Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Facts admitted by all parties The water quality standards contained in Rule 17-3.111, Florida Administrative Code will not be violated by this project. There are no aquatic macrophytes located in the area of the proposed project. The proposed project is located within 500 feet of the incorporated municipality of Horseshoe Beach, Florida. The proposed project is located within Class II waters of the State not approved for shellfish harvesting. The project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect or will not enhance significant historical or acheological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. The rest of the findings The Applicant, Dixie County, applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock which would expand the existing public dock at Horseshoe Beach. In accordance with the revised plans dated October 23, 1986, the proposed facility would consist of a pier 6 feet wide and 120 feet long designed to accommodate six boat slips, each 30 feet wide and 40 feet long. The boundaries of the boat slips will be demarcated by pilings set 10 feet apart. Four of the boat slips would be primarily for the use of commercial fishing boats and commercial shrimping boats. The other two boat slips (the two slips closest to the land) would be reserved for the exclusive use of recreational and other small vessels. By adding a catwalk 3 or 4 feet wide down the middle of the two slips reserved for recreational vessels, the usefulness of those slips to recreational vessels would be greatly enhanced and the narrowness of the resulting slips would preclude their use by large vessels. Adding the two catwalks would be a minor addition to the proposed project which would greatly enhance the usefulness of the project and at the same time avoid the possibility that large vessels in the two slips closest to the land would impede ingress and egress at the nearby boat lift, boat fueling facility, and boat ramp. Adding a reasonable number of permanent trash or garbage containers would also enhance the usefulness of the proposed project and minimize the possibility of improper disposal of trash and garbage which is generated by the normal use of a dock by fishermen and boaters. The proposed project site is located in the Gulf of Mexico at Horseshoe Beach, Florida, and would extend into the waters of the Gulf, which is a tidally influenced water body adjacent to Dixie County, Florida. The water along the shoreline of the area is shallow for a considerable distance waterward, except where basins and channels have been dredged. The Horseshoe Beach area is relatively unpolluted. The existing public dock at Horseshoe Beach is used primarily by recreational vessels, but there is also extensive commercial fishing and Shrimping boat activity in the area. The project is located at the mouth of a canal with direct access to the Gulf. Several commercial fishhouses operate from the canal bank, which generates extensive commercial boat traffic past the proposed project site. Large numbers of commercial shrimp boats presently dock along the canal that ends near the proposed project site. The proposed project requires no dredging. The only filling required by the proposed project is the placement of pilings into the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. Even though the plans do not specify whether concrete or wooden pilings will be used, this lack of specificity in the plans is irrelevant. Regardless of what types of pilings are used on this project, the filling activity will not violate the water quality criteria contained in Rule 17- 3.051(1), Florida Administrative Code. The placement of the pilings will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. Further, the proposed project will not adversely affect any property interests of the Petitioners within the scope of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Gulf bottom in the area of the proposed project has already been disturbed. The presently existing suspension of particulate material in the water column, a natural occurrence in the area of the project, results in low visibility which means that seagrass beds and other marine vegetation, which provide shelter and detrital deposits for fish and other marine resources, will not grow. Coast Guard regulations prohibit commercial fishing vessels from depositing materials into the water within three miles of the coast line. Commercial fishing vessels must prominently display a sticker reciting that regulation and it is the practice of commercial fishing vessels operating in the vicinity of Horseshoe Beach to comply with this Coast Guard no discharge requirement by cleaning nets and scrubbing decks outside the three mile limit. It is not the practice of Commercial fishing vessels to deliberately discharge diesel fuel, fish parts or other material into the water while docked. Further, the limited number of commercial fishing vessels which could dock at the proposed facility at the same time cannot reasonably be expected to create discharges in amounts creating a nuisance, posing any danger to the public health safety or welfare, or violating the water quality criteria contained in Rule 17-3.051(1), Florida Statutes. Although small amounts of diesel fuel can become mixed with bilge water and be discharged by automatic bilge pumps while commercial fishing vessels are docked, there is no evidence that this would be in amounts Sufficient to create a nuisance or violate water quality criteria. To the contrary, notwithstanding a large amount of commercial boat traffic past the proposed site and notwithstanding the fact that large numbers of shrimp boats dock up the canal from the proposed site, the water in the area of the proposed site has remained relatively unpolluted. The proposed project will not affect the normal wind and wave action in the area of the proposed project. Such wind and wave action presently results in free exchange between the waters of the open Gulf and the waters near the shore. This free exchange of waters means that any pollutant discharges in the area of the proposed project will be diluted and rapidly dispersed into the Gulf of Mexico. There will be no measurable difference in the wind and wave action, or in the water exchange, after the proposed project is built. No harmful shoaling or erosion is expected to result from construction of the proposed project. Any docking structure extending out into the Gulf of Mexico will obviously have some effect on navigation in the area of the dock, but there is no evidence that the proposed dock will present a hazard to navigation or any significant interference with customary navigation patterns. The distance between the nearest channel marker and the waterward end of the proposed project is more than 200 feet. The angle of the proposed dock and its Spatial relation to the main Horseshoe Beach turning basin cause no impediment to navigation. The placement of Coast Guard Safety lights on the dock would minimize any potential for impeding navigation or posing a danger to the public health or safety during hours of darkness.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a Final Order in this case granting the permit applied for by Dixie County. It is also recommended that the permit be made subject to the following additional conditions: That one or more Coast Guard safety lights be placed on the proposed expansion to the dock; That catwalks be added down the middle of the two most landward of the proposed boat slips; and That a reasonable number of trash or garbage receptacles be permanently located on the proposed expansion to the dock to minimize the possibility of trash and garbage being thrown overboard. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1448 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all of the parties. The paragraph numbers referred to below are references to the paragraph numbers in the parties' respective proposed recommended orders. Ruling on findings proposed by the Petitioners: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: First sentence is rejected as appearing to be more in the nature of an introduction to a discussion of legal issues than a proposed finding of fact. Second and third sentences are rejected as repetitious Paragraph 5: Entire paragraph rejected as unnecessary speculative generalizations in light of the other evidence in this case. Paragraph 6: Entire paragraph rejected as unnecessary speculative generalizations in light of the other evidence in this case. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 8: Entire paragraph is rejected as appearing to be more in the nature of an introduction to a discussion of legal issues than proposed findings of fact. Paragraph 9: Entire paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; construction of the dock may be expected to bring about some changes in the nature of the boat traffic in the immediate area, but nothing of the nature or magnitude suggested by these proposed findings. Paragraph 10: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: First sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence is accepted in part and rejected in part. Rejected portion is irrelevant. Third sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Fourth Sentence is accepted. Fifth sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as repetitious Sixth sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 12: Entire paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rulings on findings Proposed by the Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: First two sentences accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Rejected as unnecessary recitation of opposing party's contentions and not proposed finding of fact. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence accepted in part and rejected in part; rejected portion concerns riparian rights, which are irrelevant to whether this permit should be issued. Paragraph 14: Entire paragraph rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Accepted. Paragraph 17: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Frederick M. Bryant, Esquire Moore, Williams & Bryant, P.A. Post Office Box 1169 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Doyle Thomas, Esquire County Attorney Post Office Box 339 Cross City, Florida 32628 Ann Cowles-Fewox, Legal Intern Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Karen Brodeen, Esquire 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Pine Island Properties, Ltd., (Petitioner) owns a residential development project identified as "Pelican Inlet" located on Pine Island, Lee County, Florida. The Petitioner seeks a permit to fill 0.78 acres of wetlands to construct the project. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is responsible for reviewing permit applications under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and related administrative rules. The Department file number for this application is 362004755. The Pelican Inlet project is located in Lee County, Florida, Sections 4 and 9, Township 45 South, Range 25 East. The project impact site is immediately adjacent to "Forty Acre Bay/Bay 36" (bay) which is a Class II Outstanding Florida Water and part of the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. There are no other developments on the bay. Access from Pelican Inlet to Pine Island Sound is via the bay. Pine Island Sound is a popularly used water body, with substantial fishing and recreational use. The Pelican Inlet development fronts a man-made canal which runs generally east-west. The canal is between two to ten feet deep. The Petitioner did not construct the canal. It appears that during the dredging of the canal, spoil was deposited along the canal banks, resulting in an upland area in the midst of the wetlands. The spoil is vegetated by Australian pine. The elevation of the property drops approximately 1.5 feet where the higher spoil abuts the wetlands. The Petitioner owns only the north half of the canal. Other parties not involved in this application own the south half of the canal. According to the Petitioner, the south half owners are not interested in assisting in the Petitioner's project. Extensive mangrove growth exists immediately north and south of the project impact area. Immediately along the banks of the canal are red, black, and white mangroves. At the east end of the canal is a dense growth of mature black mangroves. Further to the east lie undeveloped uplands vegetated with slash pine and saw palmetto. Although there has been some trash dumping in the area, the mangroves to be impacted by the proposed development are part of a high quality, functioning, healthy, and productive wetlands system. The area currently provides broad water quality benefits and wildlife habitat. The north part of the impacted wetlands area contained a dirt road. Exotic vegetation, including Brazilian pepper Australian pine and Melaleuca, has invaded the trail area. Away from the road, the wetlands are dominated by buttonwood, seashore dropseed, beach carpet, salt grass, needlerush, and leather fern. The Western end of the canal connects to the bay. Water depths in the bay average approximately 1.5 feet deep, but vary significantly. The bay bottom is composed of fine organic mud. There is evidence of damage caused by boat propellers in some parts of the bay. The bay is used by species of fish, snails, mollusks, crabs and birds and is regarded as a productive marine habitat. Within the development, the Petitioner seeks to locate a total of 23 single family homes. Fourteen of the 23 homes will be located directly along the canal. Of these 14, eight will require placement of fill in the adjacent mangroves; two others are entirely within the mature mangrove wetlands. The remaining nine houses would be placed in the area east of the canal. Within the wetlands and uplands portion of the property, the development will include the 23 houses, driveways, access roads, sewer treatment plant, spreader swale and retention area. Subsequent to the filing of the application, the parties engaged in an extensive dialogue in an attempt to reach a resolution of the matter. The issues raised by the Department essentially centered on two general issues, minimization and mitigation of the wetlands lost through fill and resolution of the anticipated secondary impacts of the project. The parties appear to have resolved concerns related to the mitigation of the wetlands lost and impacted by the fill. At the hearing, there was minimal evidence and testimony related to the wetlands mitigation issues. Based on the apparent lack of conflict related to the wetlands loss mitigation, this Recommended Order is directed towards the cumulative and secondary impacts of the project. On August 21, 1991, the Petitioner filed an application for permit/water quality certification with the agency. On October 28, 1991, the Department conducted a field appraisal of the project. Based on the appraisal, the Department determined that the project was unpermittable as proposed in the application. On December 24, 1991, the Department forwarded to the Petitioner a copy of the site inspection report. In the report, the Department identifies a number of concerns related to the expected environmental impact of the project. Thereafter, the parties began an extensive dialogue regarding the project. On March 12, 1992, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. The parties continued to discuss mitigation, and several extensions to the deadline for filing an administrative hearing request were granted by the Department. There is no dispute regarding timeliness of the request for hearing. The Notice of Permit Denial indicates that the Department's concerns center on the potential for turbidity-related water quality violations which could result from unstabilized fill, the adverse floristic impact caused by fill washout into adjacent wetlands, the loss of the filtering benefits provided via the filled wetlands and the adverse impact on wildlife habitat. The Notice of Permit Denial further identifies concerns related to the cumulative and secondary impacts of the project. Such impacts include boat docks in the canal resulting in an increase in the intensity of boating activity in the Bay. The Notice also addresses the precedential impact of permitting this project as it relates to other properties similarly situated, specifically, the property on the south side of the Canal. The expected increases in boat traffic will result in turbidity and damage to the bay bottom through prop dredging, in turn causing injury to the marine habitat's sea grasses and benthic organisms. During the ongoing dialogue with the Department, the Petitioner submitted a mitigation plan. In the Department's letter of June 26, 1992, related to its review of the plan, the Department notes that the proposal failed to address the anticipated impact of boat users on the shallow bay adjacent to the canal. Paragraph #23 of the letter states as follows: Please be advised that the submitted proposal does not adequately address the secondary impacts of the proposed development. There is still a high potential for boat use within the adjacent shallow bay which will significantly degrade this portion of the aquatic preserve, additional boating pressure could also result in requests for dredging a channel within this bay....Before a permit can be issued all of these impacts need to be addressed. One possible way to address these would be to provide easements over adjacent wetlands and the canal that specifically prohibit dock construction...and/or to fill in a portion of the canal to prevent large boats from utilizing the area. In a letter of July 29, 1992 in response to the Department's earlier transmittal, the Petitioner stated: Boat access to coastal waters of Lee is a very important aspect of this project, however only two of the twenty-four lots have direct private property access to the canal and these are lots 1 and 18. Only lot 1 has both canal and natural water frontage. The potential for secondary wetland impacts related to permitting of this project are real and are also a concern of the applicant. As to the issue of boat docks, the Petitioner stated: Pine Island Properties, Limited, the owner of the project, is not proposing to permit or construct any boat docks within the project boundary. Each lot owner must, if they wish to, make application through appropriate state and federal agencies for a boat dock. As to the matter of the shallow adjacent bay, the Petitioner stated: The existing water depths in the adjacent bay system already by itself mandates and places limits on access by large boats, ones with a deeper draft. Local knowledge of both bottom topography as well as tidal conditions and times is necessary for one to travel through these back bay areas. The applicant agrees to place reasonable size, i.e., draft, restrictions on boats allowed into and out of the project. The draft limit restriction for boats would be 24 inches. In additional all boats with engines larger than 35 horsepower would be required to have hydraulic motor/outdrive lifts capable of allowing adjustments in the depth of the operation of the propeller. The applicant also accepts responsibility of placing appropriate depth markers from the western end (exist) (sic) of the unnamed canal to the "between island" passage approximately 750 feet directly to the west. Placement of markers would identify the preferred travel route and inform boaters, through placement of signs, that they are in an aquatic preserve and caution them about damage to bottom of the bay if propellers are set to (sic) deep. By Department letter of September 21, 1992, the Department noted continuing concerns with the impacts of the project. In relevant part, the letter states, "[T]he Department still lacks reasonable assurance that the project's impacts will be offset. Also, you have not yet demonstrated to the Department's satisfaction that the project will be clearly in the public interest." The Department's September 21 letter addresses remaining questions about the wetlands fill area, as well as canal use restrictions. Specifically as to the canal issue, the letter states: Your proposal to place a draft restriction of 24" on boats using the canal to protect adjacent waters which are 18" deep is not acceptable. A deed restriction prohibiting property owners from using or mooring motorized vessels in the canal would be more acceptable....A conservation easement could also prohibit the construction of docks and/or the mooring of motorized vessels on the shoreline by the present owners or by potential future owners such as a homeowners association. Based on the Department's assertion that the shallow bay could not accommodate boat traffic related to the development, the Petitioner conducted a survey of existing water depths in the vicinity of the canal. In its October 28, 1992 letter in response to the Department, the Petitioner responded as follows: In general there is sufficient water for shallow draft motor driven vessels, however local knowledge, proper tidal conditions and informed operators would be essential to a safe and non-habitat damaging passage from the canal mouth to the deeper waters of Pine Island Sound. Evidence of prop scars...provides a longlasting record of past damage to the turtle grass beds by (sic) without proper boat handling skills and knowledge. Sizing of boat draft and the requirement that all boats possess hydraulically adjustable outboards units or if inboard drive units then the outdrives must be adjustable is a must. During lower tidal phases, e.g., mean low water, water levels can be expected to drop another foot which would result in water depth ranges of about 17 to 30 inches, definitly (sic) a problem for boats with a hull draft of 18 inches regardless of what angle the drive unit is positioned. Placement of informational signs as well as placement of channel marks would reduce hull and drive unit impacts to the adjacent bay bottom. In concluding the October 28 letter, the Petitioner makes the following recommendations: Recommendations for consideration: Boats limited to hull drafts of 20 inches. All boats required to have adjustable power units. Channel markers required from the Pelican Inlet canal mouth through to a point midway between the islands and Cork Island. This is approximately 2,800 feet west of the canal mouth. These markers would be spaced, approximately 150 feet apart, on-center,. (sic) Thus under southflorida's (sic) winter foggy conditions or after dark ease of marker detection/direction would be a useful aid to navigation. Informational signs should be installed at "entry points" such as the canal mouth, the between-island pass and between the island headlands. These should inform the boater of the environmental sensitivity, the shallow water conditions, the existence of grass beds and requirement of a slow speed, "no wake" zones. Monitoring of bentic (sic) habitats over the first five years would also determine if the above conditions are effective at protecting the coastal habitats. By Department letter of December 17, 1992, the Department again addressed continuing concern with the impact of the project. Paragraph 14 of the letter states: Thank you for the water depth report. As the report states,"...local knowledge, proper tidal conditions and informed operators would be essential to a safe and non-habitat