The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the City of Tarpon Springs (“City”) is entitled to a industrial wastewater facility permit for its proposed discharge of demineralization concentrate into the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to Pasco County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Henry Ross is a resident of Tarpon Springs. In his petition for hearing, he alleges that he is a recreational fisherman and a "consumer of fish taken from the area" where the proposed wastewater discharge would occur. He presented no evidence at the final hearing to prove these allegations. Neither the City or the Department stipulated to facts that would establish Ross's standing. The City of Tarpon Springs is a municipality in Pinellas County and the applicant for the industrial wastewater permit that is challenged by Ross. The Department is the agency charged by law with the duty, and granted the power, to regulate the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State. The Proposed Permit - General Due to the cost of obtaining potable water from Pinellas County Utilities, the City decided to look for another source of drinking water. In February 2004, an alternative water supply plan was developed by the City’s Office of Public Services which analyzed potable water supply options. It determined that the withdrawal and treatment of brackish groundwater represented the best option for the City. The proposed permit authorizes the City to discharge industrial wastewater into waters of the State. The wastewater is demineralization concentrate, which is produced when RO technology is used to remove salts from brackish water to convert it to potable water. The wastewater would be produced in conjunction with the operation of a not-yet-constructed WTP that would supply public drinking water to the residents of the City. The City must also obtain a consumptive use permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District for the proposed withdrawal of groundwater. Whether the Town is entitled to a consumptive use permit is not at issue in this proceeding. The industrial wastewater permit would authorize a maximum daily discharge of 2.79 million gallons per day ("mgd") of RO concentrate. The initial operation of the WTP, however, is expected to discharge 1.05 mgd. The RO concentrate would be transported via a force main from the WTP in the City to an outfall in Pasco County. The outfall would discharge the wastewater into a canal which is already being used for the discharge of cooling water from Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s Anclote Power Generation Facility. The outfall would be 50 feet north of the point in the canal where Progress Energy is required to demonstrate compliance with its own permitting requirements, so as not to interfere with Progress Energy's ability to demonstrate compliance. There is a floating barrier in the channel north of the proposed point of discharge, and a fence along the side of the canal, to prevent swimmers, boaters, and persons on foot from getting near the Progress Energy power plant. The floating barrier and fence would also prevent swimmers, boaters, or pedestrians from reaching the proposed discharge outfall and the area of the canal where the discharge will initially mix. After being discharged into the canal, the wastewater would become diluted and flow northward, out of the canal and into the open waters of the Gulf. The prevailing currents in area would most often force the wastewater south toward Pinellas County and the mouth of the Anclote River. To determine the characteristics of the wastewater, the City's consultants collected water from the three proposed well fields for the new WTP and ran the water through a small, pilot-scale RO unit to generate an RO concentrate that is representative of the proposed RO discharge. It was determined that eight constituents of the wastewater would likely be present in concentrations that would exceed applicable state water quality standards: aluminum, copper, iron, gross alpha (a radioactivity measurement), total radium, selenium, nickel, and zinc. The Mixing Zones The Department may authorize mixing zones in which a wastewater discharge is allowed to mix with the receiving waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.244. Within the mixing zone, certain minimum water quality criteria must be met. At the outer boundary of the mixing zone, the applicable state water quality standards must be met. In this case, the water quality standards for Class III marine waters are applicable. The City's consultants analyzed the wastewater, receiving waters, and other factors and used an analytical model to simulate a number of mixing scenarios. In cooperation with Department staff, a separate mixing zone was established for each of the eight constituents that are not expected to meet water quality standards at the outfall. The largest mixing zone, for copper, is 1,483.9 square meters. The smallest mixing zone, for nickel, is 0.7 square meters. The mixing zones are conservatively large to assure sufficient mixing. Under most conditions, the mixing is expected to occur in a smaller area. Toxicity Analysis Among the minimum criteria that must be met within a mixing zone is the requirement to avoid conditions that are acutely toxic. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-302.500(1)(a). A wastewater discharge is tested for potential acute toxicity by exposing test organisms to the undiluted discharge and determining whether more than 50 percent of the organisms die within a specified time period. The test organisms, mysid shrimp and silverside minnow, are sensitive species. Therefore, when a discharge is not acutely toxic to these organisms, it can be reasonably presumed that the discharge would not harm the native organisms in the receiving waters. The acute toxicity test for the proposed RO concentrate indicated zero toxicity. The Department requested that the City also analyze the potential chronic toxicity of the proposed discharge. A wastewater discharge shows chronic toxicity if exposure to the discharge adversely affects the growth and weight of the test organisms. The tests performed on the representative discharge showed that the proposed discharge of RO concentrate would not create chronic toxicity in the mixing zones. Petitioner’s expert witness, Ann Ney, did not review the toxicity analyses or other water quality data that were submitted to the Department by the City. However, she expressed a general concern about a salty discharge that could create stratification in the canal with higher salinity at the bottom of the canal that might be hypoxic (little or no dissolved oxygen). The more persuasive evidence shows that salinity stratification, or a hypoxic condition, is unlikely to occur. The proposed permit requires the City to conduct quarterly chronic toxicity tests. The permit also requires the City to periodically test the water and sediments for any unexpected cumulative effects of the discharge. Evaluation of Disposal Options Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-620.625(6) requires that an applicant for a permit to discharge demineralization concentrate must investigate disposal options potentially available in the project area. The City evaluated blending the discharge concentrate with the City's re-use water irrigation program or with the City’s domestic wastewater discharge into the Anclote River. The RO concentrate was too salty for irrigation use and there was an inadequate volume of domestic wastewater available throughout the year. In addition, the Anclote River is an Outstanding Florida Water and, therefore, is afforded the highest water quality protection under Department rules. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(2). The City also looked at underground injection but that was economically unreasonable and there was concern about upward migration of the discharge. It was economically unreasonable to discharge the concentrate farther out into the Gulf. Anti-degradation Analysis For a proposed new discharge, a permit applicant must demonstrate that the use of another discharge location, land application, or recycling that would avoid the degradation of water quality is not economically and technologically reasonable. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(1)(d). As discussed above, the City investigated other disposal options, but they were not economically or technologically reasonable. An applicant for a permit authorizing a new discharge must demonstrate that any degradation is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.300(17). In determining whether a proposed discharge is desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest, the Department is required by Rule 62-4.242(1)(b) to consider the following factors: Whether the proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare (taking into account the policies set forth in Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C., and, if applicable, Rule 62-302.700, F.A.C.); and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge; and Whether the proposed discharge is consistent with any applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan that has been adopted by a Water Management District and approved by the Department. The proposed project is important to and is beneficial to public health, safety or welfare because it would provide drinking water for the public. In addition, the treatment and use of brackish groundwater converts otherwise unusable water into a valuable resource. The use of brackish water avoids the use of water in the surficial aquifer that is used by natural systems, such as wetlands. The Florida Legislature has found that the demineralization of brackish water is in the public interest, as expressed in Section 403.0882, Florida Statutes (2010): The legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to conserve and protect water resources, provide adequate supplies and provide for natural systems, and promote brackish water demineralization as an alternative to withdrawals of freshwater groundwater and surface water by removing institutional barriers to demineralization and, through research, including demonstration projects, to advance water and water by-product treatment technology, sound waste by-product disposal methods, and regional solutions to water resources issues. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife. Because the discharge is not toxic to sensitive test organisms provides reasonable assurance that the native fish and other aquatic life would not be adversely affected by the discharge. The only identified threatened or endangered species that frequents the canal waters is the endangered Florida Manatee. Manatees use the canal because of its relatively warm waters. Manatees come to the surface to breathe and they drink fresh water. There is no reason to expect that a manatee moving through the mixing zones would be adversely affected by the RO concentrate. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, which has primary responsibility for the protection of endangered and threatened species, did not object to the proposed permit. Manatees and many other aquatic species use seagrasses as food or habitat. There are no seagrasses in the area of the canal into which the RO concentrate would be discharged, but there are dense seagrass beds nearby. The proposed discharge would have no effect on the seagrasses in the area. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. Because the proposed discharge is non-toxic and would meet Class III water quality standards before reaching the closest areas where humans have access to the canal and Gulf waters, there is no reason to believe that the proposed discharge would be harmful to humans. The proposed discharge would not adversely affect recreational activities, such as swimming, boating, or fishing. Petitioner presented the testimony of two fishermen about fishing resources and water flow in the area, but no evidence was presented to show how the proposed discharge would reduce marine productivity. Petitioner contends that the proposed discharge would adversely affect the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve. However, the aquatic preserve is two miles away. The proposed discharge would probably be undetectable at that distance. It would have no effect on the waters or other resources of the aquatic preserve. With regard to the requirement that the proposed discharge be consistent with an adopted and approved Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan for the area, there is no such plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order determining that Petitioner lacks standing, and approving the issuance of the industrial wastewater facility permit to the City. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas J. Trask, Esquire Frazer, Hubbard, Brandt & Trask, LLP 595 Main Street Dunedin, Florida 34698 Henry Ross 1020 South Florida Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Mimi Drew, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues in this matter concern Petitioner's requests of Respondent to be granted an after-the-fact dredge and fill permit related to the placement of fill. See Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent denied this request and this occasioned the formal hearing of February 10, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner placed a bulkhead waterward of the line of mean high water and the landward extent of the St. Johns River in Duval County, Florida, to improve his property. He then placed approximately 140 cubic yards of fill material in existing wetlands which were located landward of the bulkhead. This was done without obtaining an environmental permit from Respondent. Subsequently, Petitioner discovered that such permit was necessary and on April 28, 1983, he applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for the issuance of an after-the-fact dredge and fill permit in keeping with the requirements of Chapters 253 and 403 Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. An on-site inspection was made by reviewing authorities within the Department of Environmental Regulation and, based upon an appraisal of the project, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. The date of the notice was August 15, 1983. A Final Order related to the environmental permit request was issued on August 29, 1983, conditioned upon failure of the Respondent to apply for an administrative hearing within 14 days of the date of that order. Petitioner filed a Request for Formal Hearing on August 31, 1983, and the formal hearing ensued. The placement of the bulkhead and fill material was approximately 15 feet waterward of the line of mean high water in the St. Johns River and 30 feet waterward of the landward extent of the St. Johns River according to the plant indices set forth in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code. The St. Johns River is a Class III water body and is a navigable waterway over which the state retains possessory and public trust rights. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner has obtained permission from the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, related to property rights and utilization of the waters of the St. Johns River in the area of his project, he is not relieved from obtaining an environmental permit from Respondent. The Department of Environmental Regulation has jurisdiction over the construction of the bulkhead and the placement of the fill in the landward extent of St. Johns River, according to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the associated rules of the Department. The landward extent of the waters of the St. Johns River was determined by the existence of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), the dominant vegetation of the area filled by the Petitioner and a variety listed in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, as an indicator species of the Department's jurisdiction. That vegetation was covered over by the fill material along the 100-foot wide front in which the fill was placed. The previous existence of smooth cordgrass was established by testimony of the Petitioner's son and the continuing existence of that species in a property adjacent to the Petitioner's land along the St. Johns. The effect of the placement of the fill landward of the bulkhead caused the removal of approximately 1,200 to 1,500 square feet of tidal marsh. That tidal marsh was a vital part in the maintenance of water quality in the St. Johns River. In effect, the vegetation and microbiopopulation in soils served to filter out and assimilate pollutants from upland runoff and from the water in the river, and with the placement of the fill those resources and protections were destroyed. Moreover, water quality standards within Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, were also adversely impacted with the installation of the fill, including those standards related to BOD, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and turbidity. Petitioner not only failed to give reasonable assurances that the placement of the fill in its short-term implication would not violate the aforementioned water quality criteria, he has also failed to give reasonable assurances that there will be no violations in the long-term results of the placement of fill. The destruction of the tidal marsh is detrimental to the ecological system in that it takes away detritus which is a necessary part of the food chain. Removal of the marshland is detrimental to the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife, and other natural resources. Petitioner has failed to affirmatively demonstrate that the quality of this detriment will not be contrary to the public interest. In fact, Respondent's presentation shows that the activity of the placement of fill is contrary to the public interest because of the adverse impacts on the natural resources of the area, in that natural marine habitats and grass flats suitable to nursery or feeding grounds for marine life were destroyed when the marshland was removed.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent Leon County School Board should be issued a dredge and fill permit to excavate and backfill in connection with the installation of sewage collection system pipes beneath the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette in Leon County.
Findings Of Fact On April 13, 1989, the Board submitted a permit application to DER for the dredge and fill permit which forms the basis for this proceeding. The project represented in the dredge and fill application consisted of installation of two sewage collection system pipes beneath the Alford Arm of Lake Lafayette. Installation would be accomplished by excavating and backfilling two trenches, each approximately 50 feet long by four feet wide by two feet deep. The pipes to be installed in the trenches adjacent to Buck Lake Road are one 15-inch gravity main and one 14-inch force main. A total of 15 cubic yards of soil was proposed for excavation and replacement. The project area consisted of less than 100 square feet. The Alford Arm in the project's vicinity is a canal dredged in the 1920's and 1930's. Neither the Alford Arm nor Lake Lafayette constitute Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), instead these water bodies are Class III Waters. On April 14, 1989, DER staff conducted an inspection of the project site, completed a permit application appraisal of the project, and issued permit no. 371633191 for the project. On the same day, the permit was withdrawn when it was discovered that the document had been signed by an unauthorized official. On April 20, 1989, DER again issued permit no. 371633191 to the Board for the project. The dredging, pipe installation, and backfilling were subsequently completed. Water Quality Since the dredging and filling could potentially produce short-term turbidity in the Alford Arm as a result of sediment entering the water, a specific condition of the permit required the placement of a row of staked hay bales downstream from the project site prior to construction and thereafter until re- vegetation of the site had occurred. By compliance with this turbidity control measure, reasonable assurance was provided by the Board that violations of state water quality standards would not result from the project construction. The project did not cause any violations of DER water quality criteria for turbidity or any other water quality criteria. Numerous technological advances and safeguards built into the sewer lines and lift stations make probability of any leakage very remote. Petitioner's concern with regard to potential for leakage from the collection system lines and the lift stations to cause water quality problems in the Alford Arm is not supported by any competent substantial evidence of record regarding statistical frequency and probability of such occurrences. Further, there is no such evidence of infirmities regarding design soundness or the functional history of the pipe used in the project. Public Interest DER evaluated the project in accordance with the criteria of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, prior to issuance of the permit. Another review has now been completed approximately two years after completion of the project. The project has not and will not cause any adverse impacts on public health, safety, welfare, or property of others. Likewise, the project has not caused adverse impacts on significant historical or archaeological resources. Similarly, no adverse impacts on the conservation of fish or wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats has or will result from the project. Interestingly, woodstorks have been observed feeding in the very vicinity of the project as recently as May 28, 1991, more than two years after completion of the project. No adverse impacts have or will be visited upon navigation or flow of the water. No harmful erosion or shoaling has or will result from the project. The project has not and will not cause any adverse impacts on fishing, recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The impacts of this dredge and fill project were temporary. The dredged and filled area has re-vegetated with the same species, pickerelweed and smartweed. Wetland functions of the site that existed prior to the project were minimal and have been re-established. Cumulative And Secondary Impacts Cumulative impacts from similar projects were not evidenced at the final hearing. There are no projects proposed which are closely linked or causally related to the dredge and fill project. The only non-speculative secondary impact from the project was possible leakage of wastewater from the collection system lines and lift station. The probability of such leakage is very low. Particularly in view of the geographical area, engineering design and manufacture of the pipes and waste collection system, such probability is speculative and minimal or non-existent in the absence of competent substantial evidence regarding statistical frequency of such an event. The construction of the sewage collection system with which the project is associated is a result of growth in the geographic area. While the project has not been established to induce growth in the area, such development would not affect Lake Lafayette since the collection system currently installed has a 400 gallon per minute capability, or the ability to serve 400 residential connections. Prior to issuance of the dredge and fill permit, 800 existing residential lots were platted along Buck Lake Road within two miles east and two miles west of the project site. Since the system could be upgraded to accommodate 1600 residential units, the potential increase that could result from the project in any event is an additional 800 residential units. If these additional residences are built at the very high density of one per quarter acre, these lots would cover only approximately two-thirds of a square mile or less than one percent of the Lake Lafayette drainage basin of approximately 80 square miles. Such development would have no measurable impact on Lake Lafayette.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered approving the issuance of permit number 371633191 to the Board. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2752 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. None Submitted. Respondent Board's Proposed Findings: 1.-17. Adopted in substance. Respondent Department's Proposed Findings: 1.-24. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Terri Saltiel 7769 Deep Wood Trail Tallahassee, FL 32311 Richard A. Lotspeich, Esq. John T. LaVia, III, Esq. P.O. Box 271 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Michael Donaldson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Krista Howard,2/ is entitled to issuance of the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI, as announced by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, in the Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Lease to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands issued on July 28, 2017, and subsequently amended on January 11, 2018.3/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Defenders is a Florida non-profit corporation that has been in existence since the mid-1980s or earlier. Defenders' primary purpose is to protect and preserve Crooked Lake so that it may remain an Outstanding Florida Water ("OFW") for all members of the public to use and enjoy. Defenders has more than 25 members who reside in Polk County, Florida. Its membership consists of approximately 100 family memberships, mostly comprised of persons who live on or near Crooked Lake. Petitioners Gerards are riparian landowners on Crooked Lake, whose property is located immediately adjacent to, and slightly to the northwest of, Respondent Howard's property. The Gerards' home address is 1055 Scenic Highway North, Babson Park, Florida 33827. Respondent Howard is the applicant for the Consolidated Authorization for the Dock. Howard's property, which is riparian to Crooked Lake, is located at 1045 Scenic Highway North, Babson Park, Florida 33827. Respondent DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of DEP's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules adopted pursuant to that statute. Pursuant to that authority, DEP determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Pursuant to section 253.002, Florida Statutes, DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") and, in that capacity, reviews and determines whether to issue or deny, applications for approval to use sovereignty submerged lands.5/ DEP Review of the Application The Dock is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands and in surface waters subject to State of Florida regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, an environmental resource permit and a sovereignty submerged lands lease are required. On or about February 14, 2017, Todd Rickman, Howard's professional contractor who designed the Dock, filed an Application for a Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease for Existing Structures and Activities6/ ("Application") with DEP's Southwest District Office, seeking approval to construct and operate the Dock. On or about March 15, 2017, DEP requested additional information regarding the project. Howard submitted the requested items, and the Application was determined complete on May 30, 2017. Notice of DEP's receipt of the Lease portion of the Application was provided as required by section 253.115. The comment period commenced on June 15, 2017, and ended on July 6, 2017. As previously noted, on July 28, 2017, DEP issued the Consolidated Notice of Intent, proposing to issue the Consolidated Authorization to construct and operate the Dock. On January 11, 2018, DEP amended the Consolidated Notice of Intent to accurately reflect the "clearly in the public interest" permitting standard for the ERP portion of the Consolidated Authorization, which is applicable to projects proposed in OFWs. Background Crooked Lake Crooked Lake (also, "Lake") is an approximately 4,247-acre freshwater lake in Polk County, Florida. It is an irregularly shaped karst lake roughly resembling an inverted "L," with the longer axis running north to south. It is located on the Lake Wales Ridge. Crooked Lake is designated an OFW by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.700(9)(i)9.7/ The Lake is classified as a Class III waterbody pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.400(15).8/ The elevations and bottom contours in Crooked Lake vary substantially throughout the Lake. Thus, water depths may, and generally do, vary substantially from one location to another throughout the Lake. The water levels in Crooked Lake fluctuate frequently and, at times, dramatically, depending on rainfall frequency and amounts. A graph prepared by Petitioners' Witness James Tully, using Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD") historical water level data for Crooked Lake measured in National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 ("NGVD") shows water levels historically fluctuating from as low as approximately 106 feet in or around 1991, to as high as 123 feet NGVD in or around 1951, 1961, and 2004. Rickman generated a water level graph using the Polk County Water Atlas ("Atlas") website. This graph, which covers the period of 2008 through mid-2017, shows that the water levels in Crooked Lake, for this most recent ten-year period, fluctuated approximately five feet, with the lowest levels falling slightly below 114 feet NGVD for relatively short periods in 2012 and 2013, and the highest level rising to approximately 119 feet NGVD in mid-2017. The competent, credible evidence shows that although water levels in Crooked Lake may occasionally rise to levels at or around 123 feet NGVD, those conditions have been associated with extreme weather events such as hurricanes, are atypical, and are relatively short-lived. The maximum water level in Crooked Lake is subject to control by a weir located south of the Lake. Discharge from the weir occurs at a control elevation of 120 feet NGVD. As such, the water level in parts of Crooked Lake may, at times, temporarily exceed 120 feet NGVD, but will eventually decrease to 120 feet NGVD as the water flows south and is discharged through the weir. To the extent rainfall does not recharge the Lake, water levels may fall below 120 feet NGVD. The ordinary high water line ("OHWL"), which constitutes the boundary between privately-owned uplands and sovereignty submerged lands, has been established at 120.0 feet NGVD for Crooked Lake. Crooked Lake is used for recreational activities such as fishing, swimming, boating, and jet ski use, and there are public and private boat ramps at various points on the lake that provide access to the Lake. There is no marina having a fueling station on the Lake. The credible evidence shows that the northeast portion of the Lake, where the Dock is proposed to be located, experiences a substantial amount of boat and jet ski traffic. This portion of the Lake also is used for swimming, water- skiing, wakeboarding, the use of "towables" such as inner tubes, and for other in-water recreational uses. The Proposed Dock Howard holds fee title by warranty deed to parcel no. 333028-000000-033140 located at 1045 Scenic Highway, Babson Park, Florida.9/ This parcel has approximately 110 linear feet of riparian shoreline on Crooked Lake. The Dock is proposed to be constructed and operated on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to this riparian upland parcel, which is located on the eastern shore of the northeastern portion of Crooked Lake. The Dock, as proposed, is a private single-family residential dock that will be used by Howard for water-dependent recreational purposes, such as specifically, boating, fishing, swimming, and sunbathing. The Dock is not proposed to be constructed or used by, or to otherwise serve, commercial or multifamily residential development. The Dock is configured as a "T," supported by pilings and consisting of a 4-foot-wide by 152-foot-long access walkway, and an approximately 1,983-square-foot terminal platform comprised of a lower-level platform having four vessel slips and a flat platform roof. Two sets of stairs lead from the lower level of the terminal platform to the platform roof, which will be elevated eight feet above the lower-level platform and will have a railed perimeter. The platform roof will function as a roof for the boat storage area below and a sundeck. The four slips on the Dock's lower-level platform will be used for permanent mooring for up to six watercraft: a 23-foot-long ski boat,10/ a 20-foot-long fishing boat, and four jet skis. As proposed, the Dock will occupy a total area of approximately 2,591 square feet. The lower platform of the Dock is proposed to be constructed at an elevation of 121 feet NGVD. The roof/upper platform will be constructed eight feet above that, at an elevation of 129 feet NGVD. The pilings supporting the Dock will be wrapped in an impervious material to prevent leaching of metals and other pollutants into the water. Pursuant to the Specific Purpose Field Survey ("Survey") for the Lease submitted as part of the Application, the Lease will preempt approximately 2,591 square feet, and closely corresponds to the footprint of the Dock. The submerged lands surrounding the Dock that are not occupied by the footprint of the Dock, including the area between terminal platform and the shoreline, are not included in the preempted area of the Lease.11/ The Survey shows "approximate riparian lines" which delineate Howard's riparian area oriented to the center of the waterbody and to the primary navigation channel in the northeast portion of Crooked Lake. As shown on the version of the Survey initially filed as part of the Application, the Dock was proposed to be located