed that maximum light penetration will occur so that deleterious shading of the marsh grasses involved at the site and under the footprint of the dock will not occur. Moreover, the dock and the proposed fence, for that matter, would have a beneficial effect on benthic species diversity by encouraging aquatic invertebrates to attach and form colonies on the posts and pilings where they enter State waters. It was also established, through the Department's evidence, as well as the testimony of the Respondent/applicant's witnesses, that there is a sufficient water depth in the creek located at the waterward end of the proposed dock and ~?stepdown?? platform, such that the small boats which would be able to navigate the creek, being of sufficient shallow draft, will not occasion propeller scouring or propeller-generated turbidity when operated at prevailing water depths for boats which will be moored at the end of the proposed facility. In summary, it has been demonstrated that no State water-quality standards will be violated by the installation and operation of the proposed facility, given the conditions which the Respondent/applicant and the Department have already agreed upon and the Respondent/applicant has accepted on the record in this case, including the condition concerning no gazebo-type structures located on the dock and no fish cleaning facilities or fueling equipment or facilities on the dock or platforms. Such conditions should be incorporated in any Final Order and permit resulting from this proceeding. In addition to the water-quality considerations discussed above, it must be determined whether reasonable assurances have been provided by the permit applicant that the proposed project will meet the "public interest" standards of Section 403.918(2)(a)1-7, Florida Statutes. In this regard, it has been demonstrated by the evidence and testimony adduced by the Respondent/applicant and the Department that the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others in the context of the various environmental concerns addressed and regulated by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Title 17, Florida Administrative Code. The unrefuted testimony of expert witness, Tyler, establishes that the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The project will not adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Mr. Tyler's testimony establishes that the ecosystem in the vicinity of the project consists of a natural intertidal saltwater marsh, which is currently in excellent condition and has a high relative value of functions as a habitat and nursery area for marine and estuarine vertebrate and invertebrate species. The project will not adversely affect fishing or marine productivity in the area involved nor have an adverse effect on the current condition and relative functional value of the marsh area in terms of habitat for, and the conservation of, fish and wildlife and in terms of its value as a marine and estuarine habitat and the marsh system's function in protecting water quality. Although the project will not adversely affect fishing or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project, the proposed "privacy fence" has not been shown to be "not contrary to the public interest'1 in terms of adverse effect on recreational values??. The "privacy fence" will not pose any of the other adverse consequences in terms of the above-discussed seven (7) public- interest standards nor will it impose a detrimental impact on water quality, especially since it will be elevated approximately a foot above the surface of the soil in the marsh area, preventing any impediment to normal tidal flows and flushing. The fence will, however, impose a detrimental effect on the recreational value of the State waters involved in the subject marshland area by impeding the aesthetic qualities of the view of the marshland and river system for adjoining landowners, specifically, the Petitioner. The fence will clearly impede this "passive recreational value" and reasonable assurances that it will not do so have not been provided in the testimony and evidence of record. The desire of the Respondent/applicant to install the fence is certainly understandable in view of the hostile relations between the Respondent/applicant and the Petitioner, caused to a great degree by the Petitioner's persistence in installing and operating an overly-bright nighttime security light and, more particularly, because of the Petitioner's habit of constantly photographing, with a video camera, the Respondent/applicants or her invitees while they are using the present dock. Because the fence will impede the recreational value of the marshland in terms of the aesthetic nature of the view of the marsh of the Petitioner, the permit should not include authorization for installation of the fence. The relevant and more peripheral facts established in this record prove the wisdom of the words of the poet, Robert Frost, who wrote that "good fences make good neighbors". The parties' dispute concerning the use of the security light and video camera more properly sounds in the circuit court, however. A proceeding involving disputed environmental permitting issues cannot serve to resolve all the "life management" disputes between the parties. In summary, the unrefuted evidence of record demonstrates that, with the exception of the last above mentioned consideration concerning the proposed fence, that the water quality standards and the public interest standards embodied in Section 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, will not be violated by the proposed project if the conditions mentioned above and those provided for in the Department's Exhibit 3, which are incorporated in these findings of fact by reference, are imposed on any grant of a permit. A grant of the permit should also be conditioned upon periodic monitoring of the installation of the proposed project, which the Department has agreed in this record to do.