damaging passage from the canal mouth to the deeper waters of Pine Island Sound." Since it would be extremely difficult to provide the Department with reasonable assurance that all three of these conditions will be present during motorized vehicle operations originating on-site, other assurance that impacts will not occur and degrade the Outstanding Florida waterbody must be provided. As previously stated, legally binding agreements regarding draft and other restrictions may be difficult to enforce. Monitoring of an activity's impacts is only useful if there is some recourse to eliminate or reduce any impacts revealed by monitoring. The submitted report reinforces the Department's position that reasonable assurance, beyond that already proposed, must be provided that boat traffic originating from the project's canal will not adversely impact the adjacent shallow waters. Such assurance could include, but would not be limited to, a mnechanical or physical draft restrictor in the canal, an agreement not to seek permits to expand the existing canal, and authorization from the Department of Natural Resources for the proposed channel markers and informational signs. Please note that additional assurance beyond these may also be required. Paragraph 15 of the Department's December 17, letter states: Although not proposed as part of this application, construction of boat docks in the canal is a secondary impact which could be reasonably expected to occur as a result of issuing a permit for the proposed activities. Please provide reasonable assurance that construction of docks in the canal and subsequent mooring of boats will not contribute to a degradation of water quality below State water quality standards in the canal and in the adjacent waters. By letter of February 1, 1993, the Petitioner responded to paragraph 14 of the Department's December 17 letter as follows: The applicant does agree not to seek permits to expand the existing channel and will seek authorization from the Department of Natural Resources for the proposed channel markers and informational signs. In a twenty page letter, dated July 29, 1992, also answering questions of the FDER, Kathleen Parker Greenwood, the applicant stated that he was in agreement as to the placement of restrictions on the draft of boats allowed into and out of the project. This draft limit was set at 24 inches. In addition boats having engines larger that 35 horsepower, would have to have a hydraulic motor/outdrive lift, this to allow adjustments in the depth of propeller operation when operating in or during low water conditions. The applicant may accept the proposal of placement of a draft restrictor at the mouth of the unnamed canal, however would like additional information regarding available designs. Are there any floating types, ones that could be moored permanently at the mouth of the project canal, and rise and fall with the tide, similar in concept to the method used to moor floating docks, i.e., a collar/ring freely moving up and down on a stationary piling? This would allow the setting of a uniform depth regardless of tidal or wind induced depth of water conditions. The Petitioner responded to paragraph 15 of the Department's December 17 letter as follows: The applicant also does not want to degrade existing water quality and agrees to implement both design determined as well as behavioral directing programs to insure that this does not happen. The central issues are: a.) Oil and gas leaks and spills. b.) Leakage of the active chemicals found in anti-fouling bottom paints. c.) "Wolmerized" substances placed in marine piling which, over time, leak into the water column. d.) Shading of shoreline bottom communities due to the installation of docks with associated floating boats. and e.) Physical, one-time, impacts occurring during the installation of pilings and dolphines. The applicant, wishing to minimize potential onetime (sic) as well as cumulative impacts proposes the following: The applicant will attach to documents/lot sales contract a notice that clearly informs the prospective land owner of his/her responsibilities regarding the use and storage, handing and disposal of hazardous wastes, especially boat fuel and oil. This document will warn residents against the discharge overboard of bilge water known to contain fuel/oil mixtures. Each dock will display, in a prominent mannor (sic), a sign with essentially the same warning. The Pelican Inlet property owner(s) will also develop, and have in place and operational, prior to any authorization for the construction of boad (sic) docks, an emergency response program designed to handle in-project fuel spells (sic). This program will include the storage of equipment suitable for emergency containment until, and if necessary, a local response can be made by the appropriate Lee County and/or state officials. Boats will be lifted, when not actively in use, via davits or elevating hoist platforms completely out of the water. This will minimize water/hull contact in the case of anti-fouling paints and bottom coatings. Dock pilings and dolphines will utilize non-toxic structural components, wolmerized and other petroleum based substances will not be allowed to come in contact with the water column. Such Structural members as concrete or PVC or other known non-toxic items will be utilized for all vertical supports. Dock access platforms/boardwalks will be minimized, this in order to reduce potential shading. Consideration will be given to the use of translucent "boards" now on the construction market, this again to further minimize shading. By Department letter of February 15, 1993, the Department addressed continuing and additional concerns related to project impact. Paragraph 9 of the letter states: Regarding the issue of boat access from the canal out to Pine Island Sound, it should be noted that [the Petitioner agent's] access study was done at a time when the water elevation was provided as +1.91' NGVD. The mean high water elevation, as provided, is +1.47' NGVD. Thus is appears that at mean high water, there will be a little more than 5 inches less water that what was present during that study. The mean low water elevation provided is -1.2' NGVD which seems low. However, using this figure, at mean low water there will be 3' less water between the canal and the sound. Using a more reasonable tidal range of approximately 1', there would still be a difference of almost 1.5' between the observed and the low water levels, yielding lowest depths of approximately 3" in segment 1, the unvegetated areas, 10" in segment 2, where turtle grass and shoal grass...exist within the "channel", and 24" or greater out in the sound (along the sampled channel). The Department's own informal depth survey, taken during a full moon low tide, showed water depths of approximately 3" to 6" in segment 1 and 10" to 36" (in the remnant channel) along segment 2. Most importantly, many of the shallow areas in segment 2 showed dense seagrass growth, especially out by the "island headlands", where no channel exists and where prop scarring of the grassbeds already appears to be a major problem. Also, the shallowest area, segment 1, where turbidity would be expected to occur almost every time a boat went through until the channel was prop dredged, was observed to be a highly productive and diverse area, despite the fact that it is unvegetated. Other concerns which this site visit brought up include the potential for increased erosion of shorelines adjacent to the proposed channel, and disturbance of wading bird rookeries or roosting areas along the channel's path. Reasonable assurance that boats crossing the areas between the canal and the sound will not cause violations of water quality, including turbidity and loss of diversity, and loss of non-mitigable wetland resources, seagrass beds, has not been provided. Without this, a permit may still not be issued for this project. By response dated April 11, 1993, the Petitioner responded to the Department's December 17 letter. As to the conflicting high water calculations, the Petitioner offered a further refinement of the figures and noted: Both of the above are relatively minor corrections and any reasonable person would still agree that water depths along the recommended boating channel corridor are, at best, minimal. Only one with local knowledge and possessing common boating skills and sense would be able to navigate the passage without disruption or damage to the bottom habitat. As to the application of a 1' "tidal range," the Petitioner suggests that the Department meant to identify the figure as the range below mean sea level. Citing to 1993 tidal tables, the Petitioner recalculated the water depths and opined that the lowest depth in segment 1 would be 6.7", in segment 2 would be 21.1" and in segment 3 would be over 30". The Petitioner noted that the calculations did not account for neap or spring tides, periods of even lower water conditions. As to the Department's informal depth survey showing water depths of approximately 3" to 6" in segment 1 and 10" to 36" (in the remnant channel) along segment 2, the response states "[t]hese value ranges and conclusion seem reasonable to the applicant. Only after a series of repeated depth measurements have been taken over a variety of tidal and weather conditions (e.g. wind speed and direction) would a more detailed analysis be available. " As to the Department's statement concern for potential increased erosion of shorelines adjacent to the proposed channel, and disturbance of wading bird rookeries or roosting areas along the channel's path, the Petitioner responded as follows: The applicant previously agreed to a mandatory "no wake, slow speed" zone condition within segments I, II, and III out past the western most headlands to a position due north of Cork Island. Signs along the proposed boat corridor would notify boaters of this and other environmentally related restrictions. Disturbances to in place bird rookeries during the nesting season are of concern in southwest Florida. Parents frightened off active nests do greatly decrease the success for fledging of subadult birds. Generally rookeries occur on islands rather than headlands, thus the applicant would committ (sic) to a vigerous (sic) environmental sensitivity education program directed towards project initiated boaters in order to gain citizen appreciation, support and consideration for island areas of nesting wading birds. Part of the on-going monitoring that the applicant commits to would also track near-shore rookeries in the vacinity (sic) of the proposed boat traffic corridor. As to the Department's statement that reasonable assurance that boats crossing the areas between the canal and the sound would not cause violations of water quality had not been provided, the Petitioner responded as follows: The issue and standard, reasonable assurance, is very difficult to meet, however the applicants proposed residential project design is sensitive to on-site and near shore environmental conditions in the following mannor (sic): The applicant is aware that without full cooperation,, support, appreciation and participation by the future project resident boat operators there will defintly (sic) be negative impacts to the tidally related natural resource base. The natural resource setting is the major selling point for prospective owners and its continued health and sustainability is a good business practice Toward these ends the applicant clearly committs (sic) to: The marking and maintaining of a path along which all boat traffic must follow when exiting or entering the near-shore boat corridor lane. Placement and maintaining of a series of informational "No Wake, Slow Speed" signs along the required boat corridor out to just north of Cork Island. A mandatory requirement stating that all resident owned boats, proposed to enter and exit the site will: Be restricted to a maximum hull draft of 20 inches. Will possess adjustable hydraulic motor/shaft outdrive lifts. Predevelopment base-line and post development monitoring of the conditions and any changes, of the benthic habitats along and adjacent (250' on either side of the centerline) to the proposed boat corridor. This monitoring, with quarterly reports, will continue for five consecutive years. By letter dated May 19, 1993, the Department replied in relevant part to the Petitioner's response as follows: ...The second issue is that of navigable access from the canal to Pine Island Sound. The one specific point to be made here is that a proposed draft restriction of 20" to cross an area as shallow as 6.7" (using your figures) at mean low water is not acceptable as this would cause scarring even when a motor was not in use. More general concerns, as previously discussed, involve whether or not placement of no wake signs, deed restrictions requiring outboard lift units and maximum keel drafts, and monitoring to document boating impacts on adjacent resources provide reasonable assurance that impacts will not occur, and if they do occur, they can be offset. Currently, the Department's view is that only by strict legal (e.g., conservation easement) and physical (e.g., pilings at the end of the canal) measures can impacts to the adjacent OFW resources be avoided or minimized. If there is new information concerning this aspect of this project which demonstrates to the Department's satisfaction that there will not be impacts associated with boat traffic or that these impacts can be offset, then please submit such, since this is not considered a closed issue. " By letter dated June 2, 1993, the Petitioner responded to the Department's May 19 letter. Paragraph 2 of the response states: Our client has agreed to put his half of the canal in a conservation easement without limiting the future construction of boat docks and the ability to obtain a permit for dredging maintenance of the canal. Also, he agreed to drive draft restricting pilings at the west end of the canal. In order to do this, our client is trying to get in touch with the owner of the south half of the existing canal. The construction of these pilings will depend on the adjacent lot owner's response. If required the "No Wake" sign will be installed. Deed restrictions requiring outboard lift units and maximum keel drafts will be provided." The adjacent lot owner is not cooperative with the Petitioner. The evidence establishes that permitting of this project will lead to increased boat traffic in the shallow bay, resulting in prop scarring of the bay bottom, erosion of adjacent shoreline, and damage to the wildlife habitat provided therein. The use of a draft restrictor appears to be integral to the Department and to the Petitioner's ability to protect the shallow bay from damage. Although discussed frequently, the Petitioner provided no detailed draft restrictor design until immediately prior to the hearing. The draft restrictor would limit boat passage in or out of the canal mouth unless the water depth was sufficient to prevent harm to the bay bottom. The greater evidence fails to establish that a draft restrictor placed at the opening to the canal into the shallow bay is sufficient to prevent damage to the bay habitat. Placement of a restrictor only at the mouth of the canal provides no protection to the marine resource once boaters exit the canal and are in the bay. The proposed marking of a "channel" which is marginally sufficient to permit access to deeper waters, fails to protect the resource. A draft restrictor at the canal mouth further provides no protection against damage caused by boaters returning from deeper waters who will be able to travel through the shallow bay before perhaps discovering at the canal mouth that the water is too shallow to permit passage over the restrictor. It is reasonable to assume at that point, the bay will have been damaged by the excessive draft. It is also reasonable to assume that the damage would be exacerbated by the boater who, unable to enter the canal, either exits the too shallow bay, or remains until the water rises sufficiently to permit passage over the restrictor. The evidence fails to establish that it is possible to police the users of the bay to provide that due care is used to prevent bay damage. The Petitioner asserts that the bay is already being used and damaged by other boaters. Even if correct, this project must meet the applicable criteria to be permitted. As set forth herein, the criteria are not met. Based on the evidence and on consideration and balancing of the following criteria, the project is not clearly in and is contrary to the public interest: WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE OR THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS-- The Department does not assert that the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CONSERVATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE, INCLUDING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES, OR THEIR HABITATS-- The evidence establishes that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Pine Island Sound provides habitat for endangered species including manatees, roseate spoonbills, and wood storks. Additionally, bald eagles have been seen in the project site and Pine Island Sound. The direct loss of wetland habitat resulting from this project will adversely affect the conservation of such species. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. The increased boat traffic which may reasonably be expected to result from award of the permit sought will cause damage to the shallow bay waters and result in harm to the health and function of the bay habitat. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT NAVIGATION OR THE FLOW OF WATER OR CAUSE HARMFUL EROSION OR SHOALING-- The Notice of Permit Denial suggests a likelihood of turbidity-related water quality violations which could result from unstabilized fill, the adverse floristic impact caused by fill washout into adjacent wetlands, the loss of the filtering benefits provided via the filled wetlands and the adverse impact on wildlife habitat. The evidence establishes that the parties have resolved concerns related to the mitigation of the wetlands lost and impacted by the fill. The Department does not currently assert that the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the project will increase travel through the shallow bay to adjacent waters by boaters residing in the project. The prop dredging which will occur in the shallow water will result in harmful erosion of the bay bottom. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE FISHING OR RECREATIONAL VALUES OR MARINE PRODUCTIVITY IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT-- The project will likely result in an increase in the number of boaters utilizing the bay and adjacent waters. The turbidity caused by prop dredging in the bay will degrade the water quality and adversely affect the productivity of the impacted marine resource, in turn reducing the fishing values in the vicinity of the project. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL BE OF A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT NATURE-- The project will cause a permanent alteration to the existing condition of the property and will cause a continuing adverse impact to the affected area. WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT OR WILL ENHANCE SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 267.061-- The Department does not assert that this project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. THE CURRENT CONDITION AND RELATIVE VALUE OF FUNCTIONS BEING PERFORMED BY AREAS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY-- The current condition and relative values of the functions being performed in the affected areas will be adversely affected by the granting of this application. The project will result in an adverse impact to and degradation of an Outstanding Florida Water. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. The evidence establishes that adverse secondary and cumulative impacts will result from permitting this project. Aside from the adverse affect of increased boating related to residents of the development, it is reasonable to expect that similarly-situated applicants could seek permits under these circumstances, resulting in additional boating activity and related damage to an Outstanding Florida Waterbody.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying the application of Pine Island Properties, Ltd., for a water quality certification permit in DEP File No. 362004755. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-2713 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1. Rejected, unnecessary. 12. Rejected. Evidence is insufficient to determine whether use of bay by public is "regular." Rejected. The map attached to the application identifies 23 homesites. The Notice of Permit Denial references 23 homesites. Petitioner's exhibit 92 is a set of drawings which indicate 24 homesites, however it is unclear as to why the lots were replatted. Rejected as to reference to South Florida Water Management District, irrelevant. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the project is contrary to public interest. Rejected, argumentative, subordinate. Rejected, irrelevant. Rejected, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that this was the first detailed drawing of the draft restrictor. 32-33. Rejected, irrelevant as to whether project meets permitting criteria. 37-38. Rejected, unnecessary. 39-40. Rejected. The evidence fails to establish that filling in the canal is the "only solution" suggested by the Department. 42. Rejected as to assertion that the Department did not question the conclusion or accuracy of the Petitioner's water depth study, contrary to evidence including the Department's site visit. The conclusion to which the Department agreed is that "local knowledge, proper tidal conditions and informed operators would be essential to a safe and non-habitat damaging passage from the canal mouth to the deeper waters of Pine Island Sound." Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. The Department noted in correspondence that monitoring would not protect the resource. 46-48. Rejected The easement has not been executed or recorded. Rejected. Contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Nothing in the correspondence indicates that all other issues have been resolved. Rejected, immaterial. 56. Rejected, irrelevant. The easement has not been executed or recorded. 57-58. Rejected, immaterial. 60-61. Rejected. Contrary to the greater weight of the credible and persuasive evidence. The testimony of the cited witness is not credited. 62. Rejected, immaterial. Respondent The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 15. Rejected, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. There is no citation to record to support the recalculation. 23. Rejected, contrary to evidence which establishes that the Notice of Permit Denial was issued on March 12, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Harry Blair, Esquire BLAIR & BLAIR, P.A. 2138-40 Hoople Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 John L. Chaves, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9730
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Orange County Parks Department is entitled to a dredge and fill permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation for the construction and installation of a boat dock on Lake Down.