approximately 4.7 feet, at its closest point, from the southern riparian line. However, in response to DEP's request for additional information, the Survey was modified in April 2017, to shift the Dock northward within Howard's riparian area. The Dock is now proposed to be located 25.1 feet, at its closest point, from the southern riparian line, and 29.4 feet, at its closest point, from the northern riparian line. The walkway of the Dock will commence at an approximate elevation of 120 feet NGVD, which corresponds to the OHWL established for Crooked Lake. As previously noted above, the walkway will extend waterward approximately 152 feet, where it will intersect with the terminal platform. The terminal platform will extend another 52 feet waterward. In total, the Dock is proposed to extend waterward approximately 204 feet from the OHWL. Although the Dock would be one of the longest and largest docks on Crooked Lake, the credible evidence establishes that there are several other docks of similar size and/or length on the Lake. Rickman testified that he obtained approvals for, or was otherwise aware of, several docks over 2,000 square feet on the Lake. Additionally, the evidence showed that eight other docks on the Lake are longer than the proposed Dock.12/ Rickman testified that most of the larger docks on Crooked Lake have roofs, and that most of these roofs are pitched, rather than flat.13/ As noted above, the water level in Crooked Lake frequently and, at times, extensively fluctuates. As a result, there are periods during which water depths in parts of the Lake are extremely shallow. Rickman testified that the Dock was designed to extend far enough out into Crooked Lake to reach sufficient water depth to enable Howard to maximize the use of the Dock for boating throughout the year. The Dock is designed to extend out to the point at which the bottom elevation of the Lake is approximately 109.9 feet NGVD. Based on the Atlas' ten-year water level graph for Crooked Lake referenced above, Rickman projected that at this point, the water depth typically would be sufficient to allow Howard to operate her largest vessel, the 23-foot ski boat. The ski boat has a 25-inch draft.14/ The boat will be stored out of the water on a boat lift on the Dock, attached by cables to a sub-roof immediately beneath the platform roof. When being lowered into or hoisted from the water, the boat will be placed in a boat cradle consisting of two containment railings approximately 18 inches high each on either side, and a "V" shaped aluminum bottom with bunks on which the boat is cradled. The aluminum bottom of the cradle was estimated to be two to three inches thick. Although the boat cradle is approximately 18 to 21 inches in "total height,"15/ the cradle does not have to be completely lowered its entire 18- to 21-inch height into the water when used. Steven Howard explained, credibly, that the cradle needs to be lowered into the water only a few inches lower than the ski boat's 25-inch draft to enable the boat to float into or out of the cradle. To that point, Rickman testified that taking into account the 25-inch draft of the ski boat and the "total height" of the boat cradle, between 40 and 44 inches of water depth would be required when the cradle is used in order to avoid coming into contact with the Lake bottom. Based on the Atlas graph showing the lowest water levels for the previous ten-year period at approximately 114 feet NGVD, Rickman designed the Dock to extend out to the 109.9-foot NGVD bottom elevation point. At this point, the projected water depth would be slightly more than four feet during periods of the lowest projected water levels for Crooked Lake. For the Dock to be able to wharf out to 109.9 feet NGVD bottom elevation, it must extend a total of approximately 204 feet waterward into the Lake. The credible evidence establishes that while Howard's ski boat is one of the largest, it is not the largest boat operated on Crooked Lake. Impacts Assessment for Environmental Resource Permit Water Quality Impacts As noted above, Crooked Lake is a Class III waterbody. Accordingly, the surface water quality standards and criteria applicable to Class III waters in Florida codified in rule 62-302.300 apply to Crooked Lake. The Dock, as proposed to be constructed and operated, is not anticipated to adversely affect or degrade water quality in Crooked Lake. Specifically, as required by the Consolidated Authorization, a floating turbidity curtain will be installed around the boundary of the construction area before construction commences, and it must be left in place until construction is complete and turbidity levels in the work area have returned to background levels. Additionally, as noted, the pilings supporting the Dock must be wrapped in an impervious material to prevent leaching of metals and other pollutants into the water over the life of the structure. The Consolidated Authorization also prohibits the installation and use of fueling equipment at the Dock; prohibits the discharge of sewage or other waste into the water; prohibits liveaboards; prohibits fish cleaning or the installation of fish cleaning stations unless sufficient measures such as sink screens and waste receptacles are in place; and prohibits repair and maintenance activities involving scraping, sanding, painting, stripping, recoating, and other activities that may degrade water quality or release pollutants into the water. Although the Consolidated Authorization imposes a specific condition requiring, for all vessels using the Dock, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with motor in the down position) and the top of submerged resources, it does not specifically address circumstances where the use of the boat cradle, rather than the vessel itself, may come into contact with the Lake bottom. DEP's witness acknowledged that if the boat cradle were to come into contact with the Lake bottom, water quality standards may be violated. Given the information presented at the final hearing regarding the operation of the boat lift and the need for sufficient clearance between the bottom of the boat cradle and the lake bottom, the undersigned recommends that a specific condition be included in the Consolidated Authorization prohibiting contact of the Lake bottom by the boat cradle. This recommended condition is set forth in paragraph 73.A., below. Upon consideration of the conditions imposed by the Consolidated Authorization discussed above, including imposing a specific condition that prohibits contact of the boat cradle with the Lake bottom, the undersigned finds that the Dock will not adversely affect or degrade the water quality of Crooked Lake. Water Quantity Impacts The Dock, as proposed, is a piling-supported structure that will not impound, store, or impede the flow of surface waters. As such, the Dock will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or offsite property, will not result in adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, and will not result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of surface or ground water levels. Impacts to Fish, Wildlife, and Listed Species and Habitat The Application states, in section 5, question 6, that there is no vegetation on Howard's riparian shoreline. However, the Survey depicts an area of emergent grasses approximately 60 feet wide and extending diagonally approximately 70 feet waterward into the Lake. The Survey depicts this grassed area as straddling the riparian line between Howard's property and the adjacent parcel to the south. The Survey shows the Dock as being located a significant distance waterward of the grassed area, such that no portion of the Dock will be located on or near this grassed area. Additionally, an aerial photograph of Howard's property and the Lake waterward of Howard's property shows a smaller patch of what appears to be emergent grasses further offshore. This grassed area is not shown on the Survey, and it cannot definitively be determined, by examining the Survey and the aerial photograph, whether this grassed area is growing in an area that will be impacted by the Dock. Steven Howard acknowledged that this smaller grassed area may be located at or near the jet ski slip on the southeastern side of the Dock. An environmental assessment of this smaller grassed area was not performed or submitted as part of the Application. Thus, any value that this area may have as fish and wildlife habitat was not assessed as part of DEP's determination that the Dock will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, and to listed species and their habitat. In order to provide reasonable assurance that the Dock will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, and to listed species and their habitat, the undersigned recommends including a specific condition in the Consolidated Authorization requiring this smaller grassed area to be completely avoided during construction and operation of the Dock, or, if avoidance is not feasible, that an environmental assessment be performed prior to construction so that the value of this grassed area, if any, to fish, wildlife, and listed species can be evaluated to determine whether minimization and compensatory mitigation should be required. This recommended condition is set forth in paragraph 73.B., below. As previously noted, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with the motor in the down position) and the top of submerged resources for all vessels that will use the docking facility. Compliance with this condition will help ensure that the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and to listed species and their habitat of any such submerged resources is not adversely impacted by vessels using the Dock. The Consolidated Authorization also contains a specific condition requiring handrails to be installed on the Dock to prevent mooring access to portions of the Dock other than the wetslips. This will help protect submerged resources in shallower areas in the vicinity of the Dock. Fish populations in the immediate area of the Dock site may temporarily be affected during construction of the Dock; however, those impacts are not anticipated to be permanent. Additionally, as previously discussed, the Dock pilings must be wrapped with an impervious material to prevent leaching of pollutants into the water, and once installed, the pilings may provide habitat for fish and a substrate for benthic organisms. Provided that the conditions set forth in the draft Consolidated Authorization, as well as the recommendation regarding the smaller grassed area, are included in the final version of the Consolidated Authorization, it is determined that the construction and operation of the Dock will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, or to listed species or their habitat.16/ Impact on Navigation Petitioners assert that the Dock will constitute a hazard to navigation in the northeast portion of Crooked Lake. Specifically, they assert that because the Dock will extend out approximately 204 feet into the Lake, it necessarily will create a navigational hazard to boaters in the vicinity. As support, Petitioners presented evidence consisting of Steven Howard's testimony that an inner tube on which his nephew was riding, that was being pulled behind a motor boat, collided with the Gerards' 84-foot-long floating dock adjacent to Howard's riparian area. Petitioners argue that if an 84-foot-long dock creates a navigational hazard, a 204-foot-long dock would create an even greater navigational hazard. The undersigned does not find this argument persuasive. The portion of Crooked Lake on which the Dock is proposed to be located is approximately a mile and a half to two miles long and one-half to three-quarters of a mile wide. Although this portion of Crooked Lake experiences substantial boat traffic, the evidence shows that the Lake is sufficiently large in this area, even with the Dock in place, to allow safe navigation. To this point, it is noted that there are two other longer docks in the northeastern portion of Crooked Lake, extending 220 and 244 feet into the Lake from the shoreline. There was no evidence presented showing that either of these docks constitutes a navigational hazard.17/ Petitioners also assert that during periods of high water in this portion of Crooked Lake, the Dock will be underwater and thus will present a navigational hazard. In support, they presented photographs taken on October 30, 2017—— approximately six weeks after Hurricane Irma struck central Florida——showing ten docks, out of the 109 docks on Crooked Lake, that were partially or completely submerged.18/ When the photographs were taken, the approximate water elevation was 119.2 feet NGVD. All or a portion of the submerged docks had been constructed at or below the 119.2-foot NGVD elevation. The docks without roofs were mostly or completely invisible under the water. However, for the roofed docks, the roofs remained visible above the water even when their docking platforms were submerged. Here, although the walkway and lower platform of Howard's Dock is proposed to be constructed at an elevation of 121 feet NGVD, the roof will be constructed at an elevation of 129 feet NGVD. Thus, even during the relatively infrequent periods19/ during which the water level in Crooked Lake may exceed 121 feet NGVD, the platform roof will still be visible to vessels navigating in this portion of the Lake. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring the waterward end of the Dock to be marked with a sufficient number of reflectors to be visible from the water at night by reflected light. This condition provides additional assurance that the Dock will not present a navigational hazard. For these reasons, it is determined that the Dock will not adversely affect navigation. Other ERP-Related Issues The evidence did not show that the Dock is proposed to be located in or proximate to a "work of the District," as defined in section 373.019(28). The only "work of the District" about which evidence was presented is the weir located south of Crooked Lake. This structure is many thousands of feet south of the Dock. There was no evidence presented showing that the Dock would have any impact on this weir. The Dock, as proposed, was designed by an experienced professional contractor who has designed and installed many docks on Crooked Lake, and, as such, is anticipated to function as proposed. The Dock must be built according to engineering diagrams to the Consolidated Authorization, and as-built drawings must be submitted when Dock construction is complete so that DEP can confirm that the Dock is constructed in accordance with the approved design. The evidence establishes that Howard, as the applicant, and Rickman, as the professional contractor in charge of construction, are financially, legally, and administratively capable of ensuring that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. No evidence to the contrary was presented. The Dock will be located in the waters of Crooked Lake and will be affixed to the submerged bottom. The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources ("DHR"), did not provide any comments indicating that historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be impacted by the project. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a general condition requiring subsurface activity associated with construction of the Dock to immediately cease, and DHR to be contacted, if any prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, stone tools or implements, dugout canoes, or other physical remains that could be associated with Native American cultures or early colonial or American settlements are encountered at any time within the project site area. Additional Recommended Conditions Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the following specific conditions be included in the Consolidated Authorization, Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI: A minimum six-inch clearance shall be maintained between the top of all submerged resources and the deepest draft of the cradle of the boat lift while in use. For purposes of this condition, submerged resources consist of the bottom sediment and/or any submerged grasses or other aquatic organisms. Any emergent grasses in the permittee's riparian area shall be avoided during the construction and operation of the Dock. If it is not feasible to avoid these grasses, an environmental assessment of the grassed area shall be performed and submitted to the Department prior to commencing construction, so that the value of this grassed area, if any, to fish, wildlife, and listed species can be evaluated and the extent to which minimization and/or compensatory mitigation is appropriate can be determined. Clearly in the Public Interest Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.070, Standards for Issuing or Denying Permits, states in pertinent part: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. In addition to the foregoing permitting requirements, because the Dock is proposed to be located in an OFW, Howard also must provide reasonable assurance that the Dock meets the "clearly in the public interest" standard. The "clearly in the public interest" standard does not require the applicant to demonstrate need for the project or a net public benefit from the project. Rather, this standard requires the applicant to provide greater assurances, under the circumstances specific to the project, that the project will comply with the applicable permitting requirements.20/ For the reasons discussed above, and with the inclusion of the additional recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., it is determined that the proposed Dock meets the applicable permitting requirements and the "clearly in the public interest" standard for issuance of the ERP. Impacts Assessment for Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease Water-Dependency of the Proposed Dock A water-dependent activity is one which can only be conducted in, on, over, or adjacent to water areas because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereignty submerged lands for specified activities, including recreation, and where the use of water or sovereignty submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(71). Petitioners argue that the Dock will not constitute a water-dependent activity because the depth of water in the slips may, at times, be insufficient to allow operation of Howard's vessels while complying with the requirement that a minimum 12- inch clearance be maintained between the lowest draft of the vessel and submerged resources. The undersigned finds this argument unpersuasive. The Dock is being constructed specifically for the purpose of enabling Howard to use her vessels for boating——a recreational activity for which use of the water indisputably is an integral part. The Dock's primary purpose is to moor vessels that will be used for the water-dependent recreational activities of boating and fishing, and other water-dependent recreational uses of the Dock include fishing, swimming and sunbathing. Case law interpreting the Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 makes clear that because docks are used for mooring vessels or conducting other in-water recreational uses, they are "water-dependent" activities for purposes of the rules.21/ Thus, even if water depths in the Dock's slips are at times insufficient for vessel mooring or launching,22/ this does not render the Dock not a "water-dependent activity." Resource Management Requirements The preempted area of the Lease is proposed to be used for a Dock that will be used for boating, fishing, and swimming. These traditional in-water recreational uses are consistent with the management purposes of sovereignty submerged lands as described in rule 18-21.004(2)(a). With the inclusion of the conditions currently proposed in the draft Consolidated Approval, as well as the recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., the undersigned determines that the Dock will not result in adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and associated resources. With the inclusion of the conditions currently proposed in the draft Consolidated Approval, as well as the recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., the undersigned determines that the Dock is designed to minimize or eliminate impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and submerged resources. With the inclusion of the currently proposed conditions in the draft Consolidated Authorization, as well as the recommended conditions set forth in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., it is determined that the Dock, as designed and constructed, will minimize or eliminate cutting, removal, or destruction of wetland vegetation. Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed Consolidated Approval requires the avoidance of adverse impacts to historic and cultural resources. Riparian Rights Consistent with rule 18-21.004(3)(d), the Dock is proposed to be constructed in Howard's riparian area and will be set back more than 25 feet from the northerly and southerly riparian lines shown on the Survey. Rule 18-21.004(3)(a) prohibits activities authorized under chapter 18-21 from being implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe on traditional common law riparian rights, as defined in section 253.141, of upland owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands. Similarly, rule 18-21.004(3)(c) requires all structures and activities to be designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent riparian owners. Collectively, these provisions prohibit an activity that will occur on sovereignty submerged lands from unreasonably infringing on or unreasonably restricting the riparian rights of upland riparian owners. Riparian rights are rights appurtenant to, and inseparable from, riparian land that borders on navigable waters. § 253.141, Fla. Stat.; Broward v. Mabry, 50 So. 830 (Fla. 1909). At common law, riparian rights include the rights of navigation, fishing, boating, and commerce. Hayes v. Bowman, 91 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1957). The right of navigation necessarily includes the right to construct and operate a dock to access navigable waters. Belvedere Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Transp., 476 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1985); Shore Vill. Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 824 So. 2d 208, 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Common law riparian rights also include the right to an obstructed view. Lee Cnty v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Many of these common law riparian rights have been statutorily codified in section 253.141. Statutory riparian rights include the "rights of ingress, egress, boating, bathing, and fishing and such others as may be or have been defined by law." § 253.141(1), Fla. Stat. At issue in this case are the competing riparian rights of next-door neighbors——i.e., Howard's right to wharf out to navigable waters for purposes of boating and other water- dependent recreational activities, and the Gerards' right to an unobstructed view. The question is whether Howard's proposed construction and operation of a dock of sufficient length to enable her to use her boats would unreasonably infringe on or unreasonably restrict the Gerards' right to an unobstructed view of the Lake. By virtue of the riparian rights appurtenant to Howard's riparian property, she is entitled to wharf out to water deep enough to enable her to navigate. She owns two boats, one of which pulls a draft of 25 inches, and the other, a draft of 20 inches, which she uses to navigate the Lake. Thus, an essential aspect of Howard's riparian right of navigation is her ability to construct and operate a dock long enough to enable her to reach water depths sufficient to use these boats. However, as noted above, this right is not unfettered. Howard's exercise of her riparian navigation right cannot unreasonably infringe on Gerard's right to an unobstructed view. Florida case law holds that the right to an "unobstructed" view does not entail a view free of any infringement or restriction whatsoever by neighboring structures or activities. In Hayes, the court defined the right as "a direct, unobstructed view of the [c]hannel and as well a direct, unobstructed means of ingress and egress . . . to the [c]hannel." Id. at 801 (emphasis added). The court then prescribed the rule that "in any given case, the riparian rights of an upland owner must be preserved over an area 'as near as practicable' in the direction of the [c]hannel so as to distribute equitably the submerged lands between the upland and the [c]hannel." Id. (emphasis added). To the extent there is no channel in this portion of the Lake, Hayes dictates that riparian rights must be apportioned equitably, so that a riparian owner's right to an unobstructed view can extend only from the owner's property in the direction of the center of the Lake. Kling v. Dep't of Envtl. Reg., Case No. 77-1224 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 6, 1977; Fla. DER Nov. 18, 1977) at ¶¶ 11-12 (emphasis added). Here, no evidence was presented showing that the Dock——which will be located immediately south and east of the Gerards' riparian property and attendant riparian area——will present an obstruction to the Gerards' view of the Lake channel. Additionally, the evidence did not establish that Howard's Dock would obstruct the Gerards' view of the center of the northeast portion of Crooked Lake, which is located west and slightly south of their property.23/ Administrative precedent in Florida provides additional support for the determination that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on the Gerards' right to an unobstructed view. In O'Donnell v. Atlantic Dry Dock Corporation, Case No. 04-2240 (Fla. DOAH May 23, 2005; Fla. DEP Sept. 6, 2005), riparian owners challenged the proposed approval of expansions of sovereignty submerged lands leases authorizing Atlantic Dry Dock, a neighboring commercial shipyard, to expand its shipyard facilities and install new docking facilities. The administrative law judge noted that although the expanded shipyard would further encroach on the riparian owners' already somewhat-restricted view from their property, it would not substantially and materially obstruct the Petitioners' view to the channel. He commented: "it [their view] may be further obstructed to the west in the direction of the Atlantic Marine yard, but not in the direction of the channel." To that point, he found that although "any lateral encroachment on the Petitioners' line-of-sight to the channel by the large eastern dry dock proposed will be an annoyance, . . . [it] will not rise to the level of a substantial and material interference or obstruction of the Petitioners' view to the channel." Id. at ¶ 119. He found that "there is no 'special riparian right' to a view of the sunset, just as there was no right to a particular object of view . . . by the riparian owners complaining in the Hayes case." Id. at ¶ 120. Castoro v. Palmer, Case Nos. 96-0736, 96-5879 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 1, 1998; Fla. DEP Oct. 19, 1998), also is instructive. In Castoro, neighboring riparian owners challenged the proposed issuance of an environmental approval and sovereignty submerged lands lease for a 227-foot-long dock having a terminal platform with boat lift. The owners contended that due to the dock's length, it would impermissibly obstruct their views of the water. The administrative law judge rejected that contention, distinguishing the circumstances from those in Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), in which the construction of a bridge that blocked 80 percent of the riparian owners' view of the channel was held to constitute a "substantial and material" obstruction to the riparian right of view. The ALJ noted that although the dock would have "some impact on the neighbors' views" and their use of the waterbody, it did not unreasonably impact their riparian rights to an unobstructed view or to use of the waterbody. Id. at ¶¶ 73-74. In Trump Plaza of the Palm Beaches Condominium v. Palm Beach County, Case No. 08-4752 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2009; Fla. DEP Oct. 8, 2009), a condominium association challenged the proposed issuance of a sovereignty submerged lands use approval to fill in a dredged area and create mangrove islands in the Lake Worth Lagoon, alleging, among other things, that the creation of the mangrove islands would unreasonably infringe on their riparian right to an unobstructed view. In rejecting this position and recommending issuance of the submerged lands use approval, the ALJ noted that the area obstructed by the mangrove islands would be negligible compared to the remaining expanse of the view, and further noted that the owners' real concern was directed at the aesthetics of the project——specifically, they did not want to view mangrove islands. The ALJ stated: "[t]he evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from [the riparian owners' property], the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights." Id. at ¶ 86. Applying these case law principles, it is determined that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on or unreasonably restrict the Gerards' riparian right to an unobstructed view. To that point, the cases make clear that the right to an "unobstructed" view is not an unfettered right to a view of the water completely free of any lateral encroachment, but, instead is the right of a view toward the channel or the center of a lake without unreasonable infringement or restriction. Here, although the Dock will laterally encroach on the Gerards' full panoramic view of the Lake——and, as such, may even constitute an annoyance, the evidence did not show that the Dock will obstruct or otherwise restrict their view to the channel or the center of the Lake. Moreover, to the extent the Gerards have expressed concern about the Dock interfering with their view of the south shore of the Lake, O'Donnell makes clear the desire to have a particular object of view——here, the south shore of the Lake——is not a legally protected riparian right. It is also found that the Dock will not unreasonably interfere with the Gerards' riparian rights of ingress, egress, boating, or navigation. As previously noted, the Dock will be located at least 25 feet inside the riparian lines established for Howard's upland property, and, it will not be constructed in a location or operated in a manner that will obstruct, interfere with, or restrict the Gerards' access to the Lake or to sufficient water depths to enable navigation.24/ The evidence also did not establish that the Dock will restrict or otherwise interfere with the Gerards' use of their riparian area for ingress and egress, boating, fishing, bathing, or other riparian uses. In sum, it is concluded that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on or restrict the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners. Accordingly, it is determined that the Dock will meet the requirements and standards in rule 18-21.004(3) regarding riparian rights. Navigational Hazard For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 63 through 67, it is determined that the Dock will not constitute a navigational hazard in violation of rule 18-21.004(7)(g). Not Contrary to the Public Interest Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) requires an applicant to demonstrate that an activity proposed to be conducted on sovereignty submerged lands will not be contrary to the public interest. To meet this standard, it is not necessary that the applicant show that the activity is affirmatively in the "public interest," as that term is defined in rule 18-21.003(51). Rather, it is sufficient that the applicant show that there are few, if any, "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs" of the proposed activity. Castoro, at ¶ 69. For the reasons discussed above, and with the inclusion of the additional recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., it is determined that the proposed Dock meets the "not contrary to the public interest" standard required for issuance of the Lease. Demonstration of Entitlement to ERP Howard met her burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case of entitlement to the ERP by entering into evidence the Application, the Notice of Intent, and supporting information regarding the proposed Dock. She also presented credible, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that required to meet her burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to the ERP. The burden then shifted to Petitioners to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the Dock does not comply with section 373.414 and applicable ERP rules. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Petitioners did not meet their burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p) in this proceeding. Accordingly, for the reasons addressed above, it is determined that Howard is entitled to issuance of the ERP for the Dock. Demonstration of Entitlement to Lease As previously discussed, Howard bore the burden of proof in this proceeding to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Dock meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements for issuance of the Lease for the Dock. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Howard met this burden, and, therefore, is entitled to issuance of the sovereignty submerged lands lease for the Dock. Petitioners' Standing Defenders' Standing As stipulated by the parties and noted above, Defenders is an incorporated non-profit entity created for the primary purpose of protecting and preserving Crooked Lake so that it may remain an OFW for all members of the public to enjoy. Defenders has been in existence since at least the mid- 1980s. Robert Luther, the president of Defenders, testified that the organization's purpose also entails providing education and promoting public awareness in order to preserve the natural beauty, water quality, ecological value, and quality of life around Crooked Lake. As stipulated by the parties and noted above, Defenders has more than 25 members. Luther testified that Defenders has approximately 100 family members, most of whom live on or around Crooked Lake. He noted that many of Defenders' members own boats, which they park at a local boat landing on the Lake. Based on this testimony, it is inferred that these members operate their boats on Crooked Lake. After receiving the public notice of the project, Defenders' board of directors voted to oppose issuance of the Consolidated Authorization for the Dock. Luther testified that the board's decision was based on the determination that "it was clearly within the public interest" to oppose the Dock. Gerards' Standing The Gerards reside at 1055 Scenic Highway, Babson Park, Florida. Their riparian property is immediately adjacent to, and northwest of, Howard's property. The Gerards own a floating dock that is located within their riparian area.25/ The dock consists of two 4-foot- wide by 30-foot-long ramps attached to a 24-foot-long by 8-foot- wide pontoon boat. Priscilla Gerard testified that she enjoys spending time sitting and reading books on the beach in front of her property, and that having that area to sit and read is a significant aspect of her enjoyment of her lakefront property. Ms. Gerard observed that extensive boating activities in the northeast portion of the Lake on weekends is disruptive, and interferes with her use of her beach for relaxing and reading. She particularly noted that boats operating very close to the shore cause waves to splash up on her beach, interfering with her ability to sit and read close to the shore. She did not contend that Howard's use of the Dock for boating would contribute to the disruptive nature of existing boat traffic in the vicinity. Ms. Gerard has viewed the plans for the proposed Dock and is very concerned that due to its size, her view of the south side of the Lake will be completely blocked. She acknowledged, and other competent, credible evidence showed, that there are other docks on the Lake in the vicinity of her riparian property. The evidence shows that existing docks having lengths of 145 feet and 170 feet are located in the vicinity of, and are visible from, the Gerards' property. She testified that an existing dock and tiki hut block her view of the Lake to the north. She acknowledged that although Howard's Dock, if constructed as proposed, may somewhat obstruct her view to the left (south) of her property, it would not block her view straight out into the Lake. Phillip Gerard testified that he has boated extensively on Crooked Lake in a variety of vessel types. He further testified that he has observed a range of boating practices on Crooked Lake, including seeing water skiers and persons being towed behind motorized vessels on inner tubes and other types of "towables." He testified that, based on his personal observations, persons being towed do not have independent control of the speed or direction of the "towable"; thus, depending on the direction in which the towing vessel turns, the towable may be slung to the left or the right. Gerard commented that such lack of control could result in a person riding on a towable colliding with a dock, and he noted that Howard's nephew, who was riding on an inner tube being towed by a boat, was involved in such a collection with his (Mr. Gerard's) own dock. Mr. Gerard did not testify that the Dock would present a navigational hazard to, or otherwise interfere with, the Gerards' riparian right of ingress and egress. Neither of the Gerards testified that the Dock would impact their ability to access navigable waters in the Lake. Mr. Gerard acknowledged that if Howard's Dock were constructed, boats that currently travel very close to the shoreline of his property would be forced to swing further out in the Lake, away from his riparian shoreline, in order to avoid the Dock.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the issuance of Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Consolidated Notice of Intent and attached draft of Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI, as modified to include the Additional Recommended Conditions set forth in paragraphs 73.A. and 73B. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case was whether the Respondent, City of Cape Coral (City), was entitled to an Individual Environmental Resource Permit (Permit) that would allow removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock (Lock) and associated uplands, and installation of a 165-foot linear seawall in the South Spreader Waterway in Cape Coral, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of the Department's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in the Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for environmental resource permits. The City is a Florida municipality in Lee County. The City is the applicant for the Permit allowing the removal of the Lock and installation of a seawall (Project). The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. The South Spreader Waterway is a perimeter canal separating the City's canal system from shoreline wetlands to the west and south, which run the length of Matlacha Pass to the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River at San Carlos Bay.1/ The Association is a Florida non-profit corporation that was created in 1981. The Association was created to safeguard the interests of its members. The Association has approximately 150 members who reside in Matlacha and Matlacha Isles, Florida. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use and enjoyment of waters adjacent to and surrounding Matlacha. The Association's members were particularly interested in protecting the water quality of the surface waters in the area. Matlacha is an island community located to the northwest of Cape Coral, the South Spreader Waterway, and the Lock. Matlacha is located within Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Matlacha Pass is classified as a Class II waterbody designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting, and is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-02.400(17)(b)36; 62-302.700(9)(h). Petitioner, Karl Deigert, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Deigert is the president of the Association. Mr. Deigert’s house in Matlacha is waterfront. He holds a captain’s license and has a business in which he gives sightseeing and ecological tours by boat of the waters around Matlacha. He fishes in the waters around his property and enjoys the current water quality in the area. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would have negative effects on water quality and would negatively impact the viability of his business and his enjoyment of the waters surrounding Matlacha. Petitioner, Melanie Hoff, is a resident and property owner in St. James City. St. James City is located to the southwest of Cape Coral. Ms. Hoff’s property is located within five nautical miles of the Lock. Ms. Hoff engages in various water sports and fishes in the waters around her property. She moved to the area, in part, for the favorable water quality. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality and her ability to use and enjoy waters in the area. Petitioner, Robert S. Zarranz, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Mr. Zarranz’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. He is an avid fisherman and boater. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that the quality of fishing in the area would decline as a result. Petitioner, Yolanda Olsen, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Olsen’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She enjoys watersports and birdwatching in the areas around her property. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Jessica Blanks, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Blanks’ house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Joseph Michael Hannon, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Hannon is a member of the Association. He enjoys boating, fishing, and kayaking in the waters surrounding Matlacha. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that his ability to enjoy his property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Debra Hall, did not appear at the final hearing and no testimony was offered regarding her standing. The Project and Vicinity The Project site is 0.47 acres. At the Lock location, the South Spreader Waterway is 200 feet wide, and includes a 125-foot wide upland area secured by two seawalls, the 20-foot wide Lock, a 32-foot wide upland area secured by one seawall, and 23 feet of mangrove wetlands. The Lock is bordered to the north by property owned by Cape Harbour Marina, LLC, and bordered to the south by mangrove wetlands owned by the state of Florida. The 125-foot wide upland area and the 20-foot wide Lock form a barrier separating the South Spreader Waterway from the Caloosahatchee River. The preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock is not tidally influenced, but would become tidally influenced upon removal of the Lock. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 46. The City proposes to remove the Lock and one of the seawalls, reducing the 125-foot upland area to 20 feet. The proposed future condition of the area would include 125 feet of open canal directly connecting the South Spreader Waterway with the Caloosahatchee River. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 47. The primary purpose of the Lock's removal is to alleviate safety concerns related to boater navigation. The Project's in-water construction includes demolition and removal of the existing Lock, removal of existing fill in the 125-foot upland area, removal of existing seawalls, and construction of replacement seawalls. The City would employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the course of the Project, including sediment and erosion controls such as turbidity barriers. The turbidity barriers would be made of a material in which manatees could not become entangled. All personnel involved with the Project would be instructed about the presence of manatees. Also, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities. History of the South Spreader Waterway In the mid-1970's, the co-trustees of Gulf American Corporation, GAC Properties Credit, Inc., and GAC Properties, Inc., (collectively GAC) filed for after-the-fact permits from the Department's predecessor agency (DER), for the large dredge and fill work project that created the canal system in Cape Coral. In 1977, DER entered into CO 15 with GAC to create the North and South Spreader Waterways and retention control systems, including barriers. The Lock was one of the barriers created in response to CO 15. The Spreader Waterways were created to restore the natural hydrology of the area affected by GAC's unauthorized dredging and filling activity. The Spreader Waterways collected and retained surface runoff waters originating from the interior of Cape Coral's canal system. The South Spreader Waterway was not designed to meet water quality standards, but instead to collect surface runoff, then allow discharge of the excess waters collected over and through the mangrove wetlands located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This fresh water flow was designed to mimic the historic sheet flow through the coastal fringe of mangroves and salt marshes of the Caloosahatchee River and Matlacha Pass estuaries. The fresh water slowly discharged over the coastal fringe until it finally mixed with the more saline waters of the estuaries. The estuarine environments located west and south of the Lock require certain levels of salinity to remain healthy ecosystems. Restoring and achieving certain salinity ranges was important to restoring and preserving the coastal fringe. In 1977 GAC finalized bankruptcy proceedings and executed CO 15. CO 15 required GAC to relinquish to the state of Florida the mangrove wetlands it owned on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This land grant was dedicated by a warranty deed executed in 1977 between GAC and the state of Florida. The Petitioners' expert, Kevin Erwin, worked as an environmental specialist for DER prior to and during the construction of the Spreader Waterways. Mr. Erwin was DER's main representative who worked with the GAC co-trustees to resolve the massive dredge and fill violation and design a system to restore the natural hydrology of the area. Mr. Erwin testified that the Lock was designed to assist in retention of fresh water in the South Spreader Waterway. The fresh water would be retained, slowed down, and allowed to slowly sheet flow over and through the coastal fringe. Mr. Erwin also testified that the South Spreader Waterway was not designed to allow direct tidal exchange with the Caloosahatchee River. In Mr. Erwin's opinion, the South Spreader Waterway appeared to be functioning today in the same manner as originally intended. Breaches and Exchange of Waters The Department's second amended notice of intent for the Project, stated that the Project was not expected to contribute to current water quality violations, because water in the South Spreader Waterway was already being exchanged with Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River through breaches and direct tidal flow. This second amended notice of intent removed all references to mitigation projects that would provide a net improvement in water quality as part of the regulatory basis for issuance of the permit. See Joint Exhibit 1 at pp. 326-333. The Department's witnesses testified that waters within the South Spreader Waterway currently mix with waters of the Caloosahatchee River when the Lock remains open during incoming and slack tides. A Department permit allowed the Lock to remain open during incoming and slack tides. Department witness, Megan Mills, the permitting program administrator, testified that she could not remember the exact date that permit was issued, but that it had been "a couple years." The location of breaches in the western and southern banks of the South Spreader Waterway was documented on another permit's drawings and pictures for a project titled "Cape Coral Spreader Waterway Restoration." See Cape Coral Ex. 9. Those documents located three breaches for repair and restoration identified as Breach 16A, Breach 16B, and Breach 20. The modeling reports and discussion that support the City's application showed these three breaches connect to Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Breach 20 was described as a connected tidal creek. Breach 16A and 16B were described as allowing water movement between Matlacha Pass and the South Spreader Waterway only when relatively high water elevations occurred in Matlacha Pass or in the South Spreader Waterway. The Department's water quality explanation of "mixing," was rather simplistic, and did not consider that the waterbody in which the Project would occur has three direct connections with an OFW that is a Class II waters designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting. Such a consideration would require the Department to determine whether to apply the OFW permitting standards, and the Class II waters permitting criteria in section 10.2.5 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-330.302(1)(a); 62-4.242(2); and 62-302.400(17)(b)36. The Caloosahatchee River, at its entrance to the South Spreader Waterway, is a Class III waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. The mouth of the Caloosahatchee River is San Carlos Bay, which is a Class II waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. There was no evidence that the Department's regulatory analysis considered that the waterbody in which the Project would occur directly connects to Class III waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting, and is in close proximity to Class II waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.400(17)(b)36. and 62-330.302(1)(c).2/ Total Nitrogen The City's expert, Anthony Janicki, Ph.D., testified that nitrogen concentrations in the Caloosahatchee River were higher than in the South Spreader Waterway in the years 2017 and 2018. Thus, he opined that if the Lock is removed, water from the South Spreader Waterway would not negatively impact the Caloosahatchee River. However, the City's application was supported by an analysis, with more than a decade of monitoring data, which showed nitrogen concentration values were comparable inside the South Spreader Waterway and in the Caloosahatchee River. Dr. Janicki also used the Department's Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) watershed model to estimate the Total Nitrogen (TN) loading that would enter the Caloosahatchee River through the Chiquita Lock. Dr. Janicki estimated that TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River, after removal of the Chiquita Lock, would amount to 30,746 pounds per year. The Caloosahatchee River is listed as impaired for nutrients and has a TN Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that was set by the Department in 2009. Dr. Janicki opined that removing the Lock would not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. But the Petitioners obtained his concession that his opinion was dependent on the City's completion of additional water quality enhancement projects in the future as part of its obligations under the Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for achieving the TN TMDL. Dr. Janicki additionally testified that the potential TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River did not anticipate an actual impact to the River's water quality because the TN loads from the South Spreader Waterway were already factored into the 2009 TMDL. He essentially testified that the Lock's removal was anticipated and was factored into the model when the TMDL was established in 2009. Thus, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department and the City were not aligned regarding how the City's application would provide reasonable assurances of meeting applicable water quality standards. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the City relied on future projects to provide reasonable assurance that the removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department relied on a simplistic exchange of waters to determine that removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Water Quantity and Salinity The engineering report that supports the City's application stated that when the Lock is removed, the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock will become tidally influenced. With the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes for the South Spreader Waterway would increase from zero cubic meters per day to 63,645 cubic meters per day. At the location of Breach 20, with the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes would drastically decrease from 49,644 cubic meters per day to eight cubic meters per day. Dr. Janicki testified that Breach 20 was connected to a remnant tidal creek that meanders and eventually empties into an embayment. The evidence demonstrated that the embayment is Punta Blanca Bay, which is part of the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Dr. Janicki opined that Breach 20 was an area of erosion risk and sediment transport into downstream mangroves that would be significantly reduced by removing the Lock. He explained that the reductions in flow would result in reductions in velocities through Breach 20 and in the South Spreader Waterway itself. Mr. Erwin testified that Breach 20 was not a "breach."3/ He described it as the location of a perpendicular intersection of the South Spreader Waterway with a small tidal creek, which connected to a tidal pond further back in the mangroves. Mr. Erwin testified that an "engineered sandbag concrete structure" was built at the shallow opening to limit the amount of flow into and out of this tidal creek system. But it was also designed to make sure that the tidal creek system "continued to get some amount of water." As found above, Lock removal would drastically reduce the volume of daily water fluxes into and out of Breach 20's tidal creek system. Mr. Erwin also testified that any issues with velocities or erosion would be exemplified by bed lowering, siltation, and stressed mangroves. He persuasively testified, however, that there was no such evidence of erosion and there were "a lot of real healthy mangroves." Mr. Erwin opined that removal of the Lock would cause the South Spreader Waterway to go from a closed, mostly fresh water system, to a tidal saline system. He described the current salinity level in the South Spreader Waterway to be low enough to support low salinity vegetation and not high enough to support marine organisms like barnacles and oysters. The City's application actually supports this opinion. Using the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model developed by Dr. Janicki for this Lock removal project, comparisons were made describing the salinity distribution within the South Spreader Waterway. The model was run with and without the Lock, for both a wet and dry year. Dr. Janicki testified, and the model showed, that removal of the Lock would result in increased salinity above the Lock and decreased salinity downstream of the Lock. However, he generally opined that the distribution of salinities was well within the normal ranges seen in this area. The City's application also concluded that the resultant salinities did not fall outside the preferred salinity ranges for seagrasses, oysters, and a wide variety of fish taxa. However, Dr. Janicki did not address specific changes in vegetation and encroachment of marine organisms that would occur with the increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway. Secondary Impacts to the Mangrove Wetlands Mr. Erwin testified that the mangroves located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway are currently in very good health. He additionally testified that loss of the current fresh water hydraulic head and an increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway would negatively impact the health of the mangrove wetlands. In addition, the City's application stated that removing the Lock would result in a drop in the water level of one to one and a half feet within the South Spreader Waterway. Mr. Erwin credibly and persuasively testified that a drop in water level of only a few inches would have negative effects on the health of mangroves, and that a drop of a foot could result in substantial mangrove die-off. Mr. Erwin testified that the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway consist of a variety of plants and algae in addition to mangroves. He described the wetlands as a mangrove community made up of different types of mangroves, and epiphytic vegetation such as marine algae. This mangrove community provides habitat for a "wide range of invertebrates." He further testified that these plants and algae uptake and transform the nutrients that flow over and through the mangrove wetlands before they reach the receiving waters. Thus, the mangrove wetlands on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway serve to filter nutrients out of the water discharged from the Waterway before it reaches Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River. Mr. Erwin's credible and persuasive testimony was contrary to the City's contention that Lock removal would not result in adverse impacts to the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. The City and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurances that removing the Lock would not have adverse secondary impacts to the health of the mangrove wetlands community adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered and Threatened Species The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) reviewed the City's application and determined that if BMPs for in-water work were employed during construction, no significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife were expected. For example, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities, and all personnel would be instructed about the presence of manatees. The FWC determination only addressed direct impacts during in-water construction work. The City's application contained supporting material that identified the major change resulting from removal of the Lock that may influence fish and wildlife in the vicinity of the Project, was the opportunity for movement to or from the South Spreader Waterway canal system. Threatened and endangered species of concern in the area included the Florida manatee and the smalltooth sawfish. The City's application stated that literature review showed the smalltooth sawfish and the Florida manatee utilized non-main-stem habitats, such as sea-wall lined canals, off the Caloosahatchee River. The City cited studies from 2011 and 2013, which showed that non-main-stem habitats were important thermal refuges during the winter, and part of the overall nursery area for smalltooth sawfish. The City concluded that removal of the Lock "would not be adverse, and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species." However, the Petitioner's expert witness, John Cassani, who is the Calusa Waterkeeper, testified that there is a smalltooth sawfish exclusion zone downstream of the Lock. He testified that the exclusion zone is a pupping area for smalltooth sawfish, and that rapid salinity fluctuations could negatively impact their habitat. The City also concluded that any impacts to the Florida manatee would not be adverse, "and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species, as well as a reduction in risk of entrapment or crushing in a canal lock system." At the same time, the City acknowledged that "watercraft collision is a primary anthropogenic threat to manatees." The City's literature review included a regional assessment by FWC's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) from 2006. Overall, the FWRI report concluded that the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, at San Carlos Bay, was a "hot spot" for boat traffic coinciding with the shift and dispersal of manatees from winter refugia. The result was a "high risk of manatee- motorboat collisions." In addition, testimony adduced at the hearing from an 18-year employee of Cape Harbour Marina, Mr. Frank Muto, was that Lock removal would result in novice boaters increasing their speed, ignoring the no-wake and slow-speed zones, and presenting "a bigger hazard than the [L]ock ever has." Boater Navigation Concerns Oliver Clarke was the City’s principal engineer during the application process, and signed the application as the City's authorized agent. Mr. Clarke testified that he has witnessed boater congestion at the Lock. He also testified that lack of boating experience and weather concerns can exacerbate the boater congestion issues at the Lock. Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. Frank Muto, the general manager of Cape Harbour Marina. Mr. Muto has been at the Cape Harbour Marina for 18 years. The marina has 78 docks on three finger piers along with transient spots. The marina is not currently subject to tidal flows and its water depth is between six and a half and seven and a half feet. He testified that they currently have at least 28 boats that maintain a draft of between four and a half and six feet of water. If the water depth got below four feet, those customers would not want to remain at the marina. Mr. Muto further testified that the Lock was in place when the marina was built, and the marina and docks were designed for an area with no tidal flow. Mr. Muto also testified that he has witnessed several boating safety incidents in and around the Lock. He testified that he would attribute almost all of those incidents to novice boaters who lack knowledge of proper boating operations and locking procedures. Mr. Muto additionally testified that there is law enforcement presence at the Lock twenty-four hours a day, including FWC marine patrol and the City's marine patrol.
Conclusions For Petitioners: J. Michael Hannon, Qualified Representative 2721 Clyde Street Matlacha, Florida 33993 John S. Turner, Esquire Peterson Law Group Post Office Box 670 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 For Respondent City of Cape Coral: Craig D. Varn, Esquire Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 820 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven D. Griffin City of Cape Coral Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 150027 Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0027 For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Individual Environmental Resource Permit Number 244816-005 to the City of Cape Coral for removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock. The final order deny Petitioners' request for an award of attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2019.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent, E. Speer and Associates, Inc. (the "Applicant"), should be granted a permit for the construction of a permanent docking facility pursuant to Sections 403.91-403.929, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17.