Recommendation Accordingly, in view of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation granting the subject dredge and fill permit and water quality certification sought by the applicants provided that grant of the subject permit should include the general and specific conditions incorporated in the Department's Exhibit 3, as well as the conditions found to be necessary in the above findings of fact. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: David Sangillo 15665 Shellcracker Road Jacksonville, FL 32226 LaRae Hays 1574 Menlo Avenue Jacksonville, FL 32218 William H. Congdon, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent/Applicant, Jeffrey David Evans, applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to construct a dock and boathouse as depicted on Respondent's Exhibit 1. The proposed length of the dock and boathouse is sixty feet from the seawall marking the landward boundary of the Halifax River and the waterward boundary of the Respondent/Applicant's property. The Department of Environmental Regulation advised Evans as well as the protesting Petitioner on March 9, 1981, of its intent to issue the permit. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a general permit numbered SAJ-20(MOD) on September 4, 1979, also authorizing construction of the proposed dock with the condition that it not extend in a waterward direction to a water depth contour deeper than four feet at mean low water. The Petitioner herein timely petitioned for a hearing protesting the decision by the DER to grant the permit. The parties do not dispute and indeed have stipulated that there will be no adverse impact on the conservation of fish and wildlife in the area and no significant chemical, biological or physical alteration of the state waters and marine or aquatic life involved. In short, it was stipulated that there are no adverse environmental impacts of any kind to be occasioned by construction of the project. Mr. James Morgan of the Department staff was qualified as an expert witness in aquatic ecology and the evaluation of dredge and fill projects. He testified at the hearing and established that the Respondent/Applicant had provided affirmative reasonable assurances to the Department that the proposed project would not result in any violations of state water quality standards and that the proposed project would not result in interference with the conservation of fish and wildlife in the subject area or the capability of the local aquatic habitat to support such fish and wildlife. Mr. Morgan also testified that reasonable assurances had been provided by the Respondent Applicant that the proposed project would not create a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation, and that an unobstructed navigable channel would remain after the project was constructed. There being no question that affirmative reasonable assurances have been provided that no state water quality standards will be violated and that no other adverse environmental impacts will occur within the purview of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code; the permit in this regard should be granted. A question remains, however, regarding the maximum length the dock should achieve in a perpendicular direction from the seawall of the Respondent/Applicant's property out into the river. Evidence propounded by the Department regarding a six-foot water depth off the end of the proposed sixty- foot dock site is based upon hearsay information received from a Department employee other than the witness who testified, who in turn received it through a telephone conversation with, another party with no evidence that soundings or other types of survey were made. Mr. Evans' own testimony establishes that he measured some six and eight-foot depths in the natural channel involved herein, but his testimony is not specific enough in reflecting at what points in that channel, in relation to the site of the proposed dock, he measured those depths nor at what stage of the tide he measured them. It is established in the record that there is approximately a one-foot rise and fall between mean low water and mean high water at the subject site. The only access by navigation to the Petitioner's home from the main channel of the Intracoastal Waterway is by means of a natural channel running in a northerly direction parallel and immediately in front of the Petitioner's home and the applicant's home and inshore from a large sand bar covered with oysters which is a permanent oyster bar protruding from the water at low tide. The channel continues from the Petitioner's home northerly and parallel to the applicant's home and seawall until it reaches the northern terminus of the sand bar. From that point a boat navigating the channel can turn out into the main channel of the Intracoastal Waterway. Unrefuted evidence propounded by the Petitioner in the form of a "multi-sounding" depth survey established that the channel's depth at mean high tide ranges from four to five feet in front of the Respondent/Applicant's property (See Exhibit 13) The Petitioner established that access to the Intracoastal Waterway is only feasible through the subject channel running in front of the Respondent/Applicant's property. The Petitioner established that the channel begins with a depth of four feet at low tide or five feet at high tide as its landward boundary which lies fifty-two feet from the Respondent/Applicant's seawall. Thus, a dock extending the proposed sixty feet from the seawall would approach the middle of the subject historic channel and would constitute an impairment to navigation of that channel. In apparent recognition of the question of navigability of this historic channel, which was shown to have a depth of five feet at mean high tide, the Corps of Engineers has issued a permit to the Respondent/Applicant to construct his dock to a point no farther waterward than the four-foot mean low water depth contour of the river. This would allow the dock to extend to the boundary of the channel and would thus allow a dock to be constructed fifty-two feet in a perpendicular direction from the Respondents Applicant's seawall. The parties agree that four feet of water is required for navigability in and around the subject, historic channel. Thus, if the dock extended to the depth of four feet at low tide, which would be five feet at high tide, it would extend into the