Findings Of Fact The Application On November 1, 1989, Orange County Parks Department (Orange County) applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a floating boat dock in the Town of Windermere on Lake Down. The application, which is dated September 7, 1989, describes the proposed project as a "public improvement of an existing boat ramp facility." The application describes a floating dock attached by short hinged sections to fixed docks that would be affixed, at normal water elevations, to upland. The application explains that the purpose of the dock is to accommodate boats and pedestrians in loading and unloading boats at the ramp. The dock would, according to the application, reduce wave and wakedisturbance action on the existing shoreline and thus reduce the current rate of erosion at the site. The application assures that no existing vegetation would be disturbed except in the area of the fixed docks. According to the application, the floating dock and two fixed docks would measure about 420 feet long by 7 feet wide with several wideouts of about 10 1/2 feet. The dock is designed to moor 15-18 boats simultaneously. The location map attached to and a part of the application shows that the dock would be at the southernmost extent of Lake Down. The survey attached to and a part of the application provides submerged and upland elevations in the vicinity of the proposed dock. The survey states that the water elevation of Lake Down is 98.8 feet. Nothing indicates whether 98.8 feet is the average water elevation or the water elevation on the date of the survey on June 28, 1989. Other portions of the application describe the composition of the dock parts. The only parts in contact with the water would be galvanized steel pilings, which would be jetted or driven not more than 15 feet deep into the submerged bottom, and plastic floats attached to the bottom of the dock for floatation. The application also indicates that construction-period turbidity would be controlled through the use of turbidity curtains. Another diagram attached to and a part of the application superimposes the dock over the submerged elevations. A note on the diagram states that, under "Plan 1 and Plan 2, Orange County would excavate existing grade under floating dock to elev 97.0." The applicant proposed excavation under the dock due to the shallowness of the water under and lakeward of the dock. The diagram depicts a dock that would run parallel, rather than perpendicular, to the shore. The diagram discloses that the proposed dock would begin immediately east of the existing boat ramp. The diagram indicates that the floating dock runs about 390 feet. The elevation at the northwest corner of the west fixed dock is about 100 feet. At what the construction drawings call "average lake elevation" of 99.5 feet, the piling at the northwest corner of the west fixed dock would thus not be submerged. About 15 feet to the east of the northwest corner, where a hinge connects the west fixed dock to the floating dock, the elevation is between 98 and 99 feet. At average water elevation, the shoreside of the floating dock generally ranges from five to ten feet from the shoreline, with extremes of one foot at the southeast corner of the west fixed dock and 17 feet about 220 feet east of this point. The submerged elevations change significantlyunder the 390 feet of floating dock. On the lakeside, where boats would dock, the following elevations exist under the dock at 40 Dock interval 40' 80' 120' 160' Lakebottom elevation 95-96' 95' 92' 93' 200' 240' 280' 320' 360' 390' 91-92' 91' 92-93' 93-94' 96' 96' The submerged elevations are higher (and thus water depths shallower) on the shoreside of the dock, which would not be accessible to boats. For the back of the floating dock, the submerged elevations exceed 97 feet for the westernmost 40 feet and a short segment at the eastern end of the floating dock; the remaining elevations are less than 97 feet. Unlike the west fixed dock, which would stand almost entirely in upland even at average water elevation, the east fixed dock would stand almost entirely in water at the same water elevation. Also, the west fixed dock would be relatively small and run parallel to the shore beside the ramp. The east fixed dock would be oriented in a northwesterly direction from, and perpendicular to, the shore. The northwest and northeast faces of the east fixed dock would be accessible by boats. The submerged elevation under the northwest face, which is between 15 and 20 feet offshore from the average shoreline, is between 95 and 96 feet. The water depth adjoining the northeast face is shallower because the northeast face, although accessible to boats, would runupland, past the average shoreline at 99.5 feet, to an upland elevation of about 101 feet. The rate of drop of submerged elevation is uneven along the length of the proposed floating dock. Water depth increases more rapidly from the center of the floating dock. For instance, at the 200-foot interval from the west end, the elevation drops from about 91.5 feet at the front of the dock to 88 feet at a point ten feet lakeward of, and perpendicular to, the dock. In other words, the water becomes 3 1/2 feet deeper in the first ten feet. The lakebottom drops more gradually at the west and east ends of the proposed dock. For instance, at the 40 increase in depth ten feet out is only about 2 1/2 feet. At the north corner of the east fixed dock, the increase in depth ten feet out is only about 1 1/2 feet. The diagram also depicts the existing boat ramp that would be served by the proposed dock. The ramp, which is oriented in an eastnortheasterly direction from the shore, is less than ten feet north of the proposed west fixed dock. The ramp measures about 20 feet wide upland and about ten feet wider farther out into the water. The elevation of the submerged north corner of the lakeward end of the boat ramp is between 94 and 95 feet. The elevation of the submerged south corner of the lakeward end of the boat ramp is between 95 and 96 feet. The lakebottom isfairly flat at the boat ramp. Over its 40-foot length, the elevation of the ramp changes by only about 5 feet. A separate diagram attached to and a part of the application depicts the floats that would be attached to the bottom of the decking. The floats would be about 18 inches high and draw about three inches of water when the dock is supporting no weight. A 40-inch high railing would run along the back of the dock. However, the railing would not extend along the northwest and northeast faces of the east fixed dock. Thus, nothing would deter a boat from docking along these two faces of the east fixed dock. On November 9, 1989, Orange County filed an application amendment, which contains drawings that eliminate all excavation. The amendment states: "Dock will be relocated if conflict with existing shore occurs." This amendment was filed at the urging of a DER representative, who would not have recommended the application for approval without the change. There are other suggestions in the record that Orange County would be willing to amend its application to locate the proposed dock farther from shore and in deeper waters. However, Orange County did not specifically offer an amendment, and the record offers no indication where the dock would be, if Orange County again amended the application. On June 20, 1990, Orange County informed the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) by letter that the legal description provided with the application was inaccurate. The letter provides a new legal description and a list of adjoining property owners. Mr. Rosser, Ms. Grice, and Mr. Patterson own property adjacent to the proposed project or reside in close proximity to Lake Down so as to be substantially affected by any material degradation of water quality. The new legal description encompasses only 1.46 acres rather than the 12.16 acres set forth in the original application. The land eliminated from the application is west and north of the existing boat ramp. Orange County plans to make considerable improvements to the existing boat ramp, such as by the addition of substantial parking and a septic tank on the land eliminated from the original application. However, the present application does not request any permit for such work. The Intent to Issue On February 26, 1990, DER filed an Intent to Issue the permit for which Orange County had applied. The Intent to Issue indicates that the permit is to construct a floating dock on Lake Down about 420 feet by 7 feet, plus wideouts, and notes that the request to dredge along the dock had been withdrawn. According to the Intent to Issue, the bank between the north side of Conroy-Windermere Road and the shoreline has eroded, probably as a result of boaters pulling their boats onto shore for temporary mooring. Although DER did not determine the water elevation on the date of the inspection, the Intent to Issue reports that water depths range from a few inches alongshore to about three feet at the shoreside of the proposed dock. The Intent to Issue notes that Orange County is currently trying to condemn the land north and west of the boat ramp to upgrade the launching facility with a larger ramp, picnic area, and parking spaces for between 50 and 100 vehicles. The Intent to Issue finds that the proposed docking facility and its associated boat traffic would not result in violations of state water quality standards nor degradation of ambient conditions in Lake Down or the Butler Chain. Except for limited construction-period turbidity, which could be controlled with a siltation barrier, displacement or disruption of the lakebottom would reportedly occur only during piling installation, and shoreline vegetation would be removed only at the fixed docks at either end of the floating dock. Addressing prop dredging, the Intent to Issue notes: It is not anticipated that damage to the lake bottom will result from boats moving into and away from the dock. If water levels fall to particularly low levels, the county can close the ramp until adequate depth is available again. Addressing the possibility of increased boat traffic on the lake, the Intent to Issue states: It is not anticipated that use of ramp will significantly increase as a result of the proposed construction. Those individuals who are seriously interested in accessing the Butler Chain have done so despite the poor facility currently available. The new dock will provide mooring capability without causing shoreline erosion. Furthermore, the dock will provide a safer place for boatersto walk and wait. Presently, because there is no onsite parking nor mooring available, boaters park vehicles to the east of the boat ramp site in an undeveloped parcel. They then walk west along Conroy-Windermere Road while sharing the road shoulder with vehicles and trailers. The dock, in combination with the proposed (upland) sidewalk won't shorten the distance to be walked but will remove pedestrians from the roadway sooner to the relative safety of the mooring area. The Intent to Issue concludes that Orange County has provided reasonable assurance that the project will not result in violations of state water quality standards and that the project is clearly in the public interest. Thus, DER expressed its intent to issue the permit, subject to various conditions, in the absence of a timely filed petition. Specific condition 7 of the Intent to Issue addresses the issue of prop dredging: When the lake level drops to the point where boats entering and leaving the dock cause damage to submerged bottoms in the immediate area, the county shall close the ramp and dock until the water returns to acceptable levels. Specific condition 8 addresses the County's plans for additional improvements for the boat ramp facility: Issuance of a permit for the dock does not guarantee nor infer issuance of a permit orpermits for further improvements to the county boat launching facility. Additional Findings Regarding Upland Orlando and the more densely populated areas are generally to the north and east of the boat ramp; Orlando itself is about 10 miles away. The center of the Town of Windermere, which numbers about 1400 persons, is to the west of the boat ramp. About 80% of the users of the boat ramp approach the ramp from the east. A small vehicle-maneuvering area adjoins the ramp on the west. After unloading the boat into the water, the driver of the trailer-towing vehicle typically drives east on Conroy-Windermere Road about 1600 feet and parks on the south side of the road in a large unimproved lot. The County's permission to use the lot is terminable by the owner without notice. While the vehicle and trailer are being parked, the person or persons with the boat normally start the engine and idle just offshore from the ramp or moor on the sandy beach immediately east of the boat ramp. After parking the vehicle, the driver generally crosses to the north side of Conroy-Windermere Road and walks along a sidewalk running from the parking area to what would be the east end of the proposed dock. The road and the sandy beach are separated by a thin strip of thick vegetation. Pedestrians continuing westalong the road, past a point across from the east end of the beach, must walk in the staging lane designed for vehicles waiting to enter the maneuvering area. An existing sidewalk on the south side of the road, which runs east of the ramp area, is not used as much because the sidewalk ends almost 800 feet east of the parking area. Pedestrians typically rejoin their boat at some point along the sandy beach immediately east of the boat ramp. When the boat is spotted, the pedestrian cuts through the vegetation on one of four or five paths running at intervals between the north side of the road and the beach. Traffic on these paths has worn them down noticeably from the prevailing elevations on either side. The same pattern is repeated upon the return of the boat, which is temporarily moored onshore to allow the driver to disembark, take the nearest path to the road, walk along the north side of the road to the parking area, cross the road, and return with the vehicle to the boat ramp. Normal summertime usage, when the boat ramp is used more frequently, involves a range of 30-65 boat launchings per day from the boat ramp. However, peak usage is much higher; nearly 400 trailers have been in the parking area at one time. Present upland usage of the boat ramp area is risky. The staging lane mixes pedestrians and motor vehicles towing trailers. The speed limit on Conroy-Windermere Road is 35 miles per hour at the parking area and 30 miles per hour at theramp, so westbound traffic is still moving rapidly past the staging lane. Also, Conroy-Windermere Road, which is an urban collector, is heavily travelled with an average daily traffic count of 9400 vehicles. Pedestrians crossing the road at the parking area 1600 feet west of the ramp must cross 22- 24 feet of highway. Pedestrians crossing the road at the boat ramp must cross about 50 feet of highway due to the presence of the staging lane and a painted median. Upland safety would be enhanced by separating pedestrians from the staging lane. However, the addition of the floating dock would not eliminate the risks associated with upland usage of the boat ramp. Persons still would be required to cross Conroy-Windermere Road, although a proposed crosswalk would reduce present risks somewhat. In addition, the existing sidewalk on the north side of the road would be reconfigured to lead to the floating boat dock, which would be incorporated into the sidewalk system leading toward the center of the Town of Windermere. For some persons using the dock segment of the sidewalk, such as young children and the disabled, close proximity with the water and mooring boats might prove unsafe. Conroy-Windermere Road has existed for many years, but the portion of the road parallel to the proposed dock was added only about 30 years ago. Previously, the road had turned south, but, following a serious traffic accident, the curve was straightened. Large amounts of fill were added to form the roadbed across the southern tip of Lake Down, which consequentlywas cut off from the remainder of the lake. This fill forms the bank leading to the shoreline directly parallel to the proposed dock. The boat ramp has also existed for many years. Years ago, grove trucks drove down to the lake in order to take on irrigation water. From time to time, persons would put in canoes at this point. Until the late 1960's, when Orange County paved the ramp, few if any powerboats were launched from the area or even used the lake. Today, the overwhelming majority of boats using the ramp currently are gasoline-powered motorboats. There are no restrictions on Lake Down as to the size of engine permitted on the lake, and the posted speed limit is 36 miles per hour. The area surrounding the boat ramp features few amenities. Apart from the maneuvering area, staging lane, and ramp itself, the only other improvements are an enclosed portable toilet and a dumpster garbage container. The Town of Windermere operates two boat ramps on the Butler Chain-- one on Lake Down and one on Lake Butler. Use of these ramps is reserved for Town residents and their guests. The remaining boat ramps on the chain are owned by corporations or private associations. Some boat traffic on the lake is from the use of private boat docks owned by persons owning lakefront land. Lake Down and the Butler Chain Designation as Outstanding Florida Waters By report dated January, 1984, DER recommended that the Environmental Regulation Commission designate as Outstanding Florida Waters the Butler Chain of Lakes: Lake Down, Lake Butler, Wauseon Bay, Lake Louise, Lake Palmer, Lake Chase, Lake Tibet, Lake Sheen, Pocket Lake, Little Fish Lake, and their connecting waterways. The January, 1984 report (DER Report), states that the Butler Chain drains into the Upper Kissimmee River Basin. Noting that Lake Down is the northernmost lake in the chain, the DER Report states that water flow in the lakes, which are interconnected by a series of man-made navigable canals, runs from north to south. Reviewing Florida and applicable federal anti-degradation policies protecting high quality waters, the DER Report states: This antidegradation policy is predicated on the principle that resources are so precious that degradation should not occur except after full consideration of the consequences and then only to the extent necessitated by important economic and social development. Scientifically, the principle is a valid one in that history has taught that adverse effects are difficult to predict. As scientific knowledge grows, previously unknown effects are discovered, and it is prudent to preserve our natural resources in the face of the unknown. DER Report, January 11, 1984 memorandum from DER to Environmental Regulation Commission, page 4. The Butler Chain covers 4700 acres. The largestlake is Lake Butler, which consists of 1665 acres. Lake Down, which is the third largest, consists of 872 acres. Depths of the lakes range from 15-30 feet. According to the DER Report, the upper seven lakes are oligo-mesotrophic with low productivity, high water clarity, and deeper waters. The lower three lakes (Sheen, Pocket, and Fish Lakes) are mesotrophic, with moderate productivity, high coloration of water, and shallower waters. The DER Report states that the water quality of the lakes is excellent. Lake Down had the highest level of dissolved oxygen: 7.1 mg/l. Biochemical oxygen demand was extremely low, in most cases, including Lake Down, less than 1.0 mg/l. Lake Down also had the lowest presence of chlorophyll a, which is a measure of the presence of algae, and a higher degree of biologically diversity, which is typical of a clean, soft-acid lake, according to the DER Report. The DER Report concludes that: An OFW designation will preserve the present environmental values of the Butler Chain of Lakes without any important environmental costs. The existing ecosystem and recreational use of the lakes is dependent upon the maintenance of sufficiently high levels of water quality, which an OFW designation would help to ensure. Id. at 23. The DER Report also includes a May, 1975 report of the Orange County Pollution Control Department, which concedes that the Butler Chain is: one of the few clean water systems left in the Central Florida area. The balance between available nutrient concentrations and the biotic communities has maintained an ecosystem free from the problems that are associated with more enriched systems. The balance is fragile and not well understood. Any activities which would effect this system will express itself [sic] in the aquatic habitat. May, 1975 report, page 4. At the time of its designation, the proposal received numerous endorsements and no objections. On August 16, 1983, The Orange County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution urging DER to designate the Butler Chain as Outstanding Florida Waters. The Orange County Property Appraiser also supported the designation. In a letter to DER dated September 30, 1983, the appraiser warns that pollution could decrease surrounding property values and cost taxpayers substantial sums for cleanup. Additional Findings Regarding Lake Down Effect of Addition of Floating Dock 53. Neither the submerged galvanized steel pilings nor the plastic floats would allow materials to leach into the lake so as to affect measurably the composition or quality of the water. The increased turbidity during construction of the proposed floating dock also could be controlled so as not to have a significant effect on Lake Down. 2. Relevant Water Levels Water levels have fluctuated considerably in Lake Down. Since January, 1960, to present, the lowest recorded water elevation was 93.86 feet in February, 1987, and the highestelevation was 101.58 feet in August, 1960. Recorded water elevations were less than 97 feet from October, 1977 through August, 1979 and September, 1980 through November, 1982 (during which time the elevation attained 96 feet only six months). Water elevations were between 97 and 98 feet, inclusive, for an additional 29 months during this 31-year period. From March, 1987 through May, 1989, water levels were between 99 and 100 feet, attaining 100 feet only in December of 1987 and 1989. From June through August, 1989, water levels were between 98 and 99 feet. From September, 1989 through the date of the final hearing, water elevations were below 97.8 feet. From mid-March, 1990 through the date of the hearing, water elevations dropped from 97 feet to 96 feet; at the time of the hearing, the water elevation was about 96 feet. When the water elevation is 97.8 feet or less, the canal to Wauseon Bay and, from there, to Lake Butler is impassable to all but very small flatbottom boats. At these times, boat traffic tends to concentrate on Lake Down. Three witnesses for the County and DER testified as to the relationship between the water level of the lake and the operation of the floating dock. One witness for the County testified that the dock would float at 99.5 feet, which corresponds to ordinary high water. The designer of the dock testified that the east and west ends of the dock would cease floating at 96 feet. The DER representative testified that the dock and, pursuant to Special Condition 7, the ramp should beclosed at depths less than 95 feet. The meaning of Special Condition 7 is unclear. First, it is not clear what is meant by boats causing damage to