Findings Of Fact Whether Quantified Hydrographic Studies Are Necessary For All Marina Applications To Provide Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion (stated as a finding of fact) that it is not possible to demonstrate adequate flushing without "quantifying flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data." (R.O. at 20, 22-24, 47, 49-50, 54, 57-58; F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38-39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66, and 69) It is clear from the tenor of the entire recommended order that the Hearing Officer believes that as a matter of law an expert's opinion is not sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that flushing will be adequate to prevent violations of water quality standards unless that opinion is based on quantified conclusions generated by objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data. (R.O. at 47, 49-50, 57-58) Thus, for example, the Hearing Officer opines that quantification of flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective measurements of appropriate hydrodynamic data is an essential element of the prima facie showing required to be made by the applicant. (R.O. at 47; C.O.L. No. 11) The Hearing Officer places great significance an the following excerpt from the opinion in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Reculation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990): 1800 Atlantic filed 34 exceptions to the recommended order, most of which were denied in the Department's final order . . . . The final order approved and adopted most of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order and denied the permit. The following stated rulings and reasons there for are significant to the issues on this appeal. (emphasis added) We must note at this point that there is no finding of fact in the hearing officer's recommended order that quantifies how productive the marine habitat may be in this case, and no record support for the suggestion that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of the marine habitat attributable to this project [footnote omitted]. (emphasis added) Exception 23 filed by 1800 Atlantic challenged the hearing officer's finding that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity . . . The Department rejected this exception based upon the hearing officer's general statements, without any quantification whatsoever, of adverse effects upon these matters . . . (emphasis added) 1800 Atlantic, 552 So.2d at 951-952. I do not concur that 1800 Atlantic stands for the proposition that quantified hydrographic measurement of flushing is in all cases an essential element of a prima facie showing that a marina project will not cause violations of water quality standards. Notwithstanding the above noted statement of the court in 1800 Atlantic that "there is no finding of fact . . . that quantifies 'how productive the marine habitat may be' . and no record support . . . that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of marine habitat attributable to [the] project," 552 So.2d 951, the court did not reject the finding that the project adversely affected the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreation values, and marine productivity. Indeed, had the court rejected the above finding due to lack of quantified findings the court would never have gone on to reach the issue of mitigation because in 1800 Atlantic mitigation could only become relevant if the applicant was unable to provide reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the public interest criteria of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. See Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. I do agree that in some cases quantified hydrographic studies of flushing may be required in order to provide reasonable assurances. Thus, in Rudloe v. Dickerson Bavshore, Inc., 10 FALR 3426 (DER Case No. 87-0816, June 9, 1988), my predecessor held that a dye tracer study was necessary to provide quantitative information about dilution rates and directions on dispersion of pollutants emanating from a proposed marina site which was in "close proximity" to Class II waters approved for shellfish harvesting. 10 FALR at 3447-48. However, the need for such quantified studies must be determined on a case by case basis and is not required as a matter of law for all marinas. 5/ Far me to determine as a matter of law that experts may establish a fact only by certain types of evidence would be an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the scientific domain of the expert. Thus, in Kralik v. Ponce Marine, Inc., 11 FALR 669, 671 (DER Final Order, Jan. 11, 1989), my predecessor held that expert testimony with regard to flushing does not lack credibility just because a hydrographic study had not been conducted. Of course, the finder of fact has the ultimate say on how much weight an expert opinion should be given if it is not based on a quantified study. Thus, whether an expert testifying on adequacy of flushing has conducted a quantifiable hydrographic study merely goes to the weight of the evidence. Kralik, 11 FALR at 671. I only conclude that a quantified hydrographic study for a proposed marina is not in all cases essential for a showing of reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Accordingly, to the extent that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact state that a quantified hydrographic study is required in all cases as a prima facie element of a showing of reasonable assurance that a project will not violate water quality standards, I reject such statement as a mislabled and incorrect conclusion of law. Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards I read Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part as taking exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study was needed in order to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards, and that because such a quantified hydrographic study had not been conducted, reasonable assurances had not been provided. (F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38- 39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66 and 69) As noted by the Hearing Officer, the applicant's expert testimony concerning the adequacy of the flushing consisted of general statements describing visual observations of river and tidal flows which, together with past experience and knowledge of the general area of the project, formed the basis for the experts' opinions that a quantified hydrographic study was not necessary for this project. (R.O. at 22-23) Thus, far example, Mr. Charles C. Isiminger, accepted as an expert in marina design and hydrographic engineering testified that based on his knowledge of the area, its riverine and tidal flows, a hydrographic documentation was not needed to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause water quality violations. Mr. Isiminger also testified that any pollutants entering the water from the marina would be flushed out of the area within one tidal cycle. (Tr. at 65-66, 70, 77- 79, 93, 110, 125, 128, 134) Mr. Thomas Franklin, an environmental supervisor from the Department testified that: the hydrographic survey was not really necessary due to the location of the project being in open waters and in close vicinity to the Inlet with a large volume of tidal waters moving in this area, plus the fact that it was further enhanced by flushing due to the St. Lucie River being -- basically coming around Hell Gate point [sic] and funneling out into this estuary. (emphasis added) TR at 437. Other experts also testified that the area was well flushed and that a quantified hydrographic study was not needed in this case. (Jacqueline Kelly, Tr. at 187; John Meyer, Tr. at 319, 322, 341; Gerald Ward, Tr. at 44749) 6/ Speer asserts that the Hearing Officer's finding that a quantified hydrographic study is required in this case cannot stand in light of the unrebutted expert testimony that the marina site will be well flushed and that the rate of flushing provides reasonable assurances the water quality standards will not be violated. I have found no competent substantial evidence in the record which would support a finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study is required. I did note that in Footnote 21 of the Recommended Order (R.O. at 20) the Hearing Officer states: Tidal range is only one of the types of data used to quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. See TR at 78. Other appropriate data include: overall flow rates, mid tide flow, flow amplitude (the magnitude of the flow without regard to direction, i.e., speed as opposed to velocity), horizontal current distribution, downstream plume characteristics, and field verification using a dye tracer. All of this data is needed to fully describe and quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. (citing testimony of Mr. Isiminger at Tr. 88-94) At first blush this may appear to be competent substantial evidence supporting a finding that a quantified hydrographic study is necessary in this case. However, when the testimony is read in its complete context, it is clear that Mr. Isiminger is testifying as to what is necessary to do a hydrographic study when one is needed, and is not testifying that such a study is needed in this case. (Tr. 88-94). I also note that the record contains a memo written by Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer employed by the Department. (Tr. at 67-70) This memo was admitted without objection. (Tr. at 23) The memo states in part that "without . . . hydrographic documentation, reasonable assurance cannot be given that the project will not cause problems." (Tr. at 70; Pet. Exh. No. 10) 7/ Dr. Echternacht was not called as a witness at the hearing and the letter was not offered as evidence of the opinion of Dr. Echternacht or the Department at the time of the de novo hearing. To the contrary, the above noted testimony of Mr. Franklin and the testimony of Jacqueline D. Kelly, an environmental specialist of the Department accepted as an expert in evaluating impacts of environmental dredge and fill projects (Tr. at 187, 195; R.O. at 3), clearly establish that at the time of the de novo hearing the Department was of the opinion that further hydrographic documentation was not needed. The Hearing Officer noted that Mr. Meyer testified that the flushing is a "very, very complicated dynamic situation." (Tr. at 320). The testimony was as follows: Q. So you don't know for sure whether the currents here impact this at all or stay offshore from it? A. Oh, the currents definitelv affect it, and you do have interchange -- as I mentioned before, a very high rate of interchange on a daily basis on every tide. Q. Are you saying that the current that flows through here every day flows right through the site? A. We're dealing with two different things here. We're dealing with your currents, your general migration of waters from the estuary from the inland areas down. You're also dealing with tidal effects coming in and out, and it's a very, very complicated dynamic situation. For me to try to tell you exactly how these things work would be impossible without having a very, very long drawn-out expensive study done on the entire area, and I have not reviewed any studies like that. Tr. at 319-20 (emphasis added) When taken in its context it is clear that Mr. Meyer is testifying that there is a very high rate of exchange on a daily basis on every tide. The fact that he viewed the exact details of the flushing as very complicated in no way retracted his statement that there was a very high rate of exchange on every tide. My review of the record leads me to concur with Speer that no testimony, either on direct, cross-examination, or examination by the Hearing Officer, nor any other evidence was introduced to rebut the expert testimony presented by Speer and the Department that flushing on the site was adequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. 8/ As a general rule, the trier of fact may not arbitrarily reject uncontroverted evidence as proof of a contested fact. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. G. & J. Investments, 506 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. den., 515 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1987); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel, 352 So.2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); In Re: Estate of Hannon, 447 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). This does not mean that a mere scintilla of unrebutted evidence is sufficient to establish a contested fact in an administrative hearing. At least in the context of administrative proceedings, the unrebutted evidence still must be competent substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. 9/ There is no suggestion that the Hearing Officer rejected the unrebutted testimony of the experts of Speer and the Department as not being competent substantial evidence. In fact, in the light of the testimony of Mr. Isiminger (Tr. at 65- 66), Mr. Ward ( Tr. at 447-449), Mr. Meyer (Tr. at 238- 239), and Mr. Franklin (Tr. at 345-350), it is beyond peradventure that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause violations of water quality standards. It is clear from the context of the Recommended Order that the Hearing Officer believed that reasonable assurance had not been provided only because he believed that a quantified hydrographic study was required as a matter of law. Although I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion that a quantified hydrographic study must be conducted as a matter of law for all marina applications, I must still determine whether a quantified hydrographic analysis is required under the facts of this case. In Rudloe v. Dickerson Bayshore, 10 FALR 3426 (DER Final Order, June 9, 1988) it was held that a hydrographic study was not adequate because it did not include a quantified dye tracer study. Id., 10 FALR at 3448. In Rudloe, as in this case, the marina was located in Class III waters, but near Class II waters. However, in Rudloe, the marina site was much closer to the Class II waters (approximately 1,700 feet in Rudloe (10 FAIR at 3430) as compared to approximately 8,000 feet in this case). (R.O. at 16, F.O.F. No. 26) Also, the Rudloe case is significantly different from this case in that competent substantial expert opinion was presented in Rudloe that the marina would adversely impact the Class II shellfish harvesting area. See Rudloe, 10 FALR at 3433-35, 3437-38 (testimony of DNR expert that operation of marina would result in closure of waters to the harvest of shellfish; testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston that the hydrographic drogue studies conducted were inadequate.) In this case, neither expert nor lay testimony was offered by Barringer to show that operation of the marina would result in violation of water quality standards or have any adverse impact on the Class II shellfish waters. 10/ I conclude that the facts of this case as found by the Hearing Officer are not sufficiently similar to the facts of Rudloe so as to justify holding as a matter of law a quantified hydrographic study is necessary to establish the required reasonable assurances. Since the record contains competent substantial evidence that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause water quality violations, and since there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's contrary finding, I must accept the exception of Speer and reject the Hearing Officer's findings of fact to the contrary. In this case I note that I am not so much rejecting findings of fact as rejecting a conclusion of law. As I noted, the Hearing Officer's finding is really based on a conclusion of law which I reject. This leaves only unrebutted competent substantial evidence that there will be adequate flushing to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. There is no rational basis to reject this unrebutted competent substantial evidence. Therefore, I must accept as proven that the applicant has provided the reasonable assurances that operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; Estate of Hannon; supra, Effect On Class II Waters Speer's Exceptions Nos. 7 and 8 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina would not have a "negative effect" an the Class II waters of the St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (F.O.F. No. 43) Rule 17-312.080(6)(b), Fla. Admin. Code provides: The Department also shall deny a permit for dredging and filling in any class of waters where the location of the project is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the dredging or filling will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. In this case expert testimony was presented by Speer and the Department that due to the distance of the marina site from the Class II waters (8,000 feet) the marina site was not in close proximity to the Class II waters, and due to the rapid flushing of the area, the construction and operation of the marina would neither have a negative effect nor would result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters of St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (Isiminger, Tr. at 96, 126-27; Meyer, Tr. at 254-55) I find that the record contains no competent substantial evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by Speer and the Department that the marina will have no negative effect on Class II waters and will not result in violation of water quality standards in Class II waters. Accordingly, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In Re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Reasonable Assurance That Operation Of The Marina Will Not Result In Prop Dredging Or Violations Of The State Water Quality Criterion For Turbidity Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 9-12, and 16 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat traffic from operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. (F.O.F. Nos. 33-34, 45, 48, 52-53, 64, and 67) 11/ On one hand, there was testimony that the depths of the marina, in combination with the size of boats allowed in the various slips, would allow for a one foot clearance from the bottom of the boats to the bottom of the marina, and that this clearance, in combination with speed limits in the marina, would provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not result in prop dredging or turbidity violations. (Isiminger, Tr. at 104-107, 118; Meyer Tr. at 263-65, 299, 304- 305; Kelly, Tr. at 189-190; Ward, Tr. at 460) On the other hand, Bruce Graham, admitted as an expert in marine biology testified that: "A large boat, three feet from the bottom, I think would resuspend sediment." (Graham, Tr. at 378). The Hearing Officer, noting that when asked if one foot clearance is sufficient to prevent prop dredging and resultant turbidity violations, a Department witness, testified: I would have to say that we simply don't have enough documentation to know this for a fact. We know that a foot gives us a degree of comfort that there will not be prop wash. In certain instances -- a tug boat, for instance, you know, with huge engines, you're going to have prop wash over a much -- over a large area and with probably much more than a foot of clearance. But for the normal, typical marina a foot, as I say, gives us a degree of comfort that we have settled on. Neyer, Tr. at 264. The Hearing Officer concluded that the witnesses of Speer and the Department could not explain the reasons or efficacy of the "one foot policy" except to say that in their experience the one foot policy was adequate to prevent prop dredging and turbidity violations. (R.O. at 28 n.35)0 The Hearing Officer thus found that Speer and the Department failed to "prove up" the one foot policy -- i.e., failed to elucidate and explicate the reason for the policy. 12/ Clearly the Hearing Officer placed more weight on the testimony of Mr. Bruce Graham than that of Isiminger, Meyer, Kelly and Ward. Since I cannot say that the testimony of Graham was not competent substantial evidence, I am not at liberty to reweigh the evidence or reject the Hearing Officer's finding of fact. See, Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sections 120.57(1)(b)10., and 120.68(10), Florida Statutes. Speer contends that Barringer presented no evidence that prop dredging will cause sufficient turbidity to violate the state water quality turbidity criterion of 29 NTUs. 13/ That contention misses the point. The burden is on Speer to establish by the preponderance of evidence that reasonable assurance has been provided that operation of the marina will not result in violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Hearing Officer, as the finder of fact, concluded that Speer failed to do so. Accordingly, I reject the exception of Speer and accept the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the state water quality criterion for turbidity. Manatee Impacts and the Public Interest Test Speer's Exceptions Nos. 13 and 17 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to do a quantified study of impacts to manatees and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat. (F.O.F. Nos. 61, 64 and 68) The Hearing Officer reasoned as follows: Instead of a traffic study, the Applicant and DER presented evidence in the form of general statements that manatees need not migrate north and south through the approach channel. According to the Applicant and DER, manatees can migrate across the project site by one of two alternative routes. They can migrate in one or two feet of water under moored boats and then under wave breaks on the north and east piers, or they can migrate in the shallow water landward of the west boundary of the project. That evidence was not persuasive and was controverted by competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence that manatees would be deterred from migrating under the project footprint by substantial obstacles in their path. Manatees migrating under the project footprint would be exposed to 86 or more moving boats with powerful engines and drafts of four to five feet in waters covering approximately 20,800 square feet. It could be argued, or course, that 86 or more boats would not be moving in and out of the marina at one time. However, it is impossible to estimate occupancy rates, length of stay, and frequency of boat trips without a traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) As Speer's exception notes, there was testimony that because of the width of the river and boat speed restrictions in the project area, there would be no adverse impacts an the manatee from the marina. (Kelly, Tr. at 162; Meyer, Tr. at 255-56, 331- 32; Isiminger, Tr. at 130) The St. Lucie/Jupiter/Hobe Sound waterways are a major travel corridor for manatees. (DER Exh. No. 4) Between 1974 and December 1990, there were ten water craft related manatee fatalities within the boating sphere of influence of the project. (DER Exh. No. 4) In order to reduce impacts on the manatees, the proposed permit contains the following specific conditions: S.C. No. 13: The permittee agrees to install and maintain a minimum of one manatee education/display on the main access pier during and after construction. S.C. No. 15: The permittee agrees that any collision with a manatee shall be reported immediately [to DNR and U.S. Fish and wildlife Service]. S.C. No. 18: The permittee shall post four (4) manatee area/slow speed signs, two of which would be spaced along the perimeter pier and two of which would be located on the outside of the marina for all boating traffic to observe within the marina facility. (DER Exh. No. 3) 14/ There was testimony that the piers, once constructed, would not impair the passage of manatees. (Isiminger, Tr. at 114- 115) On the other hand, there was some testimony that manatees may have to go around the project rather than through it. (Meyer, Tr. at 311) The existing boat traffic past the site of the project to the Inlet was "rough1y estimated" at 50 to 100 boats a day. (Meyer, Tr. at 337) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that "while [the project] may negatively affect, it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian Manatee." (Tr. at 120-21) The Hearing Officer concluded that reasonable assurance as to adverse impacts on manatees could not be provided absent a quantified traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) In Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FAIR 1359 (DER Final Order March 9, 1990), the Department held that the information needed to determine a marina's impact on manatees and the necessary actions to mitigate such impacts must be decided an a case by case basis. For example, in Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 11 FALR 4710 (DER Final Order, Aug. 24, 1989), 15/ a marina sought to expand by adding 113 new wet slips. The marina was required to develop a manatee protection plan far the surrounding portions of the Caloosahatchee River, all new slips were limited to sail boats until the manatee protection plan was implemented and enforced, and power boat occupancy was limited to 75% of the total 174 wetslips in any event. The marina also made available a wet slip for use by the Florida Marine Patrol. In this case there is evidence of significant boat related manatee fatalities in the boating sphere of influence of the proposed marina. There is also evidence of existing traffic of 50-100 boats per day past the project site. In view of the fact that this project would add 86 slips and a public fueling facility, it seems likely that that the project will significantly increase both boat traffic and the threat of manatee collisions. Accordingly, I concur with the Hearing Officer that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that further studies are needed to determine what, if any, additional manatee protection conditions are needed to provide reasonable assurance that manatees will not be adversely affected. I conclude that the applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat, and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore, I reject the exception of Speer. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Speer's Exception No. 15 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse cumulative pacts created either by the cumulative effects of the object and existing similar projects, or by secondary pacts of the project itself. (F.O.F. No. 66) 16/ Cumulative impact analysis takes into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, supra; Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Secondary impact analysis considers the impact of the project itself and of any other relevant activities that are very closely linked or causally related to the permitted project. Conservancy, 580 So.2d at 778; J.T. McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 FALR 960, 980. 17/ Thus, in Conservancy the secondary impact analysis was required to consider the environmental impacts of development of 75 estate homes on an island where the development would be reasonably expected as a result of the permitted laying of a subaqueous sewer line. Similarly, in del Campo v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 452 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the Department was required to consider the environmental impacts of the foreseeable development of an island facilitated by the permitted building of a bridge to the island. In this case there is competent substantial evidence that there are other marinas located 1,750 feet downstream in Willoughby Creek, and 5,000 feet downstream in Manatee Pocket. (R.O. F.O.F. 31; Isiminger, Tr. at 112; Meyer, Tr. at 261) The record contains competent substantial evidence that the cumulative impact of the project and the existing marinas in Willoughby Creek and Manatee Pocket will not result in violations of state water policy. (Isiminger, Tr. at 125; Kelly, Tr. at 167) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly on cumulative impacts is not competent, substantial evidence. In light of the fact that there is no competent substantial evidence to indicate that cumulative impacts would result in water quality violations, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersbur; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. As to secondary impacts, the Hearing Officer pointed out that Speer did not introduce any evidence as to whether there would be secondary impacts to water quality as the result of further development or increased utilization of the uplands facilities. (See F.O.F. 66, n.59, R.O. at 39) Such further development or increased utilization of upland facilities is reasonably foreseeable and would be very closely linked or causally related to the building of an 86 slip marina with public fuel services. As noted above, the applicant has the burden of providing reasonable assurances as to cumulative and secondary impacts. Brown v. DER, supra; Conservancy, supra. However, neither the pleadings nor the pre-hearing stipulation raised the issue of the adequacy of the secondary impact analysis. In a case such as this where the Department's notice of intent to issue a permit has been challenged by a third party, the applicant's prima facie case need only include the application and the accompanying documentation and information relied on by the Department as the basis of its intent to issue. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., 396 So.2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The petitioner challenging the permit must identify the areas of controversy and allege a factual basis for its contentions that the applicant did not provide the necessary reasonable assurances. J.W.C., 396 So.2d at 789. See also Woodholly Assoc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 451 So.2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since Barringer did not identify this issue and did not allege any factual basis for a contention that the secondary impact analysis was inadequate or incorrect, I may not rule on the issue in this order. Miscellaneous Exceptions To Findings of Fact Speer's Exception No. 14 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project will have no adverse impact on (1) the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the project, including seagrasses, shell fish, and fin-fish, and (2) recreational and commercial values in the vicinity. (F.O.F. No. 64) Speer contends that this finding is not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebutted testimony of Ms. Kelly and Mr. Isiminger. (Kelly, Tr. at 159, 161-62, 165-67; Isiminger, Tr. at 73) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly is not competent, substantial evidence, and I find no evidence in the record to rebut the testimony of Kelly and Isiminger. Therefore, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Speer's Exception No. 3 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide a current water quality analysis. (F.O.F. No. 35) A water quality analysis was submitted in April of 1990, shortly after the permit application was filed. (R.O. at 2, 19; F.O.F. No. 34) I find no competent substantial evidence in the record to suggest any reason for believing that the water quality has changed since April of 1990. I agree with Speer that, absent some specific reason for believing that the water quality has changed since the date of a study conducted contemporaneously with the permit application, there is no requirement to provide an updated water quality analysis. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Need For Quantified Hydrographic Study Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 7 and 9, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that a quantified hydrographic study was needed to provide reasonable assurances that the operation of the marina would not result in violations of water quality standards and would would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. For the reasons stated in Parts III(1), (2) and (3) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Introduction Of Issues Not Set Forth In Pleadings Or Pre-Hearing Stipulations Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's consideration of issues of (1) the need for a quantified hydrographic study, (2) the proximity of the site to Class II waters, (3) turbidity and prop dredging, (4) cumulative impacts, and (5) the need for a quantified study on manatee impacts. For the reasons set forth in Part 111(6) above, I agree that, absent waiver, a petitioner challenging an intent to issue a permit may not raise issues at the hearing which were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations. However, in this case the issue of manatee impacts was raised in the pleadings, and Speer was on notice that it had the burden of proof on that issue. As to the other issues, even if I accepted far the sake of argument that they were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations, Speer failed to timely object to the raising of these issues at the hearing and therefore waived any objection. See Sarasota County and Midnight Pass Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 13 FAIR 1727 (DER Final Order, April 4, 1991). Therefore, I reject the above exceptions. Proximity To Class II Waters Speer's Exception No. 2 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer was required to submit a plan which demonstrated that the marina would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. (C.O.L. Nos. 12 and 13) I do not agree that where a proposed marina site is 8,000 feet from Class II waters and where the site is rapidly flushed as noted in Parts 111(1), (2) and (3) above, that the site is in close proximity with the Class II waters within the meaning of Rule 17-312.080(6), Fla. Admin. Code. Accordingly, I accept this exception and reject the above note conclusion of law. Public Interest Test Speer's Exception No. 4 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project was not contrary to the public interest. (C.O.L. Nos. 17 and 20) For the reasons set forth in Parts III(4) and (5) above, I reject this exception. Cumulative Impacts Speer's Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurances that cumulative impacts would not result in water quality violations, and that such assurances could only be provided by a quantified study. For the reasons set forth in Parts III (1), (2), (3) and (6) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Modification Of Permit Conditions Speer's Exception No. 6 takes Exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law Nos. 24-34. These conclusions of law concern questions of the authority of the Hearing Officer and me to modify the conditions of the permit. I agree with Speer that since none of the parties have requested any modifications, these conclusions of law are irrelevant. 18/ Therefore I accept the exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law as irrelevant. Miscellaneous Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that Speer and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurance as to prop dredging and turbidity violations because neither Speer nor the Department sufficiently proved the basis for the one-foot clearance policy. For the reasons set forth in Part III(4) above, I reject this exception. Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the question of whether mitigation is adequate is a question of law. I agree with the Hearing Officer and reject this exception. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, enter a Final Order denying the application for a permit to construct the proposed project and denying the request for determination of improper purposes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1550 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Tavernier Harbor, Inc. (Tavernier, Applicant) has applied for a dredge and fill permit seeking to install seven 40' X 18' boat slips and one 25' X 3' finger pier and to construct a total of 3,024 square feet of perimeter boardwalk, with the eleven six foot wide access walkways over a "mangrove fringe" at a boat basin in an unnamed canal lying at Section 4, Township 63 South, Range 38 East in the municipality of Tavernier, Monroe County, Florida. The site plan and permit application provides that the slips are to accommodate sport fishing boats There would be 564 linial feet of boardwalk waterward of the mangrove fringe surrounding the boat basin and 160 feet of boardwalk landward of that mangrove fringe, with one finger pier of the above dimensions. The landward side of Tavernier's development will contain a restaurant and bar with an adjacent parking area, a storm water drainage system as well as a sewage treatment plant. There will be a six foot high wall screening the parking area from the surrounding non-owned property and public roadways. Tavernier intends to use the property as a sport fishing harbor to moor seven boats as well as to provide transient dockage for users of its upland restaurant or for boat owners or users who travel by car to the upland facilities and parking area. Various environmental impact abatement or mitigation facilities and procedures are proposed to be incorporated in the project in its construction and operation as delineated more fully below. Tavernier owns the entire upland property surrounding and upon which the proposed project will be constructed and operated. Tavernier does not own the submerged land in which the proposed pilings for the boardwalk, slips and pier will be placed, but has received authority from the State of Florida Department of Natural Resources to proceed with the project. The proposed project will be located in a rectangular basin approximately 120 feet wide by 414 feet long, lying at the end of a "dead end" canal which connects with Tavernier Creek, some 2,000 feet away. The canal and basin are box cut (straight sides) into the bedrock with an average depth of approximately 10 feet. The waters of Tavernier Creek and the adjacent Atlantic Ocean lie in the Florida Keys Outstanding Florida Waters as designated in Rule 17-3.041(4)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Artificial water bodies, including canals, within the Florida Keys are excluded from the Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) designation by this rule. Artificial water bodies include canals which have been dredged, as this one has historically, as well as water bodies which existed naturally in whole or in part whose banks or boundaries have been artificially altered by filling. Such is also the case here. In this connection, an aerial photograph in evidence dating from the late 1940s indicates that natural surface waters may have existed at one time in certain portions of the area presently encompassed by the above described boat basin and canal, however, it was not established by competent testimony that the waters depicted in the aerial photograph were actually natural waters or what the depth of those waters might have been as opposed to the above found present average depth of the canal and boat basin at issue. There was credible testimony by persons experienced with the naturally occurring waters of the Florida Keys, which established that the natural waters shown in the 1940s aerial photograph in the vicinity of the boat basin were so-called "floc ponds," which characteristically have a depth of no more than one or two feet. Additionally, the boundaries of the water bodies depicted in the 1940s photograph are not coincidental with the present boundaries of the boat basin or canal system where the project is proposed to be constructed and operated. The basin in which the proposed project is to be placed and the canal connecting it to Tavernier Creek are not natural bodies of water and are instead artificial water bodies created by dredging, excavating and filling of the original boundaries. Therefore, the proposed project is not located in designated Outstanding Florida Waters. The land surrounding the canal and boat basin and owned by Tavernier is historically filled land with a relatively young growth of native vegetation surrounding the basin area. The majority of the boat basin perimeter is vegetated with red, black and white mangroves. White mangroves occur predominately on the upland, near-shore slope of the basin. The surrounding area off the project site is occupied by docks, boats and seawalls owned by non- parties. The boat basin area is non-bulkheaded, although there is a remnant bulkhead which is now largely vegetated. The Tavernier property is surrounded by three roads, the Overseas Highway, the Old Overseas Highway, as well as side streets on the other two sides of the property. The biota present in the basin and canal area involved consists primarily of small fish such as snappers and grunts and occasional small barracuda. Within the mangrove system itself there are algae colonies on the mangrove roots as well as gastropod mollusk systems, with some periwinkus snails on the water bottoms and numerous types of analids, jellyfish, cassipia and tulip snails, as well as various types of minnows and other small fish. Most of the aquatic life in the basin canal system is associated with the vegetative mangrove fringe which provides some structural relief in the water and thus a beneficial marine habitat system for these types of aquatic life. There are no seagrasses associated with the project site or the nearby areas in the artificial canal. There will be no adverse impact on seagrasses. There is presently a healthy biological diversity of life forms in the canal and basin system. Water Quality The Water Quality Rules germane to this proceeding dictate that water quality impact of the proposed project in the basin and canal system must be examined with regard to short term and long term water quality impacts. Short term water quality impacts of the proposed project only involve potential turbidity generated by construction, that is, by the driving of pilings into the bottom substrate to support the finger piers, boardwalks and to create the boat slips. The Applicant agreed at hearing to alleviate such a potential impact by the installation and use of turbidity curtains around the entire construction area during installation of the pilings and decking for the boardwalk, deck and finger pier. In view of the established fact that the driving of the pilings will not cause the suspension of a significant amount of turbidity, reasonable assurances have been provided that this pile driving activity, coupled with the use of turbidity curtains, will result in no violation of state water quality standards as to this pollution parameter. This method of construction and the use of turbidity curtains should be incorporated in the permit as a mandatory condition. The long term water quality impacts which must be examined here are associated with the use of the basin, and to some extent the canal, by boats with the attendant potential for pollution associated with boating activities, as well as the long term pollution effect of storm water runoff from adjacent upland areas into the basin. In this regard, storm water now entering the basin carries with it an indeterminate amount of pollutants associated with surrounding, inhabited upland areas and surrounding automobile roadways. The project as now proposed will alleviate much or all of the present storm water runoff pollutant effect and will prevent any additional such effect occasioned by the installation and operation of the project with regard to upland- originated pollutants. This is because the Applicant has proposed to install, pursuant to its storm water drainage plan, a reverse gradient configuration around the perimeter of the basin on the upland which will divert storm water back on to the upland and prevent it from entering the subject basin. The storm water would be directed into approved storm water filtration basins. Thus, to the extent that storm water may be exerting a pollutant effect on the basin and canal at the present time, the project as proposed represents a marked improvement. The only other potential long-term source of water quality degradation from the proposed project, concerns the pollution that may emanate from the use of boats in the basin, canal and dockage facilities. This potential source will be offset by the diversion of similar type oil, grease and other pollutants already entering the basin from the upland by the storm water diversion and filtration system as well as by the preservation of the present mangrove fringe. The mangrove fringe is quite important to alleviating water quality impacts due to present pollution or due to increased boat traffic as a result of the installation of the project. Mangroves provide an important function in this regard in that their root systems serve to up- take excessive nutrients, heavy metals and other pollutants from the water into the mangroves, thus serving as an important natural filtration system. Additional methods of alleviating the water quality impacts due to pollution from boats and associated activities consist of establishing certain permit conditions, described below, which will prevent boat operation and related activities from lowering ambient water quality and requiring a continuous, long-term operation permit by which those conditions may be enforced, associated with requiring an extensive, water quality monitoring program. That program will require site modification and ultimately even removal of the project if water quality parameters are not met in the long term. Increased boat operation in the basin can result in discharges of hydrocarbons, toxic metals (chiefly from boat bottom paint), organic debris (chiefly associated with disposal in the water of fish cleaning offal) as well as the deposition of detergent material in the waters involved. Additionally and importantly, the presence of boats with heads can result in sewage spills or discharges. It was established, however, that boat use in the canal and associated pollution will not be solely due to the Applicant's proposed project. The canal margin is already almost entirely developed with approximately forty developed lots, most of which have boats associated with them with attendant docking facilities. Many of the same water quality contaminants such as hydrocarbons and greases, heavy metals, nutrients and organic material that would be expected from boat operations and fish cleaning are already present in the canal and in untreated storm water entering the canal and basin system from adjacent roads and parking areas. These contaminants will be reduced somewhat by the installation of the storm water diversion and filtration system at the basin. Additionally, as mentioned above, the proposed project will retain the vast majority of the present mangrove fringe filtration system surrounding the basin. The mangrove fringe will continue to serve its function of filtering and absorbing nutrients and other contaminants related to both storm water runoff and boat operation, which are now or will be entering the system. The Applicant has agreed to the imposition of several permit conditions which will control boat operation pollutants. These include the prohibition of any boat fueling facilities and boat fueling by private owners, the prohibition of "live aboard" boats which require frequent sewage pumpout and pose a substantial risk of illegal sewage discharge, the prohibition of boat hull cleaning and major boat maintenance (other than minor engine adjustments), and the mandatory requirement of an oil spill containment and removal apparatus which must be kept and maintained on the site. An extensive pre-construction and post-construction water quality monitoring plan will be required because of the paucity of background data available concerning existing water quality in the basin and canal. Such monitoring is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the storm water management plan and structures, as well as all the other permit conditions. The applicant has agreed to the implementation of such a long term water quality monitoring plan. Additionally, the Applicant will be required to obtain a long term operating permit in addition to the construction permit, which will allow for continuous Department review of the project and its operation. If water quality standards are not consistently maintained, the permittee will be required to change the marina design, management or operation to correct the problems. These changes can include the reducing of the size and number of boat slips and dockage facilities and ultimately even the physical removal of the proposed project and the non-renewal of the operating permit. In this connection, the evidence of record reveals that the ambient water at the site occasionally is violative of state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. This is characteristic of such dead end canal and basin systems which are characterized by a very low flushing rate. This canal system flushes such that approximately 90 per cent of the waters therein are exchanged in approximately 5 1/4 days. This is quite a low flushing rate which tends to concentrate pollutants over time. This, however, is an ambient or natural condition in the canal as it presently exists and is not a water quality problem occasioned by the proposed project. The Department has heretofore followed a policy of granting permits where such a parameter is sometimes not in accordance with state water quality standards and indeed, with regard to the instant project, the permit conditions which will be implemented and enforced, especially including the upland sewage and waste disposal system and storm water management and disposal filtration system have been reasonably shown to assure an overall improvement in the water quality in the basin area involved. In addition to prohibiting live aboard boats as a means to protect water quality in the face of boat traffic in the basin area, the Applicant will construct an upland, approved and permitted sewage treatment and disposal facility. Approved and properly maintained pump-out facilities for boat- generated sewage are also proposed and must be required. The Applicant also proposes dockside fish cleaning facilities to help ensure that fish cleaning debris is not deposited in the waters of the basin and canal. In view of the evidence of record which establishes that any other disposal area, such as the open ocean, for fish remains is a substantial distance from the project site, dockside fish cleaning facilities will not ensure that fish debris is not deposited in the waters of the basin because dockside fish cleaning facilities are too proximate to the waters sought to be protected. Accordingly, the evidence of record reveals that, for reasonable assurances to be provided that fish cleaning debris will not be deposited as an organic, nutrient pollutant in the waters of the basin, any fish cleaning facility should be placed a significant, reasonable distance from the dockage facilities on the upland with discharge of the waste into an appropriate waste disposal system, which the Applicant proposes to install. Such should be an additional condition to granting a permit. In addition to the above, there were no other water quality issues presented in this proceeding. In view of the fact that water quality may be enhanced by installation of the project with the above conditions and proposals by the Applicant, the project as presently proposed will reasonably assure that state water quality standards are not violated by the fact of the installation and operation of the proposed project and attendant boating activities. Public Interest Standards Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes It was not established that the proposed project will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others in a significant way. The main concern regarding the "public welfare" or "property of others" was feared adverse impacts of increased boat usage in the canal with attendant wakes and erosion of shoreline property. These concerns are alleviated by two factors. First, almost all the canal front property involved is presently seawalled, thereby substantially reducing the impact of waves from boats. Secondly, the Applicant has agreed and the Department will require, that the Applicant post "idle speed--no wake" signs at both the entrance to the canal and at the end of the canal at the basin within the Applicant's own property. Additionally, the canal boundaries are largely developed with approximately 40 developed lots with approximately as many attendant boats already using the canal. The relatively small number of additional boats that the proposed project will entail will not significantly add to any erosion problem due to boat wakes, which will be alleviated in any event because of the fortified shorelines already existing and because of the use of the signs with attendant citizen reporting of excessive boat speeds to the Applicant's management as well as to the Department of Natural Resources Marine Patrol. In conjunction with the above-discussed monitoring plan to be imposed as a condition to the permit consideration should be given by the Department and the Applicant to obtaining necessary authority (i.e. from the Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) for posting buoys or other similar partial obstruction devices at strategic locations in the canal channel to prevent boats from having the ability to operate on a straight course at high throttle levels when traversing the channel. This, too, should be a condition incorporated in the permit. The project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered, threatened species or their habitats. The evidence reflects that on rare occasions manatees have been seen in or in the vicinity of the canal, although the evidence does not reveal that this is truly a manatee habitat area. In conjunction with the posting of idle speed--no wake signs, the Applicant should be required to post signs indicating that it is an area frequented by manatees and urging attendant caution in boat operation. Although there will be some net loss of existing mangroves at the basin, at least 90 percent of the extant mangroves will remain. The record reveals that for unknown reasons, and at a time prior to the institution of this proceeding, the Applicant removed or cut some of the existing mangrove growth at the basin site. The permit should be conditioned upon the Applicant replanting or allowing regrowth of the mangroves so removed or altered. Additionally, it having been shown that the walkways between the landward deck and the boardwalk supported by pilings in the water of the basin are for pedestrian use, it was not established as necessary that the walkways should be six feet wide and of the total number depicted in the Applicant's design and plans. The presence of the boardwalks connecting the landward deck and the waterward boardwalk are the direct cause of ten percent removal of the existing mangroves due to the mangroves beneath the walkways being shaded from the sunlight. Accordingly, the Applicant, as a condition to the permit, should be required to either redesign the walkways so that they are significantly narrower than those proposed or reduce the number of these bridges over the mangroves by 50 percent so that only a maximum of approximately five percent of the extant mangroves will be ultimately removed or destroyed. Despite the fact that manatees have been seen in the canal, the habitat in the canal and basin is not favorable for attracting manatees and, additionally placement of the marina away from a pristine natural area as is the situation here will generally tend to have much less of an adverse impact on fish and wildlife than if the marina were placed in a pristine natural area often frequented by manatees and other endangered species. The proposed project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The evidence establishes that the small numbers of additional boats using the canal as a result of the project will not cause additional navigation problems of any significance. The possible erosion caused by boat wakes already is an existing condition and the small number of boats which would be added to present traffic in the canal as a result of the project will not substantially exacerbate any problem that exists, especially in view of the conditions which will be imposed and are discussed above. The proposed project will not adversely affect fishing, recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. For the reasons referenced above, there will be no water quality problems occasioned as a result of this project provided the conditions found to be necessary herein are imposed on the permit, the project construction and the project operation. If these are accomplished, there will be no adverse effect on fish and wildlife. Fishing, recreation and marine productivity in the area in turn will not be adversely affected from a water quality standpoint. Additionally, the proposed project will have the positive impact of enhancing the public recreational value of the area since it will offer public facilities for people seeking to navigate the state waters in the vicinity of the project by the provision of a small amount of additional dockage space. Maintenance of the mangroves in the manner depicted above will maintain and indeed, to a small degree, enhance marine productivity. The members of the public presently using the canal and basin area to fish, swim or perform similar activities will be able to continue doing so. In short, the project will not adversely affect marine productivity. There is no evidence of record to indicate that the project will adversely affect historical or archaeological resources. Concerning the "permanence" criteria under the above-cited statutory subsection, the project will indeed be of a permanent nature. The operating permit which the Department will require, will determine, with the conditions incorporated in it, whether or not the project remains a permanent structure. That is, if the various water quality parameters and the various considerations in the above-cited public interest provisions are not complied with, alteration of the project or even ultimate removal of the project may be required. Concerning the public interest criteria regarding current conditions and relative value of the functions being performed by the area involved, the project as proposed to be constructed and operated will not cause any adverse impact on current conditions and relative value of the resources of the project area as a functioning habitat for marine life. The functions and value of the area as a habitat for fish and wildlife and as an area of marine productivity will be unaltered in its post-development state, provided the conditions referenced herein are imposed, especially those related to protecting water quality from the impacts of boat operation, human wastes and waste attendant to fish cleaning operations. Cumulative Impact There have been no similar permit applications submitted to the Department in the past five years for projects in this canal and basin system. In fact, there have been only three or four shoreline dockage facilities permitted by the Department within a four square mile area in the vicinity of the proposed project. There are approximately 40 lots along the canal leading up to the Tavernier Harbor basin. The majority of these lots have already been developed with single family residences and the majority of them already have seawalls with dockage capability. The development of the few remaining undeveloped lots along the canal, coupled with the installation of the proposed project, should not significantly add to the cumulative effect upon water quality and the public interest parameters discussed above. There is only one other pending dock permit application received by the Department for any area near the proposed project. Thus, there will not be any cumulative adverse effect causing violation of any of the water quality or public interest standards at issue if the proposed project is built and operated and exists with other proposed or existing facilities In addition to the above conditions, Tavernier Harbor, Inc. has agreed to devise a contingency plan concerning oil spill containment and removal to be utilized in the event of a spill, which shall be submitted to the Department for review and changes as necessary prior to the commencement of the project's construction. The Applicant has agreed that all perimeter docking areas will be aligned waterward of the mangroves, whereas the restaurant deck will be placed landward of the mangroves. The Applicant has agreed to conduct water quality monitoring of the canal to include a minimum of one year pre- construction data and a minimum of two years of data collected after the project has been constructed and is operating. The Applicant will apply for a long-term operating permit for the mooring facilities and agrees to continue - monitoring and to implement necessary changes to marina design or management as directed by the Department in order to maintain water quality standards on a permanent basis. Tavernier Harbor, Inc. will also institute, prior to issuance of the operation permit, a maintenance program to permanently ensure removal of floating debris from the basin and project site. The Applicant has agreed and should be required to provide sewage pump out and treatment facilities capable of providing upland disposal and treatment of sewage and will provide an upland area well removed from the basin waters and the mangrove fringe for the conducting of fish cleaning operations and disposal of related waste material. The Applicant has agreed, and the permit should be conditioned upon, the allowance of only seven permanently moored sport fishing boats at the site and restriction of the use of the boardwalk waterward of the mangroves to only be used by "transient boats," with no permanently moored boats docked thereto. In summary, it has been established that the project will not degrade state water quality standards or the public interest criteria referenced above. The basin at the project site presently meets state water quality standards with the minor exception of occasional deficient levels of dissolved oxygen which naturally occur at the site.
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 Tavernier Harbor, Inc. for the dredge and fill permit sub judice be granted, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the above Findings of Fact are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE and ORDERED this 29th of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2057 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-3. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted as to the first two sentences but not as dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted except for the first and last sentences which are contrary to the preponderant evidence. Rejected as to its material import. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's finding on this subject matter. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as not dispositive of the material issues presented. Respondent Tavernier Harbor, Inc.'s Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-5. Accepted. 6. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 7-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 15-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 22-23. Accepted. Respondent Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Rejected as subordinate to Hearing Officer's findings. 2-30. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James T. Hendrick, Esquire MORGAN & HENDRICK, P.A. 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 H. Ray Allen, Esquire 618 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to a maintenance dredging exemption from environmental resource permitting. The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-5409 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the construction of a surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. (Applicant), owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge Applicant's claim of an exemption to maintenance dredge three canals serving the marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-5409, Petitioner challenges Applicant's request for an environmental resource permit to construct and operate a surface water management system on the uplands on which the marina is located. By stipulation, Petitioner has standing. Intervenor is a nonprofit organization of natural persons, hundreds of whom reside in Lee County. The primary purpose of Intervenor is to protect manatees and their habitat. Many of the members of Intervenor use and enjoy the waters of the State of Florida, in and about Deep Lagoon Marina, and would be substantially affected by an adverse impact to these waters or associated natural resources, including manatees and their habitat. Deep Lagoon Marina is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). By agreement with SFWMD, Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (collectively, with the predecessor agency, DEP) is the agency with permitting jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. The Marina Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove-lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Lagoon Marina is on Deep Lagoon, less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns the uplands and either owns the submerged bottoms of the canals or has a legitimate claim to such ownership. The attorney who examined the title at the time of the 1997 conveyance testified that the canals are entirely landward of the original mean high water line, so that the then-owner excavated the canals out of privately owned upland. Thus, the attorney opined that the canal bottom is privately owned. Some question may exist as to the delineation of the historic mean high water line, especially regarding its location relative to the waterward edge of the red mangrove fringe, which DEP would consider part of the historic natural waterbody. There may be some question specifically concerning title to the bottom of the northernmost canal where it joins Deep Lagoon. However, the proof required of Applicant for present purposes is considerably short of the proof required to prove title, and the attorney's testimony, absent proof to the contrary, is sufficient to demonstrate the requisite ownership interest to seek the exemption and permit that are the subject of these cases. From north to south, Deep Lagoon Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Manatees and Boating The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. Water Quality The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one-day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. Original Permit There are three types of permits relevant to these cases. The first is a dredge and fill permit (sometimes referred to in the record as a wetland resource permit or water resource permit)(DAF permit). The second is a surface water management (sometimes referred to in the record as a management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permit or stormwater management permit)(SWM permit). The third is an environmental resource permit (ERP). Several years ago, responding to a mandate from the Legislature, DEP and the water management districts consolidated DAF permits, which historically were issued by DEP, and SWM permits, which historically were issued by the water management districts, into ERPs. At the time of this change, DEP adopted, within the jurisdictional areas of each water management district, certain of the rules of each district. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF permit to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips, with an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking, so as to raise its marina capacity to 150-174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. In general, the Original Permit authorizes Applicant to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The record contains various references to "MLW" or "mean low water," "MHW" or "mean high water," and "NGVD" or "National Geodetic Vertical Datum." The drawings attached to the Original Permit state that MHW equals 0.96 feet NGVD and MLW equals about 0.40 feet NGVD. The Original Permit authorizes activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposes several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among these requirements is that Applicant must obtain the ERP that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 98-5409 (New Permit). Specific Condition 5 states: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. [As cited, this subparagraph contains modifications stated in a letter dated March 26, 1997, from DEP to Applicant's predecessor in interest.] Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addresses the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provides: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. * * * Specific Condition 11 adds: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 requires the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibits liveaboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 adds various manatee-protection provisions. Plan Views C and D, which are part of the Original Permit, depict submerged bottom elevations for the north and central canals, as well as from the south canal at its intersection with the central canal. Dated August 30, 1995, these "existing" bottom elevations across the mouth of the north canal are about -7, -8, and -4 feet (presumably MLW; see second note to Plan View B). The western two-thirds of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -6 feet MLW. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens to -7 to -9 feet MLW before it tapers up to -7, -6, and finally -3 feet MLW at the head; and the eastern third of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -7 feet MLW that tapers up to -6 feet and -3 feet MLW. The submerged bottom at the mouth of the central canal is about -8 to -9 feet MLW. The bottom drops to -6 to -10 feet MLW at the intersection with the south canal. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens slightly as it reaches the head, where it is -8 feet MLW. The submerged bottom of the south canal runs from -9 feet MLW at the intersection with the central canal and runs about 0.5 feet deeper at the head. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the Original Permit in 1988. The permit challengers appealed a final order granting the Original Permit and certifying, under the federal Clean Water Act, that state water quality standards were met. DEP premised its certification on the concept that water quality standards encompassed a net improvement in water quality of the poorly flushed canals. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the above-described 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the Original Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DEP's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following remand, DEP issued a final order issuing the Original Permit. On the certification issue, the final order revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341 as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Maintenance Dredging: DOAH Case No. 98-3901 Background The contentions of Petitioner and Intervenor as to maintenance dredging are: the proposed dredging exceeded what was necessary to restore the canals to original design specifications or original configurations; the proposed dredging exceeded the maximum depth allowable for maintenance dredging of canals; the work was not conducted in compliance with Section 370.12(2)(d), Florida Statutes; the spoil was not deposited on a self-contained upland site to prevent the escape of the spoil into waters of the state; and the dredge contractor did not use control devices and best management practices for erosion and sediment control to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter describes the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assures that Applicant's contractor will use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advises that the contractor will unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter states that the dredging "will be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the Original Permit, and will be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [Original Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divide the dredging into two areas. For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals (for the south canal, a portion running from the head along the northeast half of the canal) and then replace these materials with clean backfill material. This information is for background only, as the Original Permit authorized this contaminant dredging. For 4.84 acres, which run through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. The cross-sections for the north canal reveal relatively extensive dredging beyond the vegetation lines on both sides of the canal bottom. The dredging would extend up to, but not beyond, the edges of the prop roots of the mangroves on both sides of the canal bottom. The contours reveal variable, proposed slope profiles for the submerged sides of the canals, but the dredging would substantially steepen the submerged slopes of the north canal. It is difficult to estimate from the cross-sections the average depth and width to be dredged from the north canal, but it appears that the cross-sections proposed the removal of substantial spoil (an average of 4-6 feet) from areas from 20-40 feet from each side of the deepest point in the north canal. The dredging would alter the two most affected cross-sections, which are just inside the mouth of the north canal, by widening the deepest part of the canal bottom by 85 feet--from about 15 feet to about 100 feet. The drawings proposed much smaller alterations to the bottoms of the central and south canals: typically, spoil about 2 feet deep and 20 feet wide. All but one of the cross-sections revealed that spoil would be dredged only from one side of the deepest point. Additionally, the dredging in these canals would not involve any submerged vegetation; all but one of the canal sides was lined by existing seawalls. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated that it had determined that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement that the Applicant obtain an ERP. The letter warns that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter adds that DEP may revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provides a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Following receipt of DEP's letter acknowledging the exemption, Applicant's contractor proceeded to maintenance dredge the three canals. The dredging of the north canal took eight weeks. Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the Original Permit. As indicated in the March 3 letter and permitted in the Original Permit, the contaminant dredging took place at the dead-end heads of the north and central canals and along the northeast half of a slightly longer section of the south canal, starting from its dead-end head. In maintenance dredging the canals, Applicant's contractor did not exceed the specifications regarding depth and width stated in its March 3 letter. To the contrary, the contractor sometimes dredged slightly narrower or slightly shallower profiles than stated in the March 3 letter. For example, the contractor dredged the north canal to -6 feet NGVD (or -5.6 feet MLW), rather than -7 feet NGVD, as shown in the March 3 letter. The Depths, Widths, and Lengths of Dredging The March 3 letter asserts that -7 feet NGVD is the permitted elevation of the canal bottoms, pursuant to the Original Permit. This is incorrect in two respects. First, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect for all but the relatively small part of each canal that DEP has determined is contaminated. The Original Permit specifies design elevations for canal bottoms only in the contaminated area within each canal. Nothing in the Original Permit permits bottom elevations for any portion of the bottoms of the three canals outside of these three contaminated areas. Second, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect, even for the contaminated areas. The March 3 letter states -7 feet NGVD, but the Original Permit specifies bottom elevations, for contaminated areas only, of -7 feet MLW in the south and central canals and -6 feet MLW in the north canal. Thus, due to the differences between NGVD and MLW, the March 3 letter proposes dredging that would deepen the south and central canals by about five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit and the north canal by one foot five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit. Moreover, nothing in the record clearly establishes all aspects of the original design specifications of the three canals, whether permitted or not, or even all aspects of their original dredged configurations, if not permitted. There is no dispute concerning one aspect of the dredged configuration of the three canals: their lengths. Although there may be some dispute as to the original mean high water line near the mouths of the north and central canals, the original length of the canals is evident from the uplands that presently define them. As to the depth of the canals, although direct evidence is slight, Applicant has sufficiently proved indirectly the depths of the mouths of the canals pursuant to original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. The proved bottom elevations are -7 feet NGVD for each canal. Applicant proved these depths based on the prevailing elevations in Deep Lagoon in the vicinity of the mouths of the north and central canal and bottom elevations in areas of Deep Lagoon that are not prone to sedimentation. Additional proof of the bottom elevation of -7 feet NGVD at the mouths of the canals is present in the slightly higher permitted bottom elevations at the dead- ends of the north and central canals and landward portion of the south canal. There is some problem, though, with the proof of the depth of the canal bottoms between their mouths and heads (or, for the south canal, its landward portion of known contamination). Although the problem of the depth of the canals between their heads and mouths might be resolved by inferring a constant bottom elevation change from the deeper mouth to the shallower head, an unresolveable issue remains: the width of this maximum depth. As already noted, without deepening the deepest part of either cross-section, the contractor widened the deepest points along two cross-sections by 85 feet each. In terms of navigability and environmental impact, the width of the maximum depth of a canal is as important as its maximum depth. As to the width of the lowest bottom elevations of the canals, Applicant has produced no proof of original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. Nor has Applicant produced indirect proof of historic widths. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor in interest originally dredged the canal bottoms as wide as Applicant "maintenance" dredged them under the claimed exemption. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor geometrically dredged the canals so that their sides were perpendicular to their bottoms. Nothing in the record describes a sedimentation problem that might have narrowed the canals by such an extent that the dredging of the present widths, especially in the north canal, would be restorative. Nothing in the record even suggests that the original motive in dredging was navigability, which might have yielded relatively wide canal bottoms, versus upland fill, which would yield canal bottoms as wide as needed, not for navigability, but for uplands- creation. After consideration of all the evidence, no evidence supports a finding that the proposed dredging profiles, in terms of the widening of the areas of lowest elevation in each canal bottom, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original canal profiles, as originally (or at any later point) designed or, if not designed, as originally (or at any later point) configured. It is at least as likely as not that this is the first time that these canal bottoms, especially the north canal bottom, have ever been so wide at any bottom elevation approaching -7 feet NGVD. There is simply no notion of restoration or maintenance in the dredging that produced these new bottom profiles for these three canals. Transforming MLW to NGVD, -5 feet MLW is -4.6 feet NGVD. All proposed and actual maintenance dredging in the three canals dredged the canal bottoms to elevations lower than -5 feet MLW (or -4.6 feet NGVD), despite the absence of any previous permit for construction or maintenance of the canal from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Impact of Dredging on Manatees and Spoil Containment Prior to dredging, Applicant deployed turbidity curtains around the mouths of the two canals that discharge directly into Deep Lagoon. In this case, the turbidity curtains performed two functions. They contained turbidity and resuspended bottom contaminants within the mixing zone behind (or landward of) the curtains, and they excluded manatees from the dangerous area behind the curtains where the dredging was taking place. Petitioner and Intervenor object to the use of the turbidity curtains on two general grounds. First, they claim that the curtains failed to contain turbidity and resuspended contaminants from escaping the mixing zone. Second, they claim that the curtains adversely affected manatees. As executed, the maintenance dredging did not result in the release of turbidity or resuspended contaminants outside of the mixing zone due to the use of turbidity curtains. Applicant's contractor ensured that the curtains extended from the water surface to the canal bottom and sufficiently on the sides to prevent the escape of turbidity or resuspended contaminants. Although the March 3 letter did not indicate where the contractor would deploy the turbidity curtains, the important point, in retrospect, is that the contractor properly deployed the curtains. There is some question whether turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed across the mangrove fringe and into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Applicant's witness testified that water flows across the fringe only during the highest three or four tides per month. Petitioner and Intervenor's witness testified that water flows across the fringe as often as twice per day. The actual frequency is likely somewhere between these two extremes, but, regardless of the frequency, there is insufficient evidence to find that any turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed from the north canal into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Nor did the deployment of the turbidity curtains injure, harm, possess, annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any manatees. Applicant and its contractor carefully checked each canal for manatees before raising the turbidity curtains at the mouth of each canal, so as not to trap any manatees in the area behind the curtains. By ensuring that the curtains extended to the canal bottom and extended fully from side to side, they ensured that the curtains excluded manatees during the dredging. There is no evidence that a manatee could have entered the north canal from the Iona Drainage District ditch by crossing the red mangrove fringe; any breaks in the fringe were obstructed by prop roots that prevented even a kayaker from crossing the fringe without portaging. Applicant and its contractor checked for manatees during dredging operations. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the mere presence of the turbidity curtains in an area frequented by manatees adversely affected the animals. However, this argument elevates a speculative concern with a manatee's response to encountering an obstruction in its normal path over the practical purpose of curtains in physically obstructing the animal so as to prevent it from entering the dangerous area in which the dredge is operating, as well as the unhealthy area of turbidity and resuspended contaminants in the mixing zone. Under the circumstances, the use of the turbidity curtains to obstruct the manatees from visiting the dredging site or mixing zone did not adversely affect the manatees. In general, there is no evidence of any actual injury or harm to any manatees in the course of the dredging or the preparation for the dredging, including the deployment of the turbidity curtains. Petitioner and Intervenor offered evidence that maintenance dredging would result in more and larger boats and deterioration of water quality, which would both injure the manatees. However, as noted in the conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge excluded from DOAH Case No. 98-3901 such evidence concerning long-term impacts upon the manatees following the dredging. As for spoil containment, Applicant's contractor segregated the contaminated spoil from noncontaminated spoil by placing the contaminated spoil in a lined pit in the uplands. The contractor also brought onto the uplands clean fill mined from a sand quarry for backfilling into the dredged contaminated areas. There is evidence of the clean fill subsiding from its upland storage site and entering the canal waters in the mixing zone. Partly, this occurred during the loading of the barge, which transported the clean fill to the dead-end heads of the canals where the fill was placed over the newly dredged bottoms. The fill escaped into the water at a location about 100 feet long along the north seawall of the central canal, but the evidence does not establish whether this location was within the contaminated area at the head of the canal or whether the maintenance or contaminant dredging had already taken place. If the fill subsided into the water inside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water inside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor intended to add the fill at this location. If the fill subsided into the water outside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water outside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because it restored the canal bottom to a higher elevation following the dredging to an excessively low elevation. The subsidence of the clean fill into the water along the north side of the central canal is the only material that entered the water from the uplands during the dredging. Specifically, there is no evidence of dredged spoil entering the water from the uplands during or after the dredging. There is also no evidence that the maintenance dredging significantly impacted previously undisturbed natural areas. There is no evidence of such areas within the vicinity of Deep Lagoon Marina. New Permit: DOAH Case No. 98-5409 New Permit Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Original Permit Specific Condition 5, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an ERP and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. Prior to its reformulation as an ERP, the New Permit sought by Applicant would have been a SWM permit. The application notes that the general upland elevation is 5 feet NGVD and that stormwater runoff presently sheetflows directly to adjacent waterways without any treatment. During the application process, Applicant's engineer Christopher Wright, submitted a letter dated February 27, 1998, to Jack Myers, who is a Professional Engineer II for DEP. In response to a request from DEP for a "written procedure . . . to assure the proper functioning of the proposed . . . system," the letter states: Since the system is not designed as a retention system and does not rely upon infiltration to operate properly[,] operation and maintenance is minimal. Items that will need regular maintenance are limited to removal of silt and debris from the bottom of the drainage structures and the bleed down orifice of the control structure. A maintenance and inspection schedule has been included in this re-submittal as part of Exhibit 14. In relevant part, Exhibit 14 consists of a document provided Mr. Wright from the manufacturer of the components of the surface water management system. The document states that the manufacturer "recommends that the landowner use this schedule for periodic system maintenance . . .." The document lists 16 sediment-control items, but it is unclear whether all of them are incorporated into the proposed system. Four items, including sediment basins, require inspections quarterly or after "large storm events" and maintenance consisting of the removal of sediment; the "water quality inlet" requires inspections quarterly and maintenance consisting of "pump[ing] or vacuum[ing]"; the "maximizer settling chamber" requires inspection biannually and maintenance consisting of "vacuum[ing] or inject[ing] water, suspend silt and pump chamber"; and the "chamber" requires inspection annually and the same maintenance as the maximizer settling chamber. The proposed system includes the water quality inlet and one of the two types of chambers. By Notice of Intent to Issue dated November 5, 1998, DEP provided notice of its intent to issue the New Permit and certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code Section 1341. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the Original Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification. This waiver is consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The notices of intent (collectively, NOI) recite the recent permitting history of the marina. This history includes the Original Permit, a since-expired MSSW permit issued in 1988 by SFWMD, and then-pending requests--apparently all since granted--to revise the Original Permit by replacing the flushing canal with culverts, relocating a travel lift from the main canal to the north canal, and adding liveaboards to the marina. (Although mentioned below, these revisions, in and of themselves, do not determine the outcome of DOAH Case No. 98-5409.) Reviewing the proposed development for the site, the NOI states that the northerly part of the project would contain an indoor dry boat storage barn, a marina service operation consisting of a ship store and miscellaneous buildings, a harbor master building, an upgraded fueling facility, a parts and service center, a restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, and paved parking areas. The southerly part of the project would contain a new indoor dry boat storage barn, a boat dealership building, and paved parking areas in place of the existing buildings. The NOI states that the proposed water quality treatment system would comprise dry detention systems of several underground vaults with an overall capacity based on the total impervious area, including roofs, receiving 2.5 inches of rain times the percentage of imperviousness. Given the relatively high imperviousness of the finished development, this recommended order considers the percentage of imperviousness to be 100, but ignores the extent to which the post-development pervious surfaces would absorb any rainfall. For storms producing up to 2.5 inches of runoff, the proposed surface water management system, of which the underground vaults are a part, would trap the runoff and provide treatment, as sufficiently sized contaminants settled into the bottom of the vaults. Because the vaults have unenclosed bottoms, the proposed system would provide incidental additional treatment by allowing stormwater to percolate through the ground and into the water table. However, the system is essentially a dry detention system, and volumetric calculations of system capacity properly ignored the incidental treatment available through percolation into the water table. The New Permit notes that the wet season water table is 1.2 feet NGVD, and the bottom of the dry detention system is 2.5 feet NGVD. This relatively thin layer of soil probably explains why DEP's volumetric calculations ignored the treatment potential offered by percolation. The relatively high water table raises the possibility, especially if Applicant does not frequently remove the settled contaminants, that the proposed system could cause groundwater contamination after the thin layer of soil is saturated with contaminants. In any event, the system is not designed for the elimination of the settled contaminants through percolation. The treatment system for the boat wash areas would be self-contained, loop-recycle systems that would permit the separation of oil and free-settling solids prior to reuse. However, the NOI warns that, "during heavy storm events"-- probably again referring to more than 2.5 inches of runoff--the loop-recycle systems would release untreated water to one of the underground vaults, which would, in turn, release the untreated water into the canals. Due to the location of the boat wash areas, the receiving waters would probably be the north canal. As reflected in the drawings and the testimony of Mr. Wright, the surface water management system would discharge at three points: two in the north canal and one in the south canal. (Vol. I, p. 206; future references to the Transcript shall cite only the volume and page as, for example, Vol. I, p. 206). 67. The NOI concludes that Applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance of an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62-330, and Sections SFWMD--40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade ambient water quality in Outstanding Florida Waters pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. However, the design capacity of the proposed surface water management system raises serious questions concerning the water quality of the discharges into the canals. Mr. Wright initially testified that the surface water management system would be over-taxed by "an extreme storm event, probably a 25- year storm event . . .." (Vol. I, pp. 208-09). The record contains no evidence of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of runoff for the relatively impervious post- development uplands; the record contains no evidence even of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of rainfall. According to Mr. Wright, the 25-year storm would typically produce 8-10 inches of rain. (Vol. I, pp. 223 and 233). As already noted, the relatively large area of imperviousness following upland development and the relative imperviousness of the upland soils present at the site suggest that the runoff will be a relatively large percentage of the rainfall produced by any given storm event. It thus appears that the design capacity of the system is for a storm substantially smaller and substantially more frequent than the 25-year storm. Attached to the NOI is a draft of the New Permit, which contains numerous specific conditions and conforms in all respects with the NOI. Omitting any mention of SFWMD's Basis of Review, the New Permit addresses, among other things, the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the components of the proposed system. As set forth in the testimony of Michael Bateman, who is a Professional Engineer III and statewide stormwater coordinator for DEP, the surface water management system's operation depends on periodic pumping of the "thick, fine sediment," which appears to be a "cross between mud and sand" and will be laden with oil, grease, metals, and other contaminants. (Vol. II, p. 66). However, contrary to Mr. Bateman's assurance that the New Permit requires the periodic pumping or removal of contaminants that have precipitated out of the runoff in the dry detention system and dropped to the bottom sediment (Vol. II, p. 20), neither the NOI nor the New Permit requires, in clear and enforceable language, the periodic removal of settled solids from the underground vaults or their manner of disposal. New Permit Specific Condition 8 requires that Applicant maintain the boat wash area in "functioning condition," although specific inspection and maintenance requirements are omitted from the New Permit. New Permit Specific Condition 7 requires that Applicant "inspect and clean" all stormwater inlets "as necessary, at least once a month and after all large storm events," although the New Permit fails to specify that cleaning shall be by either pumping or vacuuming. By contrast to the marginally adequate inspection and maintenance provisions applicable to the boat wash area (inspections are required in Specific Condition 6, cited below) and stormwater inlets, the New Permit completely fails to specify enforceable inspection and maintenance requirements for the underground vaults. New Permit Specific Condition 6 addresses the operation of the vault as follows: Upon completion of the construction of the stormwater collection and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems and on an annual basis thereafter by September 30 of each year, the Permittee shall submit reports to the Department as to the storage/treatment volume adequacy of the permitted system. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the condition of stormwater inlets and control structures as to silt and debris removal and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens to function properly. The boat wash down areas shall be inspected for proper operation, i.e., no signs of wash water overflows from the containment area, condition of the containment area curbing, etc. Such reports shall include proposal of technique and schedule for the maintenance and/or repair of any deficiencies noted and shall be signed and sealed by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. A report of compliance with the aforementioned proposal shall be submitted by the Professional Engineer to the Department upon completion of the proposed work which shall be accomplished within three months of the initial report for each year. New Permit Specific Condition 6 requires annual reports concerning the sufficiency of the capacity of the underground vaults (first sentence), annual reports of the status of silt- and debris-removal from the inlets and control structures and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens (second sentence), inspection at no stated intervals of the boat wash area (third sentence), and annual reports with suggestions of maintenance schedules and repairs for the items mentioned in the first two sentences (fourth sentence). New Permit Specific Condition 6 promises only the preparation of a maintenance schedule at some point in the future. Failing to supply an enforceable inspection and maintenance program, Specific Condition 6 indicates that Applicant shall consider in the future techniques and scheduling of maintenance, presumably based on the report concerning system capacity. Such a requirement may or may not impose upon Applicant an enforceable obligation to adopt an enforceable inspection and maintenance program in the future, but it does not do so now. There is no reason why the New Permit should not impose upon Applicant an initial, enforceable inspection and maintenance program incorporating, for example, the clear and enforceable requirements that Applicant inspect all of the underground vaults no less frequently that once (or twice, if this is the applicable recommendation of the manufacturer) annually and, at clearly specified intervals, remove the sediments by resuspending the sediments in the water, pumping out the water, and disposing of the effluent and sediments so they do not reenter waters of the state. Although the record does not disclose such requirements, Applicant could possibly find manufacturer's recommendations for the boat wash components and incorporate them into an enforceable inspection and maintenance program more detailed than that contained in Specific Condition 8. However, for the reasons noted below, water quality considerations require a substantial strengthening of such a program beyond what is set forth in this paragraph as otherwise acceptable. At present, the bottom line on inspection and maintenance is simple: the New Permit does not even incorporate by reference the manufacturer's recommended inspection and maintenance schedule, which Mr. Wright provided to Mr. Myers. Nor was this shortcoming of the New Permit in its treatment of inspection and maintenance necessarily missed by Mr. Wright. He testified that he submitted to DEP the manufacturer's maintenance program (Vol. I, p. 205), but when asked, on direct, if the "permit in any way incorporate[s] the commitment in your application to this maintenance?" Mr. Wright candidly replied, "That I don't know." (Vol. I, p. 206). Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 5 Basis of Review Section 5--specifically Section 5.2.1(a)--imposes the "volumetric" requirement of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, as discussed above and in the conclusions of law. Petitioner does not dispute Applicant's compliance with this volumetric requirement, and the record amply demonstrates such compliance. Applicability of Basis of Review Section 4 The main issues in this case are whether the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 apply to the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. Because the record lacks any indication of other relevant pending or vested permits, without which, as noted in the conclusions of law, one cannot assess cumulative impacts, the remainder of the findings of fact will not discuss cumulative impacts, although, to some extent, increased boating pressure constitutes a secondary impact and a cumulative impact. Without regard to the differences between direct and secondary impacts, DEP has taken the position in this case that it could lawfully issue the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5 and without consideration of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In large part, DEP's witnesses justify this position by reliance on the historic differences between DAF permits and SWM permits and the fact that the New Permit is a former-SWM ERP. As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, the Basis of Review imposes different requirements upon former-DAF and former-SWM ERPs, although the Basis of Review does not refer to DAF or SWM permits by their former names. The identifying language used in the Basis of Review for former-DAF ERPs is "regulated activity" "located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands." References to "regulated activity" without the qualifying clause indicate that the following requirement applies to former-DAF ERPs and former-SWM ERPs. Several witnesses for DEP and Applicant testified that Applicant was entitled to the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5. For example, Mr. Wright testified that the water quality requirements for the New Permit required only a "cookbook calculation" to determine volume. (Vol. I, p. 204). Agreeing with a question that analysis of the water quality portion of the system requires "simply a straightforward mathematical calculation," Mr. Wright testified that the quality of discharged water, following treatment, will comply with state water quality standards in storms producing no more than 2.5 inches of runoff. (Vol. I, pp. 210-11). When asked to explain his answer, Mr. Wright testified, "It's kind of an implied situation, in that if you follow the guidelines that you are required to follow with respect to the calculations of water quality, that the end product is going to be in compliance with state standards." (Vol. I, p. 211). DEP witnesses agreed with Mr. Wright's analysis. For instance, Mr. Bateman testified, "The stormwater portion of the Basis of Review gets at that question [meeting water quality standards] by stating, 'if you follow the design criteria in the basis, you are presumed to meet water quality standards.'" (Vol. II, p. 40). Mr. John Iglehart, the program administrator for DEP's South District Office in Fort Myers, testified on the same point: "if . . . you meet the criteria, the engineering criteria, than you have met the presumption that you meet the rule." (Vol. III, p. 52). Mr. Myers also agreed, testifying, "with the stormwater management system, it's for the most part, let's say, fairly cut and dried as far as meeting criteria that is established within these rules and Basis of Review." (Vol. III, p. 144). He added: "Since the criteria for reviewing stormwater management systems and the discharge is based upon a presumed compliance with stormwater criteria and with state water quality, it is presumed it [the proposed system] does meet it." (Vol. III, p. 148). Mr. Bateman explained the historic basis for the water quality presumption given surface water management systems that meet the volumetric requirements: the ERP is a combination of the surface water management rules and the environmental . . ., the dredge-and-fill, and they didn't merge, they didn't marry very well in certain areas. In stormwater we look at--it's a technology- based criteria. We say, "If you build it this way, treat 80 percent of the average annual pollutant load, we're going to give you the permit on the presumption that you're doing the best you can. You're going to meet standards. Once you get into the wetlands, we take--we put on whole new sets of glasses. ALJ: Are you saying that the old dredge-and- fill is more performance-based, and the old MSSW is more technology-based, in that if you've put in the required technology, you've done your job? WITNESS: That is--yes. Dredge-and-fill is a more case by case. We look at the water quality. We look at ambient conditions. We look at hydrographics [here, largely tidal flushing]. It's more like a waste load allocation in that we're very specific. In stormwater, we can't afford to be. MS. HOLMES: So what you're saying is you can't point to the specific rule provision or regulation that excludes these criteria from surface water management systems? WITNESS: Well, you have to read [Basis of Review] Section 4 as a whole. 4.1 is specific to wetlands and other surface waters. 