navigable channel and not allow a sufficiently safe distance waterward of the end of the dock for boats to turn around the end of the dock to negotiate the canal adjacent to the Petitioner's home, especially if Evans' boat is moored at the end of the dock. Accordingly the dock should only extend to that point, denominated on Exhibit 13, which is characterized by a depth at high tide of four feet and which lies six feet landward from the fifty-two-foot extent of dock which the Corps of Engineers' permit would allow. Thus, if the dock were to be built forty-six feet in a perpendicular direction from the seawall an additional six feet would be allowed for the mooring of the Respondent/Applicant's boat off the end of that dock without unduly obstructing navigation in the channel. It is noteworthy in this regard that no witness from the Corps of Engineers, or who was instrumental in the approval of the Corps of Engineers permit, testified at the hearing.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order granting the requested permit authorizing construction of a private dock and boathouse on the Halifax River in Port Orange, Volusia County, Florida, by Jeffrey David Evans, provided however, that said dock shall not extend a greater distance than forty-six feet in a direction perpendicular to the Respondent/Applicant's seawall on the waterward margin of his property on the Halifax River. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey C. Sweet, Esquire Post Office Box 5386 Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Jeffrey David Evans Twelve Venetian Circle Port Orange, Florida 32019 Richard P. Lee, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Applicant, John E. Bravo, applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dockage facility. The proposed facility will consist of a 910 foot pier with a "T"-shaped platform structure extending perpendicular in two directions from the seaward end of the pier, all of which is designed to accommodate 56 boat slips, restricted to the use of pleasure boats only. The proposed project site is located on the southeast side of "Long Point" and would extend into the waters of East Bay, which is a tidally influenced water body in Bay County, Florida. The project site lies in Class II waters of the State. The waters involved are not approved for shellfish harvesting, however, but rather are under a shellfish harvesting prohibition imposed by the Department of Natural Resources. The portion of East Bay involved also lies within the Intracoastal Waterway. The waterway is approximately 6,000 feet wide at the site of the proposed docking facility. The water along the shoreline of the area is shallow for a considerable distance waterward. The bay bottom is characterized by profuse seagrass for approximately 500 feet waterward of mean high water. Beyond that point, the seagrass (Cuban Shoal Grass) dissipates and disappears. The first 400 feet waterward of the mean high water line at the location of the proposed dock, is shallow and not truly navigable. The water then deepens to approximately five feet at mean low water some 525 feet from the shore. This distance from the shore marks the beginning of the area where no significant amount of seagrass exists and where the boat docking slips and mooring pilings would be installed in a waterward direction down the remaining length of the proposed dock. The water depth continues to increase to approximately 20 feet at the proposed location of the end of the dock. The dock would be constructed of pilings driven into the bay bottom supporting the decking of the walkway portion and "T" portion of the dock. The "T" would be installed on the seaward end of the dock, perpendicular to the walkway portion of the dock with most of the boat slips installed and operated at that point. The length of the docking facility is dictated by the fact that the Applicant seeks to locate the boat slips in a manner so that all boats will be moored and operated well beyond existing seagrasses. In fact, the length of the dock is more than absolutely necessary to accomplish this purpose since water depth and avoidance of seagrasses could accomplished with the dock ending approximately 700 feet from the mean high water line. In an abundance of caution, however, in order to avoid the possibility of propeller dredging and prop wash damaging the bottom substrates and grasses, and since the Intracoastal Waterway is over a mile wide here, the Applicant elected to design the dock in the length and configuration proposed. Such will cause no unreasonable impediment to navigation. In this connection, the Applicant has agreed to post Coast Guard- approved safety lights on the dock which will warn boats of its presence in hours of darkness. Further, the dock does not extend far enough into the 6,000 foot wide Intracoastal Waterway to pose a hazard to barge and other boating traffic in the Waterway. Some of the Petitioner's witnesses revealed that shrimp boats pull their nets during shrimping operations closer than 900 feet to the shore line and in the vicinity of the grass beds. While the presence of the dock may alter the trawling pattern of shrimp boats and the operations of other commercial fishermen, as well as water skiing and boating by members of the public, this may in fact have a beneficial effect by promoting the public interest in preserving marine habitat and the conservation of marine resources by preventing some damage to the grass beds. Such marine grass beds are valuable nursery areas for fishes and other marine animals, the effects upon which must be considered in weighing the various statutory indicia of the public interest which must be satisfied before granting a dredge and fill permit. Further, because the dockage facility at issue would be an isolated one with no significant similar docks in the immediate vicinity, the likelihood that it would pose a navigational hazard to water skiiers, fishermen, shrimpers, and other commercial and recreational interests is rather insignificant. Water Quality The water quality issues posed by a project such as this typically involve the water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, bacteriological