submerged bottoms in the immediate area. Probably, this phrase means actual contact between the prop and bottom, which is known as prop dredging. Thus, boats cause damage to submerged bottoms when the depth of the water is about one foot or less. Special Condition 7 probably ignores the effect of prop wash, where the prop disturbs the bottom, including vegetation, by turbulence rather than direct contact. The second major ambiguity in Special Condition 7 cannot be resolved on the basis of the present record. The question is whether the ramp and entire dock must be closed whenever the water depth under any part of the dock is one foot or less (recognizing that the floats require about one foot of water). In the alternative, Orange County could close only that part of the dock as to which the underlying water depth is one foot or less. It is likely that DER and Orange County have different opinions on this question, with the County taking the latter position. Regardless how Special Condition 7 is construed, it fails to address the damage to submerged bottom that the"floating" dock will do when parts of it begin to ground. When partly grounded, the floating dock will pound up and down on the lakebottom in response to wave action and traffic on the dock. Over 40 feet of the shoreside of the dock will be grounded at water elevations of 97 feet or less, which, without regard to the effect of dock loading or wave action, is the point at which "dock dredging" commences. Water elevations have been less than 98 feet for a total of nearly seven of the last 31 years. The east and west ends of the lakeside of the floating dock would also begin to ground at a water level of about 97 feet. By the time water elevation falls to 96 feet, which existed at the time of the hearing, at least 80 feet of the west end of the floating dock and at least 30 feet of the east end of the floating dock would be grounded, again assuming no wave action and no load on the dock. Additionally, prop dredging would also take place at water elevations of 97 feet immediately adjacent to the dock, at its east and west ends. These water elevations have been experienced for a total of over four of the last 31 years. Another feature of the design of the proposed dock makes it likely that prop dredging will take place regardless of the water elevation. A popular area of the proposed dock would be the east fixed dock because it would be the closest point, by more than 100 yards in some cases, to the existing parking area. Boats could approach the northeast face of the east fixed dock up to an elevation of 101 feet. In other words, except in periods of unusual high water, some boats could and probably would use a section of the fixed dock in the same manner as temporary moorings are made today: in effect, by running up onto the beach. Prop dredging of the bottom would take place if boats approached the northwest face of the fixed dock when the water level fell to about 96.5 feet. The same is true for at least the first 40 feet of the west end of the floating dock. The resuspension of bottom sediment by prop wash would begin at depths of anywhere from 18 inches to seven feet, according to the testimony of the DER representative. Although important variables, such as the composition of the bottom and size and speed of the prop, affect prop wash, significant prop wash takes place for at least three feet under the prop. If three feet were the minimum depth necessary to avoid prop wash and, thus, lakebottom damage, the east 160 feet and west 70 feet of the floating dock would not be usable at water levels not exceeding 96 feet, such as at the time of the final hearing. The significance of lakebottom damage is great under and lakeward of the proposed dock. A thick carpet of bogmoss begins about ten feet offshore, which is roughly where the dock would begin, and continues out into the lake. Bog moss, which captures and retains sediments, would be damaged by the dredging action of the pounding floating dock when it begins to ground and boats using the floating dock at water elevations described in the preceding paragraphs. The phosphorus-rich sediments would then be resuspended in the water column. 3. Ambient Water Quality One of the key elements to preserving the health of Lake Down is to avoid conditions that can lead to the presence of excessive nutrients in the system. The presence of excessive nutrients, which leads to eutrophication, usually occurs because of the increased availability of a limiting nutrient. The limiting nutrient in Lake Down is phosphorus. Thus, a condition precedent to the eutrophication of Lake Down is an increase in the level of phosphorus in the water. The presence of phosphorus in the water can be detected directly, by measuring the phosphorus itself. The presence of phosphorus can also be detected indirectly, by measuring the effects of the nutrient or conditions that may result in the release into the water of additional phosphorus. Indicators of the nutrient levels of a lake include the presence of chlorophyll a, which, as a measure of the amount of algae in the water, is an indicator of the enrichment process. As a lake proceeds from an oligotrophic to a mesotrophic condition or from a mesotrophic to a eutrophiccondition, the presence of algae and chlorophyll a will increase. Indicators of conditions that may result in the release of additional phosphorus into the water include turbidity measurements and clarity data, such as Secchi depths. The sediment found in the submerged lakebottom contains greater concentrations of phosphorus in various organic and inorganic and soluble and insoluble forms than the water column itself contains. When this sediment is disturbed, part of the previously trapped phosphorus is released into the water column. The phosphorus is thereby made more readily available for supplying the nutrients necessary to contribute to the enrichment process, at least until the phosphorus settles back into the sediment where it can be locked up until redisturbed. As relevant to this case, the ambient water quality of Lake Down in the baseline year can largely be assessed in terms of the following data, which are obtained from Orange County Exhibit 13: chlorophyll a: 1.01 ug/l; turbidity: 1 NTU; total phosphorus: .01 mg/l; Secchi depth: 3.5 meters; and pH: 5.97. In the year ending immediately preceding the filing of the County's application, the following data were collected, according to Orange County Exhibit 13: chlorophyll a: 1.59 ug/l; turbidity: .75 NTU; total phosphorus: .01 mg/l; Secchi depth: over 3.5 meters; and pH: 6.36. In the summer of 1990, when the hearing took place, the County's expert collected from Lake Down the followingaveraged data, which are shown on Orange County Exhibits 15 and 17: chlorophyll a: 1.22 ug/l; total phosphorus: .011 mg/l; Secchi depth: over 4 meters; turbidity: 1.0-1.2 NTU's; and pH: 6.97. In the same summer, the Town of Windermere's expert collected the following data from Lake Down: turbidity: 0.92-1.8 NTU's; pH: up to 7.2; and total phosphate: .04-.05 mg/l. The only finding materially different from the findings of the County's expert is the amount of total phosphate. The findings of both experts are credited. The higher finding is supported by, among other things, the recording in the County's records of .037 mg/l of total phosphorus on May 15, 1990, according to Orange County Exhibit 12. In a phosphate-limited, oligo-mesotrophic lake such as Lake Down, total phosphates of .03-.04 mg/l require serious attention in terms of what may be the beginning of a significant degradation of ambient water quality standards. The increase in chlorophyll a is consistent with a trend toward enrichment of the lake since the baseline year. The record establishes the role of motorboat traffic in degrading ambient water quality. Bottom sedimentsoften contain many times more phosphorus than is found in the water column. In the case of Lake Down, sampled bottom sediment contained 11 mg/l of phosphorus, or over 200 times the amount contained in the water column. The phosphorus is trapped in the sediment, which, if disturbed, releases the phosphorus back into the water column. Prop dredging may resuspend the sediments and release the phosphorus, as well as destroy bottom vegetation that tends to retain the sediments. Prop wash also may resuspend bottom sediments, even to depths of seven feet beneath the churning prop. Ultimate Findings of Fact Impact of Proposed Dock on Boat Traffic The proposed floating dock would substantially increase use of Lake Down by motorboats. The dock would generate increased boat traffic on Lake Down because of improvements in navigability in the vicinity of the boat ramp and convenience for boaters in picking up and dropping off passengers and walking between the existing parking area and mooring area. The dock, which would be longer than a football field, is designed to moor 15-18 boats simultaneously. At typical current launching rates, the dock would be capable of mooring, at one time, one-quarter to one-half of the boats using the boat ramp on a given day. DER reasons in the Intent to Issue that boat usage would not increase significantly because persons seriously interested in accessing the Butler Chain have overcome the limitations of the present facility. This reasoning ignores persons more casually interested in accessing the Butler Chain. The above-described improvements in navigability and upland safety will increase the frequency of their visits, which presently may be limited to peak days, such as holidays. If the ratio of serious to casual users corresponds roughly to the ratio of typical boat launches to peak boat launches, the number of casual users may outnumber their more earnest counterparts by six to one. The large capacity of the proposed boat dock suggests that Orange County was targeting these more casual boaters. In theory, Special Condition 7 could have a substantial effect upon boaters' access to Lake Down if the ramp and dock were closed when water elevations fell to 97 feet, at which point much of the shoreside of the dock would already be grounding and boats could not approach the east or west ends of the dock without prop dredging. The ambiguity of Special Condition 7, whose meaning remains elusive even after DER and Orange County have had opportunities to explain its operation, precludes assigning the condition any significance, except as a clear invitation to litigate in the event the floating dock were constructed under the subject Intent to Issue. 2. Ambient Water Quality 79. As relevant to this case, the relevant ambientwater quality of Lake Down is the baseline year. The value of chlorophyll a was 50% lower in the year ending March, 1984, than in the year ending with the subject application. Total phosphorus was about the same, as were Secchi depths. Turbidity was 25% less in the latter year, but the lake had acidified slightly. 3. Changes in Water Quality The water quality of Lake Down has deteriorated since it was designated an Outstanding Florida Water. The amount of chlorophyll a has increased, which is consistent with increased levels of nutrients in the water column. By the summer of 1990, phosphate readings were as much as four or five times greater than in the baseline year and had reached a level that threatens water quality in a phosphate-limited lake such as Lake Down. The role of motorboat traffic in disturbing phosphate-laden bottom sediments and destroying bottom vegetation has been discussed above. The dock dredging at lower water elevations, which are frequently encountered, as well as prop dredging immediately adjacent to the dock, would be especially harmful in view of the thick carpet of bog moss present underneath and lakeward of the proposed dock. 4. Effect of Proposed Dock on Water Quality Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not lower ambient water quality standards with respect to the effects of dock dredging, prop dredging in the immediate vicinity of the dock, and prop wash associated with increased powerboat traffic on the entire lake. Boats presently mooring on the south shore undoubtedly dredge the bottom with their props. However, the effects are less destructive than the prop dredging that would be associated with the proposed dock, even ignoring the effects of dock dredging and prop wash from additional powerboats. First, fewer boats are using the area now than would be with the proposed dock. Second, although possibly once vegetated, the lakebottom adjacent to the shore is sandy without much vegetation or sediment, so resuspension of sediment and release of phosphorus is less of a problem presently than it would be with the use associated with the new dock. The record does not support a finding that the water quality of Lake Down has been adversely affected by the erosion of rubble and fill from the bank used to construct the realigned Conroy-Windermere Road 30 years ago. Concerns about unfiltered stormwater runoff bypassing the vegetated strip by pouring down the eroded paths into the lake are misplaced. Some governmental entity has installed a stormwater system along aconsiderable part of Conroy-Windermere Road, and the outfall is directly into Lake Down shoreside of the west end of the proposed dock. 5. Effect of Proposed Project on Public Interest Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project would be clearly in the public interest after balancing the statutory criteria. The proposed project would achieve a net gain in upland safety, although not without exposing pedestrians using the sidewalk to new risks. The project would also increase boater safety by improving navigability in the vicinity of the boat ramp. However, degradations in water quality negatively impact the issues of public health, the property of others, the conservation of fish and wildlife, and fishing or recreational values, which ironically may be threatened as Lake Down risks becoming a victim of its well-deserved popularity. The current condition and relative values of the functions performed by the lakebottom also militate against a finding that the proposed project, which would be permanent in nature, is clearly in the public interest. The factors in the preceding paragraph outweigh the statutory factors in favor of a finding that the project is clearly in the public interest. In addition to the gains in upland safety and navigability, the other favorable factors are that the proposed project would not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. A neutral factor isthat the proposed project would not help or harm significant historic and archaeologic resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the application of the Orange County Parks Department for a dredge and fill permit to construct a floating dock 420 feet by 7 feet. ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Orange County Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-7 (except last sentence of Paragraph 6); 9 (except for last two sentences)- 11 (except first sentence); 12 (except that the amendment eliminated all construction-related dredging)-19 (except the railing in Paragraph 14 runs the entire landward side of the floating dock, but not the fixed docks); 20 (except the last sentence); 25; 27 (except last sentence); 29 (first sentence; however, the implication that the erosion is having an adverse effect on water quality is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence); 30 (except that the implication that wave and wake action are presently eroding the shore is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence); 32; 33 (in sense of increasing boater usage of lake, but not in sense of maintaining the water conditions on which the lake ultimately depends for its recreational value); 35-36; 39 (third and fourth sentences); 40 (there would be a net increase in upland safety); 42 (the crosswalk would somewhat increase upland user safety); 43; 44 (through the colon); 46; 48 (second and third sentences); 49 (except that the summer, 1990, findings of Windermere's expert are also credited); 51 (except as to the improvement in ambient water quality between baseline year and year immediately preceding the application); 52 (except for characterization of chlorophyll a value as very low) with attendant implication that this value, in conjunction with readings of .04-.05 mg/l of phosphate in the summer of 1990, is not cause for serious concern); 56-57; 59 (all but first sentence); 60 (second and third sentences); and 71 (last sentence). Rejected as irrelevant: 6 (last sentence); 11 (first sentence); 20 (last sentence); 21-22; 26 (second sentence); 28; 44 (following the colon)-45; 47; 54 (first sentence); 55 (there is no safe harbor for proposed projects whoseeffects would degrade ambient water quality, but still leave the waters in good condition); 67; and 74-75. Rejected as subordinate: 8; 9 (last two sentences); 28; 34 (second sentence); 41; 53; 63 (except for first sentence); 64; 69; and 74-75. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 23; 26 (first sentence); 27 (last sentence); 29 (second sentence); 31; 34 (except second sentence); 37 (except whether the proposed dock is a political "hot potato" is irrelevant); 38 (except that the existing facility is "very mediocre"); 50 (second sentence as to relevant ambient water quality and third sentence); 54; 55 (although the water quality in Lake Down remains generally good, recent readings of phosphorus levels of .04-.05 mg/l are a cause of serious concern); 58; 59 (first sentence, at least as to the bottom beginning around where the dock would be placed); 60 (first sentence); 61 (the County's own survey, which accompanied the application, has been credited over the incidental findings of an expert, who did not carefully establish the exact proposed location of the dock and was preoccupied with water sampling); 62 (strictly speaking, the County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat dock will not lead to degradation in ambient water quality); and 63 (first sentence)-71 (except for last sentence). Rejected as unnecessary: 39 (first two sentences) and 72-73. Rejected as recitation of evidence: 48 (first sentence) and 50 (first and second sentences except for the identification of the baseline year and the year immediately preceding the application). Miscellaneous: 24: first sentence is adopted in substance as the average is probably about 10', although the distance is as much as 17'. The second sentence as to where the boat dock could be built--i.e., further away from theshore to reduce or eliminate dock dredging--is rejected as irrelevant. Orange County did not offer to amend its application, nor even provide a new location for the dock. In any event, the relocation of the dock in deeper water would not reduce the damage done to the lake by the prop wash associated with the additional boat traffic that the new dock would generate. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DER Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-5 (except erosion-protection clause in Paragraph 4); 6 (first sentence, although the elevations have been discussed in detail in the findings and, though the dock probably averages about 10' from normal shoreline, it is as much as 17' offshore); 7-14 (except, as to Paragraph 8, 41-65 launchings represents typical summertime usage and 395 represents peak usage, probably on a holiday); 18; 19 (second sentence); 26-28; 30 (first sentence); 33-34; 37-39 (except, as to Paragraph 38, first sentence and last clause implying the need to control erosion to protect water quality); 41-42; and 46-47. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 4 (erosion-protection clause); 6 (second sentence because the County's own survey, which accompanied the application, has been credited over the incidental findings of an expert, who did not carefully establish the exact proposed location of the dock and was preoccupied with water sampling); 15 (except second and fourth sentences); 16 (first sentence); 17; 19 (first and second sentences); 25; 29-32 (except first sentence of Paragraph 30); 35; 36 (except first sentence); 38 (first sentence and last clause implying the need to control erosion to protect water quality); 40; and 43-44. Rejected as recitation of evidence: (second and fourth sentences). Rejected as irrelevant: (second through fourth sentences) and 19 (third sentence--there is no safe harbor forproposed projects whose effects would degrade ambient water quality, but still leave the waters in good condition--and last sentence). Rejected as unnecessary: 19 (last sentence as to benzene); 21-23 (except that the facts of this case, such as the quick elimination of benzene from the water and the proximity of sampling to boat periods of numerous boat launches and no rain, suggest that gasoline-powered boats, not stormwater, are responsible for most of the benzene finding its way into Lake Down); 24-25; and 45. Rejected as subordinate: 20. Rejected as repetitious: 36 (first sentence). Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Windermere Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-14 (except last sentence of Paragraph 11); 18-19; 26 (first and last sentences); 28 (first three sentences through "not be floating" and third and second to last sentences, although the prospect of either DER or orange County interpreting Special Condition 7 as requiring the closure of the entire facility for significant periods of time is highly remote); 33-34; 35 (as to intention to construct crosswalk); 38; 40 (first three sentences); 42 (first three sentences); 46 (first sentence); 49 (second sentence); 50 (except second sentence); 51 (first sentence); 52 (except last sentence); 54-57; 59 (first two sentences)-61 (except for final sentences in Paragraphs 60, as to benzene, and 61); 62; 65 (last sentence); and 67. Rejected as subordinate: 11 (last sentence); 15-17; 21-25; 27; 28 (all sentences not adopted in whole); 29-32; 35 (except as to intention to construct crosswalk); 36-37; 39; 40 (last sentence); 42 (last three sentences); 43-45; 46 (fourth sentence); 48; 49 (third and fourth sentences); 63; 65 (except last sentence); and 68-71. Rejected as irrelevant: 16; 20; 22; 49 (first sentence); and 53. Rejected as recitation of evidence: 26 (all but first and last sentences); 31; 35 (except as to intention to construct crosswalk); 41; 44-45; and 46 (second and third sentences). Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 28 (portion of third sentence following "not be floating"; Orange County's position as to the meaning of Special Condition 7 did not emerge from the record, largely because of an apparent lack of detailed understanding of the impact upon the submerged bottoms of particular water elevations in terms of dock dredging and prop dredging); 50 (second sentence); 51 (second sentence); 64; and 66. Rejected as unnecessary: 47; 52 (last sentence); 58-59 (last two sentences); 60 (as to benzene); and 61. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Rosser and Grice Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-39 (as to Paragraph 18, the only navigable connection and, as to Paragraph 19, the surface elevation); 45; 51 (at least as to desirability); 57 (except first sentence); 58; 59; 61-64 (except last sentence of Paragraph 64); 66 (second sentence); 68-69; 74 (fourth sentence); 75-76; 80-81; 83; 86; 88; 89 (the specific elevations have been discussed in detail in the order); 94; 96; 97; and 102. Rejected as irrelevant: 40-42; 52-55; 70-72; 74 (third and last sentences); 77-78; 84; 90; 101; and 103. Rejected as subordinate: 43-44; 46-50; 53-55; 57 (first sentence); 60; 73-74 (first and second sentences); 82 (first sentence); 85; 99-100; and 104-05. Rejected as unnecessary: 56; 59; 64 (last sentence)-66 (first sentence); 91-92; 95; and 98. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 67; 82 (second sentence); 87; and 93. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. Maclaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Joel D. Prinsell, Assistant County Attorney Eugene Legette, Assistant County Attorney Orange County Legal Department P.O. Box 1393 Orlando, FL 32802-1393 J. Christy Wilson, III Brigham, Moore, et al. 111 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1575 Orlando, FL 32801 J. Stephen McDonald John M. Robertson Robertson, Williams, et al. 538 East Washington Street Orlando, FL 32801 Robert W. Williams P.O. Box 247 Windermere, FL 34786 Carl D. Patterson, Jr. 219 Third Avenue Windermere, FL 34786