4.2 is environmental review. I mean, if you look at the thing in total, and the--and I realize it's confusing. But these rules are exactly the same in all the water management districts. They were developed together as the wetland criteria, the new dredge-and-fill criteria. They're exactly the same. The stormwater rules of all the [water management districts] is all different. That is for another day, making those all consistent. So these environmental wetland- type dredge-and-fill criteria are all the same, and they refer to in-water impact. [All references in the transcript to "end water" should have been "in-water."] ALJ: What do you mean by that term, "in- water impact?" WITNESS: In other words, dredge-and-fill impact. Construct and--I can't-- MS. HOLMES: May I continue, then? ALJ: Let him answer. What were you going to say? WITNESS: I think it takes a little knowledge of how these [rules] developed to know how they're applied, unfortunately. In other water management districts, it's clearer that these are in-water impacts. (Vol. II, pp. 57-59). In testifying to the exclusivity of the volumetric requirements in Basis of Review Section 5, with respect to former-SWM ERPs, these witnesses likewise opined that the secondary-impact analysis required in Basis of Review Section 4 also was inapplicable to the New Permit. For example, after testifying both ways on the necessity of considering secondary impacts in issuing former-SWM ERPs, Mr. Bateman concluded, "I'm not sure that [the requirement of considering secondary impacts] applies in this case. Certainty the rules apply, I mean, the rules apply. But certain rules are not applicable in this particular instance. I mean, I'm trying to think of a secondary impact associated with stormwater system, and it's difficult for me to do so." (Vol. II, p. 45). Mr. Bateman then testified that DEP did not consider such secondary impacts, as additional boat traffic, and probably did not consider cumulative impacts, such as other marinas. (Vol. II, pp. 51-52). In response to a question asking to what extent DEP considered post-development inputs of contaminants, such as heavy metals, when issuing a former-SWM ERP, Mr. Bateman testified: I have to tell you, very little. I mean, we--stormwater is pretty black and white. The link to secondary and cumulative impact is generally associated with in-water impact. And I realize the line is a little grey here. When we build a Wal-Mart, we don't think about how many cars it's going to put on [U.S. Route] 41 and what the impact might be to an adjacent lake. We just don't. It would be a little burdensome. In this case, I mean, it's a little greyer. (Vol. II, p. 47). Mr. Bateman was then asked to compare the relative impacts from a vacant, but developed, upland without a surface water management system with a proposed activity that would add a surface water management system to facilitate an intensification of land uses on the site so as to add new contaminants to the runoff. Mr. Bateman testified that DEP would apply only the volumetric requirement and not address the complex issue of weighing the potential environmental benefit of a new surface water system against the potential environmental detriment of contaminant loading (at least in storm events greater than the design storm event). Mr. Bateman explained: "The way it works, it is not a water quality-based standard. In other words, we don't go in and say it's so many pounds [of contaminants] per acre per year now. We're going to make it this many pounds per acre per year, and look at it in a detailed fashion. We do the [Best Management Practices], retain an inch and you're there." (Vol. II, p. 49). Agreeing with Mr. Bateman that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts resulting from the regulated activity, Mr. Iglehart testified: "It's our thought that we don't really look at secondary and cumulative impacts for the stormwater permit. . . . If it [the former-SWM ERP application] meets the criteria, it gets the permit. That--in the ERP, the previous dredge-and-fill side looks at the secondary and cumulative. The stormwater just--like Mr. Bateman testified." (Vol. III, p. 52). After some ambivalence, Mr. Myers also testified that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts for the New Permit: WITNESS: . . . I did not or I do not consider secondary impacts for the stormwater management system. MS. HOLMES: So, what about cumulative impacts? WITNESS: No. MS. HOLMES: So it's your testimony that you did not review secondary and cumulative impacts-- WITNESS: That's correct. MS. HOLMES: --of this system? WITNESS: What I can say is that the existing system out there, from what I can tell, does not have any stormwater treatment. Basically, it's running off into the canals. The proposed project will provide stormwater treatment for, not only the new construction, which is proposed mainly on the northern peninsula, but it is also provided for that area which is now existing, it will provide stormwater treatment for that area also. And I consider that--I don't consider that to be a secondary impact. I see it as an offsetting improvement to potential as far as the water quality. (Vol. III, pp. 144-45). As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, these witnesses have misread the provisions of the Basis of Review applicable to the New Permit. As noted in the conclusions of law, the requirements in the Basis of Review of analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts upon water quality and manatees are not limited to in-water or former-DAF activities. Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 4 Direct vs. Secondary Impacts In terms of construction, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the proposed system will violate any of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In terms of maintenance, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible, except for the omission from the New Permit of any provision for the safe disposition of the contaminant removed from the underground vaults. However, the maintenance issues are better treated with the operation issues. In terms of operation, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are substantial. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the analysis of the direct impacts of the operation of the proposed system is limited to the current level of uplands and marine activity at the marina. These direct impacts involve two aspects of the operation of the proposed system: the design capacity and the inspection and maintenance (including disposal of sediment) of the system components. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the secondary impacts involve the intended and reasonably expected uses of the proposed system. These impacts consist of the increased uplands and marine uses associated with the addition of 100 new wet slips, 227 new dry slips, and 115,000 square feet of building space with a restaurant. Apart from their contention that Applicant is required only to satisfy the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5, Applicant and DEP have contended that Petitioner is estopped from raising direct and secondary impacts because DEP considered these impacts when issuing the Original Permit four years ago. Perhaps the most obvious factual problem with this contention is that it ignores that the New Permit authorizes, for the first time, the construction of the 227 new dry slips and 115,000 square feet of buildings. As counsel for DEP pointed out during the hearing, the Original Permit was a DAF permit and did not extend to these upland uses. The contention that DEP considered these developments as secondary impacts because they were shown on drawings attached to the Original Permit gives too much significance to nonjurisdictional background items shown in drawings without corresponding textual analysis. More generally, the efforts of DEP and Applicant to restrict the scope of this case rely on a misreading of Original Permit Specific Condition 5. The purpose of Original Permit Specific Condition 5 is to "ensure a net improvement to water quality." The purpose of each of the requirements under Specific Condition 5 is to achieve an actual, not presumptive, improvement in water quality. Prohibiting the issuing agency from fully analyzing the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system reduces the likelihood that the ensuing New Permit will perform its role, as envisioned in the Original Permit, of helping to achieve an actual, net improvement in water quality. The concept of a "net" improvement is exactly what DEP's witnesses disclaim having done in this case--balancing the potential environmental benefits to the water resources from the proposed surface water management system against the potential environmental detriments to the water resources from the development and land uses that are intended or reasonably expected to result from the construction of the proposed system. The failure to analyze the net gain or loss inherent in this important provision of Specific Condition 5.B undermines the likelihood that the effect of Specific Condition 5.B--a net improvement in water quality--will be achieved. It is therefore illogical to rely on Specific Condition 5.B, as DEP does, as authority for an artificially constrained analysis of the eligibility of the proposed system for a former-SWM ERP. The estoppel argument also ignores that Original Permit Specific Condition 5.B anticipated that the issuing agency would be SFWMD. It is unclear how the parties to the Original Permit, including DEP, would bind what appeared at the time to have to be SFWMD in the exercise of its lawful authority in issuing SWMs or former-SWM ERPs. The attempt of Applicant and DEP trying to limit the scope of this case also overlooks numerous changed circumstances since the issuance of the Original Permit. Changed circumstances militating in favor of the comprehensive analysis mandated for former-SWM ERPs include: increased trends in manatee mortality; increased boating pressure; persistent water quality violations in terms of dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria; a dramatic deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels; the initial presentation for environmental permitting of the previously unpermitted 227 additional dry slips and the 115,000 square feet of buildings; the current canal bottom profiles resulting from excessively deep maintenance dredging; the absence of an updated flushing study; and the failure to dredge the flushing canal required by the Original Permit. Disregarding the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 in this case would thus repudiate Specific Condition 5.B, especially when, among other things, the water quality of the canals has deteriorated dramatically with respect to dissolved oxygen, the canals continue to suffer from serious copper violations, the canals were recently maintenance dredged to excessive depths, no flushing study has examined these subsequent developments, and the intended uses to be facilitated by the New Permit more than double the capacity of the existing marina. 2. Water Quality The direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system, based on current levels of uplands and marine use at the marina, would adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters, in violation of Basis of Review Section 4.1.1(c). The excessively increased depths of the canals, especially with respect to the substantially widened depths of the north canal, raise the potential of water quality violations, especially given the history of this site. Potential sources of contaminants exist today in the canal bottoms, uplands, and marine activity associated with the marina. The potential for water quality violations, especially with respect to dissolved oxygen, increases in the absence of an updated flushing study. The potential also increases with the introduction of liveaboards and failure to dredge the flushing canal (or its replacement with culverts). In the face of these current threats to water quality, the New Permit fails to require a system with adequate capacity to accommodate fairly frequent storm events and fails to impose clear and enforceable inspection, maintenance, and disposal requirements for the underground vaults. Although better, the inspection and maintenance requirements for the stormwater inlets and boat wash area unnecessarily present enforcement problems. The effect of these failures in design capacity and inspection and maintenance is synergistic. Deficiencies in vault capacity mean that storms will more frequently resuspend the settled contaminants in the vaults and flush them out into the canal waters. Excessively long maintenance intervals and poor maintenance procedures will increase the volume of contaminants available to be flushed out into the canal waters. Improper disposition of removed contaminants endangers other water resources. The introduction of untreated or inadequately treated water into the canals means the introduction of two substances that will contribute to the current water quality violations. Organics, such as from the boat wash operations and other uplands uses, will raise biochemical oxygen demand, which will accelerate the deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels. Copper removed during boat wash operations, leaching from painted hulls, or remaining in the uplands from past marina operations will also enter the canals in this fashion. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the proposed surface water management system will not result, in the long-term, in water quality violations. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed system, even as limited to existing levels of use of the uplands and marine waters, will not contribute to existing violations of dissolved oxygen and copper levels. Obviously, the situation is exacerbated by consideration of the uses intended and reasonably expected to follow the construction of the proposed system. With the growing popularity of boating in Lee County over the past 20 years, it is reasonably likely that an expanded marina operation, located close to downtown Fort Myers, will successfully market itself. Thus, many more boats will use the marina because it will offer more wet and dry slips and new buildings, including a restaurant, and the pressure on water quality will intensify with the intensification of these uses. The added intensity of upland and marine uses will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and copper, probably will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for total coliform bacteria and lead, and may contribute to the recurrence of water quality violations for other parameters for which the canals were previously in violation. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely affect the water quality of the canals. 3. Manatees and Manatee Habitat By letter dated June 26, 1998, from a DEP Environmental Specialist to a DEP permitting employee, the Environmental Specialist provided an initial opinion concerning the revisions that Applicant sought to the Original Permit so as to allow liveaboards, replace the flushing canal with culverts, and relocate the travel lift to the north canal. The letter accompanies a Manatee Impact Review Report, also dated June 26, 1998. The Manatee Impact Review Report notes the pending application for the New Permit. The report considers at length the extent of manatee use of Deep Lagoon and the nearby portions of the Caloosahatchee River. The Manatee Impact Review Report states: This project [i.e., the relocation of the boat lift to the north canal, addition of liveaboards, and conversion of the flushing canal to flushing culverts] is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft-related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. The secondary impacts expected with this project are compounded by the cumulative secondary effects from other facilities in this system. Just south of this project site, another marina was recently constructed (Sun City Corporation aka Gulf Harbor Marina aka River's Edge), which has approximately 190 wet slips. Since October 1995, there have been seven watercraft-related deaths within five miles of this project location. The Gulf Harbor Marina was constructed in late 1995, and was almost fully occupied during 1996. Watercraft-related manatee deaths increased significantly during this time, with one in December 1995, two in 1996 and four in 1997. Additional on-water enforcement by the City of Cape Coral was considered part of the offsetting measures to address the expected impacts to manatees from increases in boat density. This offsetting measure, however, appears to be ineffectual at this time. The Manatee Impact Review Report concludes that the north canal and its mouth are "particularly important" for manatee because of the availability of freshwater from the adjoining Iona Drainage District ditch immediately north of the north canal and "historical use indicates that this area appears to be the most frequently used area in the Deep Lagoon system." The report cautions that the relocated travel lift may significantly increase the number of boats in the little-used north canal, whose narrowness, coupled with moored, large boats on the one side, "would produce significant, adverse impacts to the endangered manatee." The Manatee Impact Review Report finds that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, unless several new conditions were added. These conditions include prohibitions against boat launching along the shoreline of the north canal and the addition of manatee-exclusion grating to any culverts that may be approved. As defined in this recommended order, the direct impacts upon manatees from the proposed surface water management system would be moderate. As defined in this recommended order, direct impacts would not involve any increase in boating pressure. The greater impacts would be in the deterioration of two measures of water quality that are crucial to manatees: dissolved oxygen and copper. However, the secondary impacts are dramatic, not de minimis, and arise from the intended and reasonably expected uses to follow from the construction of the proposed surface water management system. The increased boat traffic intended and reasonably expected from more than doubling the marina capacity, through the addition of 100 wet slips and 227 dry slips, and the addition of 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant, would adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters. Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial numbers of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species. 4. Minimization and Mitigation Due to their contention that Basis of Review Section 4 does not apply to this case, DEP and Applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the minimization and mitigation sections of Basis of Review Section 4. However, the record supports the possibility of design alternatives for water quality impacts, if not manatee impacts, that DEP and Applicant must consider before reanalyzing the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed system on the water resources and, if appropriate, potential mitigation options. Mr. Bateman testified that SFWMD is the only district that permits surface water management systems relying on the settling out of sediments in the bottom of a storage-type detention system. (Vol. II, p. 18). He explained that other districts rely on systems that, taking advantage of the three to four feet typically minimally available between ground surface and the top of the water table, retain the runoff and allow it to percolate into the ground. (Vol. II, p. 19). One relatively straightforward design alternative, which would address water quality issues, would be to perform a flushing study; analyze applicable drainage level of service standards imposed by state, regional, and local authorities; and increase the capacity of the surface water management system to accommodate the runoff from storms of sufficient size and frequency that would be accommodated by the proposed system. Another feature of this design alternative would be to impose for each component of the system a detailed, enforceable program of inspection, maintenance, and contaminant-disposal. This program would incorporate the manufacturer's recommendations for the manner and minimum frequency of inspection and maintenance, but would require more frequent removal of contaminated sediments during periods when larger storms are more numerous (e.g., a specified wet season) or more intense (e.g., a specified hurricane season), as well as any periods of the year when the marine and upland uses are greatest (e.g., during the winter season, if this is the period of greatest use). As testified by Mr. Bateman, the proximity of the water table to the surface, as well as South Florida land costs, discourage reliance upon a conventional percolation-treatment system, even though the site's uplands are 5 feet NGVD and the water table is 1.2 feet NGVD. The bottom of the proposed system is 2.5 feet NGVD, which leaves little soil for absorption. If the nature of the contaminants, such as copper, does not preclude reliance upon a percolation-treatment system, DEP and Applicant could explore design alternatives that incorporate more, shallower vaults, which would increase the soil layer between the bottom of the vaults and the top of the water table. If the technology or contaminants preclude reliance upon such an alternative, the parties could consider the relatively costly alternative, described by Mr. Bateman, of pool-like filters with an "actual filtration device." (Vol. II, pp. 19-20). The preceding design alternatives would address water quality concerns, including as they apply to manatees, but would not address the impact of increased boating upon manatees. The record is not well developed in this regard, but DEP and Intervenor have considerable experience in this area, and it is premature to find no suitable means of eliminating or at least adequately reducing the secondary impacts of the proposed system in this crucial regard as well. In any event, Applicant has failed to consider any design alternatives to eliminate or adequately reduce the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system. Having failed to consider minimization, DEP and Applicant have failed to identify the residual direct and secondary impacts that might be offset by mitigation. Applicant has thus failed to mitigate the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking its determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the application for an environmental resource permit in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 T. Elaine Holmes, Attorney 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should issue to Century Realty Funds, Inc. (Century) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44000227.002 (the ERP), which would modify Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 (the Permit) and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481, issued by the District to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District issued Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park (MHP) located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. Angler’s Green MHP Angler’s Green MHP is an 83-acre residential golf course development of approximately 385 homes located off of State Road 37 near Mulberry. Residents at Angler’s Green own their own mobile homes and lease the residential lots pursuant to annual leases expiring December 31 of each year, with guaranteed renewal conditioned upon owner compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease. Prior to being developed as a mobile home park, the property which is now Angler’s Green MHP was part of a phosphate mining operation and was reclaimed under a phosphate mining land reclamation plan approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources and a reclamation contract dated September 4, 1984. Final contours of the Angler’s Green site were made in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. After reclamation contouring, a 23-acre manmade (former phosphate mine pit) lake remained in the northeast quadrant of the Angler's Green site. The resulting lake had a finger arm (bay or cove) extending from the southwest corner of the main body of the lake, oriented in a north-to-south direction and located west of a peninsula of land extending into the northwest part of the lake from the north. The lake also had a short, narrow canal leading into the main body of the lake from the south; the canal connected at a right angle to longer narrow waterway to the south of and extending parallel to the main body of the lake in an east-to-west orientation. There also were two smaller ponds on the property after reclamation contouring. After reclamation, surface water onsite generally flowed westerly and discharged from the property to a railroad ditch along the western boundary of the property. The recorded post-reclamation, pre-development water level for the 23-acre lake, as indicated on the site grading plans, was around 127.1 to 127.8 feet above Mean Sea Level (M.S.L.). The 1985 Permits On July 10, 1985, the District issued MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century to authorize the construction of a surface water management system for Angler’s Green. The MSSW Permit had an expiration date of July 10, 1988. As designed, the permitted Angler’s Green surface water management system was to route internal stormwater runoff to swales, detention ponds, and catchment areas before discharging through a sidebank sand filtration system (a berm approximately 300 feet long containing an 8” perforated drain pipe covered by a filter fabric and sand filter material) to receiving waters at the northwest corner of the property. The permitted system was designed with five drainage areas known as Basins A through E. Basin A was in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin B was to its east in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin E was to the north of Basin A and included the 23-acre former phosphate mining pit reclaimed as an artificial lake, which was referred to as “Lake E” or sometimes “Pond E"; Basin C was to the west of Basin E; and Basin D was to the west of Basin C and to the north of Basin B. The two smaller ponds on the property were designated Pond C-1 and Pond B-1 and were located in Basin C and Basin B, respectively. Basin D was in the northwest corner of the site; the discharge structure was in the northwest corner of Basin D. As the system was designed, stormwater from Basin E would appear to sheet flow naturally into Lake E; stormwater from Basin A would appear to flow naturally to the southwest, away from Lake E, but the system routed the water from the southwest corner of Basin A to the western end of the waterway on Lake E through an underground pipe. Stormwater from Basin B was to flow to and be retained in Pond B-1; as the system was designed, surface water was not designed to discharge offsite from Basin B. As designed, Lake E served as a detention pond for water from Basin E and Basin A. It was to have a control structure (CS-1) in the arm of Lake E that would produce a seasonal fluctuation range of two feet, from 127.5’ above M.S.L. to 129.5’ above M.S.L. Stormwater discharging from CS- 1 was to be conveyed by pipe to Pond C-1, where it was to mingle with surface water draining from Basin C. When full, Pond C-1 would cascade into the golf course area in Basin D and, as necessary, in a portion of Basin B. After catchment and detention in the golf course area, overflow was eventually and ultimately to discharge offsite through the side-bank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. In this manner, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was designed to accommodate the 24-hour, 25- year storm event, which was estimated to produce approximately 8 inches of water in a 24-hour period. It also was designed to comply with the water quality requirements as specified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-25 (1985 Ann. Supp.) by detaining the first half-inch of runoff before discharging it offsite through the sidebank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. (All rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code.) Omission of the Stangls During the review process, the District noted from drawings submitted as part of Century's MSSW Permit application that the project area did not include approximately the eastern third of the main body of Lake E. District staff brought this to Century's attention in a request for additional information (RAI) and stated: "If possible, you should obtain a perpetual right to operate and maintain the lake from other owners." In response, Century falsely represented to the District that L. Kirk McKay, a joint venture partner of Century, was the only riparian owner on Lake E and that Century had obtained from him a perpetual right to operate and maintain Lake E as part of the MSSW Permit. In fact, the Stangls owned property on the east side of the lake, including approximately 500 feet of lakefront and contiguous lake bottom. The Stangls and two partners purchased the property from McKay himself in 1979. The Stangls bought out their partners in 1984. The District relied on Century's misrepresentation. The District would not have issued the MSSW Permit to Century if the District had known that Century did not own or control all the land being used for the Permit--specifically, including all of Lake E. See Rule 40D-4.101(1)(d) and (2)(d)6. (1985) (application must include "evidence of ownership or control"). In addition, because the District was unaware of the Stangls' ownership of a portion of Lake E, the District did not require Century to give the Stangls direct, actual notice of the Century's permit application. Instead, the District only required that Century publish notice of the District’s receipt of the permit application. Notice was published on April 3, 1985, in the Lakeland Ledger, a newspaper of general circulation qualified under the terms of Section 50.011, Florida Statutes. But the Stangls did not see the published notice, were unaware of the permit application, and did not ask to participate in the permitting process. The Stangl property adjacent to Angler’s Green remained undeveloped and unoccupied until 1999, when the Stangls' son, John, established a business on the site. Prior to 1999, the Stangls visited the property a couple times a year. They were fully aware of the construction and operation of Anglers Green as a mobile home park across Lake E. During this time, Century leased 385 lots with guaranteed annual renewal conditioned only upon compliance with lease terms and conditions. Amenities under the leases included clubhouse and golf course privileges. At no time before 2000 did the Stangls take any action to challenge the validity of Century's 1985 MSSW Permit. 1985 Surface Water Management Permitting Requirements In 1985, permitting requirements for surface water management systems were divided between two regulatory schemes. Surface water management permits in Polk County were issued by the District under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, which addressed water quantity and flooding issues for projects greater than and less than 40 acres, respectively. Water quality permits or exemptions from water quality permitting requirements were issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 17-25 to address water quality concerns. It was not until 1988 that permitting requirements were consolidated into the MSSW regulatory program administered by the District under Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40. In 1985, the District did not have a Basis of Review (BOR) to specify system design requirements for applicants to provide reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of surface water permits were satisfied. Standards and criteria for the design and performance of surface water management systems were contained in Rule 40D-4.301(2) (1985) Under subsection (2)(i) of that rule, projects designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-25 [Regulation of Stormwater Discharge] were presumed to meet applicable State water quality requirements. There were no requirements for wet detention pond littoral zones. 20. Under Rule 17-25.03(2)(b) (1985 Ann. Supp.), stormwater management systems for projects with drainage areas less than 100 acres that provided retention or detention with filtration of the first half-inch of runoff were exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule Chapter 17-25. 