The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner is entitled to an environmental resource permit and modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the construction of commercial marinas and related structures at Petitioners property in Lee County, Florida. PRELIMARY STATEMENT On October 23, 2006, Petitioner applied to the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) for an environmental resource permit (“ERP”). Petitioner also sought modification of its sovereignty submerged land lease ("Lease") from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees). On September 28, 2007, the District issued a Staff Report recommending that the ERP and Lease be denied. The Governing Board of the District adopted the staff’s recommendation on October 11, 2007. On October 12, 2007, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing challenging the agency action. The District referred the petition to DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The case was abated for an extended period of time during which the parties attempted to settle their disputes. In October 2009, Intervenors' petition to intervene was granted. Intervenors were subsequently granted leave to amend their petition. Following notice from the parties that they were unable to settle their disputes, a final hearing was scheduled. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of: Michael Morris, Jr.; David Depew; and Hans Wilson, accepted as an expert in ocean engineering, environmental sciences and navigation. Petitioner presented the testimony of Anita Bain through the introduction of her deposition. Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 8, 9, 14 through 16, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30, 34, 35, 40 through 43, 46 through 50, 52, and 56 through 58, were admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 35 was accepted as a proffer. The District presented the testimony of: Holly Bauer- Windhorst, accepted as an expert in environmental biology; Melinda Parrott, accepted as an expert in marine biology and environmental impact analysis; Anita Bain, accepted as an expert in biology and environmental impact assessments; Robert Brantly, a professional engineer and Director of the Department's Bureau of Coastal Engineering; and Mary Duncan, accepted as an expert in biology and manatee impact assessment. The testimony of Peter Eckenrode was presented through his deposition. The District's Exhibits 5, 10, 12, and 14 through 18 were admitted into evidence. Intervenors presented the testimony of: Leonardo Nero, accepted as an expert in marine biology, seagrass conservation, oceanography, navigation, and vessel operation and maintenance; Gary Shelton; Sally Eastman; and Christine Desjarlais-Leuth. Intervenors' Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 14 were admitted into evidence. The two-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH. The parties filed proposed recommended orders. Petitioner filed revised pages to its proposed recommended order to correct scrivener's errors. Petitioner moved to strike an issue that was raised for the first time in the District and Intervenors' Joint Proposed Recommended Order. The motion to strike is granted as discussed in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Highpoint Tower Technology, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its mailing address at 800 South Osprey Avenue, Building B, Sarasota, Florida 34246. Petitioner is the owner of property located in Section 25, Township 45 South, Range 22 East, in Lee County, Florida, consisting of approximately eight acres. The property is on Bokeelia Island, on the northern tip of Pine Island. Petitioner is the applicant for the ERP and Lease which is the subject of this proceeding. The District is a regional water management agency with powers and duties established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Its principal office is located at 3301 Gun Club Road in West Palm Beach. The District regulates certain construction activities in waters of the state pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E. The District has also been delegated authority from the Board of Trustees to process applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities on or over sovereignty submerged lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051. Intervenor Sally Eastman resides on property adjacent to the proposed project. Intervenors, Christine Desjarlias-Leuth and Ron Leuth, own and reside on riparian property approximately 400 feet from the proposed project. Intervenor Gary Shelton owns and resides on riparian property near the proposed project. All Intervenors use the waters of Charlotte Harbor for water-based recreational activities, including fishing, swimming, boating, wading, and nature observation. The Affected Waterbodies The north side of Petitioner's property is adjacent to Charlotte Harbor. The south side of the property is adjacent to Back Bay. Both waterbodies are within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. The aquatic preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water. Aquatic preserves are so designated because they have exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. It is the intent of the Legislature that aquatic preserves be set aside forever as sanctuaries for the benefit of the public. See § 258.36, Fla. Stat. Aquatic preserves were established for the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.001(1). Charlotte Harbor in this location is a large expanse of open water with 10 to 12 miles of fetch to the north, making it subject to high winds and waves during storms. The water bottom of Charlotte Harbor is sandy. There are many areas of Charlotte Harbor with "prop scars," which are caused when boats travel in shallow waters and impact the bottom with boat motor propellers. There are seagrasses growing in the vicinity of Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, mostly Thallasia testudinum (turtle grass) and Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass). Healthy turtle grass beds are growing near the proposed marina structures in Charlotte Harbor. There was some dispute about whether the turtle grass is 12 inches or 18 inches in length. The more persuasive evidence is that mature turtle grass is 18 inches in length. If there is turtle grass of shorter length in the area of the proposed project, it will eventually mature to a length of 18 inches. These seagrass communities qualify as a Resource Protection Area ("RPA") 1, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(54) as "[a]reas in aquatic preserves which have resources of the highest quality and condition for that area." There is also small patch of soft whip coral offshore, as well as some sea lettuce and interstitial algae on the sandy bottom. No water quality data for this area of Charlotte Harbor was presented by Petitioner. West Indian manatees are known to forage and move in the area near Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, as well as in Back Bay. The manatee is a "listed" species. Back Bay is a small, semi-enclosed bay. It is shallow, averaging around four feet in depth at mean low water. A narrow passage known as Jug Creek leads out of Back Bay to Pine Island Sound. There are no seagrasses along Petitioner's shoreline on Back Bay, but there are seagrasses elsewhere in Back Bay. There are many prop scars in the shallower areas of Back Bay. The water bottom in Back Bay is silty and organic. It can be easily stirred up by boats and propeller action. No water quality data for Back was presented by Petitioner. Existing Structures A public access fishing pier extends about 400 feet from Petitioner's property into Charlotte Harbor, generally forming a "T." The pier has existed for decades and was one of the first landing and offloading piers in the region for commercial fishing activities, with fish houses on the adjacent uplands. The riparian owner obtained title to the submerged lands beneath the fishing pier by operation of the Butler Act, which vests title in the riparian upland owner to submerged lands if structures were erected over or upon the submerged lands before 1951. Therefore, a submerged land lease from the Board of Trustees is not required for the fishing pier. However, Petitioner obtained a submerged lands lease in 2000 for two recreational boat slips along the east side of the pier. There is a seawall along Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline. Petitioner's upland was formerly occupied by approximately 120 mobile homes, which were served by septic tanks. The mobile homes were removed two or three years ago and Petitioner obtained a separate environmental resource permit from the District in May 2006 for a proposed new residential and commercial development on the uplands called Bokeelia Harbor Resort. Construction of the new development, which would include single-family homes, multi-family buildings, a swimming facility, and a restaurant, has not yet begun. In Back Bay, Petitioner's shoreline has a seawall and a number of finger piers extending off the seawall. Petitioner has two submerged land leases in Back Bay, one that authorizes 50 boat slips and another that authorizes 10 slips. Only about a dozen boats have been using these slips in recent years. There are two boat ramps on Petitioner's property for access to Back Bay. The record evidence leaves unclear whether the ramps were for the exclusive use of the former mobile home residents or were used by the general public. The historical and current use of the boat ramps, in terms of the average number of launches per month or year, was not established in the record. There is a man-made, seawalled canal or basin on Petitioner's property that connects to Back Bay. There are piers and slips in the canal, which Petitioner claims could accommodate about 30 boats. Aerial photographs of the canal indicate that 20 to 25 boats is a more reasonable estimate. The water bottom of the canal is privately owned and, therefore, does not require a submerged lands lease. Petitioner presented inconsistent information about the number of existing boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner claimed that there are as many as 108 slips in Back Bay. That number seems impossible, given that only 60 slips are authorized by the two submerged land leases. There was no exhibit presented to show where the 108 slips are located. The Department of Community Affairs determined that 85 slips in Back Bay were "vested" for purposes of the development of regional impact review program in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which means the slips were constructed before July 1, 1973. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission thinks there are now 82 boat slips in Back Bay. The Department of Environmental Protection thinks there are 80. Petitioner had a motive to exaggerate the number of existing slips. The unsupported testimony of Petitioner's witness that there are 108 slips in Back Bay was not substantial evidence.1/ It is found that Petitioner currently has approximately 82 boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner is not currently controlling the use of the slips in Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay, such as by limiting the size or draft of vessels. There are no signs that inform boaters about seagrasses or manatees. There are currently no sewage pump-out facilities. Petitioner is not currently controlling boaters' uses of fuel or other chemicals. However, no evidence was presented to show the extent of any past or current polluting activities. Petitioner sought to show that the septic tanks that had been removed from the upland property were a source of nutrients and other pollutants to Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors objected to this evidence as irrelevant because the ERP and Lease applications do not involve the removal of the septic tanks and their replacement with a central sewage collection system, and because Petitioner removed the septic tanks some years ago as part of its re-development of the uplands. The objection was sustained, but Petitioner was allowed to make a proffer that the removal of the septic tanks improved the water quality of the adjacent waterbodies. The issue was one of relevancy alone, because it was apparently undisputed that the removal of the septic tanks resulted in some unquantified improvement in the water quality of adjacent waterbodies.2/ The Proposed Project Petitioner proposes to construct new commercial docks and related structures (marinas) in both Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay. The Charlotte Harbor marina would have 24 boat slips, which is 22 more slips than currently exist. The Back Bay marina would have 43 slips, which is 39 fewer slips than currently exist. Overall, the proposed project would result in a reduction of about 17 slips. Petitioner would make all boat slips in the marinas available to the public on a “first come - first served” basis. Some slips would be leased on an annual basis. An unspecified number of slips would be for day rental, primarily to accommodate patrons of the restaurant on the uplands. In Charlotte Harbor, a long pier would extend to a dock configuration that forms a marina basin, with concrete panels on three sides extending from above the water line to below the sandy bottom to act as a breakwater. The opening into the marina basin for ingress and egress by boaters would be to the southeast. On the west side of the marina basin would be a 1500 square foot fishing platform. Slips 1 through 5 would be along the east side of the pier and would have boat hoists to raise the boats out of the water. Because seagrasses are growing near slips 1 through 5, Petitioner agreed to limit the draft of boats using these slips to 30 inches. Slips 6 through 24 would be within the protected marina basin. These slips are intended to accommodate larger boats than the kinds of boats that can safely navigate in the shallow waters of Back Bay. However, boats using slips 6 through 24 would not be allowed to have drafts greater than five feet. These slips would not have hoists. All the new slips in Back Bay are designed for a maximum boat length of 30 feet, but