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Sunrise is entitled to the permit for the construction of the proposed marina.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On or about February 3, 1988, Sunrise submitted an application to the Department for permission to construct a 33 slip marina to be located at 2701 D. Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The dock facilities to be built include four sections designed to accommodate yachts 70 feet or longer in length. The proposed marina would be located in a body of water known as Coral Bay. The bay opens onto the Intracoastal Waterway at the Sunrise Boulevard bridge. This marina is subject to the Department's permitting requirements under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-12, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed marina does not require dredging. The only filling would be incidental to the placement of the pilings (supporting the dock system) and the rip rap (recommended by the Department to enhance fish habitation). Coral Bay is a Class III water which currently meets water quality standards for such classification. The water body east of the proposed marina is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On or about October 12, 1988, the Department issued an Intent to Issue the permit requested by Sunrise. The notice of the Intent to Issue was published on October 24, 1988. Thereafter, petitioners timely filed challenges to the proposed project. As specific conditions of the permit, the Department required the following provisions which are pertinent to the Kaye challenge: The required 300 cubic yards of natural limestone 1-3' diameter rip rap shall be placed at the toe of the bulkhead before the construction of the marginal pier. No sewage shall be discharged into the marina basin or other waters of the State. Sewage pump out facilities shall be provided, used and at all times maintained and operable. A permit is required from Broward County and shall be acquired to validate this permit. An effective means of turbidity control, such as, but not limited to, turbidity curtains shall be employed during all operations that may create turbidity so that it shall not exceed 29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units above natural background value. Turbidity control devices shall remain in place until all turbidity has subsided. * * * 8. Manatee Construction Conditions (copy enclosed) shall be implemented and in effect and Manatee Caution Signs and Educational Displays, per enclosed directive, shall be implemented. The proposed marina will occupy the southern half of Coral Bay. The Kaye property is north of the proposed site. Further north are a cooperative of townhome units and a yacht club. Access to the bay and to the Intracoastal Waterway is afforded these properties via a channel 75 feet in width which divides the bay waters. The proposed marina would not intrude into the access channel. There is an existing concrete seawall which extends vertically along the shoreline of the subject property. The parking and structures to be built incidental to the marina have been designed to require run off or drainage landward and not into Coral Bay. The water depth in the proposed marina is approximately 8 to 9 feet except along the shoreline where the depth is approximately 5 feet. It is not anticipated that the operation of the yachts will cause a significant disturbance of the marina basin floor. 10 The tidal flushing in Coral Bay is sufficient to remove incidental levels of pollutants which may be discharged. Therefore, the proposed marina will not have a significant impact on water quality. The incidental pollutants which may be expected are such items as paint leaching or minor fuel spills. Since the marina will not have fueling facilities and since sewage pump out facilities are mandated, it is not anticipated that these forms of waste will be significant to this project. The proposed marina will not have an adverse effect on the flow of water in the basin nor should it cause erosion or sedimentation. Further, it is not anticipated that the marina will adversely affect the water quality in the Outstanding Florida Water near the site. Although no water testing was performed at this site, the biota appears healthy. A number of fishes actively forage in the waters and algae can be observed down to a depth of 6 feet. Consequently, the water is clear enough to support growth to that depth. A number of birds feed and rest in the subject area. The docks are likely to displace the birds' direct access to feeding areas but it is anticipated that the rip rap will increase the surface areas available for organism development and thereby enhance the environment for fishes. While the docks will result in an estimated 16,700 square feet of shadowing of open water, given the benefits of the required rip rap, the overall impact should not be negative. Construction began on the Sunrise Boulevard bridge approximately three years ago. Manatees have not been observed at the proposed site since the work began. However, because it is known that manatees frequented this area before the construction and may again, manatee construction conditions and manatee signage provisions have been required by this permit. The construction provisions will require Sunrise to cease all construction upon the sighting of a manatee until such time as the animal vacates the area. Further, the signage provisions will require Sunrise to display warnings and to inform all marina users of the possibility of manatees in the area. Immediate notification to the appropriate authorities is required in the event a manatee is injured. It is anticipated that the proposed marina will displace transient use of Coral Bay. This loss when weighed against the benefits of having a docking facility available to yachts (with the amenities of power and fresh water) does not establish a negative recreational impact on the proposed site. The 75 foot channel is sufficient for safe passage to and from the Intracoastal Waterway and the properties owned by Sunrise and the Kayes. The proposed marina will not adversely affect recreational use of the properties. The project is intended to be of a permanent nature. The project will have no effect on significant historical and archaeological resources. There are no outstanding permits which, when reviewed in connection with this project, would establish that the water quality will be adversely affected by the proposed marina. It is not anticipated that the proposed marina, subject to the general and specific conditions of the permit, will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. The negative affect to the property of others is minimal given the overall enhancement to the recreational and biological environments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order approving the permit for Sunrise Bay Harbour, Inc. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER KAYE: To the extent that paragraph 1 concludes the Department did not consider the Canrael permit in evaluating the Sunrise permit, such fact is accepted. However, under the facts of this case, the Department was not required to consider such permit since it was not contemplated that both projects could or would be built. The Canrael permit had expired prior to October 26, 1988, and Canrael formally abandoned its interest, if any, in the permit at the hearing in this cause. Paragraph 2 is rejected as argument, irrelevant or immaterial to the issues of this case. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The first two sentences of paragraph 6 are accepted but are irrelevant. The last sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or argument. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is rejected as argument and is either contrary to the weight of the evidence presented or unsupported by evidence in this cause. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 23 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "both lawful and unlawful," paragraph 24 is accepted. Paragraphs 25 through 29 are accepted. Paragraph 30 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues in this case. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY SUNRISE: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted as stipulated by the parties at the outset of this case. Paragraph 3 is accepted. The parties did not oppose the tender of Mr. Nero in the categories listed. Paragraphs 4 through 7 are accepted. To the extent that paragraph 8 states this proposed project is within Class III waters, such paragraph is accepted. However, to the east of Coral Bay is a body listed as Outstanding Florida Water. Consequently any suggestion otherwise is rejected as contrary to the facts of this case. Paragraphs 9 through 22 are accepted. Paragraph 23 is accepted. Paragraph 24 is rejected as not supported by the evidence presented in this cause. Paragraph 25 is accepted but is unnecessary irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 26 is accepted. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, or unnecessary to the resolution of issues in this case. Paragraph 28 is accepted but is irrelevant immaterial, or unnecessary to the resolution of issues in this case. Paragraph 29 is rejected as contrary to the weigh of the evidence. Manatees have not been seen since the bridge construction began approximately three years ago. Exactly when, prior to that, a manatee was within Coral Bay is not disclosed by this record. Paragraph 30 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 31 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: For Petitioner Canrael: Mary F. Smallwood Ruden, Barnett, McClosy, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street Monroe-Park Tower, Suite 1010 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 For Petitioners Kaye: Brion L. Blackwelder JACOBSON AND FINKEL 3363 Sheridan Street, Suite 204 Hollywood, Florida 33021 Jack and Harriet Kaye 1100-1120 Seminole Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 For Sunrise Bay: William Robert Leonard Leonard & Morrison P.O. Box 11025 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33339 For DER: Wayne L. Schiefelbein Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in this proceeding involve whether the Respondent, St. Joe Paper Company ("St. Joe"), is entitled to a "dredge and fill permit" authorizing it to construct a marina for recreational boats, containing 84 boat slips, along the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. Embodied within that general consideration are issues involving whether St. Joe, in the construction and operation of the marina, can comply with water-quality parameters embodied in Chapter 17- 3, Florida Administrative Code, for Class III waters of the State, Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, as well as the public interest standards of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, and the standard concerning "cumulative impact" embodied in Section 403.919, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, St. Joe, seeks to construct and operate a recreational boat marina, consisting of a single, main pier, 12 feet wide and extending some 850 feet waterward in a westerly direction from the shoreline of the east bank of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. The main pier will join a terminal pier extending approximately 575 feet in a general north/south direction parallel to the shoreline of the St. Johns River, perpendicular to and abutting the longer main pier. Extended in a landward or easterly direction from the terminal pier structure will be four (4) individual "finger piers" ranging from 119 to 305 feet in length. Located along the individual piers and along a portion of the main pier near the waterward end of it will be 84 slips for recreational-type boats. Additionally, a breakwater system will be suspended along the outer perimeter of the terminal pier and northernmost and southernmost individual piers in order to reduce wave action and its effect on boats in the interior of the marina. Additional details concerning the marina design and operation are contained in the findings of fact below. The Site The site of the proposed marina is on the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. At that point, the St. Johns River is almost two miles wide, being approximately 10,000 feet from shoreline to shoreline. The proposed marina site encompasses approximately 1,100 linear feet of river bank frontage. All of the adjacent upland property is owned by St. Joe, and St. Joe owns extensive additional river frontage to the north and south of the marina site. The nearest properties not owned by St. Joe are located 3,500 feet to the north of the site and 1,500 feet to the south of the site. The site is located approximately two miles north of Hallowes Cove, a relatively pristine, diverse and productive marine habitat. The site is characterized, landward of the terminal end of the pier and waterward of the upland, by an unvegetated "near shore area or tidal zone" which extends approximately 50 feet from the mean high-water line of the river to the mean low-water line. Waterward of this zone and extending to a depth of approximately two feet is a system of grass beds, (vallisnerida), commonly known as "tape grass". The grass beds extend approximately 200 to 250 feet from the shoreline. Waterward of the grass beds is an unvegetated area with a gradual slope to a depth of approximately six feet. From the six-foot contour of the river bottom, a relatively precipitous slope begins, extending to depths which exceed 19 feet. In this zone, there are no grass beds. Further waterward and extending beyond the most waterward extent of the the marina site, the river bottom rises somewhat to depths of 13 feet, 12 feet and 11 feet, in the direction of the center of the river. The river bottom substrate in the area of the marina is composed primarily of sand. This includes some shell and other coarse materials, with minor amounts of silt. In fact, organic silt is a very small portion of the bottom sediments, consisting, at a depth of four and one-half feet, of less than 1% silt and at a depth of 15 feet of less than 6% silt content. The present water quality prevailing at the marina site is good, and the benthic habitat in the general area is healthy and diverse. The most landward boat slips proposed at the marina will be located at a distance of approximately 275 feet from the most waterward extent of the grass beds. These most landward slips will be located in depths of approximately eight feet. Access to the marina will be from the north and south in defined channels marked on the west by the end of the individual piers and on the east by channel markers located at the depth contour of minus six feet. That is, the six-foot depth will be the most shallow portion of the channel marked by the channel markers, so that boats will not be permitted to navigate the shallower portion landward of the channel markers insofar as the marina's enforcement program can insure that. The approximate width of the northern channel is 75 feet, and the width of the southern channel is 50 feet. Due to the precipitous drop in depth beyond the contour of minus six feet, the average depth of the channels is 10 to 12 feet. The majority of the boat slips, as well as the basin of the marina, will be located in depths of between 10 and 18 feet. The consultant and expert witness who designed the marina, Erik Olsen, established that the length of the main pier and the location of the most landward of the boat slips and the location of the channel markers are all part of a design and plan intended to insure that marina and boat activity within the marina occur well beyond the extant grass beds and waterward of depths of six feet, to insure that no damage to the grass bed habitat area is occasioned by propeller scouring, "prop-wash", or grounding of boats. Other design measures are also intended to preclude boaters from entering the shallow depths and grass bed areas. Two tiers of signs will be located between the marina basin and the most waterward extent of the grass beds. First, regulatory buoys and signs are proposed to be located at the contour of minus four feet and will establish a "manatee protection zone" landward of that contour. The evidence reveals, however, that a safer contour for the manatee protection zone boundary to be established by the applicant would dictate placing the regulatory warning signs concerning the manatee protection zone at the same contour, minus six feet of water, where the channel markers will be located. This is because the marina will serve boats of up to 4.5 feet in draught. Secondly, a tier of signs will be located approximately ten feet waterward of the most waterward extent of the grass beds warning boaters that aquatic grass beds exist landward of the signs and that prop dredging and boat operation is prohibited. Such warnings at the locations found above should be mandatory conditions to any grant of the permit. A specific, agreed-upon condition is already in the draft permit issued by the Department prescribing the size and lettering of these signs and other design details. A railing will extend, as proposed by the applicant, along the main pier between the slips and the shoreline to discourage boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the slips. The evidence establishes that in order to more adequately insure protection of the manatee habitat area and the grass beds, a mandatory condition in boat-slip rental leases should be inserted to absolutely prohibit boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the boat slips. Because of the currents and significant water depth prevailing at the marina site, the marina construction will require no dredging nor will operation and maintenance of the marina require any dredging on a continuing basis. Additionally, in the interest of protecting water quality, no fueling facilities or boat fueling will be permitted at the marina at all; and the grant of a permit should be mandatorily conditioned on this basis. Neither will any boat maintenance or repair be permitted at the marina, including no hauling of boats or scraping or painting of boat bottoms. This condition should be clearly pointed out to users of the marina by appropriate warning signs regarding the prohibition against boat maintenance and repair, including warnings concerning the proper methods of disposal of used oil and other petroleum products. The marina will feature pump-out facilities for boat heads and bilges. The pump-out facilities will consist of a central pumping system in which waste is removed from the boats, transported by pipeline to an upland, central waste water collection and treatment system. No holding tanks or other storage of wastes will be located at the piers. The pump-out facility will serve not only the boat heads but also boat bilges in order to prevent contaminants, such as oil and boat fuel from entering the State waters involved. The piers will feature trash collection containers of appropriate number, size and location on the piers so as to provide convenient trash disposal for each boat slip. The piers will also feature plastic modular dock boxes to preclude boaters from randomly storing materials and equipment on the piers. No fish cleaning will be permitted on the piers at all, but rather must be accomplished on the uplands, with disposal of related wastes in the upland collection system. A "no wake" zone will be established in an area extending 500 feet north and 500 feet south of the marina. The "no wake" zone will be marked pursuant to requirements of the Florida Marine Patrol. The marked "no wake" zone should also extend waterward of the farthest waterward extent of the marina, as well as 500 feet north and south of it. Only private, recreational boats will be moored at the marina. All commercial boats will be prohibited. The marina will serve a Yacht Club to be developed by St. Joe in conjunction with the marina. Only members of the Yacht Club and their guests will be permitted to use the marina. This will assist with enforcement of the various conditions on marina operation and maintenance by the owners as to the boat-slip lessees and their guests. This and all other conditions should be enforced by mandatory restrictions in the boat-slip leases. Likewise, the applicant has agreed to permit no "liveaboard" boats at the marina in order to avoid the possibility of sewage or other contaminants entering the State waters from liveaboard boats. The upland facilities will include restrooms, and signs should be appropriately placed on the piers to advise boaters and boat owners and operators of the availability of restroom facilities. The marina will not feature fueling facilities; however, St. Joe will maintain pollution containment supplies and equipment at the marina sufficient to contain any potential fuel or other petroleum spills from catastrophic events, such as the rupture of a boat fuel tank. Expert witnesses for St. Joe established that a "management and operational plan" designed to enforce the provisions enumerated above will be enacted by the applicant. The management and operational plan includes three mechanisms of enforcement: Warning signs. Boat-slip lease agreements which must incorporate all restrictions found to be necessary herein. These will contain an enforcement provision providing for mandatory eviction from use and lease of the marina facilities for any breach of those conditions by lessees or their guests. Management personnel will be employed on the marina property to enforce all restrictions and conditions designed to insure environmentally-safe operation and maintenance of the marina, and such personnel should be employed during all operating hours of the marina, not just during daylight hours, as proposed by the applicant. Signs will be posted at conspicuous locations at the marina and at the upland facilities of the Yacht Club informing boaters of the marina rules and prohibitions. The signage will be visible to Yacht Club members and their guests using the marina, and members' guests will be required, upon mooring at the marina, to register and to review the rules and prohibitions. Boat-slip lease agreements at the marina will incorporate these marina rules and prohibitions. Under the lease agreements, a violation of the marina rules or prohibitions by a member or guest will be considered a breach of the lease and will result