quality, turbidity, oils, greases, fuel, paint or varnish, solvents and heavy metals, as contemplated by the below-cited rules concerning general surface water quality criteria and the specific rules related to Class II surface waters. The project site is located in Class II surface waters of the State. Those Class II waters are classified by the Department of Natural Resources as "not approved" for shellfish harvesting. The zone of the Class II waters of East Bay in which shellfish harvesting is not approved extends some two miles eastward of the project site. Marinas and dockage facilities such as this one, which will accommodate fairly large boats in significant numbers, typically pose potential pollution problems involving deposition of nutrients in State waters in the form of fish carcasses and offal, garbage and human wastes. Additionally, boats can pose pollution hazards because of attendant dumping of grease, oil and fuel residues in marina waters as well as the deposition of trash in various forms such as paper and plastic items as a result of human use of the boats and the marina facility itself. Perhaps the most severe potential problem is the deposition of human fecal matter into the water as a result of the flushing of marine heads on the larger boats, which the dockage facility will accommodate in the slips as designed. The fecal coliform bacteria which emanate from the deposition of human wastes into the waters around such a dockage facility can be concentrated in oysters and other shellfish to such an extent as to cause severe illness, permanent disability or even death in humans. Consequently, in order to avoid this problem in a magnitude which would violate the water quality parameter in the rule cited below for bacteriological quality, substantial measures must be taken with a project such as this to avoid the deposition of human wastes from the dockage facility itself and from the boats using the slips. In furtherance of this end, the Applicant proposes to allow no live- aboard vessels to be occupied over night while moored at the docking facilities. Live-aboard vessels are deemed to be those with sleeping accommodations and marine heads. The Applicant also proposes to employ a full-time dock master seven days a week, eight hours a day to ensure that all dockage users are familiar with dockage rules, and who would enforce them, especially that prohibiting any discharges from vessels using or docking at the marina. The rules would be incorporated in the dockage lease agreements. The dock master would be responsible for the clean up and correction of all unauthorized discharges. In view of the potential for sewage discharges from marine heads, even with sewage pump-out facilities and the other restrictions on the use of live-aboard type boats, the additional protective measure of requiring a sewage pump-out line and pump-out equipment, including a storage tank and a means to direct sewage pumped from boats into the upland sanitary sewer system, should be imposed as an additional condition. Additionally, the restriction against over night stays aboard boats, the discharge of marine heads into the marina waters and the requirement for use of the sewage pump-out system should be publicized on large, easily legible signs at various points on the pier so that all boat slip renters or users can be on notice of the restrictions and the dock master's and the Department's enforcement of them. Additional potential sources of nutrient and bacteriological degradation of the dissolved oxygen content and bacteriological integrity of the surface waters involved can be posed by the deposition of fish carcasses and parts, as well as food wastes and other garbage in the marina waters. In order to prevent this, the Applicant has proposed to provide fish cleaning stations located on the upland and to require all fish carcasses and other related wastes to be placed in upland containers and not disposed of in the Class II waters at the dock site. Additionally, waste containers will be located along the length and perimeter of the dock facility for garbage, with regular emptying of the containers enforced by the dock master to prevent spillage. In connection with the upland fish cleaning sites to be installed, the drainage waters or waste water from fish cleaning stations should be directed into an upland disposal system so that it may be ensured that the water does not get back into the Class II waters of the bay. In addition to the above measures, pump-out facilities and equipment will be provided by the Applicant for used engine oil removed from boats and oil and water from boat bilges. These wastes, under agreed-upon conditions, would be transported by pipeline to the upland to a storage tank pending proper disposal. Trash, garbage and other refuse will be deposited in dumpsters for removal by municipal garbage disposal services. No fueling facilities or fueling of boats will be allowed. Additionally, oil spill clean up materials will be maintained on the marina site in sufficient quantities to allow clean up of the maximum spill expected from the largest boat typically using the marina pursuant to the leases for the boat slips. In order to further lessen the possibility of spills of oils, greases and fuels, the permit should be conditioned (as should the leases) upon no boat maintenance being performed at the marina site other than minor engine adjustments. In this context, an additional enforcement measure will be in the boat slip rental agreements themselves. The agreements will contain restrictive provisions requiring lessees to properly handle and dispose of fish carcasses and wastes, used engine oil, bilge water and requiring them to comply with sewage pump-out and refuse disposal conditions enumerated above. Upon completion of the facility, the dock master will manage and accomplish maintenance of the various items of equipment, such as the pump-out facility, on an eight hour a day, seven day per week basis and will enforce the restrictive provisions incorporating the above conditions in the boat slip rental agreements. Those restrictive provisions should include putting the lessees on notice that