the slips vary with regard to maximum allowed draft, from 16 inches to three feet, depending on the depth of the adjacent waters. The Charlotte Harbor marina would extend about 100 feet more waterward so that it would be 500 feet from the shoreline, which is the maximum extension allowed under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1. No boats slips or mooring would be allowed beyond the 500-foot limit. The canal connected to Back Bay would be filled in, and three additional residential units would be placed on the uplands created by the filling. Petitioner suggested that the canal has poor water quality, such as low dissolved oxygen, and that elimination of the canal would be a benefit for the water quality of Back Bay. Petitioner presented no water quality data to support this allegation, but the elimination of the canal would more likely than not have some small water quality benefit for Back Bay. The boat ramps on the upland would be removed. A new seawall would be installed along Petitioner's Back Bay shoreline and approximately 400 reef balls would be placed in the water along the face of the seawall. The reef balls are three feet tall and four feet wide, made of cement, and have openings. It is expected that oysters and barnacles would colonize the reef balls. Because there are oysters, barnacles, and other filter feeders in Back Bay, that expectation is a reasonable one. Fish are likely to be attracted to the reef balls. Petitioner contends that the reef balls, after they are colonized by oysters, will provide water quality benefits, because oysters filter the water when feeding. Although there was some support in the record for this general proposition, there was no evidence presented about the types of pollutants that can be removed from the water by oysters, or the level of water quality improvement that reasonably could be expected. Reef balls have been used at another marina in the region and were determined by the regulatory agencies to provide some public benefit, but Intervenors' expert, Leonard Nero, believes that the value of reef balls is exaggerated. It is his opinion that reef balls do not function like a natural habitat because there is no primary food production or sustainable biological interrelationships. It is found that the proposed reef balls would provide some small environmental benefits to the Back Bay ecosystem. In Back Bay, there are currently no channel markers except in Jug Creek. Petitioner proposes to provide channel markers so that boats entering and leaving the marina would be guided away from shallower waters and away from seagrasses. Petitioner prepared a Marina Management Plan to govern the operation of the marinas, including the use of the slips. The management plan requires waste receptacles and restricts the use and storage of fuel and other chemicals. The plan also includes an education program to inform marina users about water quality and habitat protection. A harbor master would be employed to oversee the operation of the marinas. The harbor master would be responsible for assuring compliance with the requirements in the Marina Management Plan, including maximum boat drafts, fuel spill prevention and clean-up, proper use of sewage pump-out facilities, prevention of hull cleaning and use of deleterious boat cleaning products, and proper disposal of fish cleaning wastes. The harbor master's office would be located on the docks over Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors are not impressed with Petitioner's proposal to employ a harbor master to control marina activities because the harbor master would not be at the marinas 24 hours a day and could not be present at both marinas at the same time. However, the employment of a harbor master would strengthen the use and enforcement of the Marina Management Plan. There would be educational signs for boaters with information about manatees and seagrasses. Petitioner proposes to install sewage pump-out facilities at both marinas that would be connected to the sewage collection system that will serve the upland development. The proposed project includes modifying the proposed upland residential development to add three residential units and a cul de sac, and enlarging a stormwater retention area to accommodate the associated stormwater impacts. Project Impacts Seagrasses It is usually difficult and sometimes impossible for seagrasses to re-colonize an area that has been prop-scarred. Seagrasses are the primary food of manatees, so an adverse impact to seagrasses is an adverse impact to manatees. The seagrasses to the east of the entrance of the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina are subject to disturbance from boats entering and leaving the marina. Boats approaching or departing from slips 1 through 5 are likely to cross these seagrasses from time to time. The water depth in the area of slips 1 and 2 is about minus five feet (mean low water) at the shallowest. For any seagrasses growing at minus five feet, and assuming the seagrasses are 18 inches in length, the clearance between the bottom of a boat with a 30-inch draft and the top of seagrasses would be 12 inches at mean low water. District and Intervenors are also concerned about the potential impacts to the seagrasses near the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina from large boats using slips 6 through 24, which could have a draft of five feet. About 260 feet to the east of Petitioner's pier is another pier, known as Captain Mac's Pier. There are seagrasses between the two piers. Boaters wanting to reach slips 6 through 24 would have to navigate past Petitioner's marina basin, into the area between Petitioner's pier and Cap'n Mac's pier, and then make nearly a 180 degree turn to enter the marina basin. The more persuasive record evidence indicates that this maneuver would sometimes be difficult for inexperienced or inattentive boaters even in relatively calm conditions. In windy and storm conditions, the maneuver would be difficult even for experienced boaters. If there are tethered buoys marking the limits of the seagrasses, as proposed by Petitioner, the buoys would add to the navigational challenge. The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that it is likely that boaters in vessels with drafts greater than 30 inches, when entering or leaving the marina basin, would sometimes cross the seagrasses and do damage to the seagrasses and other submerged resources. Another potential adverse impact to seagrasses is shading caused by structures. Shading caused by the existing fishing pier in Charlotte Harbor appears to have impeded the growth of seagrasses in some areas near the pier. The proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina presents a relatively unique shading issue. Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that shading from the proposed structures in Charlotte Harbor would not adversely affect seagrasses. The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would also cause adverse impacts to seagrasses in Back Bay. However, because Petitioner has reduced the numbers of slips in Back Bay and eliminated the boat ramps, the boat traffic in Back Bay should be reduced. Furthermore, Petitioner would restrict boat drafts and mark a channel to guide boaters to deeper waters and away from seagrasses. Therefore, the proposed project would likely reduce the risk of damage to seagrasses and other submerged resources in Back Bay. The District and Intervenors describe Petitioner's proposal to install channel markers in Back Bay as too "tentative" because there is another developer that has proposed to install channel markers and Petitioner's proposal is to install the markers if the other developer does not. However, the details of the channel marking are in evidence. If the channel marking is made a condition for construction of the proposed project, it can be considered a part of the reasonable assurance of compliance with relevant permitting criteria. No specific evidence regarding the general health and value of the seagrasses in Back Bay was presented. The seagrasses in Back Bay are not designated as an RPA. There was no evidence presented that there is soft coral or other submerged resources in Back Bay. Therefore, the reduced risk of harm to the seagrasses in Back Bay does not offset the potential harm that the proposed project would cause to the seagrasses and other submerged resources in Charlotte Harbor. Manatees Petitioner agreed to comply with all of the conditions recommended by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission related to the protection of manatees: In order [to] ensure a minimum clearance of 12 inches above the top of seagrass so as to avoid damage located in the project ingress/egress route, the maximum draft, including propeller(s), for vessels associated with slips 1-5 in Charlotte Harbor shall be 30 inches. The Standard Manatee Conditions for In- Water Work (revision 2009) shall be followed for all in-water activity. Handrails shall be constructed and maintained along the access pier and the landward side of the terminal platform to prevent mooring outside of the designated slip areas. The Permittee shall develop and implement a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-approved marina educational program prior to slip occupancy. The Permittee shall develop this educational program with the assistance of FWC, and FWC shall approve this education plan prior to its implementation. The program may include (at a minimum) the posting of permanent manatee educational signs and the display of brochures in a prominent location. The educational program must be maintained for the life of the facility. The [Permittee] shall install and maintain seagrass marker buoys as depicted in the site plan for the docks in Charlotte Harbor. The buoys must be permitted by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Boating and Waterways Section, and maintained for the life of the project. The [P]ermittee shall provide bins for the disposal of or recycling of monofilament line or other used fishing gear. The [P]ermittee shall also provide educational signs encouraging the use of these bins. Larger boats are generally more lethal in collisions with manatees because there is usually more momentum involved. Greater momentum generally causes deeper propeller cuts and other serious physical injury. Slips 6 through 24 in the Charlotte Harbor marina would accommodate boats of greater size (up to five-foot draft) than would have used the slips that would be eliminated in Back Bay, creating some small, unquantified additional risk of increased injury or death to manatees in Charlotte Harbor and other area waters. Lee County reviewed the proposed project against the Lee County Manatee Protection Plan and scored the project as "Preferred." The factors that the County considered in scoring the project were not explained. The reduction of boat traffic in Back Bay that would result from the eliminating boat slips and removing the boat ramps, and the marking of a channel away from seagrasses in Back Bay, would reduce the current risk to manatees using Back Bay. However, that reduction of risk is offset by the increased risk of injury to manatees associated with the addition of 17 larger slips in the Charlotte Harbor marina, the potential for collisions with any manatees foraging in the seagrass near the Charlotte Harbor marina, and the potential loss of seagrasses from boat impacts and shading. The overall effect of the proposed project on manatees would probably be negative. Water Quality The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would cause additional pollution associated with boating activity and, therefore, would violate the water quality standard applicable in Outstanding Florida Waters that ambient water quality cannot be degraded. However, Petitioner would reduce the total number of boats that could operate out of the marinas and would implement a number of prohibitions and other management practices that would reduce the potential for pollution when compared to the current situation. There was no evidence presented to quantify the pollution that might now be occurring as a result of the absence of pump-out facilities at the marinas, or the presence of related pollution in Charlotte Harbor or Back Bay. However, it was undisputed that the availability of pump-out facilities is generally a benefit for water quality. Petitioner has not indicated where the sewage pump-out facilities would be located. Although this is a relatively minor issue, the location of these facilities can affect the potential for pollution and, therefore, it is reasonable for the District to require this information before the ERP can be approved. Although the District and Intervenors contend that insufficient information was presented regarding flushing characteristics in Charlotte Harbor, that contention is inconsistent with their claim that strong winds, waves, and tidal forces that occur in this area of Charlotte Harbor would cause shoaling and scour at the breakwater. There is sufficient evidence that the Charlotte Harbor marina would be well flushed. An issue was also raised about the potential for turbidity problems in Back Bay caused by disturbance of the silty bottom by boats using the Back Bay slips. However, the reduction of the number of boats that would operate out of the Back Bay marina, the marina management proposals, and the channel marking would likely reduce such incidents in Back Bay. As discussed above, some small water quality benefits to Back Bay would be realized by the reef balls and the elimination of the canal. The overall effect of the proposed project would be to reduce the potential water quality impacts associated with the marinas, resulting in some small net improvement to the ambient water quality of the Pine Island Aquatic Preserve. Shoaling and Scour Shoaling is generally the accumulation of unconsolidated sediments that occur because of their movement by hydrodynamic forces of water flow, waves and currents. Scour is a type of erosion that occurs when current forces, when moving around a structure, push sediments away. Petitioner's expert, Hans Wilson, testified that it would take a relatively extreme amount of wave energy to create scour at the bottom of the breakwater. He said that the proposed breakwater was similar to one used at Royal Palm Yacht Club in Charlotte Harbor, which has not caused shoaling or scour. Robert Brantly, of the Department of Environmental Protection, believes that the proposed breakwater could cause shoaling and scour. While not agreeing with Mr. Brantly's concern, Petitioner offered to place reef balls at the base of the breakwater to further dissipate wave energy. Petitioner's evidence on this issue lacked much detail, but the evidence offered by the District was speculation -- Mr. Brantly thought there might be a problem and wanted to see more information. The District failed to rebut Petitioner's prima facie case that the breakwater would not cause shoaling or scour. Public Uses The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would reduce access by the general public to the aquatic preserve because the boat ramps would be eliminated and the fishing platform would be smaller than the area now available to the public on the fishing pier. The evidence shows some small reduction in public access to the aquatic preserve would likely result from the proposed project. Fill The District and Intervenors claimed for the first time in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order that the proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina is prohibited fill. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(1)(c) prohibits "filling waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line." "Fill" is defined in Rule 18-20.003(27): "Fill" means materials from any source, deposited by any means onto sovereignty lands, either for the purpose of creating new uplands or for any other purpose, including the spoiling of dredged materials. For the purpose of this rule, the placement of pilings or riprap shall not be considered to be filling. The District claims that the breakwater is "clearly prohibited" and that no additional factual evidence needs to be presented to determine the issue. However, although it is clear that the rule prohibits the deposition of fill materials such as dirt or sand into the water, it is not clear what other activities are prohibited by the rule.3/ Docks and marinas are clearly allowed by the aquatic preserve rules. Whether the breakwater is a piling structure is not answered by the record evidence. Evidence regarding the practices of the Board of Trustees, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the District in the interpretation and application of the rule is also absent from the record. Therefore, even if the issue had been timely raised by the District and Intervenors, the record evidence is insufficient to prove their claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District deny the ERP and Lease requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issues are whether Offshore Shipbuilding, Inc., (Offshore) is entitled to reimbursement from the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund, pursuant to Sections 376.011-.21, Florida Statutes, for costs and expenses incurred by Offshore in a spill cleanup at Offshore's Green Cove Springs facility or whether the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) correctly denied Offshore's application for reimbursement.
Findings Of Fact Offshore engages in the business of dry docking and repairing boats, barges and other types of marine vessels. Its primary facility and business offices are in Palatka, but it also leases a facility at the Clay County Port in Green Cove Springs, Florida. The scallop vessel, Theresa R. II (Theresa), was repaired by Offshore at the Green Cove Springs facility from August 2 to August 7, 1991. The vessel was hauled out of the St. Johns River and placed on a dolly located on a marine railway which extends south from the river about 500 feet. Prior to coming to Offshore's facility, Theresa had undergone major reconditioning at another facility. In the course of that work, the vessel's bilges had been pumped out by Envirotech Southeast on May 3, 1991. Envirotech pumped 2,200 gallons of water from the bilge. When the Theresa arrived at Offshore, it did have some water in the bilge. There was oil floating on top of the water and most likely a sludge of waste matter from the painting and scraping had settled to the bottom of the bilge. John Rita, the owner of the Theresa, indicated that he wanted to pump out the bilge onto the ground, but was advised by Offshore that he would need to have it pumped out by a qualified pumper. The repairs to be performed by Offshore included repairs to the sea valve in the engine room where the bilge was also located. Hawkins, an employee of Offshore, could not make that repair until the bilge water level was lowered. Hawkins performed some other tasks and then found that the bilge was empty enough to perform those repairs. He did not know how the bilge water level was lowered and did not see that the bilge had been pumped on the ground and did not see or smell diesel fuel or oil on the ground. On Saturday, August 3, 1991, Rita acknowledges that he pumped water from the bilge over the starboard side of the vessel. Rita says the source of the water was rain and water from the St. Johns River. He did not pump the bilge dry, but pumped enough water to lower the level and permit the repairs. He pumped only water, leaving the solids in the sludge on the bottom and the oils floating on top suspended above the water. Solid materials tend to cling to surfaces and are not easily removed by water. In order to remove solid materials, it is necessary to physically remove them by some sort of tool, like a hoe or shovel. The Theresa was launched on August 7, 1991, around 3:30 p.m. Cleanup around the yard where the Theresa had been began the morning of August 8, 1991. Later that afternoon, an unidentified employee of Offshore reported discovering a spill to Fred Willshier, Offshore's yard superintendent at Green Cove Springs. Willshier called the Palatka office and told Tony Bucknole, Offshore's Vice President and General Manager, about the spill. Bucknole told Pam Barrett, an employee whose duties included environmental matters, personnel and payroll. Willshier reported the spill to Barrett around 3:00 p.m. Bucknole told Barrett to go to the Green Cove Springs yard the next morning on her way to work. Barrett and Willshier examined the spill the morning of Friday, August 9, 1991. The spill contained some oil and smelled of diesel fuel. The area of the spill was approximately 4 or 5 feet from the marine railway next to where the Theresa had been. Various witnesses described the spill as being 30 feet, 50-75 feet and 30 yards from the St. Johns River. No contamination was threatening the river and no spill material had reached the beach area adjacent to the shoreline. Barrett ordered the necessary materials such as barrels and shovels for the removal of the contaminated soil. She told Willshier to remove all the contamination that could be seen, to put the soil in drums, to seal the drums and to label the drums. Soil was removed from the site on August 9 and 10, 1991. The soil was placed into drums without lids, because no lids were available on such short notice. Some of the soil in drums was taken to Palatka and put into a large steel bin. The drums were then taken back to Green Cove Springs for reuse with this spill. The drums were sealed with visqueen and duct tape. No one labeled the drums as to date, source, or number, although some drums were apparently labeled so as to show that they contained soil and diesel fuel or oil. Willshier was supposed to supervise the cleanup, but he does not know who wrote on the drums, how many drums were filled or what happened to those drums. The steel bin at Palatka had no cover. No one knows if it was empty when the drums were emptied into it or if other materials were added after the contents of those drums was put into it. Barrett, who was responsible for the inventory of such materials, didn't know that any of the soil was put in the steel bin. She also could not account for the number of drums or their location immediately after the cleanup was completed. On August 29, 1991, Sgt. Jesse Baker of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and Jane Mears of the Department of Environmental Regulation participated in the execution of a search warrant related to Offshore's handling of hazardous waste at the Palatka facility. That search revealed numerous 55-gallon drums at the Palatka site, many of which were not labeled. Of those drums with labels, some had partially disappeared or were unreadable, some were labeled during the execution of the search warrant and some had more than one label. Additionally, four drums were located next to a derelict tugboat, the Victoria, and the crane operator was in the process of lifting drums of contaminated soil and liquid waste and dumping those contents into the bilge of the Victoria. Sgt. Baker saw several metal bins containing soil, rust, and other waste materials, including one large steel container which was full of soil. These containers of soil were not labeled. Sgt. Baker was informed by Offshore employees that for three days they had been combining the contents of the various drums and there was no way to determine with certainty "what soil came from where." He was also advised that the combined contaminated soils and liquid waste had been placed in the tugboat for ultimate "disposal." Sgt. Baker observed a large quantity of waste material in the Victoria's hold and several crushed metal drums in a dumpster. The next day, August 30, 1991, Ms. Mears and Sgt. Baker inspected the Offshore facility at Green Cove Springs. They found additional drums of contaminated soil and waste material at Green Cove Springs. The condition of the drums was similar, with some having visqueen and duct tape sealing them. The labeling was similarly haphazard or nonexistent. As a result of these inspections, all waste material at both sites was appropriately sealed, labelled, and inventoried. The resulting inventories were offered by Offshore as the only proof that 43 drums of contaminated soil were removed from the spill site. Numerous witnesses, including Ms. Mears and Sgt. Baker, examined the site from which this contaminated soil was allegedly removed. There was no observable hole or depression which would account for removal of soil down to one foot below grade just three weeks earlier. Offshore did not notify the Department of Natural Resources of the alleged spill until January 28, 1992. Offshore did not notify the Florida Marine Patrol or the U.S. Coast Guard of the alleged spill until on or about that same date. Offshore never sought or received authorization or approval of its cleanup activities from the Department of Natural Resources prior to its activities to remove the alleged spill. Offshore first filed an application for reimbursement from the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund on February 26, 1992. That application, filed by counsel for Offshore, sought reimbursement of $3,603.93 for expenses allegedly incurred by Offshore in containing and cleaning up a spill of diesel fuel from the Theresa R. II. The application claimed $3,218.75 for labor costs and $385.18 for materials. That application was incorrect about several material facts. First, the date of the alleged spill was August 8-9, 1991, even though the vessel alleged to be responsible for the spill had been launched on August 7, 1991, and even though at hearing, Offshore took the position that the spill occurred on August 3, 1991, when Rita pumped water from the bilge. The second error in the application is the assertion that the spill occurred when the vessel's owner pumped the contents of the fuel tank over the side of the vessel and onto the ground. In fact, only the contents of the vessel's bilge were involved. The application also seeks reimbursement for labor costs for the alleged cleanup of $25.00 per hour and $37.50 per hour for overtime. In fact, the employees who cleaned up the alleged spill were paid only their regular hourly wage. None of the employees were paid even $25.00 per hour. Offshore was claiming its regular hourly charge for repairs performed in its yards rather than the amount actually paid to the employees. That regular hourly charge is based on Offshore's annual average hourly cost for all its services which includes salaries, insurance, overhead, fuel, and other expenses necessary to run the yards, presumably including some profit. Fourth, the application asserts that the contaminated soil had been drummed and transported to the Palatka facility. In fact not all the contaminated soil was drummed or taken to Palatka. It cannot be determined precisely how much soil was removed or where it is now located. Offshore billed Mr. Rita, the vessel's owner, for the cleanup by sending him a bill for $5,887.53 on August 23, 1991. Offshore presented evidence regarding sampling and testing of the contents of certain drums which it alleges contained soil from the alleged spill. Because there is insufficient evidence to establish the true origin of the contents of the various drums and because Offshore was so haphazard in maintaining records of the contents of the drums, the testimony and evidence regarding the sampling and testing is simply not material or probative of any issues significant to the resolution of this reimbursement claim.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources enter a Final Order and therein DENY the reimbursement claim filed by Offshore Shipbuilding, Inc., and DISMISS the petition filed herein. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3946 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Offshore Shipbuilding, Inc. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 & 2(1); 3(8); 4(9); 5(2); 13(2); 17 & 18(4); 19-22(5); 24(5); 29(3); 32(3); 35(3); 38(6); 42 & 43(8); 45(8); 48(10); 59(9); 60(10); 86(9); and 103(11). 2. Proposed findings of fact 6, 10-12, 14, 16, 25-27, 30, 31, 33, 39, 40, 46, 47, 49, 50, 56, 61-64, 71-74, 76-79, 83, 87-93, 95, 107, 108, 111, 121, 122, 136, 187-192, 198, 216-219, 221, and 222 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 7, 8, 15, 23, 28, 34, 36, 37, 41, 52, 53, 58, 65- 67, 69, 70, 75, 80, 84, 85, 94, 97-100, 102, 117, 124-132, 141-184, 186, 193- 197, 199-215, 220, 223-236, and 238-240 are irrelevant. 