in revocation of the lease and removal of the member's boat from the marina. A dock master will be employed at the marina to supervise the operation and maintenance of the marina and will be assisted by dock hands and other personnel in order to see that the conditions and restrictions referenced herein are enforced. The applicant has proposed such personnel being employed during daylight hours. However, in order to insure that the standards for operation and maintenance of the marina and boats using it will be enforced so as to avoid water-quality violations and violations of the public interest parameters delineated below, the permit grant should be conditioned upon such personnel being employed during all operating hours of the marina, whether daylight hours or not. If this is accomplished, the enforcement mechanisms outlined in the management and operational plan will reasonably insure enforcement of the marina's rules, prohibitions and conditions on any grant of the permit and likewise reasonably insure that water-quality and public interest standards are not violated. Upland Facilities The upland and Yacht Club facilities to be developed in conjunction with the marina will be located on approximately seven acres adjacent to the marina site. The Yacht Club and related facilities will include a clubhouse, parking, and a storm water treatment system which will serve the upland facilities. St. Joe has obtained a conceptual permit for the management and storage of surface waters for the proposed upland improvements, including the Yacht Club. It will also seek a permit for the storm water treatment system, itself. St. Joe, through its consultants, has investigated and opined that the installation of the proposed upland facilities are feasible and can comply with applicable regulatory criteria and is pursuing the necessary permits and approvals from local governments and state agencies. It will insure that all such is accomplished prior to initiation of construction of the Yacht Club facilities. The precise configuration and design of all upland facilities will be dictated by applicable local ordinances and the requirements of State regulatory agencies. Marina Impacts The applicant/Respondent and the Petitioners are in essential agreement, through the testimony of their witnesses, regarding the general potential impacts which may be posed by marinas in a general sense, when located in proximity to environmentally-sensitive areas. Concerning anticipated impacts of this marina at the subject site, however, St. Joe presented the testimony of three expert witnesses, as well as a hydrographic study. It was thus established that violations of the pertinent water-quality statute and rules and the public interest standards contained in the statute referenced herein will not be violated. The Petitioners, although presenting both lay and expert testimony regarding the water quality and habitat type and quality in the general area of the site and the general impacts that can be caused by marinas in such areas, presented no expert testimony or studies regarding the anticipated impacts of this particular marina, as designed and configured by the applicant, on the subject site and aquatic habitat. Water Quality Considerations Marinas are potential sources of pollutants which may adversely impact water quality. Different sources at a marina may generate different pollutants; and in this case, testimony addressed these potential pollutant impacts. The totality of the expert testimony taken at hearing establishes that the marina will not likely cause a violation of applicable water-quality standards. One witness for the Petitioners, Bill Watkins, was accepted as an expert in water quality. In describing potential impacts of the marina, however, he only opined that there "could be some effect on water quality"; however, he did not specifically establish adverse effects on water quality which could be anticipated or reasonably expected regarding violations of applicable standards. Mr. Watkins acknowledged: "As to whether or not that degree of pollution, and that's what we're talking about, degree of impact, would be something that would be, have a significant degradation effect, I could not answer without further site specific studies." Mr. Watkins further described the type of site specific information which would be required for him to make a proper assessment of water-quality impacts, including hydrographics and the nature of the sediments existing at the site. Other witnesses for the Petitioners similarly declined to opine regarding violations of the water-quality standards because site specific information was not available to them. Dr. DeMort, for example, explicitly declined to offer an opinion regarding water-quality violations. The opinions and testimony of the expert witnesses on water quality presented on behalf of St. Joe, as well as by the Department, are accepted in establishing that no water-quality violations by the construction and operation of the marina are anticipated. The reasonable assurance that water-quality violations will not occur through the construction and operation of the marina is illustrated by the unrefuted evidence concerning the hydrographics by which the site is characterized. A knowledge of site hydrographics is necessary to accurately determine potential water-quality impacts. A hydrographic study was prepared by St. Joe through the auspices of its consultant, Olsen Associates Incorporated. The experts who prepared that study testified on behalf of St. Joe at hearing, and a Department witness who reviewed the study testified by deposition. None of the Petitioners' expert witnesses addressed the subject of site hydrographics other than to note that they were an important consideration. Mr. Buckingham was accepted as an expert witness in the area of marine engineering with emphasis on hydrographics. He testified regarding the hydrographic study prepared and submitted by St. Joe. The study involved the collection of data at the site, including the gauging of water surface elevations over a two-day period in December of 1988; the comparison of those elevations to predicted elevations based upon historical data; a measurement of current velocities at the site; a dye study to assess the flow regime at the site; and the gathering of depth soundings and sediment samples to confirm the bathymetry and nature of bottom sediments at the site. The hydrographic study also involved the analysis of the data collected at the site. Hydrographics at the site are composed of two components, the transport of a pollutant by advective currents and the dispersion or diffusion of a pollutant within the water column. The physical transport by advective currents dominates the hydrographic circumstance prevailing at the marina site. A pollutant introduced at the site is more likely to be physically transported away from the site, in addition to being merely dispersed through the water column at the site. This is because of the relatively high current velocities prevailing. Both the transport and dispersion components were analyzed in the study to determine the time and distance necessary to reduce an initial concentration of a hypothetical pollutant to 10% of its initial concentration. A pollutant introduced at the site would be reduced to 10% of its initial concentration in less than seven minutes and within 400 feet of the site on the ebb tide and within 300 feet of the site on the flood tide. Moreover, the "plume" of this hypothetical pollutant would occur in a longshore direction parallel to the shore, as opposed to a direction toward the shore and would be of comparatively narrow width (approximately 30 feet). The hydrographics of this site are such that a complete water exchange will occur in 20 to 30 minutes at any point during the tidal cycle. The evidence thus demonstrated that the site is extremely well flushed by tidal currents. In his deposition, Ken Echternacht, of the Department, testified that data in the hydrographic study was realistic in his experience and that he had no questions or concerns regarding the data and methodology used to confirm that data. In addition to Mr. Buckingham's testimony and the study, itself, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht established that flushing is of no concern and is thoroughly adequate at the site. Dr. Echternacht is the Department's hydrographic engineer, whose function is to review all dredge and fill permit applications which may have impacts upon the hydraulics of surface water systems. He has reviewed approximately 1,500 dredge and fill permit applications. His testimony and that of Mr. Buckingham is accepted, as is that of other Department expert witnesses in establishing the excellent flushing characteristics of the site and that the construction and operation of the marina will not adversely affect the present hydrographic situation at the site, as that relates to establishing that no water quality violations will occur. All marinas are potential sources of pollutants. The first to be addressed involves the installation of the pilings themselves during the construction of the marina. This is a potential source of turbidity. Turbidity involves the suspension of bottom sediments and substrate material in the water column, which can pose, among other problems, the retardation of light penetration through the water column which can have an adverse impact on photosynthesis in marine grass beds. In extreme cases, it can cause the destruction of grass beds through killing of the grass by lack of adequate light penetration, as well as the smothering effect of sediments being deposited upon grasses. The method to be used by St. Joe in installing the pilings will be by "jetting" them into the bottom of the river initially and then driving the pilings into the river bottom to the required depth to support the piers. Witnesses for St. Joe and the Department established that this method will constitute an adequate safeguard to be employed during construction to minimize any turbidity. Any temporary or local turbidity caused by the installation of the pilings will be transitory and will pose no significant water-quality violation; however, turbidity curtains will, be employed, if necessary, by the applicant to control any such turbidity during construction. Another potential source of turbidity at a marina involves the dredging, washing or disturbance of the river bottom caused by boat propellers or boat keels. The evidence demonstrated that the risk of such "prop dredging" or wash at this marina will be negligible due to the design features and conditions at the site, including the channels and channel markers, and particularly by the depth of waters prevailing at the site. The marina basin and boat slips are located in water of sufficient depth to prevent prop dredging or wash. The =average depth of the entrance channels is between 10 and 12 feet. Maneuvering within the marina basin will occur in depths of 10 feet or greater. Although the most landward boat slips are located in depths of approximately eight feet, the average depth within most slips is approximately 10 to 12 feet. These depths are based upon the bathymetric survey of the site and confirmed by random soundings performed during the course of the hydrographic study in evidence. Further, these depths are "mean low water" depths. Mean low water reflects the "lowest expected level" within a 29-day tidal epic. The "mean lower low" level is the lowest expected level over the course of a year. That level prevailing at the site, according to the study, is 0.1 feet lower than mean low water. The maximum draught of boats expected to be moored at the marina is 4.5 feet. Thus, the depths in the marina will allow ample clearance between propellers and keels and the river bottom. The required clearance between boat bottoms and propellers and the river bottom can further be assured by proper placement of boats in the boat slips in the leasing process and in the assignment of boat slips to casual, temporary users of the marina. In other words, the larger boats will be assigned to the deeper, more waterward slips. Other measures include warning signs, which should be placed along the six-foot depth contour, along the landward edge of the entrance channels and beyond the waterward extent of the grass beds. This will insure that boaters do not stray into shallow-water, aquatic habitat areas. A second factor in determining the potential for prop dredging at the marina is the nature of the sediments themselves. Four witnesses, including those testifying for the Department and for the Petitioners, established that the sediments at the site are primarily sand-based, with minimal organic silt content. The sandy nature of the sediments minimizes the potential for turbidity caused by prop dredging or prop washing (hydraulic currents created by propeller operation) because sand, by its density, mass and weight, tends to settle out to the bottom much quicker if it is suspended in the water column. Even if prop dredging did occur at the marina, generating turbidity, the high flushing characteristic of the site would quickly transport and disperse any such turbidity and render it undetectable and likely prevent its deposition on the grass beds. A potential source of pollutants at a marina is boat fuel. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the design and operational features of the marina, primarily the absence of any fueling facilities, will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants generated by fueling operations. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is waste from boat heads and bilges generated by flushing boat heads or pumping out of bilges with bilge pumps. Expert witnesses for St. Joe, as well as the Department, established that the design and operational features with which this marina will be characterized will minimize or eliminate the potential for such pollutants to be generated because liveaboard boats will be prohibited, and the pumping out of heads and bilges will also be prohibited because of the conditions agreed to by the applicant for a grant of this permit. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is the use of anti-fouling paint used on the bottoms of boats and the periodic scraping and repainting of boats. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the operational features and design of this marina will minimize the potential for pollutants from this source because boat painting, sanding, and scraping and other operations attendant to boat painting will be absolutely prohibited at the marina. Finally, another potential source of pollutants would be trash and garbage materials. The potential for pollution from this source will be minimized by the use of trash containers and dock boxes located at frequent intervals around the piers and boat slips, as well as the instructional signs to be placed on the piers and slips by the applicant and the publication of marina rules in order to inform boat operators and guests of the necessity to dispose of trash in the proper containers. It has thus been established that the design and operational characteristics of the marina and conditions to be imposed thereon will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants to be generated and placed in the surface waters at the site. The marina will not occasion violations of applicable water-quality standards. Any pollutants which might be deposited in the surface waters at the site will be quickly transported and dispersed so as to be undetectable at the marina or in the vicinity of the marina because of the critical role played by the hydrographics prevailing at the site. Public Interest Impacts Much of the testimony at hearing regarding impacts upon the various public interest standards, including wildlife and habitats, focused upon the grass beds, and the benthic communities prevailing in deeper water at the site, as well as the fact that the site is used by manatees. Dr. Quinton White was accepted as an expert in biology and biological impacts of marina construction and operation. He testified on behalf of the applicant. His testimony and that of other expert witnesses offered by St. Joe and the Department established that there would be no adverse impact on benthic communities and organisms, including manatees, caused by the construction and operation of the marina. The Petitioners called expert witnesses on the issue of impacts on wildlife. Mike Allen, a Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, testified that he was not really qualified as an expert in fisheries or benthic communities but, rather, in terms of terrestrial species which are not involved in this proceeding. Lawson Snyder, another Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, was accepted as an expert in fisheries biology on behalf of Petitioner but testified that the marina's impacts upon fish and wildlife would not be detectable. Jim Valade, a Florida Department of Natural Resources staff member, was also accepted as an expert in marine biology, including fish and manatees, but testified that the permit applicant has taken steps to protect manatees in virtually all aspects and that his department's concerns regarding the safety of manatees have been adequately addressed by the design and proposed operation of the marina. Bill Watkins, a St. Johns River Water Management District staff member, was accepted as an expert in biology, but testified that the design of the marina provides the grass beds "a fair degree of protection" and declined to opine that the marina would have any adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Finally, Dr. Carol DeMort, in her deposition, specifically declined to render any opinion regarding adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Thus, the evidence adduced by the Petitioners at hearing did not rebut the evidence introduced by the applicant that the marina will have no detectable impacts upon wildlife or habitats involved in the vicinity of the site St. Joe introduced evidence concerning impacts from shading upon grass beds by the marina structures themselves and from turbidity "washed" onto, the grass beds by motorized boats maneuvering in the marina basin. Expert testimony was adduced that established that shading caused by the widest pier, that is, the main pier with a width of 12 feet, would have no adverse impact on the grass beds due to shading. That testimony was unrebutted and is accepted. Two expert witnesses for St. Joe, a marine engineer and a biologist, as well as a Department witness, established that, even assuming that turbidity was generated by propeller action in the marina basin, the turbidity resulting from prop wash would not be transported 275 feet from the marina basin offshore to the :grass beds at the inshore area. They attributed those opinions to the nature of the sediments involved which are not readily suspended, the flushing at the site, the distance between the basin and the grass beds, and the typical extent of prop wash from boats expected to be used at the marina. The Petitioners presented two witnesses, who testified regarding the impacts of prop wash. Mr. Allen, an expert in upland terrestrial species, testified regarding the potential for deposition of sediments on grass beds but also acknowledged that the hydrographics at the site, the distance between the marina basin and the grass beds and other protective measures would minimize this potential. One lay witness for the Petitioners testified to the effect that if a "handful" of boat owners in the marina violated the "no wake" restrictions and accelerated their boats in violation of those restrictions, they would cause turbidity to be placed upon the grass beds. His testimony was contradicted, however, by a marine engineer, who testified that prop wash is a function of many parameters (e.g., the RPM of the engine, the horsepower of the engine, the draught of the boat, and configuration of the propellers, etc.). He established that it would not be reasonable to expect prop wash extending twice the length of a boat. Regarding impacts upon benthic communities at the site, the applicant introduced expert testimony which established that the benthic communities in that vicinity of the marina, including the grass beds, fin fish, shellfish, and other organisms, will not be adversely impacted by the construction and operation of the marina in light of the safeguards which would be imposed upon the permit, as delineated herein. This is primarily due to the absence of significant concentrations of pollutants to be expected and the hydrographics prevailing at the site as that relates to the unlikelihood of boat grounding, prop dredging, and prop wash suspending pollutants and turbidity and depositing them on benthic community habitat areas. Only one of Petitioners' witnesses, Dr. DeMort, testified in her deposition concerning potential impacts upon benthic communities. Dr. DeMort made it clear, however, that she had conducted no investigations and studies necessary to enable her to render an expert opinion on the impacts upon the benthic communities prevailing at the site which might be caused by the marina's construction and operation. Her testimony in this regard only related to marina installation and operation in general and was not related to the specific design characteristics and proposed operational parameters of the subject marina. Manatees are an endangered species. There is much concern about their welfare with regard to the proposed project because all parties acknowledge that the site and the shoreward grass bed areas, particularly, are frequented by manatees, particularly for summer foraging. Manatees tend to forage in shallow waters and associated grass beds. Boats pose definite hazards to manatees and cause significant manatee deaths each year due to impact from boats, as much as 15% to 30% of the known population. In response to this hazard, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission has recommended that grass beds be protected and that establishment of protective or "no wake" zones in manatee foraging areas be accomplished. In light of such restrictions voluntarily agreed to by St. Joe and its expert testimony in this regard and in light of the manatee education and awareness measures proposed by the applicant, it has been demonstrated that the marina will not have any negative impact on the manatee population in the area. The Petitioners' only expert witness concerning manatees, Jim Valade, indeed, opined that the marina had taken steps to protect manatees "in virtually all aspects". In this connection, the design features in the management and operational plan discussed herein and proposed by the applicant embodies measures to address potential impacts upon manatees which frequent the marina site. These include manatee awareness signs to be posted at the marina; and an additional specific condition has been agreed upon by the Department and the applicant which specifies the size, lettering and other details of the warning signs, and the location of them within the marina, all of which will be included in a plan to be submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Additionally, a permanent educational display will be located at the Yacht Club informing boaters who frequent the facility of the presence of manatees in the area and the need to minimize the impact of boats upon manatees. During construction, if a manatee is sited within 100 yards of the