violation of any of the conditions enumerated above and in the boat slip leases will result in a breach of the lease and removal of their vessel from the marina and reporting of the violation to regulatory authorities. The various expert witnesses agreed that the proposed permit conditions enumerated above, if enforced, would adequately protect water quality as to the above parameters at issue. The Class II water quality standards will not be violated by the installation and operation of the project as proposed, provided the above conditions are strictly enforced and adhered to. Mr. Jack Taylor, the expert witness for the Petitioner, agreed that the above measures would reasonably ensure that the marina will not cause pollution and contravention of Class II water quality standards, but feared that enforcement problems would prevent such conditions from prevailing. In view of the measures enumerated above which will be undertaken by the Applicant to ensure that water quality standards are adhered to, including the liberal use of warning signs for marina customers and slip lessees, the use of a full-time dock master to enforce the conditions and including the enforcement measure of putting the conditions as restrictions in the slip rental leases, it has been shown that the enforcement will be reasonably adequate. An additional and important enforcement measure can be incorporated into this project, however, by requiring the Applicant to submit an operation and maintenance plan for the marina and requiring a monitoring program under the auspices of the Department for at least a year of operation in order to ensure that the project operates as it is proposed under the above-delineated conditions. The Department has continuing enforcement power and the monitoring program would, with regular monthly inspections, allow early detection and correction of any water quality violations, to and including the voiding of the permit and the closing of the marina operation should violations prove severe and uncorrectable. 1/ Such a monitoring program and marina operation and maintenance plan should be required as a condition to granting of the permit. 2/ Finally, it should be pointed out that the area of East Bay where the project would be built is Class II shellfish prohibited waters. The proposed project itself will not likely adversely affect shell fishing to the extent of closing additional waters if the above water quality safeguards are imposed as conditions on the permit and on the marina operation. This is especially true because the boundary line of the shellfish approved water to the east is at least two miles away, which distance incorporates a substantial mixing zone in the open waters of East Bay to sufficiently dilute pollutants which might emanate from the marina or other sources to levels such that the shellfish waters presently open will not be subject to any further closures by the Department of Natural Resources, as a result of this installation. The primary reason the shellfish waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project are closed to harvesting is the presence of the Military Point Sewage Treatment Plant which discharges its effluent into the waters of East Bay, such that the DNR's dye flow studies reveal that a 5.1 square mile buffer zone around that plant is necessary for closure to shellfish harvesting to ensure that the public health is not adversely affected by consumption of shellfish from the waters in that buffer area. That buffer area includes the proposed marina site. Additional significant pollution sources include fecal coliform bacteria, oils and greases and other contaminants associated with rainfall events and resultant urban runoff from the City of Parker and surrounding areas, including septic tank leachate and petroleum residues. These influences also currently add to the reasons why shellfish harvesting is precluded in the area of the proposed facility. It was not demonstrated that the addition of the marina and the boats operating under the above strict conditions will result in any additional closures to shellfish harvesting in surrounding, presently approved areas as a result of any water quality degradation posed by the subject project. Public Interest The public interest criteria-enumerated at Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which are actually at issue in this proceeding concern: (1) whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, (2) whether it will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including their habitats, (3) whether the project will adversely affect navigation, water flow or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, (4) whether it will adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in its vicinity, and (5) whether the current condition and relative value of the functions of the natural area involved at the project site will be adversely affected by the proposed activity. There is no issue or dispute raised concerning the permanence of the project for purposes of criteria number 5 under this subsection, nor as to number 6, concerning historical and archaeological resources. Concerning criteria numbered 1-4 and 7, of this subsection, it has been demonstrated that the project will not likely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others if constructed and operated according to the conditions delineated herein. Some members of the public testifying on behalf of the Petitioner objected to the interference they feared the dock would cause with their jogging along the shoreline and feared an impediment to their use of the area for water skiing. This is the only dock in this vicinity, however, and such interference is minor. It will be well lit in order to avoid impeding navigation or posing a danger to the public health or safety during hours of darkness in terms of the public's ability to safely operate boats in the area. There is some potential for the project adversely affecting conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats in that, if boats are permitted to operate in the vicinity of the dock and use the dock for mooring, loading and unloading purposes, and the like, closer