4. Proposed findings of fact 9, 44, 51, 55, 57, 68, 96, 101, 104-106, 109, 110, 112-116, 118-120, 123, 133-135, 137-140, 185, and 237 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. 5. Numerous proposed findings of fact, including but not limited to, 151-153, 155-157, 159, 160, 167, 218, and 219 are mere summaries of testimony and are not appropriate as findings of fact. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Natural Resources 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2(1); 3-7(24-28); 9(29); 10 & 11(27); 12(22); 13(23); 15 & 16(2); 19(3); 20(3); 21(6); 22 & 23(7), 24(8); 25 & 26(9); 28(9); 29 & 30(10); 32 & 33(12); 34(14); 35(12); 36(14); 43(15); 44 & 45(16); 46(17); 47 & 48(18); 49 & 50(16); 51(19); 54(21); and 65(30). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1, 8, 14, 17, 27, 31, 37, 38, 41, 42, 55, 56, 60, and 61 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 18, 39, 40, 52, 53, 57-59, and 62-64 are irrelevant, primarily for the reasons stated in Finding of Fact 30. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 L. Kathryn Funchess Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS-35 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Robyn A. Deen Sidney F. Ansbacher Attorneys at Law Brant, Moore, Sapp, MacDonald & Wells Post Office Box 4548 Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue The issue is whether an application by Petitioner, Hancock Bridge Marina, LLC (Petitioner or Hancock), for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and sovereign submerged lands lease to expand an existing docking facility on Hancock Creek near the Caloosahatchee River in unincorporated Lee County (County), Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Background Hancock is a limited liability corporation with two shareholders: Donald Epler and Stefen Heinke. After conducting a feasibility study, on April 26, 2004, Hancock purchased a 5.51-acre parcel of property in the County with the expectation of constructing and operating a 400-slip marina and a 5,000- square-foot building housing a restaurant, ship's store, and other sundry items needed for operation. (Hancock has subsequently revised its plan by reducing the number of slips requested from 400 to 352.) The cost of the property was around $2.5 million. The property is located in an unincorporated part of the County on the north side of the Caloosahatchee River (River), a Class III water, south of Hancock Bridge Parkway, east of the City of Cape Coral, and west of U.S. Highway 41 and the City of North Fort Myers. The property currently contains a 30-wet slip marina with 13 finger piers and a 4-slip T-dock. The remainder of the parcel is essentially vacant. The parcel borders a River tributary named Hancock Creek, which is a man- altered tidal creek branching off of the River in a northwestern direction, and the North Key Canal, which extends east from Hancock Creek for approximately one-half mile. Access to the River, which is no more than a hundred yards or so south of the parcel, is by traversing North Key Canal and Hancock Creek. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to issue an ERP. In addition, the Department has authority from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to review and take final agency action on requests to authorize activities in sovereign submerged lands. See § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The Commission is the agency with constitutional regulatory authority over "wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life." See Art. IV, § 9, Fla. Const. The Commission's authority for the regulation of manatees is derived from the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, which is codified in Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes. Under Sections 373.428 and 380.23, Florida Statutes, it also has authority to review ERP applications for federal consistency purposes pursuant to the federally approved Florida Coastal Management Program. On September 12, 2005, Petitioner filed an application for an ERP (a regulatory approval) and a lease to use sovereign submerged lands (a proprietary approval) with the Department's South District Office in Fort Myers, Florida. (For unknown reasons, the application was resubmitted to the Department on August 14, 2006.) The two requests are linked, and the Department cannot approve one without approving the other. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-343.075(2). The application seeks authority to expand in two phases the existing 30-slip facility. The first phase would generally authorize the construction of a 198-slip upland dry storage facility and reconfiguration of the existing docks. In phase 2, Hancock would add 154 dry slips and construct a 5,000-square-foot marina building. Because the docks are constructed on and over sovereign submerged lands, a proprietary authorization is necessary. Before making a decision on the application, the Department forwarded a copy to the Commission for its recommendation. After receiving the Commission's comments, which consist of 89 pages, including transmittal letters, on December 10, 2007, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to deny the ERP and proprietary authorization on the grounds the project area is sited in an area of very high level of manatee use and the project will increase local boat traffic, resulting in significant adverse effects on the manatee, which is listed by the state and federal governments as an endangered species. A more detailed description of the reasons for denial is found in the Notice of Intent. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6, pages 4 through 9; Department's Exhibit 1.b., pages 4 through 9. The Department acknowledges that its decision was based wholly upon the Commission's determination that the project, as proposed, would have an adverse impact on manatees. The DRI and Estoppel In its Petition, Hancock contends that the Department is "estopped to deny a permit for Phase 1 of the marina in light of its acquiescence to the approval of DRI 2-8990-99." By way of background, in 1990, Hancock's predecessor in interest (Waterway Group, Inc.) applied with the County for a DRI which included, among other things, 400 dry boat spaces on the property. DRI 2-8990-99 was approved by the County on July 8, 1991, and has been amended three times. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The original terms of approval contained several conditions that specifically addressed manatee protection. One separated the project into two phases of 200 spaces, the first of which was authorized without additional studies, while the second was subject to additional study and review by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR). When the DRI was approved, the State's manatee protection program was under the jurisdiction of the DNR. That agency reviewed the DRI and recommended manatee protection conditions. The conditions in the final approval were consistent with the program's recommendation. On June 29, 2004, the County adopted a resolution approving a MPP for the County. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. It was not adopted as an ordinance, and individual notice was not provided to interested property owners, including Hancock's principals. After adoption, the County incorporated the MPP into its Comprehensive Plan. The MPP is a planning document that provides a comprehensive review of manatee and boating data on a county-wide basis. It is developed, reviewed, and approved by local, state, and federal governments and is used for guidance when considering appropriate levels of slip densities within a county. The County is one of thirteen counties directed to adopt a MPP. On October 20, 2004, Hancock filed with the County an application to amend its DRI. The application included requests to extend the DRI approval a third time and to revise the site plan. The site plan changes included a reduction in the total number of dry spaces from 400 to 352. On June 20, 2005, the County approved the DRI amendment. The Development Order included a finding of fact that the marina was exempt from the requirements of the MPP because Section 8.4 of the MPP "exempts existing projects with valid permits and Chapter 380 vested status for the construction of slips (wet or dry) that have not been constructed at the time the MPP was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners." See Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Third Development Order Amendment for Hancock Bridge Marina, page 4, paragraph H. Hancock then filed the instant application on September 12, 2005. To date, Hancock has expended $1,731,000.00 in its permitting efforts, including the DRI extension and ERP application. There is no evidence that during the DRI process, the Department or Commission made any representations to Hancock about its ability to obtain an ERP or sovereign submerged lands authorization. Also, neither agency was consulted during that period of time, presumably because the DRI and ERP processes are separate and independent of one another. Permitting Criteria Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, contains the standards and criteria governing the approval of an ERP. Subsection (1) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the regulated activity is "not contrary to the public interest." In determining whether this test is met, paragraph (1)(a) requires that the Department consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. These same factors are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302, an ERP rule adopted by the South Florida Water Management District. This rule has been adopted by reference by the Department to be used when it considers ERP applications within the geographical jurisdiction of that water management district. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-330.200(4). An additional requirement in the rule is that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302(1)(b). Besides the foregoing requirements, additional conditions for the issuance of an ERP are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301, also adopted by reference by the Department. Relevant here are requirements that the applicant give reasonable assurances that the proposed activity (a) will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and (b) will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(d) and (f). Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that if an applicant is unable to meet the above criteria, the Department shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity. In this case, mitigation measures have been proposed by Hancock and are discussed below. Finally, Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes, requires that the Department evaluate applications for dry storage facilities for ten or more vessels in the same manner as any other ERP application, including that the applicant demonstrate that the facility will not be harmful to the water resources, provides reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and surface waters, and meets the public interest test in Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes. There are no rules or statutes which require that the Department consider the status of, or otherwise take into account, a DRI in evaluating an application for an ERP or proprietary authorization. Impacts on Manatees After reviewing the application for an ERP, the Department determined that the project, as proposed, should be denied because of direct, secondary, and cumulative effects it would have on manatees. The Department further determined that the applicant had not met the applicable requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. In making these determinations, the Department considered not only potential deaths of manatees, but also potential impacts such as harassment, disturbance, and sub-lethal boat strikes. The latter strikes may cause permanent injury and can affect reproduction and behavior. The State is a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee. See § 379.2431(2), Fla. Stat. The manatee is a marine mammal that can live as long as sixty years. It is unable to tolerate prolonged exposure to temperatures below around sixty-one degrees, which makes it susceptible to cold-related stress and death. Consequently, the manatees typically seek warm water when temperatures drop below sixty-eight degrees, migrating seasonally over extensive geographic areas. Hancock's marina is located just off the River. The River is one of the most studied and significant habitats for manatees on the west coast of Florida. The County's water bodies, including the River, provide manatees with submerged aquatic vegetation for foraging, fresh water sources, and several warm-water sites to use as refuges during colder weather. Hancock Creek, which is used to access the River from the marina, is an area used by manatees because it provides fresh water and a quiet environment. Manatees also use the River as a major travel corridor between the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) power plant on the Orange River, a tributary of the River located around eight miles upstream from the project site, and the estuaries found downstream where foraging resources are abundant. Hundreds of manatees go up and down the River throughout the year, and those traveling to and from the warm water around the FPL plant must travel past Hancock Creek. Manatee deaths have occurred within a five mile radius of the project site. Also, the number of manatee watercraft- related deaths in the River has steadily increased over the years. According to a 1998 study of boating activity in the County, vessels use the River more as a travel corridor to the bays and estuaries outside of the River than as a destination itself, and that on weekends there is almost constant traffic with vessels leaving or entering the mouth of the River every thirty-five seconds. The majority of the boats leaving the project site are expected to travel downstream through the mouth of the River, an area with substantial vessel congestion. This travel pattern, in conjunction with the typical travel