marina site, construction activities will cease and not resume until manatees have left the area. A handbook will be prepared concerning manatees and the effect on them of boat operation, which will be distributed to employees of the facility and to Yacht Club members and guests. This requirement and the review of it by Yacht Club members and guests will be an integral requirement in the terms of the slip leases. Additionally, no docking facilities, pilings or cleats will be located along the portions of the piers not containing boat slips in order to discourage boaters from attempting to moor at those locations, which will reduce the number of boats frequenting the marina, as that relates to manatee safety. This portion of the St. Johns River functions as a highly productive juvenile fish nursery and sports fishing area. Therefore, an examination of the marina's potential impacts upon marine productivity, fishing and recreation in the area is an important consideration in this proceeding. The discussion of this potential impact involves the same issues discussed in connection with impacts upon water quality and wildlife habitat; namely, the generation of pollutants and the impacts upon the grass beds and benthic communities directly by boat operation itself. Unrefuted testimony adduced by the applicant and the Department has established that impacts upon the fish population and upon marine productivity, fishing and recreational values will not be adverse. No deliterious effect is likely to be occasioned the fisheries and fish habitat and the habitat of other aquatic organisms in terms of juveniles or adults or to the sport fishing values of the area in which the marina will be located. Indeed, the marina structures and the shade and concealment offered by moored boats will provide additional habitat for juvenile fish, as well as provide an additional source of food because of the "fouling communities" of life forms which will be expected to grow on the pilings. These will serve as food for juvenile fish and some species of adult fish which, in turn, will enhance the food supply of predatory fish operating at an upper level in the food web. The boats and structures themselves also will operate as a source of protection for certain fish populations from predators. The Petitioners produced a fisheries biologist as an expert witness, who testified in this regard; but he acknowledged that he did not know whether noticeable impacts on conservation of fish, marine productivity and recreational values will be caused by the installation and operation of the marina. He testified in a general sense that he feared some negative impacts might result but did not feel that any such impacts would be detectable based upon testimony he heard and deferred to, including testimony that the littoral zone would not be impacted by the marina to any significant degree. He ultimately opined that the marina would likely have little impact on sports fishing. The other witness produced by the Petitioners concerning impacts upon fishing and recreational values was unable to render any expert opinion, by her own admission, because she had conducted no studies or otherwise been provided information regarding the design and proposed operation of the marina. Consequently, the testimony adduced by the applicant as to these parameters is accepted; and it has been established that the marina will not adversely impact fisheries, fish conservation, aquatic habitat, sport fishing, recreational values and marine productivity in the area involved at the project site. Regarding potential impacts upon the public health, safety and welfare and property of others, the applicant and the Department adduced expert testimony that no adverse impact regarding these interests will occur. The testimony of Petitioners' experts similarly establishes that the marina would not pose safety hazards or would otherwise give rise to any noticeable impacts upon the public health, safety, welfare and property of others. Regarding potential impacts upon navigation or the flow of water, St. Joe and the Department introduced expert testimony to establish that the marina would not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water, and it is so found. The Petitioners' introduced no evidence regarding this subject. Regarding potential impacts upon significant historical and archaeological resources, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that no adverse impact as regards these resource parameters will occur. Although one of the Petitioners, in her testimony, speculated that the marina could "detract" from the William Bartram scenic highway, she was unable to specify how the marina would impact the highway or to what extent the highway was a significant, historical or archaeological resource. It is found that no such adverse impact on the William Bartram scenic highway will occur. Cumulative Impact Regarding cumulative impacts, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that the marina would not give rise to impacts which, cumulative with the impacts of other marina facilities, would be significant. The evidence establishes that there are six marinas within four miles of this marina site; two upriver, and four downriver. Due to the hydrographic circumstances in the area and the distance of the other marinas from this site, it has been demonstrated that the addition of this marina to the area will not result in any adverse cumulative impacts. Mr. Mike Allen, the expert in upland terrestrial species (not involved in this proceeding), referenced in his testimony the cumulative impacts he feared on sports and commercial fishing. Mr. Allen made it clear, however, that his reference was not to cumulative impacts caused by the marina and existing marinas but, rather, to impacts which could be brought about by many such future facilities located in this particular area. The evidence does not reflect, however, that any other marinas are conceptually contemplated or are the subject of other permit applications for this area for the future. It is thus found that no significant adverse cumulative impacts will be occasioned by the installation and operation of the subject facility.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Joe Paper Company for the dredge and fill permit at issue be granted, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the Department's Intent to Issue, in evidence as St. Joe Exhibit 9, and accepted by the applicant, as well as those conditions found in this Recommended Order to be necessary and supported by the evidence, are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 26 day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5053 Applicant's/Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-53. Accepted, but are subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the same subject matter, particularly in those several instances where conditions on the grant of the permit have been recommended to be modified somewhat by the Hearing Officer in light of the totality of the preponderant evidence presented. Rejected, as unnecessary. Accepted. Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact The Department submitted no proposed findings of fact but, rather, adopted those submitted by the applicant/Respondent. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioners, Hoffert, presented no proposed findings of fact but, rather, a letter in the nature of final argument which has been referenced and discussed in the above Preliminary Statement to this Recommended Order. Petitioners, Cornwell, submitted a post-hearing pleading; but it contained no specific, separately-stated proposed findings of fact, which can be separated from their mere recitation and discussion of testimony in evidence and arguments such that coherent, specific rulings could be made. Petitioners, Cornwell's post-hearing pleading did not conform to the instructions given to them by the Hearing Officer at the conclusion of the hearing concerning the appropriate manner for submission of proposed findings of fact, and they were submitted late. They have been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order, however, in spite of the fact that they were filed in a tardy fashion. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 T. R. Hainline, Jr., Esq. ROGERS, TOWERS, ET AL. 1300 Gulf Life Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 William H. Congdon, Esq. and Joanne Barone, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building Room 654 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Barbara Davis Winn 3448 State Road 13 Jacksonville, FL 32259 Mary and Irv Cornwell 2652 State Road 13 Switzerland, FL 32259
Findings Of Fact Vroom acquired an existing, incomplete condominium project of 96 units on the ocean side of U.S. Highway #1 at mile marker, 83.2, Islamorada, Florida. The project, now called Beacon Reef, is to be finished as a luxury facility with complete recreational facilities, including those for water-oriented sports. In February, 1980, Vroom filed a short-form application with DER for a permit to construct a private 425 foot x 6 foot pier for the condominium with four-finger piers on "T" sections, ranging in length from 335 feet to 240 feet, spaced 55 feet apart, and install 97 pilings, a maximum 450 feet seaward so as to provide one boat slip for each unit. The old existing dock will be removed (DER #3). A subsequent revision (DER #4) aligned the proposed pier with the one of Petitioner, who owns the property adjacent to the south. Following DER's appraisal (DER #1 and #2) and Vroom's agreement to use a small boat and motor to move the construction barge (DER #6), DER noticed its intent to issue the permit on May 19, 1980 on the finding that, pursuant to Sections 253.123 and 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Section 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code, "the project will not adversely impact navigation, marine resources, nor water quality, providing the following stipulations are met: Construction shall not be initiated until Department of Natural Resources' approval is received. Construction barge shall be maneuvered in position with a small fifteen foot boat with a small 50 hp or less outboard motor. There shall be no fuel nor sewage pump-out facilities. No live-aboards shall be permitted. A day marker shall be placed approximately 30 feet waterward of each end of the outward "T" section to define and mitigate destruction of adjacent shallow water areas. Vroom accepted these restrictions and at the hearing, further agreed to place channel markers from the pier to the closest navigable point about 1/2 mile away so as to eliminate one of the concerns of the South Florida Regional Planning Council (DER #7). DER's two environmental specialists' testimony and appraisal concluded that the construction and use of the pier would not adversely impact on the water quality or biological resources nor interfere with navigation. The substrata is generally hard rock with scattered turtle grass and cuban shoal- weed found seaward as the water depth increases. This type of bottom is called "flats" as it is shallow with a uniform or gradually-sloping bottom; it is the typical feeding ground for one of the popular sports fish called Bonefish. Although these fish are easily frightened by the noise of a boat engine, the record does not reveal that this is harmful to the fish. The Petitioner speculated, surmised or opined that the use of the pier would damage or have an adverse impact on the water quality and marine resources, and interfere with navigation. However, beyond the allegations, no evidence was presented in support of these contentions.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation grant the application of Vroom International, Inc. to build a pier in connection with its Beacon Reef Condominium, Islamorada, Florida, subject to the restrictions stated in the intent to issue, together with the requirement that markers be installed and maintained on either side of a channel connecting the pier and the closest and best navigable waters. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. HAROLD E. SMITHERS Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard H.M. Swann, Esq. GASTON, SNOW, ET AL. 2809 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 550 Coral Gables, FL 33134 H. Ray Allen, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Tittle, Esq. Post Office Drawer 535 Tavernier, FL 33070 Vroom International, Inc. c/o John P. Wilson Upper Keys Marine Construction Box 18AAA Key Largo, FL 33037 =================================================================
The Issue The issues presented for consideration by the hearing officer were as follows: Whether the project would adversely the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project would adversely affect navigation; Whether the project would adversely affect the fishing or recreational values in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project would be of a temporary or permanent nature; and Whether the project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.
Findings Of Fact On February 21, 1985, the Respondent, John Spang, applied to the Department of Environmental Regulations, Department of natural Resources and the Army Corp. of Engineers for permits necessary to construct two docking facilities, one on each side of the east end of Coronado Bridge, commonly known as the "North Bridge" on the Indian River, north in New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Sections 55 and 9, Township 17 South, Range 34 East. The proposed docks include a total of 24 boat slips. The proposed docks are within 25 feet of the right-of-way of the Coronado Bridge on both the north and south sides. The proposed docks consist of four piers. The piers, from south to north, are 101 feet, 102 feet, 122 feet and 122 feet in length respectively. See Respondent's Exhibit #2. The piers south of the bridge are 75 to 80 feet from the east edge of the channel of the Intracoastal Waterway. The piers north of the bridge are 60 to 65 feet from the east edge of the channel of the Intracoastal Waterway. The proposed docking facilities shall service commercially zoned properties `to which they shall be attached and, in particular, the Riverview Hotel and Charlie's Blue Crab Restaurant, at the Riverview. The Petitioners, Grover Ryan and Margaret Ryan, own the commercially zoned property adjacent to the subject property to the south, located at 100 West Columbus Avenue, New Smyrna Beach, Florida. The Ryans operate a commercial business. On March 17, 1986, the Ryans filed a petition for an administrative hearing. Panet E. and Jerrie L. Peterson of 200 Canova Drive, New Smyrna Beach, Florida own the real property located on the river adjacent to the Ryans but not adjoining the proposed docking area or the property of the applicant. On April 15, 1986, the Ryans filed a petition for an administrative hearing. On February 14, 1986, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued Permit Number 64-099806-4, to construct the proposed docking facilities, subject to specific modifications and conditions to those applications. Issuance of the permit was based upon the following: The Army Corp. of Engineers assessed the proposed docking facilities and determined that the project will not impede navigation or otherwise cause danger to the health, safety or welfare of vessels and persons traveling in the Intracoastal Waterway. On April 18, 1986, the Army Corp. of Engineers issued Permit No. 85IPL-20644 for construction of piers pursuant to the applicant's proposal for docking facilities. The harbor and dockmaster for the City of New Smyrna Beach determined that the proposed docking facilities would not impede or endanger navigation of the river and Intracoastal Waterway, if pilots entering and leaving the docking area carefully follow the rules of road. Actual testing of the proposed site by the Department of Environmental Regulation revealed no seagrasses or rooted macrophytes which might be destroyed by the proposed docks. Flushing in the river was found to be excellent and would alleviate any short-term turbidity problems and would further mitigate against any pollutants from the docking areas to the extent that no water quality violations were anticipated. The United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the area of the proposed docking facility would not have an adverse affect on the manatee otherwise endanger them. Although the dock will restrict fishing from the bridge between the shore and channel, it will not significantly affect adversely the recreational uses. Generally, bridge fishing is being restricted in Florida due to the hazards to fishermen from traffic. The fishing from boats will be unaffected. There is no marine production in the area. The boat traffic in the vicinity of the proposed docking facility is considered heavy, and there are no restrictions on boating speed. The bridge is raised frequently, but heavy traffic requires boats to wait on weekends. The bridge fenders and concrete abutments of the bridge block the lateral view of boaters as they approach, pass under and leave the Coronado Bridge, and likewise obscures the boats in the bridge area from boaters in the proposed dock area. The closest dock to the south of the proposed docks is owned by the Ryans. Mr. Ryan has used his dock for forty-seven (47) years and uses it to dock his large commercial shrimp boat. Mr. Ryan operates a wholesale/retail seafood store on the property which he owns adjoining the Spang's property. As originally proposed, the southernmost dock sought by the Spang's would interfere with Ryan docking his boat at Ryan's dock. The next dock to the south of the proposed docks and Mr. Ryan's dock is owned by the Petersons. This a forty (40) foot dock which is used for noncommercial purposes. Because it does not protrude as far into the water as Ryan's dock, there is no hazard created by the proposed docks. A conditioned modification to the application was the reduction in size of the southernmost docking facility by 15 feet and the construction of handrails on the outer edges of each dock to prevent mooring of boats along the outer edges. The reduction of the southernmost dock by 15 feet, together with handrails and prevention of mooring of boats on the outside of the docks provided reasonable assurance that there was no impediment to navigation, to include Ryan docking his boat. However, the design of the exits to the two proposed docking areas promotes direct entry at right angles into the Intracoastal Waterway. This is potentially hazardous. Petitioner Ryan has an easement over the Spang property to permit public access to Ryan's property from the right-of-way of the bridge and highway. Spang's restaurant, which has already been built at the site, actually traverses the easement, not the proposed docking facility. The proposed facility does not interfere with the easement the Ryans hold landward of the mean high waterline from the highway right-of-way south to the Ryan's business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue Permit No. 64-099806-4 with the size limitation and requirements for handrails established by the agency and that the layout of the docks be modified as drawn in Appendix B to discourage exiting the docking areas at right angles to the channel of the Intracoastal Waterway. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of July 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 18th day of July 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-0992 The following action was taken with regard to the proposed findings of fact submitted in behalf of John Spang: Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 9. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 2. Rejected. Paragraph 5 of Ryan's proposed findings of fact adopted as more complete and accurate. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 6. 5,6. Adopted and combined as Recommended Order paragraph 7. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 9. Adopted substantially as Recommended Order paragraph 7. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 8. 10,11. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 9(a). Rejected as conclusion of law and irrelevant because the current proceeding is a de novo proceeding. Rejected as conclusion of law and irrelevant because the current proceeding is a de novo proceeding. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 9 (d). Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 9 (b). Irrelevant. Effect on the persons named is not a basis for review. The following action was taken with regard to the proposed findings of fact submitted in behalf of the Ryans and Petersons: Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 1. Rejected because the applicants' finding cited 24 which was adopted thereby binding the applicant to the lower number. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 3. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 4. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 5. Adopted in part and included in Recommended Order paragraph 12. 7,8. Rejected in favor of Recommended Order paragraph 11. 9. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 11. 10,12. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 13. 11,13. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 14. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 11. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 12. Rejected as a list of actors without any conclusion stated. 18,19. Rejected in favor of Recommended Order paragraph 10 which more accurately summarizes the more credible facts regarding fishing. 20,21,22. Rejected in favor of paragraph 9(d) which more accurately summarizes the more credible facts regarding danger to manatees. Rejected as contrary to the facts. Rejected as contrary to the facts. Adopted in part in Recommended Order paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the facts. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. The following action was taken with regard to the Agency's proposed findings of facts. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 1. Adopted in part in Recommended Order paragraph 16 and in part in Recommended Order paragraph 10. 1st sentence: Rejected as irrelevant in light of the Agency's subsequent issuance. Remainder: Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 9(c). Adopted generally as Recommended Order paragraph 16. 5,6. Adopted generally as Recommended Order paragraph 14. Adopted generally as Recommended Order paragraph 15. Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 9(d). Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 9(a). Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 9(b). Adopted as Recommended Order paragraph 17. COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William F. Hathaway, Esquire Post Office Drawer H New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32070-1586 Vivian F. Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hal Spence, Esquire 221 N. Causeway Post Office Box 1266 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32070-1266
The Issue The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent Prospect Marathon Coquina, LLC (PMC), is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the proposed expansion of a docking facility, and whether PMC is entitled to a modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the proposed project.