than 500 feet off shore, harmful propeller washing or dredging of the bottom sediments and seagrasses growing therein will result. If such erosion of the bottom and seagrass growth begins occurring, it will adversely affect and gradually destroy the area as a habitat for fish and other marine life, which is of particular importance since such Cuban Shoal Grass stands are quite beneficial as nursery areas for fish and other organisms. Thus, if boating activity were allowed unimpeded around the dock, including in the near shore area within 500 feet from the mean high water line, the resultant erosion and propeller damage to the seagrass beds in the bottom would indicate that, as to criteria 2 and 3 of the above subsection, that the project would not be in the public interest and would be contrary to the public interest. This same consideration is true with regard to the fourth criteria concerning whether the project adversely affects fishing and recreational values or marine productivity for similar reasons. If marine habitat is disrupted or destroyed in whole or in part in the vicinity of the dock due to erosion and other damage caused by boat and propeller contacts with the bottom or prop wash near the bottom, then as to this criteria, concerning marine productivity and recreational value, the project will be contrary to the public interest also. To the extent that nursery areas for fish and other valuable marine organisms are destroyed, the recreational value in terms of quality of fishing will certainly be diminished. The "current condition and relative value of functions" being performed by the area of marine habitat affected by this project must also be considered. In a like vein, this particular area constituting dense growths of seagrasses has a relatively high functional value as a marine habitat and, particularly, a nursery for marine animals. This current condition and value of the area should be accorded a fairly high status in weighing and balancing the various considerations used in determining whether the project is or is not contrary to the public interest. If the boats which are to use the marina upon its construction and operation are permitted inside the grass bed area, roughly within 500 feet of the shore, then clearly the considerations mentioned above will be the subject of adverse effects caused by the boats' operation which in turn is a direct result of the installation of this marina, the dock and the slips. In view of the reasonable likelihood of the project causing some of the adverse effects mentioned above, resulting from contact by boat propellers and boat hulls with the grass beds or erosive prop wash caused by operation of boats in water so shallow that the propellers are too near the bottom, the Applicant has agreed to a condition which will effectively remove boats from the seagrass bed area, provided it is strictly enforced. That condition would provide that boats and the slips in which they would be moored cannot be landward of 600 feet off shore of the mean high water line along the sides of the seaward extending dock. All boat slips are to be located seaward of that point. The Petitioners, however, raised a valid point that, the dock being so long, the natural tendency of boat operators would be to moor their boats along the sides of the dock as close into shore as boat operation is possible in order to more easily load and unload their boats. In order to prevent this problem from occurring, therefore, an additional condition should be imposed on the permit which would provide that the sides of the dock be enclosed by a fence out to the 600 foot mark and of such a configuration and type as to prevent boat operators from mooring boats to the sides of the dock and gaining ingress or egress from their boats on the dock shoreward of the 600 foot point mentioned above. In other words, if it is made impossible to enter or leave a boat from the dock in the area of the seagrass beds, this would substantially reduce the likelihood that the seagrass beds would be damaged by boats using the dock. Additionally, prominent signs should be posted on or in the vicinity of the dock announcing the necessity to avoid operating boats landward of the point mentioned above and the necessity of avoiding contacting the seagrass beds with boats or boat propellors. If this condition is adhered to and strictly enforced, as even Petitioner's expert witness concedes, it will prevent the chief source of adverse effects upon the public interest. An additional consideration in determining whether or not this project is contrary to the public interest concerns its effect upon navigation. This has already been discussed in the above Findings of Fact. Since this would be the only dock in the immediate area, it is found that the presence of the dock, even though it extends a significant distance seaward of the shore line, will still not pose a significant impediment to navigation. Additionally, as has been pointed out above, the public interest might be served in a positive way by the installation of the dock to the extent that it might prevent shrimp boats and other fishing boats pulling nets from using the shallow seagrass area which will help prevent uprooting and other damage to the grass beds caused by the nets and associated fishing gear. Finally, it should be pointed out that to a certain extent the project will positively serve recreational values and the public welfare, in the context of balancing the various public interest considerations, because at least half the boat slips will be reserved for public use and because the addition of such a marina or docking facility will enhance the public's ability to obtain recreational value from the State waters involved in East Bay by improving marine access to those waters for fishing, boating, skiing and other purposes. In short, reasonable assurances have been provided that the project is not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the application of John E. Bravo for the dredge and fill permit at issue be GRANTED, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the above Findings of Fact are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1987.