patterns of manatees, indicates that there is a great potential for boat/manatee overlap in the River, increasing the likelihood of impacts to manatees. Besides manatee deaths, there are sub-lethal effects of increased boat traffic in the area. Increased traffic in important manatee areas may create disturbances which will alter behaviors such as feeding, suckling, or resting, or it may separate mothers from their calves. Also, vessel traffic may cause them to leave preferred habitats. Finally, as noted above, vessel collisions with manatees produce non-lethal injuries as well, causing pain and extreme scarring, which can alter natural behaviors and affect reproduction. The single biggest known cause of death to manatees is impacts from boats. The project would increase the risk of watercraft collisions with manatees in this region. As the level of boat traffic increases, the probability of boat and manatee collisions is also likely to increase. Because the project is located along the travel corridor between the largest wintering aggregation of manatees on Florida's west coast and their local foraging habitat, the expected secondary impacts from increased vessel traffic associated with the project is expected to reduce the value of the functions of the River as a travel corridor. Therefore, the secondary impacts of vessel traffic from the expansion of the marina are expected to result in adverse impacts to manatees. In 1990, the DNR reviewed the proposed DRI for this site under the state manatee program. It found that during the preceding thirteen years (1976-February 1990), thirty-six manatees had died from water-related injuries in the County. Within a five-mile radius of the site, four manatees had died from watercraft-related injuries. DNR concluded that since the manatee protection speed zones for the River had just been established, they were expected to offset the impact of the additional 198 slips. From March 1990 until September 2006, however, twenty-five additional manatees have died from watercraft-related injuries within a five-mile radius of the site. Therefore, the number of deaths had increased without the additional 198 slips. The logical inference is that if the new slips are allowed, boat traffic and the associated adverse impacts on manatees will likewise increase. The fact that dry slips will be used does not change the Department and Commission's evaluation of the project. A boat has the same risk to a manatee whether stored in a wet or dry facility. Marine industry groups suggest that an average usage rate is between ten and fifteen percent at any time, and that usage is likely to increase on the weekends. Thus, as density increases so does the risk. In addition to its own analysis, the Commission reviewed the County MPP, which indicated that nine additional slips at this location would be acceptable, for a total of thirty-nine. This number was calculated by using a slip density of three slips for every one hundred feet of shoreline owned. (The actual linear feet of shoreline owned by Hancock is unclear. The Commission concedes that Hancock "may own a total of 1,214 linear feet of shoreline.") A MPP typically allows for higher boat densities in areas that pose less risk to manatees and lower boat densities in higher risk locations. Had the MPP not been considered, the number of allowable slips would remain at thirty since the MPP provides for a countywide strategy instead of a case-by-case review. To date, the Commission has never recommended approval of a marina application in the County that would authorize more docks than the MPP would authorize. The Commission initially makes an independent assessment of the application without regard to the MPP. In this case, based upon mortality data, aerial surveys, telemetry data, rescue data, and boat studies, the Commission determined that no further slips are appropriate. Therefore, even if the County's MPP is based upon outdated data and analysis, as Hancock contends, approval of the application would not be warranted. Petitioner's expert posited that the proposed project would only result in one manatee death over the next twenty years, which would amount to no more than a de minimus impact on the overall population. Assuming this to be true, manatees are nonetheless an endangered species, and there is no minimal amount of death that is considered acceptable. The witness also opined that Hancock is entitled to an unlimited number of slips under the MPP due to flawed data and analysis underpinning that document. In formulating his recommendations, however, Hancock's expert relied on mathematical models and statistics while ignoring the principles of manatee behavior and biology. Finally, the expert agreed that the greater the number of boats in the water, the greater the likelihood that a manatee could be accidentally crushed. On the issue of impacts to manatees, the testimony of the Commission witnesses is deemed to be the most credible and persuasive. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the marina will be located in an area adjacent to the River, that large numbers of manatees use the River, and that the project is expected to increase boat traffic. This in turn will lead to a higher incidence of boating-related manatee casualties in the area. Therefore, the proposed activity adversely affects the conservation of wildlife and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; it adversely affects the marine productivity in the area; it is permanent in nature; and it diminishes the current condition and relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the activity. On balance, then, the project is contrary to the public interest. Based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f). Similarly, based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b). By failing to provide reasonable assurances that the facility will not be harmful to water resources, that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters, and that the project meets the public interest test, Hancock has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes. Mitigation If an applicant cannot meet the requirements of Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the Department "shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity." As noted in Finding of Fact 27, supra, the Department is willing to approve an additional nine slips that would be allowed under the County MPP, for a total of thirty- nine. According to Hancock, this number is not acceptable because more slips are needed to make the project financially feasible. Although a copy of the application is not a part of this record, the testimony suggests that in its application, Hancock proposed certain measures to mitigate the impacts on manatees. In a letter to the Department dated November 8, 2007, however, the Commission stated that "[i]f the Applicant propose[s] changes to the project to minimize fish and wildlife resource impacts that are consistent with the Lee County MPP, such a project would be consistent with Chapter 370.12(2), F.S." (The Legislature has subsequently consolidated this statute into Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes.) Despite this lack of clarity in the record, sometime during the application process, and presumably before the Notice of Intent was issued, the Commission staff discussed with Hancock whether the following mitigation measures would offset or adequately reduce the impacts: placing a size restriction on boats docking at its facility; providing boater education; installing speed zone marking and making it a requirement for all boats at the marina to be equipped with a speed zone map or a Global Positioning Satellite unit with speed zone mapping; implementing a volunteer watch program to enforce speed limits; making a cash donation to study manatee population dynamics; and installing sonar avoidance technology on vessels. The Commission established that these measures, even if implemented, would not offset the impacts from 198 slips expected with phase 1 of the project. For example, the research associated with sonar technology is not yet completed, and devices are not available for boaters. Also, given the location of the project, even with additional law enforcement and boater education, the impacts would not be offset due to the level of traffic already existing on the River at that site, and the importance of the area to manatees. The middle of the River is a high-speed corridor (with a twenty-five miles per hour speed limit) and even with one hundred percent compliance in that zone, a small boat can still hit and kill a manatee. The Proprietary Authorization Because denial of the ERP is being recommended, the proprietary authorization must likewise be denied. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-373.075(2). Even so, for the purpose of addressing all issues in this Recommended Order, a discussion of the application for proprietary authorization is set forth below. Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 contains the rules that implement the administrative and management responsibilities of the Department in authorizing activities in sovereignty submerged lands. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004 establishes the specific standards and criteria to be applied by the Department in determining whether Hancock should be allowed to use sovereign submerged lands. Paragraph (1)(a) provides that "[f]or approval, all activities on sovereignty lands must be not contrary to the public interest." The public interest is defined as "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(43). The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, on balance, the project is contrary to the public interest based upon the standards in the rules. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) provides that "[a]ll sovereignty lands shall be considered single use lands and shall be managed primarily for the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Compatible secondary purposes and uses which will not detract from or interfere with the primary purpose may be allowed." The evidence does not show that Hancock's proposed marina expansion constitutes a secondary use not interfering with the propagation of wildlife. Therefore, the project is not consistent with this rule. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(b) provides that "unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate mitigation is proposed," activities which result in significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources shall not be approved. As previously found, the mitigation measures proposed by Hancock are not adequate. Paragraph (2)(i) of the rule further provides that activities in submerged lands "shall be designed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural or cultural resources. Special attention and consideration shall be given to endangered and threatened species habitat." Because Hancock failed to prove that the project would not result in unmitigated adverse impacts to manatees, it fails to meet this criterion. Paragraphs (7)(d) and (e) of the rule are general conditions for authorization and provide that activities "shall be constructed and used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources" and "shall not adversely affect any species which is endangered, threatened, or of special concern." Here the more persuasive evidence shows that neither condition has been met.
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 Petitioner's application for an ERP and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands to expand an existing marina on Hancock Creek in Lee County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 15th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent's license as a registered pool contractor should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, William Losciale, was a licensed registered pool contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RP-0032951, by the State of Florida, and was the qualifier of Lynn Pools. On or about October 2, 1987, John J. Kerry entered into a contract with Respondent d/b/a Lynn Pools for the Respondent to construct a pool and screen enclosure on Mr. Kerry's property located at 633 South Little John Street in Inverness, Florida. The total cost of the pool and enclosure was $19,600.00. During construction various problems developed. Among them were delays in completion, the failure to obtain the proper permits, the installation of an inadequate and improper filter, the delayed removal of excavated dirt, the gouging up of the homeowner's yard, and the improper positioning of the septic tank after relocation. At the time the pool deck was being designed, the homeowner told the Respondent that it appeared to the homeowner that the deck was slanted towards the house and would cause flooding problems. The Respondent told the homeowner that the Respondent knew what he was doing and no such problem would develop. During construction of the pool, the homeowner pointed out to the Respondent that it appeared that the pool was being constructed higher than the patio which, if true, would also cause flooding problems. Again, the Respondent denied that the pool was being constructed higher than the patio and that flooding problems would occur. During construction, Respondent removed a rain downspout which, prior to construction, was located between the patio and the screen enclosure. The pool patio was then poured without replacing the downspout underneath the patio. As a result of one or more of the foregoing conditions, the homeowner's house was almost flooded on one occasion. Thereafter, the homeowner had to put a drain hole in the patio in an attempt to prevent future flooding. Since completion of the pool, when it rains, rainwater flows down the patio towards the house. Additionally, rainwater is directed from the roof through the gutter onto the patio towards the house and occasionally water overflows from the pool towards the house. While the house has not been flooded, the pool deck floods during certain rains. During construction, the Respondent removed all of the ground wires off electrical fixtures located in the homeowner's yard without replacing them after being requested to replace them