Findings Of Fact The Parties With the exception of Elizabeth Schuh, all Petitioners live in the Driftwood neighborhood, which is located across Big Bayou from the proposed project. All Petitioners use Big Bayou for various recreational purposes, including swimming and boating. Several Petitioners also use Big Bayou for nature observation. Petitioner Peter Pav owns waterfront property on Big Bayou. Respondents do not dispute Petitioners’ standing. The Department is charged with the responsibility to regulate construction activities in waters of the state. The Department has also been delegated authority from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) to process applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities that will preempt the use of sovereign submerged lands. PMC is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns 2,786 linear feet of upland shoreline contiguous to the state-owned submerged lands of Big Bayou. PMC is the developer of the multi-family residential condominium development on Coquina Key that the proposed project would serve, known as Coquina Key North. The Affected Waterbody Big Bayou is near the southern end of the St. Petersburg peninsula. The mouth of the bayou opens to Tampa Bay. Big Bayou is part of the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve, which includes most of the coastal waters of Pinellas County. Like all aquatic preserves in Florida, the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve is also designated as an Outstanding Florida Water.1 Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.001 states that the aquatic preserves in Part II of Chapter 258 (which include the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve) “were established for the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations.” The term “essentially natural condition” is defined as “those functions which support the continued existence or encourage the restoration of the diverse population of indigenous life forms and habitats to the extent they existed prior to the significant development adjacent to and within the preserve.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.003(24). In the 1960s and 1970s, development activities throughout Tampa Bay caused the loss of about 80 percent of its seagrasses and significant degradation of water quality. The seagrasses and water quality in Big Bayou were also adversely affected by filling and other development activities, including the filling and bulkheading of Coquina Key where the proposed project would be located. In more recent years, the water quality in Big Bayou has improved. Although trash sometimes washes up on the shoreline and one can sometimes see a sheen on the water surface caused by gasoline or oil, the water quality in Big Bayou is generally good, with high dissolved oxygen and low nutrient concentrations. The seagrasses have also recovered to a large extent. A variety of seagrasses grow in Big Bayou, including shoal grass, manatee grass, turtle grass, widgeon grass, and a relatively uncommon species, palm grass. Seagrasses are the foundation for the marine food web. They also serve as a nursery for small fish and invertebrates, stabilize sediment, and improve water quality. Manatees regularly enter and use Big Bayou because it provides good habitat. The manatees in this area are part of the Southwest Florida manatee subpopulation. Based on data collected through 2001, that subpopulation is either stable, or possibly declining. Pinellas County is not one of the 13 Florida counties that were required to develop and implement manatee protection plans. There are two areas of Pinellas County that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) has identified as needing additional manatee protection measures, but Big Bayou is not one of them. The Proposed Project The proposed authorizations would allow PMC to expand an existing multi-family, residential docking facility on the north end of Coquina Key, along an existing seawall and adjacent to the Coquina Key North condominiums that PMC converted from a former apartment complex. The proposed project would add 60 boats slips to the existing 30 boat slips at the project site. The new slips could accommodate boats up to 25 feet in length. PMC would restrict use of the boat slips to Coquina Key North condominium owners. In converting the former apartment complex to condominiums, PMC retained ownership of a strip of land immediately upland of the submerged lands on which the proposed project would be constructed. The ground for Petitioners’ Motion for Summary Order is that the ownership retained by PMS, because it does not include ownership of the upland residences, does not entitle PMS to obtain a submerged land lease for the proposed project. That legal argument is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. Direct Impacts An earlier plan for the proposed project was to place 30 new boat slips on the north side of the existing docks and 30 new slips on the south side. However, to avoid direct impacts to seagrasses, the plan was modified to avoid an area of seagrasses on the south side. The proposed project now would add 38 boat slips on the north side and 22 slips on the south side. The over-water dock structures would be placed waterward of the seagrasses that currently grow along the seawall. The seagrasses adjacent to the proposed project are not likely to be harmed by wave action or turbulence from boating activity around and in the slips because of the distance between the slips and the seagrasses. The proposed authorizations include specific conditions that prohibit numerous activities that could cause adverse water quality impacts at the proposed project site, such as the discharge of trash, human or animal waste, or fuel; fish cleaning stations; boat repair facilities; fueling facilities; hull cleaning, painting or other external boat maintenance; and boat maintenance or repair activities requiring removal of a boat from the water, or removal of major portions of the boat for purposes of routine repair or maintenance on site, except where removal is necessitated by emergency conditions. No liveaboards would be allowed at the proposed project. PMC intends to incorporate these conditions into its agreements with the condominium owners who use the boat slips. Because Big Bayou is an Outstanding Florida Water, PMC is required to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not result in the lowering of existing ambient water quality. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(2)(c) defines “existing ambient water quality” as the better water quality of either what existed on the date that the water body was designated an Outstanding Florida Water or what existed in the year prior to the permit application. Because the current water quality is better than it was in 1972 when the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve was created, the current water quality is the standard to apply in this case. Although some incidental non-compliance with the conditions of the proposed authorizations could occur, such incidental non-compliance would not likely result in significant2 degradation of the existing ambient water quality in Big Bayou. Secondary Impacts – In General Petitioners’ primary concerns with the proposed project are with the secondary impacts that would be caused by increased boating activity in Big Bayou. Petitioners contend that the additional boats using the 60 new boat slips would adversely affect water quality, seagrasses, manatees, and other natural resources. Petitioners also assert that the additional boating activity would cause erosion of the north shoreline of Big Bayou and impair Petitioners’ recreational uses of the bayou. It is reasonable to assume that there would be more boat trips on Big Bayou if the proposed project were built than if it were not built. However, it is impossible to say how many more boat trips would be generated by the proposed project. It cannot be assumed that because there would be 60 more boat slips, there would be 60 more boats on Big Bayou each day, each week, or even each month. Moreover, the number of boats on Big Bayou on any given day fluctuates because it depends not only on the whims of the boat owners who have boat slips in Big Bayou, but also on the whims of the boat owners who anchor their boats in the open waters of Big Bayou, launch their boats from the public boat ramps on Big Bayou, or enter Big Bayou from Tampa Bay or more distant waters. Secondary Impacts - Erosion Petitioners did not present competent evidence to support their claim that the proposed project would cause erosion of the north shoreline of Big Bayou. Secondary Impacts – Water Quality The Department has adopted by reference the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s Basis for Review for Environmental Resource Permits (Basis of Review) to apply to applications for environmental resource permits for projects over which the Department retains permitting authority. For docking facilities, Section 3.2.4.3 of the Basis of Review requires the applicant to provide hydrographic information to demonstrate that the “flushing time” (the time required to reduce the concentration of a pollutant) is sufficiently short to prevent the accumulation of any pollutants to the point of violating water quality standards. PMC’s hydrographic analyses indicate that Big Bayou is well-flushed. The water of the bayou moves a half mile to a mile during a normal tide. The fact that the current water quality in Big Bayou is good indicates that contamination associated with the current level of boating activity in the bayou is not accumulating. Incidental discharges of contaminants from boats using the proposed project would likely be rapidly dispersed and diluted. Petitioners argued that PMC’s hydrographic analyses did not address every part of Big Bayou. The rule requires hydrographic characterization of “the project site and surrounding waters.” As the challengers, Petitioners needed to rebut PMC’s prima facie case regarding the hydrographic characteristics in the bayou with competent evidence showing PMC’s findings were inaccurate, or show that the scope of PMC’s hydrographic analyses did not conform with any reasonable interpretation of the applicable rule. Petitioners presented no such evidence or showing. Some additional, incidental contamination can be expected to occur as a result of the operation of the boats that would use the proposed project. However, PMC provided reasonable assurance that the addition of these contaminants would not significantly degrade the existing ambient water quality of Big Bayou nor cause any other applicable water quality standard to be violated. Secondary Impacts - Seagrasses The maximum water depth at which most seagrasses can grow is between five and six feet because of their need for light. When boaters attempt to cross shallow areas where seagrasses are located, they sometimes damage the grasses with the boat propellers, leaving areas of torn grass and “prop scars,” furrows in the bottom. Even when boat propellers do not touch the bottom, but come close, they can disturb the loose sediments and cause turbidity. It can be especially harmful when boats run aground, because the boater will sometimes grind away at the seagrasses in an attempt to move the boat to deeper water, causing holes 10 or 12 feet in diameter. Different seagrasses recover from such damage at different rates. In some cases, it can take years for a prop scar to become re-vegetated. A 1995 study of prop scars by the Florida Marine Research Institute found that the Tampa Bay area is one of four areas of Florida with the greatest acreage of moderate and severe scarring. There are prop scars visible in the bottom of Big Bayou and Petitioners testified about seeing boats run aground in Big Bayou. The main navigation channel on the north side of Big Bayou ranges in depth from slightly less than 8 feet to over 17 feet. There are channel markers to help boaters find and stay in this channel, but some of the original markers are missing. In addition to the main navigation channel, there is an area along the north side of Coquina Key that is used by the residents living along that shoreline to get to and from Tampa Bay. This second route, which is not marked, is much shallower than the main channel and its use by boaters at low tide is a threat to seagrasses in the area.3 If more boaters in Big Bayou stayed in the main navigational channel, there would be a decreased threat to the seagrasses. However, the evidence shows that boaters often travel out of the main channel, either by inadvertence or to take a shortcut, and cross shallow areas where the seagrasses are located. It was the opinion of David Crewz, a plant ecologist who specializes in seagrasses, that increased boating activity in Big Bayou could decrease the habitat quality of the bayou. He said that one can expect more prop scarring and more turbidity caused by stirring up the bottom sediments. He was most concerned about boats larger than 16 feet in length that do not stay in the marked navigation channel. The 1995 Florida Marine Research Institute study of prop scarring, which Mr. Crewz co-authored, recommended a four- point approach to reduce prop scarring: (1) boater education, (2) channel marking, (3) enforcement, and (4) speed zones. The conditions contained in the proposed authorizations would implement two of the four points recommended by the study. PMC would install informational signs about seagrasses at the proposed project and at Grandview Park so that boaters using the proposed project and boaters using the boat ramp at the park would be less likely to operate their boats in a manner harmful to seagrasses. PMC would replace all missing markers along the main navigation channel. The current distance between some of the channel markers may be causing some boaters to stray from the channel. PMC would mark the location of seagrasses adjacent to the navigation channel. The operation phase of the environmental resource permit would not become effective until the channel markers and seagrass markers have been installed. The proposed educational displays, channel markers, and seagrass markers would probably reduce boat traffic across seagrass areas, but they would not eliminate it. However, because the displays and markers would be viewed by boaters using Big Bayou other than just the 60 boaters who would use the slips at the proposed project, the “net” effect of the proposed project would likely be no significant increase in prop scars or related adverse impacts to seagrasses in Big Bayou due to the proposed project. Therefore, PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to seagrasses. To go further, however, and contend as PMC does that, even with the addition of 60 boats, the effect of the proposed project would be to significantly reduce the current incidents of prop scarring, boat grounding, and other adverse impacts to seagrasses, is mere speculation without a statistical analysis of boater behavior or other evidence that was not presented in this case. PMC would also limit the use of its boat slips to vessels with a draft that would provide at least a twelve-inch clearance between the vessel’s draft in a motor-down position and the top of submerged resource at mean low tide. This condition appears to been intended to track similar wording used in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)8., but because the condition leaves unstated the depth of the submerged resources and the water level of Big Bayou at mean low tide, a prospective renter of a boat slip would not know whether his or her boat would comply with the condition. The rule cannot be more specific because it applies to all waterbodies, but the specific condition in the proposed authorizations can and should be more specific to provide for adequate notice and enforcement. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not cause significant adverse impacts to seagrasses. Secondary Impacts – Manatees In Florida, between 25 and 30 percent of the annual manatee deaths are caused by collisions with boats. From 2002 to 2006, in Pinellas County waters, 41 percent of the manatee deaths of a known cause were watercraft-related. That percentage exceeds the state average and corresponds to an average of 3.2 deaths per year caused by boats. However the study area from which these statistics were compiled does not include Big Bayou. Dr. John Reynolds, a marine mammal expert, believes that boat speed is the primary factor in manatee deaths from boat collisions. At higher speeds, boaters and manatees have less time to avoid a collision and the severity of the injury to a manatee is generally greater when the manatee is struck by a boat moving at higher speeds. There are no boat speed zones currently established in Big Bayou. Thirty-three years of data collected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) indicate that there are no known boat-related manatee deaths within two and a half miles of the project site. There have been two dead manatees discovered in Big Bayou, but their deaths were not attributed to boat collisions. Increasing the number of boats in an area used by manatees increases the potential for boat/manatee collisions. To minimize the potential for boat/manatee collisions, PMC would implement the standard manatee protection measures that apply during the construction of the proposed docks. PMC would also implement and maintain a manatee education program approved by the FWCC, including informational signs regarding manatees at the proposed project. Although reducing speeds by establishing, posting, and enforcing idle speed or slow speed zones in the bayou would probably be the most effective measure for the protection of manatees, PMC cannot be required by the proposed authorizations to control boat speeds because boat speed zones must be established by Pinellas County and the Florida Marine Patrol. The proposed authorizations incorporate the conditions recommended by the FWCC for the protection of manatees. Tom Logan, the former FWCC endangered species coordinator and now a consultant who focuses on endangered species and their habitat, believes that the special conditions included in the proposed authorizations provide adequate protection for manatees. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also concluded that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect manatees. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not cause significant adverse impacts to manatees. Secondary Impacts – Recreation Petitioners claim that their recreational uses of Big Bayou for fishing, swimming, canoeing, kayaking, and windsurfing would be diminished by the proposed project. However, Big Bayou is large enough to accommodate the additional boat trips associated with the proposed project and Petitioners’ recreational uses. A public water body like Big Bayou must be shared by persons living along or near its shores with all other citizens of Florida. Although some Petitioners would prefer that the bayou had the feel of a more remote or wild place, the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve is recognized to have a “highly developed, urban nature.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.019. It already has the attributes of an urban preserve. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not prevent or significantly impair the existing recreational uses of Big Bayou. Cumulative Impacts Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.006 and Section 3.2.8 of the Basis of Review require that cumulative impacts be evaluated in determining whether to issue, respectively, a submerged lands lease or an environmental resource permit. PMC and the Department state in their Proposed Recommended Orders that the consideration of cumulative impacts is limited to projects that are existing or under construction, but Florida Administrative Code Rule 18.006(1) also requires, for a sovereignty submerged lands lease, consideration of “the number and extent of similar human actions within the preserve which have previously affected or are likely to affect the preserve.” Because the principal source of potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed project is boating activity, the existing docking facility at Coquina Key North, the other docks in Big Bayou, and the boat ramp at Grandview Park are existing structures generating boating activity that must be taken into account in the cumulative impacts analysis. Although the proposed project, with the conditions on its construction and operation, would, alone, have no significant adverse impact on water quality, seagrasses, manatees, or recreational uses in Big Bayou, the cumulative impacts to Big Bayou from all similar activities in the preserve have created significant (material) adverse impacts to Big Bayou in the form of trash, water contamination, damage to seagrasses, and prop scars. Public Interest Criteria Section 258.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that a lease of sovereignty submerged lands within an aquatic preserve by the Trustees must be “in the public interest.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(46) defines “public interest” in this context as “demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action.” Florida Administrative Code 18-20.004(2) sets forth the public interest criteria to be considered and balanced by the Trustees in determining whether to issue a submerged land lease or other authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands. The Rule identifies public boat ramps and “marking navigation channels to avoid disruption of shallow water habitats” as examples of public benefits. These benefits, however, must “clearly exceed” the “costs,” such as degraded water quality, degraded natural habitat and function, harm to endangered or threatened species and habitat, and adverse cumulative impacts. For issuance of the environmental resource permit, a determination is required that the proposed project is “clearly in the public interest,” because Big Bayou is part of an Outstanding Florida Water. Fla. Admin Code R. 62-4.242(2). This determination requires the consideration and balancing of a number of criteria set forth in Section 3.2.3 of the Basis of Review: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.4 As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the “clearly in the public interest” test does not require the applicant to demonstrate that the intended activity would have a net public benefit. The counter-intuitive result is that, to meet the “in the public interest” test for the sovereignty submerged land lease, PMC must demonstrate a net public benefit, but to meet the “clearly in the public interest test” for the environmental resource permit, PMC does not have to show a net public benefit. The measures that PMC has agreed to undertake to meet the public interest criteria for the proposed authorizations are as follows: Contribute $300,000 to the construction of a second boat ramp at the current Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor; Install and maintain navigational aides marking the main channel in the bayou; Install markers indicating the location of seagrass beds; Install and maintain an informational display at the public boat ramp in Grandview Park, relating to the protection of seagrasses and natural resources within the bayou; and Install and maintain an aerial map at the Grandview Park boat ramp depicting the location of the navigation channel and the seagrass beds in the bayou. The $300,000 contribution for the boat ramp was based on a similar contribution ($5,000 per slip) that was made previously by the developer of another docking facility in Pinellas County. The Department had originally suggested that PMC contribute to a spoil island restoration project to satisfy the public interest criterion. However, due to the Trustees’ and/or Department’s concern about the reduction in the number of boat slips available to the general public,5 the Department proposed that PMC contribute $300,000 to Pinellas County’s Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor. The definition of “mitigation” in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(35) states that, “Cash payments shall not be considered mitigation unless payments are specified for use in a previously identified, Department endorsed, environmental or restoration project.” No evidence was presented to show that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project is an “environmental or restoration project,” and it does not appear to qualify as such. Implicit in the boat ramp contribution proposal is the view that the public interest in providing more recreational boaters with access to Pinellas County waters outweighs the negative impacts to marine resources that are associated with increased boating activity. No evidence was presented, however, to explain or support this view. The strange result here is that PMC would be mitigating for the adverse impacts associated with increasing the boating activity in Big Bayou by helping to increased boating activity in other county waters where seagrass losses have been greater, prop scarring is a bigger problem, and more manatees are being killed by boat collisions.6 Dr. Reynolds stated that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor could be a benefit to Big Bayou if the boat ramp project took boat traffic away from the bayou, but he did not know whether it would. A reasonable inference can be made that, being so far away, the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project is unlikely to add to or subtract from boat traffic in Big Bayou. As found above, the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project, taking into account the proposed conditions, would be insignificant. However, because the record evidence shows that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project would put boats into county waters (and aquatic preserve waters) where there has been greater seagrass losses, more prop scarring, and more manatees killed by boat collisions than in Big Bayou, PMC’s $300,000 contribution to the boat ramp project actually increases the secondary impacts and cumulative impacts of PMC’s proposed project and causes it to fail to meet the public interest criteria. Without the $300,000 contribution to the Sutherland Boat Ramp project, PMC would meet the “clearly in the public interest” test for the environmental resource permit because the other mitigation offered by PMC would offset the secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. However, a different result would occur in the case of the sovereignty submerged land lease. Eliminating the $300,000 contribution to the Sutherland Boat Ramp project would result in a situation where the public benefits of the proposed project do not “clearly exceed” the costs of the project and, therefore, PMC would not meet the “in the public interest” test. Although the record in this case is insufficient to demonstrate that PMC’s contribution to the boat ramp project would cause the benefits of the project to clearly exceed its costs, the record evidence is sufficient to support issuance of the lease modification if PMC were able to get the appropriate government authorities to establish a boat speed zone in Big Bayou, or if PMC contributed to the enforcement of boat speed zones in the aquatic preserve. As restated in the Conclusions of Law, whether the proposed mitigation is sufficient to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed project is a determination that rests exclusively with the Trustees and the Department, based on the record evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Environmental Resource Permit No. 52-0258984-001 and the modification of Sovereignty Submerged Land Lease No. 520224543. In the event the Trustees determine to issue the submerged land lease, it is recommended that the lease be modified to add a condition that the boat slips shall only be subleased or sold to residents of Coquina Key North condominiums. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 21st day of March, 2008.