21. In 1985, District Rule 40D-4.301(2)(j) (1985) allowed for natural areas and existing water bodies to be used for stormwater retention or detention purposes when not in conflict with environmental or public use considerations. Areas that could be considered for this purpose included previously-degraded areas or man-made areas (such as borrow pits). Apparently, the District allowed Century to use Lake E as a detention pond under this provision. Deviations from MSSW Permit Angler’s Green MHP was constructed in two phases, with the first phase completed in 1985, and the second phase completed in 1987. Construction of at least the part of the surface water management system to serve the first phase took place prior to 1985; it was not clear from the evidence whether construction of the part of the surface water management system to serve the second phase also took place prior to 1985, but it clearly took place prior to construction of the second phase in 1987. Condition No. 4 of Century's MSSW Permit required the submittal of a certification that the system was constructed in accordance with the approved and permitted design. But Century did not provide any such certification. Century also never certified to the District that its new stormwater discharge facility, as constructed, continued to qualify for exemption from State water quality requirements. Although the surface water management system was constructed and operating, the District never transferred the 1985 Permit to the operation phase. In several respects, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was not constructed as designed, approved, and permitted in 1985. The pipe to convey stormwater from the southwest corner of Basin A back to the Lake E waterway apparently never was constructed; instead, stormwater from Basin A was routed to Pond B-1. (There also was a berm constructed in Basin A near the southern boundary of the site; but that berm apparently was a visual berm, and there was no evidence that it affected performance of the surface water management system.) Control structure CS-1 (which was supposed to be located in the arm or bay of Lake E) and the pipe to convey overflow from there into Pond C-1 also never were constructed. By the early 1990's, Angler's Green was experiencing flooding in the golf course area in Basin D and B for extended periods of time. In November 1993, the District responded to a complaint of flooding in that vicinity. Upon investigation, the District determined that malfunction of the surface water management system serving Reservation Lakes (now known as Paradise Lakes), a development to the north and downstream of the Angler's Green system, was causing water to back up through the wetlands and the sand filtration system in the northwest corner of the Angler’s Green project. As a result, water overtopped the discharge structure, equalized at levels above the top of the discharge structure's berm, and flooded the golf course for extended periods of time. At some undetermined point in time, an unpermitted pond was dug in Basin D, apparently in an attempt to alleviate flooding of the golf course. In addition, possibly for the same purpose, a pump was installed in Basin D near Pond C-1, and a pipe was installed to convey stormwater from there into Lake E. The sidebank sand filtration system designed to provide filtration of stormwater prior to discharge from the northwest corner of the site does not appear to exist today. It may be present but difficult to see after 15 years of plant growth; or it may have been removed or disturbed as a result of re-grading in the area. However, the evidence proved that the discharge structure was present in 1993, and there is no reason to believe that it was not installed during construction of the surface water management system--i.e., by 1987 at the latest. In addition, at some undetermined point in time, a pipe was installed at the northeast corner of Lake E to convey overflow from Lake E eastward to a drainage ditch located alongside SR 37 to the north of the Stangls' property. No witnesses could testify as to when the pipe to the SR 37 ditch was installed or its elevation. (The District and Century state in their PRO that Map No. 2 in P/I Exhibit 14--an aerial map/survey submitted to the District by Century on August 13, 1990, as part of Century's 1990 Water Use Permit No. 209993.000 application--notes the pipe's elevation as 127.95 feet above M.S.L.; but no such finding could be made from review of the exhibit.) Roads in Angler's Green have inverted crowns to convey runoff from roads, driveways, and roofs away from mobile home lots. Some runoff from these impervious surfaces appears to be directed into a swale on the east side of the site; this swale leads to Lake E. In addition, approximately 12 drains have been installed in or near roads in Angler's Green that convey water through pipes directly into Lake E or Pond C-1. Under current Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, road drains connecting impervious surfaces to Lake E would have to be shown on application construction drawings, and separate stormwater calculations would have to be provided in an application. But in 1985 this was not required. Century's calculations, together with flow arrows on drawings showing the direction of stormwater flow towards the detention ponds, were considered sufficient--especially since Century's calculations used a relatively high runoff co-efficient. As a result, the existence of these drains and pipes are not considered to be substantial deviations from the original, approved design. Similarly, approximately 64 roof drains and pipes conveying water from roofs directly into Lake E and Pond C-1 would not be considered substantial deviations from the original, approved design. In addition, these apparently were installed by mobile homeowners over the years, not by Century. From 1985 to 2000, the District did not have occasion to address regulatory concerns at Angler’s Green, except for the complaint of flooding in the golf course area that occurred in November 1993 and a more recent complaint about an area of the golf course that was designed to flood under certain conditions. Otto Stangl’s Complaint and the District’s Response Around November 1999, John Stangl noticed a fish kill in the ditch along SR 37 near the Stangl property. He also was contacted by a governmental compliance officer concerning the fish kill. Upon investigating, John Stangl saw the unpermitted pipe leading from Lake E that was discharging into the SR 37 ditch where the fish kill was observed, as well as the unpermitted pump that was pumping water from the Angler’s Green golf course area through a pipe that discharged into Lake E. In February 2000, Otto Stangl complained to the District about the fish kill and the existence of the unpermitted structures associated with Lake E. Upon receiving Otto Stangl’s complaint, District staff conducted site visits of the Angler’s Green project. Staff observed the unauthorized pump and pipe conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E and the unauthorized pipe conveying water from Lake E to the SR 37 ditch. Staff also observed that the Lake E control structure was missing, the pipe to convey stormwater from Basin A to Lake E was missing, and Basin D had been re-graded. In February 2000, the District also became aware of the fact that Century did not have full ownership or control of Lake E. On March 15, 2000, the District issued Century Notice of Non-Compliance and directed Century to either construct the system as designed and permitted or to seek a permit modification. On May 8, 2000, Century submitted a letter application to modify the original MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 by constructing the originally permitted Lake E control structure and pipe conveying water from Lake E to Pond C-1, but in a different location in Lake E than originally permitted due to the existence of homes at the location where these structures were originally planned. The application was subsequently amended to be a formal modification upon Century’s request for further modification to allow Basin A stormwater to flow to Pond B-1 and to expand Pond B-1 and add a control structure and an effluent filtration system. Despite having actual knowledge since at least February 2000 that the Angler's Green surface water management system was built partially on their property, the Stangls did not ask for a hearing on the 1985 Permit. Instead, they awaited the District's consideration of Century's modification application and sought to challenge the District's notice of intent to grant the modification permit issued on October 29, 2001. The District’s Regulatory Compliance Practices In the 1980's, the District appeared to pay little or no attention to construction of permitted projects or submission of required post-construction certifications. Many projects permitted by the District in the 1980’s, such as Angler’s Green, were built and operating although no certifications had been submitted; as a result, the permits issued for these projects never were transferred to the operation phase. Eventually, some projects not built in compliance with issued permits came to the attention of the District, typically through third-party complaints about drainage problems and flooding. By this time, there was a large backlog of issued construction permits for which no required post-construction certifications had been submitted. The backlog of these older projects was so large that the District decided not to initiate an aggressive, systematic, and comprehensive review of all permits for which no required certifications had been submitted. Instead, projects were checked on an ad hoc basis as complaints regarding the functioning of their surface water management systems were registered. When it came to the attention of the District in this manner that a project had been built under an MSSW permit but that no required certifications had been submitted, the District first attempted to secure the required certifications in the form of certified as-built construction drawings and a Statement of Completion, as required by BOR 2.7. In so doing, it was common practice for the District to accept certifications beyond the expiration date on a permit. If projects were substantially completed, the District would not deem the permit as expired simply because the required certifications had not been submitted before the expiration date; and such projects did not lose their status as being permitted. It should be noted that, according to the testimony of the District's expert, William Hartmann, this agency practice was not based on an interpretation of Rule 40D- 4.321(1)(b) (1985) (on duration of construction permits). Rather, the agency practice was to ignore the expiration of the construction permit under those circumstances. In addition, it does not appear from the evidence that the District ever before has faced the situation presented in this case--where a person on whose property part of a surface water management system was built without the person's consent opposes modification and asserts the construction permit has expired. In cases where the agency's practice was applied, if the required certified as-built construction drawings and Statement of Completion could not be provided because the project was not built in accordance with the MSSW permit, the District would require the permittee to either bring the system into compliance with the approved permit designs or obtain a modification of the construction permit. Letter modifications would be accepted when the requested modification would not substantially alter the permit authorization, increase the authorized offsite discharge, impact the environmental features of the project, decrease the required retention/detention, decrease the required flood control elevations for roads or buildings, or decrease pollution removal efficiency. See Rule 40D-4.331(2)(b) (1985). (The current version of the rule adds renewal or extension of the existing permit duration.) Alterations meeting the threshold requirements for a letter modification would be presumed to meet the conditions for issuance for a permit. Otherwise, formal permit modifications would be required. When application is made for a permit modification, the District’s practice is to evaluate those aspects of the surface water management system being modified. Review generally would not extend to the entire system. Permittees seeking to modify their surface water management systems generally are not required by the District to bring the unmodified portions of the system into compliance with current design criteria. Proposed ERP Permit Modification ERP Application No. 44000227.002 seeks authorization to modify portions of the Angler’s Green surface water management system. The specific alterations for which approval is sought are: permanent removal of the existing, unpermitted 18-inch pipe between Lake E and SR 37 roadside ditch; permanent removal of the pump and associated piping conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E; installation of the control structure (CS-1), together with installation of pipe to convey water from the control structure to Pond C-1, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but different location in the northwest corner of the main body of Lake E; re-grading of the northwesterly portion of the golf course to more closely conform to the original permitted plan and help keep Basin B separate from Basin D; reconstruction of the side-bank sand filter system in the northwest corner of the property, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but with a slightly higher invert elevation (122.04 feet above M.S.L.) to prevent water from backing up into Angler's Green from Paradise Lakes again, and with a concrete flume and spreader swale between Pond C-1 and the berm of the side-bank sand filter system; enlargement of Pond B-1; installation of a control structure on Pond B-1; and installation of 100 feet of 6-inch side-bank sand filter discharging to the southwest corner of the property from Pond B-1. By removing the unpermitted pipe to the roadside ditch along SR 37 and by constructing control structure CS-1, with the same control elevations as in the 1985 Permit (albeit at a different location in Lake E), and connecting CS-1 by pipe to Pond C-1 as envisioned in the 1985 Permit, the function of Lake E should approximate its function under the design approved in 1985. Modifying the permitted design to authorize Basin A to flow to Pond B-1 instead of Lake E results in less water flowing to Lake E; these changes will not increase water quantity or quality impacts to Lake E, as compared to the 1985 Permit. As compared to reclamation conditions prior to implementation of the 1985 Permit, water quantity and quality impacts to Lake E would be expected both under the system as designed and permitted in 1985 and as proposed to be modified, by virtue of the similar use of Lake E as a detention pond under either system. Pond B-1 is being enlarged to better accommodate the flow from Basin A. The control structure being added at Pond B-1 will control flow into the swale to the west so as to address water quantity impacts in that area. Stormwater calculations for the revised Pond B-1 demonstrated that the post-development discharge rate will not exceed the pre- development discharge rate, so that there are no concerns for adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands or flooding impacts to on-site or off-site property. The historical flows to the west are still maintained. The discharge structure being added at Pond B-1 will account for treatment of the Basin A flow. Based on calculations for revised Pond B-1, the enlarged pond will retain and percolate half an inch of stormwater runoff from the contributing area in 36 hours (which is consistent with current BOR design requirements). The proposed Pond B-1/Basin B modifications, including the routing of Basin A stormwater to Pond B-1, will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters in that vicinity such that state water quality standards would be violated. Angler's Green is located in the Southern Water Use Caution Area of Polk County. No surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established for this area under Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The proposed modifications do not involve any works of the District. The proposed modifications are based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles and employ treatment methods of effluent filtration which involve commonly accepted designs that can be effectively performed and function as proposed. There are no concerns about Century’s financial, legal, or administrative capability to undertake the proposed modifications as specified in the permit, if issued. There are no applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established for this area. Environmental Concerns As with its review of the proposed permit modification for water quantity impacts, the District's review of environmental concerns was limited to review of impacts from the proposed modifications to the original permitted design; unmodified portions of the original permit were not reviewed for compliance with current requirements. An approximately 20 square-foot permanent impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of the control structure (SW-1) in the water. A 379 square-foot temporary impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of a cofferdam to facilitate construction of the control structure. Temporary impacts to Lake E resulting from the construction of the control structure would be addressed through the use of sediment and erosion controls to prevent possible sedimentation and turbidity that may arise during the construction activity. The placement of a control structure in Lake E would create very minor permanent impacts resulting from the loss of the footprint of the control structure. These impacts would be insignificant. Due to the very minor nature of these proposed impacts, no mitigation would be required, and no loss of wetlands would be required to be recorded on the Wetlands/Surface Water Table. Construction of SW-1 would not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District. No secondary impacts would be expected from construction of SW-1. No unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters would be expected to occur as a result of construction of SW-1. The project area includes .71 acre of herbaceous/forested wetlands (WL-1) in the northwest corner. The potential for secondary impacts is addressed by an existing fence surrounding WL-1, which eliminates concerns for secondary impacts to this wetland area. No adverse impacts would be anticipated to occur to these wetlands, and no adverse secondary impacts to the water resources would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed modifications themselves. The proposed modifications would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Class II or Class III waters would not be affected by the proposed modification project. Therefore, Rule 40D- 4.302(1)(c) is not applicable. No seawalls, lagoons or estuaries are involved in this project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(d) is not applicable. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest. Relocation of a control structure and enhancement of the Basin B portion of the system would create no significant change in impacts. The proposed modifications constitute a slight improvement over water quality from the original permitted design. No threatened or endangered species were identified for Angler’s Green. The proposed relocation and construction of the Lake E control structure, preservation of onsite wetlands in the northwest corner, and re-design of Pond B-1 present no environmental concerns. Consequently, the proposed modifications do not create any potential for adverse effects regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The proposed modifications do not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The project area does not involve navigable waters and does not affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Hence, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(3) does not apply to this permit modification application. There are no significant historical and archaeological resources involved in this Project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(6) is not applicable to this permit modification application. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest; they would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. No adverse impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications maintain the historic water elevation for Lake E and maintain historic flows for the project area. The modified system should also provide some improvement in water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying Century's permit modification application designated ERP No. 44000227.002. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Magri, Esquire Merkle & Magri, P.A. 5510 West LaSalle Street Tampa, Florida 33607-1713 Joseph P. Mawhinney, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. Post Office Box 6559 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E. D. Sonny Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Champagne Estates (petitioner or applicant), is a limited partnership that owns a tract of land identified as Lots 1-5, Block 88, PGI Section 9A in Punta Gorda, Florida. The property fronts on the south side of the Peace River, a Class III water body which lies within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, a water body designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Petitioner is in the process of constructing a thirty unit, two phase luxury condominium project on its property. As an added amenity for the unit owners, petitioner proposes to construct a multi-slip dock in a tear shaped basin that juts slightly inward from the Peace River. It is applicant's proposal to build a dock that has created this controversy. By application dated April 4, 1989, petitioner sought the issuance of a dredge and fill permit from respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). If approved, the permit would authorize the construction of the dock. The application was received by DER's Fort Myers district office on April 14, 1989, and was given a staff review for sufficiency. After additional information was requested by DER and filed by the applicant, an on-site inspection was conducted by DER personnel on June 2, 1990. An inspection report was thereafter prepared on July 14, 1990, and was used in the formulation of the agency's preliminary decision. That decision, which was styled as a notice of permit denial, was issued on July 25, 1989, and cited several grounds for DER's preliminary action. They included (a) a fear that degradation of waters would occur, (b) applicant's alleged failure to show that the project was not contrary to the public interest in six respects, and (c) a concern that the project and its cumulative impacts would be contrary to the public interest. The agency's notice of permit denial prompted the applicant to initiate this proceeding. The application and project area Applicant initially sought authorization to build a two hundred sixty- three foot dock with six finger piers, a terminal platform and thirteen boat slips. The agency's intent to deny permit was based on that proposal. After the proposed agency action was issued, petitioner modified its application to downsize the dock to one hundred feet with only four finger piers and eight mooring slips. The structure will have a "T" configuration. Under the modified proposal, the finger piers will have a length of twenty feet while the mooring slips are twelve feet wide. Applicant advises that the boats which will use the facility will average between twenty and twenty-six feet in length with drafts of two to three feet. This size and draft is comparable to commercial fishing boats which now frequent the deep water basin to catch mullet. If the application is approved, applicant proposes to place rock riprap at the toe of the existing vertical concrete seawall and to plant red mangroves in the intertidal areas. It also proposes to prohibit "live aboards", fueling and maintenance at the facility. Despite the above modifications and restrictions, DER advised petitioner on October 5, 1989, that the application was still unacceptable for the same reasons as originally given. The parties have agreed that the modified application is the subject of this proceeding. The basin in which the construction will occur was excavated in the 1960's. A thirteen foot deep east-west channel runs parallel to the shore several hundred feet from the shoreline. There are existing seawalls on both the southern and western shorelines of the project area which form an "L" at the intersection. The basin is tear shaped with a width of approximately one hundred feet and commences some one hundred feet waterward of the shoreline. The "T" finger pier structures will be at the southerly edge of the existing basin thereby giving vessels access to the east-west channel. During low tide the bottom of the water body is exposed for more than one hundred feet seaward of petitioner's property. Thus, most, if not all, of the dock will be over exposed areas during low tide, and even during high tide the water in the surrounding basin area will be no more than a few feet deep. The proposed project has existing condominiums on both sides. Virtually all of the remaining lots on either side of the project stretching a mile or so in both directions are developed with single or multifamily units. If approved, petitioner's dock would be the only such dock in the immediate area on the south side of the river. Water quality concerns An applicant for a dredge and fill permit is obliged to provide "reasonable assurance" that water quality standards will not be violated. Since the proposed project is within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, which is designated as an OFW, special water quality considerations come into play. More specifically, the project must maintain the ambient water quality standards of the OFW. This means that a permit cannot be issued for a project that will lower the ambient water quality, that is, the water quality existing one year prior to the date the body was designated an OFW, or the water quality existing one year prior to the project, whichever is better. One way in which ambient water quality can be degraded is by the resuspension of bottom solids caused by the churning of boat propellers. The likelihood of this condition occurring is made greater when insufficient water depths exist in combination with the existence of mucky, silty bottoms. The bottoms surrounding the proposed docking structure are nonvegetative and vary from hard sand in the shallow areas to a mucky silt layer in the deeper sections of the area. The accumulated sediment in the deeper section of the basin is on the order of twenty-four inches. While the hard sand bottom will readily settle out, the mucky bottom sediments will likely be churned by the boat activity in the absence of sufficient water depths. There is conflicting evidence regarding the depths of the water in the area of the basin where the proposed dock will be constructed. In support of its application, petitioner provided a chart indicating the topography of the sea bottoms at the proposed dock site. However, the geographic survey chart does not establish that sufficient water depth exists for the proposed dock. Rather, the more credible evidence establishes that the bottoms of the basin where the proposed dock will be built are often exposed and during low tides the sea bottoms are exposed up to approximately one hundred to one hundred fifty feet seaward of the seawall. Moreover, in the winter months, the westerly winds push the water out of the basin and cause the exposure of sea bottoms up to two hundred feet seaward of the seawall. When these shallow depths are coupled with the soupy texture of the bottom sediment, it is found that resuspension of the bottom sediment will occur as a result of boat activity at the proposed docking site. To the extent turbidity is now present in the basin due to the activities of the commercial fishermen, these turbidity levels will be exacerbated. If, as applicant suggests, the proposed facility will eliminate the commercial mullet fishing activities within the basin, there is no reasonable assurance that the new levels of turbidity will not exceed those now present. Therefore, it is found that applicant has not given reasonable assurance that the water quality standards will not be degraded. The agency's next concern involves its so-called "free-from" standard, which literally means that assurance must be given by the applicant that a water body will be "free from" various types of man-induced components (e. g., debris, oil, and scum) that float in such amounts as to form a nuisance. Thus, applicant was required to give reasonable assurance that the project would not cause an accumulation of debris and other items on the surface of the water in such amounts as to constitute a nuisance. The project site is "L" shaped, the "L" caused by the intersection of two seawalls on its western side. During the inspections of the project site by DER personnel, an accumulation of debris (grass clippings, styrofoam cups, coconuts, etc.) was observed in the corner of the "L". Indeed, applicant concedes that "some such debris is regularly present in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure" but contends that the docking facility will not cause significant additional floatsom or scum. However, it is found that due to the shape of the basin and its lack of sufficient water depth, the project will exacerbate the accumulation of debris so as to cause a nuisance. Finally, because of the shallow water in the basin, there exists the likelihood that dissolved oil or visible oil will form in the waters and affect its taste or give rise to an odor or otherwise affect the beneficial use of the waters. D. Public Interest Considerations In order for a permit to issue, and because the project is in an OFW, the applicant is obliged to show that the project "will be clearly in the public interest." The public interest test involves a consideration of seven statutory criteria. In this case, DER contends that six of the seven criteria enumerated in the law (s. 403.918(2)(a)1.-5. and 7., F.S.) have not been satisfied. The first criterion requires an inquiry as to whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the property of others. In this regard, it is noted that the proposed activity will take place in an OFW, a pristine water body. According to the agency, the maintenance of that water body "is in the welfare of all the citizens of the State of Florida, not just the residents of Champagne Estates or the adjacent condominium owners." Because the operation of boats will cause a degradation of the waters in the basin area, this will have an adverse effect on the public welfare. While applicant proposes to offer mitigation in the form of riprap and new mangroves, the success rates for mitigation proposals such as this are less than fifty per cent and do not offer sufficient assurance to counter the adverse effect on the public welfare. The second criterion concerns whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Uncontradicted testimony established that stingray, bait fish, sheepshead, minnows, brown pelican, osprey, bottlenosed dolphin, and loggerhead turtles habitat the project area. In addition, the proposed dock has been designated as a critical habitat for the manatee. Due to the resuspension of bottom solids caused by boat traffic in the shallow waters, the wildlife and fish in the area of the proposed dock will be adversely impacted. This is because elevated levels of turbidity are detrimental to aquatic species that breath water, especially for those that filter feed and pass the fluid through their bodies. The next relevant criterion is whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (i. e., cause an area to shallow in). As to this criterion, applicant's uncontradicted evidence that the project will not affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling is accepted, and it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The fourth criterion in issue is whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. While the fishing or recreational values should not be adversely affected, the turbidity caused by the boats propellors will impact the marine productivity in an adverse manner. Therefore, this criterion has not been met. The next criterion concerns whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The evidence shows that the project will be of a permanent nature, that is, once constructed, the applicant does not plan on tearing down the structure. However, neither party offered evidence as to how this consideration comes into play in the context of the public interest test, and it is accordingly found that applicant has not satisfied this requirement. The last disputed criterion concerns the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. By virtue of the increased turbidity levels, it is found that the relative value and use of the area will be degraded. E. Cumulative Impacts In its proposed agency action, the agency contended that "the project and its cumulative impacts . . . also fail to be clearly in the public interest." This objection is grounded on the statutory requirement that the agency consider the "other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations." (s. 403.419(3), F.S.) According to an agency witness, applicant's project, if approved, would be the only docking facility on the south shoreline of the Peace River for some distance in either direction. Although DER does not have any pending applications for docks, and knows of none that will be filed, it "felt" there was a potential cumulative impact in that other condominium projects in the area would seek a docking permit once it became known that applicant had constructed such a facility. However, this "feeling" is insufficient to establish a finding that there is a potential adverse cumulative impact related to the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Champagne Estates for a dredge and fill permit be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 4-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 12-13. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 17. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 18-19. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. 23-24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. Respondent: Partially adopted in finding of fact l. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 3-5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 6-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 9-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 15-41. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6-11. 42-53. Partially adopted in findings of fact 12-18. 54-56. Partially adopted in findings of fact 19-20. 57-62. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 63-64. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P. O. Box 2159 Punta Gorda, Florida 33949 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