by the homeowner. After the deck was poured, it was covered with kool deck. The kool deck was soft and had indentations in it. The Respondent agreed with the homeowner that the deck was bad and that the homeowner should not accept it. The Respondent the replaced the kool deck with river rock. The deck now has ripples in it. The Respondent tried to charge the homeowner an additional $1,200 for the river rock. The homeowner had the river rock installed for an additional $850.00 by a third party. Prior to entering into the contract for the pool and enclosure with Respondent, the home owner told the Respondent that he wanted the biggest water heater available to heat the pool water instantly. When the water heater was being installed, the homeowner questioned the Respondent whether or not the water heater was big enough to meet the homeowner's requirements. The Respondent said that it was. After installation, the heater did not come close to meeting the home owner's requirements. The homeowner then called the manufacturer of the heater and was told that the installed heater was too small. The Respondent, at the homeowner's request, then changed the heater to one that would supposedly heat the pool water faster. It did not. The homeowner then called the heating company again and was told that the new heater was only one size up from the original heater and still would not meet the homeowner's requirements. That heater remains on the homeowner's property and does not meet the homeowner's requirements. Mr. Kerry paid the Respondent $5,500.00 on December 7, 1987, which made a total of $19,000.00 the homeowner had paid the Respondent. The homeowner has paid more than $600.00 in repairing and/or correcting work that was the obligation of the Respondent. Correction of all these problems has been to the homeowner's financial detriment. In the latter part of December, 1987, the Respondent entered into an oral contract with All Wright Aluminum to have All Wright Aluminum install an L- shaped pool enclosure over the pool at the Kerry residence. The total contract price was $5,185.10. Payment for the construction was due within ten days of completion which occurred on January 6, 1988. All Wright Aluminum received a $1,000.00 payment from the Respondent on or about February 2, 1988. That payment was a check from a customer of the Respondent, made payable to the Respondent's order in partial payment on pool repairs which the Respondent made for that customer. The Respondent endorsed that check and made it payable to All Wright Aluminum. On February 15, 1988, All Wright Aluminum in compliance with the mechanic's lien law, filed a valid claim of lien against Mr. Kerry's property in the amount of $4,185.10 for failure of the Respondent to pay All Wright for the construction of the pool enclosure. On May 10, 1988, the Respondent paid All Wright Aluminum $1,000.00 towards that lien. On September 16, 1988, the Respondent paid All Wright $2,000.00 towards the satisfaction of that lien from his personal account. On September 16, 1988, the Respondent gave All Wright Aluminum a personal promissory note in the amount of $1,135.10 for the balance of the lien amount. On that date All Wright Aluminum satisfied its previously filed claim of lien. Respondent has previously been disciplined by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order and therein penalize the Respondent, William Losciale, as follows: Assess a fine of $750 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(h) Assess a fine of $750 for the violation of Sections 489.129(1)(j) , 489.105(4), and 489.119. Assess a fine of $1500 for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) Suspend the license of Respondent for a period of six (6) months. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-3296 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-20 (1-20). COPIES FURNISHED: Jack M. Larkin Attorney at Law 806 Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William Losciale 6491 Mobile Street Inverness, Florida 32652 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Ocean Reef Club, Inc., is the developer of certain lands located on the northern end of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The development began as a fishing village in the 1940's and now includes private residences, a marina, and residential docking facilities. Ocean Reef applied in 1982 to DER for a permit to construct a residential docking facility known as Fisherman's Wharf. The facility was to provide a number of parallel docking spaces with an access channel following an existing tidal creek to the northeast connecting to a waterway known as the Harbor House Basin. The permit was issued on October 5, 1984, authorizing construction of a 4-foot wide parallel dock approximately 600-feet long, the dredging of a turning basin through the excavation of approximately 1800 cubic yards of material and the dredging of some 200 cubic yards from an existing tidal creek along a 480 lineal foot length of the creek to a width of 5-feet; all located in No Name Creek, a tidal creek connecting Harbor House Marina to Pumpkin Creek, in Card Sound, Key Largo, Monroe County, Section 11, Township 59 South, Range 41 East. That permit was extended by a letter dated June 10, 1987, and now carries an expiration date of October 5, 1989. The existing permit held by Ocean Reef Club, valid until 1989, would allow the direct dredging of a tidal creek vegetated by seagrasses over a 400- foot length yielding a direct dredging of seagrasses of some 3000 square feet. During the two-year processing time leading to issuance of the permit, Ocean Reef sold a portion of the property comprising the access channel to third parties who now will not grant their permission authorizing channel construction across their property. As a result, in 1987, Petitioner requested a major modification to permit no. 440601649. Although Petitioner attempted to show that its change of plans had been inconsistently processed by DER as a new permit application when DER was obligated to treat it as a modification of a prior permit which would require no new application, processing, or permit, Petitioner was unable to do so. Petitioner's expert professional land surveyor, Joseph Steinocher,, concurred with DER witnesses Kelly Jo Custer and David Bishof that the Ocean Reef plan changes were so significantly altered as to constitute a wholly new project. Steinocher specifically indicated it was a "significant change in that there is no relationship between the two," and Custer, DER's marina permitting specialist, testified that DER's consistently applied policy is to require all such significant permit modifications to be processed de novo as wholly new permit applications because to do otherwise would not be in the public interest. Custer was also qualified as an expert in marine biology and water quality, and from Custer's viewpoint, the changed plans constitute a new and different project for many reasons but primarily because the project impacts on water which have been designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) during the intervening years. The project revision/new permit application plans changed the configuration of the turning basin, providing for a kidney-shaped upland basin with the utilization of an additional portion of No Name Creek, extending Southeasterly toward the entrance of a water body known as Fisherman's Cove. Because the project initially proposed disturbance of wetlands and dredging of mangroves, a mitigation area of some 10,300 square feet was included in the plan. The original proposal called for the straightening of an oxbow in the existing tidal creek and the placement of fill through approximately one-half the reach of the tidal creek to gain access to the dredge area with the fill to be removed after construction. During the processing of the latest permit application, adverse comments were received from DER staff members, and the Petitioner modified the application to eliminate the straightening of the oxbow. The pending proposal involves the construction of 24 boat slips along a floating dock, the installation of boulder rip-rap, and the placement of culverts to allow access to a central island to remain after construction of the docking facility. As a result of prior permit agreements between the parties, Ocean Reef Club had conveyed approximately 730 acres to the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund by special warranty deed dated March 17, 1982. Petitioner asserted but failed to prove up that all construction involved in the pending proposal is landward of those lands either conveyed by that special warranty deed or otherwise in the control of the State of Florida and in fact would be wholly upon its own property. Even had the private property encapsulation of the construction been established, Petitioner's registered land surveyor admitted that the tidal creek entrance is within the limits of the deed to the State of Florida. Access for the proposed 24-slip facility will be through the existing tidal creek that has water depths ranging from minus 2.2 feet to in excess of minus 8 feet at low tide. The earlier proposal would have required only a small portion of the natural creek to be used by motor boats. The project contemplated in 1984 and the one which is the subject of the present litigation are not comparable either biologically nor legally. It is noted that one condition of the 1984 permit even required navigational barriers to be placed at the mouth of No Name Creek. Accordingly, it is specifically found that the significant plan changes render the pending Ocean Reef permit application truly a new project rather than a minor modification as contemplated by Chapter 17-12 F.A.C. Petitioner also attempted to demonstrate that DER's denial of the new permit application was inconsistent with its issuance of permits for similar marina projects in other locations. Neither these allegedly similar applications, supporting plans therefor, nor permits were offered in evidence for comparison. Moreover, for one reason or another, some of the named projects differed so much from the subject application that one witness, Kenneth L. Eckternacht, expert in hydrographic engineering, physical oceanography, and navigation, characterized the comparison as "apples to monkies." Some projects could only be compared to the applicant's proposal by one similar component, i.e. elimination of, and mitigation with regard to, mangroves. For this reason, Dr. Snedeker's limited testimony in this regard is discounted. Some projects could not be conclusively identified as within OFW. None involved the use of the type of creek system involved in the instant project. Ocean Reef Club also could not show that the current permit denial is inconsistent with the granting of the permit for the project as previously conceived in 1984, and which project cannot now be constructed due to Ocean Reef's sale of certain land to uncooperative third parties. As set forth in the foregoing findings of fact, the two projects are neither biologically nor legally identical or even clearly comparable. Petitioner's assertion that it has proposed special or enhanced mitigation because the existing permit, still valid until 1989 but now impossible to comply with, allows direct dredging of approximately 3,000 square feet while the present permit application, as modified, would not require dredging this 3,000 feet, is rejected. Under the new project plans, the proposed basin will be located immediately adjacent to the existing tidal creek which would provide the navigational access to and from the basin. The connection will be created between the basin and the creek by excavating only 100-150 square feet of mangroves which lie between the creek and the area of the proposed basin. In making the immediately foregoing finding of fact, the testimony of witnesses has been reconciled without imputing any lack of credibility to any of them. Respondent's expert, Kelly Jo Custer, expert in marine biology and water quality and also their agency marina specialist, testified that the cross-hatching on the project plans, if read to scale, confirms the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses that the square footage of mangroves to be removed is 100-150 square feet and that the cross-hatching must take precedence over the raw number copied onto the plans. The wetlands in and around the project site, including No Name Creek, are within an OFW, specifically the Florida Keys Special Waters. The project site is located in North Key Largo, approximately one-half mile north of John Pennekamp State Park within the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent to the Biscayne Bay/Card Sound Aquatic Preserve. All of these waters are Class III surface waters. The marina basin itself will be excavated to a depth of minus four feet mean low water. The 24 proposed boatslips will accommodate moorage of boats as large as 25 feet with a draft of two feet. The marina basin will enhance recreational values and channel, despite its greater depth, and at the inner portions of its several bends. It is also implausible that Petitioner's plans to limit boat size through condominium documents to be enforced through a homeowners association, to install mirrors, signalling devices, and latches at certain points along the creek, and to install tide staffs at creek entrances will prevent potential head-on boat collisions or bottlenecks in No Name Creek. It is equally implausible that these procedures can provide reasonable assurances that there will not be a chronic increase in water turbidity from increased use or damage to biota from propellers and boat impact. The witnesses generally concurred as to the present ecological status of No Name Creek. It contains Cuban shoalweed and turtlegrass scattered with varied density throughout, and especially found in two patches between the proposed basin and the point at which there is a drastic bend or oxbow in the creek. The seagrasses in the creek serve many valuable functions including providing a substrate upon which epiphytes may attach, and providing a source of food and refuge for fish and small invertebrates. Seagrasses also fix carbon which they absorb from the sediments and water column through photosynthesis. Green and red algae found throughout the creek provide habitat and carbon fixing functions similar to that provided by the seagrasses. Corals and sponges are present. Three species of sponge located in the creek are found only in the Florida Keys and nowhere else in the United States. Other creek biota include barnacles and oysters attached to mangrove roots, lobsters, anchovies, needlefish, grunts, mojarres, electric rays, various small fish, and invertebrates. Biological and botanical diversity is an important measure of the creek's rich ecological quality and value. The increased boat use of No Name Creek inherent in this dredging project will adversely affect the quality and diversity of the biota. In a creek of this configuration with mean low tide occurring roughly every 12 hours and NEAP tides approximately every two weeks, direct impact of boat propellers is a certainty. The shallowest parts of the creek tend to be limerock shelves which provide a hospitable substrate for the corals, and which are most susceptible to propeller damage, as are the seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner's assertion through Mr. Castellanos and Dr. Roessler that all boaters can be relied upon to employ tilt motors to best advantage in shallow water so as to avoid overhanging mangrove branches at the creek's edges (shores) and so as to keep their boats within the portion of the channel away from submerged mangrove roots and further can be trusted to proceed slowly enough to allow slow-moving water creatures to escape their propellers is speculative and unrealistically optimistic. Despite all good intentions, the strong currents of this creek and its meandering nature work against the average pleasure boater keeping to the narrow center channel. An even more compelling problem with this project is that increased sustained turbidity from propellers and boat movement within close range of the creek bottom will scour the creek bottom and/or stir up the bottom sediment on a regular basis. Once suspended, bottom particles will be redeposited on the seagrasses, impeding photosynthesis and smothering the sponges and corals. Upon the testimony of Custer, Echternacht, and Skinner, and despite contrary testimony of Roessler and Larsen, it is found that the admittedly strong currents in the creek will not flush the particles sufficiently to alleviate the loose sediment problem, and may actually exacerbate the chronic turbidity problem. Strong currents can create a cyclical situation in which, as the seagrasses die or are uprooted, even more particulate matter is loosened and churned up. Chronic turbidity of No Name Creek has the potential of violating the applicable water quality standards for biological integrity, for turbidity, and for ambient water quality. These impacts will not be offset by Petitioner's creation of 38,100 square feet of new underwater bottom because, although this new area will become vegetated, it will never be as rich or as diverse as the existing bottom. This is also true of the pilings and rip rap in regard to sessile animals/barnacles. Petitioner's plan to replant red mangroves over 10,300 square feet may be sufficient in mitigation of the loss of 100-150 square feet of mangroves by itself (see Finding of Fact 16) but for the foregoing reasons, it does not constitute full mitigation for the new permit application. The project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect significant historical and archeological resources.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying the requested permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of September, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE DAVIS, 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 20th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH Case No. 87-4660 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 20, and 25 are accepted. Accepted except for the last sentence which is rejected upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Accepted but specifically not adopted as stated because the plan calls for destruction of certain mangroves (100- 150 ft.) and the planting of others as opposed to mere "addition." 6, 9, 12, and 27 are accepted in part and rejected in part. There was a failure of proof by both parties as to whether the Petitioner would or would not be conducting all activities landward of those lands conveyed. Although there is testimony to this effect, none of the surveys introduced nor other competent evidence allow the undersigned to definitely plot the description contained in Exhibit P-9 with respect to the current permit application plans. In any case, the proposals are not dispositive of the material issues in this case. The reservation, if it does apply, supports denial of the permit. See FOF 9. 8, 26, 28, 29, and 32 are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, and in some cases as mere recitation of testimony or unproved. See next ruling. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30, 31 and 33. Portions of these proposals are accepted in substance as reflected in the FOF. In part, they are rejected as mere recitation of testimony or as subordinate and unnecessary. The remainder is not accepted due to the relative weight of the credible testimony which is reflected in the facts as found. 34-36. Rejected for the reasons set out in FOF 13. Respondent's PFOF 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 14-22, 24-34, 38-43, 48-52, 54, sentence 2 of 57, all except sentence 1 of 59, and 60 are accepted but not necessarily adopted in the interest of space and clarity or because they are cumulative or mere recitations of testimony. 3. Rejected for the reasons set out in FOF 16. Rejected. There was a failure of proof by both parties as to whether the Petitioner would or would not be conducting all activities landward of those lands conveyed. In any case, the proposal is immaterial to the environmental issues dispositive in this case. See FOF 9 and ruling on Petitioner's 6, 9, 12 and 27. Rejected as this was the unproven opinion of Mr. Poppel. No consent judgment is in evidence. 10, 12, and 13. Portions of these proposals are accepted in substance as reflected in the FOF. In part, they are rejected as mere recitation of testimony or as subordinate and unnecessary. The remainder is not accepted due to the relative weight of the credible testimony as reflected as the facts as found. 23, 53, sentence one of 57, and sentence one of 59, are rejected as argument of counsel or statement of position. 35-37, 44-47, 55, 56, 58, and 61-64 are rejected as subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert A. Routa, Esquire Post Office Drawer 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Richard Grosso, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, Springs on Kings Bay (hereinafter referred to as "Springs"), is a condominium association representing 12, single-family, condominium owners located on Hunter Spring Run. Hunter Spring Run is a tributary of Crystal River. The Springs and Hunter Spring Run are located in Citrus County, Florida. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, dredge and fill permits involving Florida waters. The Petitioners are the owners of real property located north of the Springs' property. The Petitioners' property is located at the waterward edge of North West Third Street, Crystal River, Citrus County, Florida. By water, the nearest point of the Petitioners' property to the proposed facility is approximately 2,600 feet. The evidence failed to prove that access to Crystal River from the Petitioners' property involves use of Hunter Spring Run, that the Petitioners are required to pass near the proposed facility or that the Petitioners ever pass near the proposed facility. The Springs' Application for Permit. On or about December 31, 1991, the Springs applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 1,423 square foot private docking facility with twelve slips, and a 564 square foot private docking facility with six slips. Both facilities were to be located on Springs' property located on Hunter Spring Run. Due to Department concerns, the proposed project was subsequently modified to delete the six-slip docking facility and reduce the twelve-slip facility to 975.6 square feet. The Springs also agreed, as a condition for obtaining the permit, to establish a conservation easement of approximately 504 feet of lineal shoreline in and adjacent to Hunter Spring Run. On or about July 22, 1993, the Department issued a notice of intent to issue the permit sought by the Springs. A copy of the proposed permit, permit number 09-207432-3, was attached to the notice of intent to issue. On or about August 5, 1993, the Petitioners filed a letter challenging the Department's decision to issue the permit. The Proposed Facility. Hunter Spring Run is a Class III water body designated as an Outstanding Florida Water. The proposed facility will consist of a 5' X 30' access walkway, 4' X 119' main pier constructed parallel to the shoreline, two 4' X 18" access piers and two 3' X 39" finger piers mounted on 12-inch diameter pilings. The piers will be constructed on pilings driven into the river bottom. The proposed facility will serve residents of the Springs. One boat slip per resident is proposed. The site of the proposed facility is in water with a depth greater than 3 feet. Submerged aquatic vegetation consists primarily of hydrilla verticillation, which is not a native species. The area where the facility is to be constructed is substantially void of other aquatic vegetation. The shoreline in the area of the proposed facility is relatively steep with a limited transitional area of wetland type species. Water depth drops off relatively quickly to approximately 4 feet. Hunter Spring Run is approximately 160.69 feet wide at the proposed facility site. The proposed facility will extend over approximately 24.3 percent of the width of Hunter Spring Run at the site. The main navigation channel of Hunter Spring Run is primarily located adjacent to the opposite shore from the proposed facility. The property in the immediate area of the Springs' property is generally developed for single-family and multifamily residences. Impact on Water Quality Standards. The weight of the evidence proved that the proposed facility will not lower the existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department and Springs concerning the impact on water quality standards was uncontroverted by the Petitioners. While there will be some turbidity associated with installation of pilings, it will be temporary, lasting only a few days, and steps will be taken to minimize the turbidity. A turbidity curtain will be utilized. Boat maintenance is prohibited at the facility by the conditions of the proposed permit. Impact on Public Health, Safety and Welfare or the Property of Others. The weight of the evidence proved that there will not be any adverse impact on public health, safety or welfare, or the property of others. By agreeing to an easement of approximately 504 feet of lineal shoreline, the potential impact from docks in the area will be substantially reduced. Section 403.813, Florida Statutes, exempts the construction of single- family docks of 500 square feet or less under certain circumstances. Several such docks could have been constructed along the area subject to the easement. Potentially, a dock could be built every 65 feet of shoreline. By granting the easement, the potential number of docks and slips along Hunter Spring Run has been reduced. Therefore, the proposed project will be of benefit to public health, safety and welfare, and the property of others. While the Petitioners suggested that the proposed facility will have an adverse impact on the "property of others," they failed to prove what that impact will be. In particular, the Petitioners suggested that the facility will have an adverse impact on their property apparently because the Petitioners believe that the construction of the facility will reduce the number of slips they may be allowed to construct or maintain at their property. The evidence, however, failed to prove that this "economic" impact will materialize, or is likely to, or that, if it does, such impact should prohibit the Department from issuing the permit. Affect on Conservation of Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered or Threatened Species, or Their Habitat. The weight of the evidence proved that the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species will be minimal. The Petitioners offered no evidence to counter this finding. Crystal River is frequented by manatees. Manatees are an endangered species. The area where the proposed project will be located, however, has not been designated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as an essential habitat (an area where manatees breed and feed) for manatees. The possibility of any impact on manatees will be minimized. Construction will be allowed at a time of year intended to avoid impact on the manatees. Construction precautions will be taken to avoid any impact on manatees. If a manatee is sighted during construction, all construction must cease until the manatee leaves the area. Boats will be required to observe a "no wake/idle speed" at all times to reduce the potential of harming manatees. Logs of sightings of manatees are to be maintained and reported to the Department. Signs with information concerning manatees will be posted during construction and after construction. The design of the proposed facility will minimize potential impacts on manatees. There is a lack of vegetation to attract feeding by manatees or fish or other wildlife near the proposed project. The Springs has a former Department of Natural Resources consent of use for the project. Affect on Navigation and the Flow of Water and Whether Harmful Erosion or Shoaling will be Caused. The evidence proved that there will not be any negative impact on navigation or the flow of water and that there will not be any harmful erosion or shoaling caused by the proposed project. These will be adequate water depth and width between the furthest point of the dock and the far shore for the passage of boats. Boats are prohibited by the permit conditions to be moored outside of designated moorings. This will reduce the possibility of prop dredging. The conservation easement will also reduce the potential for harm to navigation which could occur if single-family docks were constructed along the shore of the easement. The conservation easement also will insure that 504 linear feet of shoreline remains protected and natural. Affect on Fishing or Recreational Values or Marine Productivity. The proposed project will increase recreational use of the area. It will not adversely impact marine productivity or fishing. I. Temporary or Permanent Project. The proposed project is for a permanent structure. Affect on Significant Historical and Archaeological Resources. There will not be any impact on significant historical or archaeological resources. Affect on the Current Condition and Relative Value of Functions Being Performed by Areas Affected by the Project. The proposed project will not adversely affect current conditions or the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the project. Cumulative Impact. Cumulative impact from the proposed project in the area should be minimal. Because of the conservation easement, the cumulative impact of the proposed project will be in the public interest due to the decrease in the potential number of boat slips in the area. There should not be any cumulative impacts to water quality or the public interest standards of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Standing of the Petitioners. The Petitioners failed to prove that their interest in the proposed project is any greater than any member of the public. The Petitioners' property is located approximately 2,600 feet away from the proposed project. A small peninsula, on which the Springs' property is located, separates the proposed project from the Petitioners' property. The Petitioners did not offer evidence to prove that they use the area where the proposed project is located or that any use for the proposed project will directly impact their property. Ms. Toms suggested that the proposed project will reduce the number of slips the Petitioners may construct or maintain at their property. The evidence, however, failed to prove that the proposed project will have any impact on such construction or maintenance (if allowed) on their property.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and issuing permit number 09-207432-3 to Springs on Kings Bay. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX Case Number 93-5724 Springs and the Petitioners have submitted proposed findings of fact. The Department has adopted the proposed findings of fact of the Springs by reference. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact 1 These proposed findings are not supported by the evidence accepted during the final hearing of this case. Most of these proposed findings are also not relevant to this proceeding. The issue of who owns the Petitioners' property cannot be resolved in this case. 2-3 Not a proposed finding of fact. These paragraphs consist of arguments of law. Those arguments are not relevant to this proceeding. 4 Not supported by the weight of the evidence and not relevant. The Springs' Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1, 4-6 and 9. Accepted in 1-2, 9 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 6 and 10. Accepted in 12-13, 22 and hereby accepted. 5 Accepted in 11, 18-19, 26-30 and 33. There was no proposed finding of fact 6. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 1, 17 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 14-16. Accepted in 2, 23, 47-48 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 11, 13, 18-19 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 25 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 25, 28 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 31-32 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 33-38 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 34. Accepted in 38. Accepted in 33 and 46-48. 19 See 23 and 46-48. 20 Accepted in 23 and 43-48. 31 Cumulative. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold and Charlotte Toms 11364 West Indian Woods Path Crystal River, Florida 34428 Clark A. Stillwell, Esquire BRANNEN, STILLWELL & PERRIN, P.A. Post Office Box 250 Inverness, Florida 34451-0250 Keith C. Hetrick Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(1)(o), and 489.1425, Florida Statutes (2007 & 2009),1/ and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1512005. At all times material to the administrative complaints, Mr. Organo was the primary qualifying agent for Bennett Marine Contracting and Construction, Inc. (Bennett Marine). On or about September 29, 2007, Jean Walker (Ms. Walker) entered into a contract with Bennett Marine to construct a dock and a tiki hut at 12305 Boat Shell Drive. The contract (the Walker contract) provided that the contractor would make application for a permit from Lee County, Florida. Mr. Organo signed the Walker contract for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Walker contract did not include a written statement explaining Ms. Walker's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On October 24, 2007, Bennett Marine applied for a permit to construct the dock. The application was denied October 29, 2007, because the site plan contained the tiki hut. When the tiki hut was removed from the application, the dock permit was approved. Ms. Walker paid Bennett Marine draws on the construction project. The payments were given to Mr. Organo. The payments totaled $9,200. By February 2008, a tiki hut had been constructed on Ms. Walker's property without a permit. Because the tiki hut was built without a permit, and it was in an illegal location, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. By April 2008, the tiki hut had been removed, and another tiki hut had been built in its place. Again, no permit was pulled for the tiki hut, and it was placed in an illegal location. Again, Lee County required that the tiki hut be removed. Mr. Organo subcontracted the construction of the tiki hut to Rick Fewell Chickees. Mr. Fewell of Rick Fewell Chickees, a Seminole Indian,2/ applied for a permit to build a tiki hut, but the application was rejected because the plot plan was not to scale, and the tiki hut did not meet the setback requirements from the water. Another tiki hut was built, and, in March 2009, Lee County again cited Ms. Walker for not having a permit for the tiki hut and for not meeting the setback requirements. In 2010, a permit was finally issued for the construction of a tiki hut on Ms. Walker's property. The permit was issued to Ms. Walker. Bennett Marine commenced work on the tiki hut without obtaining a building permit. On January 5, 2010, Bennett Marine entered into a contract with Chris Bevan (Mr. Bevan) to remove an existing dock, uninstall an existing boatlift, construct a dock, construct a tiki hut, and to reinstall the boatlift. The contract (the Bevan contract) required that the contractor obtain a City of Cape Coral building permit. The Bevan contract was signed by Mr. Organo for Bennett Marine. It is undisputed that the Bevan contract did not contain a written statement explaining Mr. Bevan's rights under the Florida Homeowners' Construction Recovery Fund. On March 17, 2010, Bennett Marine showed up on Mr. Bevan's property and commenced work, by knocking down a cantilever dock that was hanging over a seawall, removing old decking from the boatlift, and rough-framing part of the new dock. Bennett Marine worked until approximately March 25, 2010. That was the last that Mr. Bevan heard from Mr. Organo or Bennett Marine. Mr. Organo applied for a building permit for the Bevan contract on April 1, 2010. The permit was approved on April 13, 2010, but it was not issued. On May 14, 2010, the City of Cape Coral placed a stop-work order on the Bevan project. Mr. Bevan applied for an owner-builder permit for the dock construction, and the permit was issued on June 9, 2010. Mr. Bevan completed the dock construction at additional expense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Organo violated sections 489.129(1)(i), 489.129(o), and 489.1425; imposing a fine of $250 each for the Walker contract and the Bevan contract for a total of $500, for failure to advise the owners of the recovery fund; imposing a fine of $3,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for two years for beginning work without a permit for the Walker contract; and imposing a fine of $1,000 and placing Mr. Organo on probation for one year for beginning work on the Bevan contract without a permit with the one-year probation to run concurrently with the probation imposed for the Walker contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 13th day of April, 2011.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) should approve a permit for the applicant, Indian River County (County), to install a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef) off the coast of Vero Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving permits such as the one at issue. The County is a governmental entity and is the applicant which has requested a permit for an experimental project to be located in Vero Beach, Florida. The Petitioners oppose the proposed project. The project at issue is the installation of a PEP reef system to be located between approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-80 to approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-83, in Indian River County, Florida. Because of the uncertainty as to the performance of the proposed project and the potential that it may cause adverse impacts to the coastal system, the Department classified the project as experimental pursuant to Chapter 89-175, Section 27, Laws of Florida. In making its preliminary approval for the permit, the Department required special permit conditions to safeguard the coastal system and marine turtles. Additionally, the Department specified both preconstruction and post installation monitoring and testing. The term of the permit is limited to five years, including three years to monitor the project's impacts. A PEP reef is a prefabricated erosion prevention product installed as a breakwater off the shore. In this case, the product measures approximately twelve feet long and six feet high. The base of the product (which is conically shaped) is approximately 15 feet tapering to a one foot crest at the top. The PEP unit is a proprietary product of a company called American Coastal Engineering (ACE). The County proposes to contract with ACE for the manufacture and installation of the units. It is proposed that the PEP units would be installed in an alignment parallel to the beach for a total, though not continuous, length of 3000 feet. The proposed location for the PEP reef in Vero Beach is in an erosion area as identified by the Department's Beach Restoration Management Plan. Historically, the subject beach has experienced a steady and continuous erosion which has been exacerbated during storm conditions. The proposed site is suitable for the experimental nature of this project. At least one past storm event caused substantial damage to the beach front at the project site. Walkways, utilities, and other public improvements were substantially damaged. Past efforts to curb the erosion have proved unsuccessful. Such efforts included beach renourishment, and the installation of seawalls or bulkheads. Future beach renourishment is undesirable for the project site due to the lack of compatible sand, and its high cost. More important, however, are concerns over the negative environmental impacts to nearshore reefs which could result from a large scale renourishment project. For over ten years the County has sought a solution to the erosion that has plagued the project site. To that end, the County established a special committee, the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee, to review options available and to recommend long-term solutions to the County. In June, 1993, the County contracted with Petitioner Walther to prepare a map of the nearshore hardbottom reef and to evaluate alternatives for beach restoration at the project site. Such work was completed, and recommendations from Mr. Walther were not incompatible with the installation of the proposed reef. The proposed installation should not adversely affect the hardbottom reefs which are in the vicinity of the PEP units. Such hardbottom is considered environmentally sensitive; however, no PEP unit will be placed on the hardbottom or so close to it that it will disturb the organisms located within the hardbottom community. In December, 1993, the County submitted an application for an experimental coastal construction permit to install the PEP reef which is at issue. The PEP units are to be placed in seven to ten feet of water. The PEP reef is designed to reduce wave heights, particularly during a storm event, which should reduce the wave energy and currents in the lee of the structure. While it is hoped the units will deter erosion, they may also cause some accretion to the beach. Whether such accretion would be temporary or long- term is uncertain. As a result of studies performed by the University of Florida under the direction of Dr. Dean, and supported by the County's coastal engineer Mr. Donaldson, it was determined that the PEP units should be installed in shorter lengths (than originally designed) with gaps between each segment. Consequently, the installation proposed by the County is not continuous but is staggered and gapped. The installation proposed by the County is unique in that the coastal characteristics of the area and the proposed design should produce results different from past installations of reef structures in Palm Beach County, Florida. As a result, studies performed by Dr. Dean in connection with a reef installed in Palm Beach County have been discounted as dissimilar to the one proposed in this case. In reviewing the subject permit application, the Department requested additional data which the County retained Dr. Zarillo to gather. Dr. Zarillo performed numerical modeling for the proposed reef system. Based upon Dr. Zarillo's work it is expected that the PEP reef system will have a positive benefit in that wave height and energy is likely to be reduced by the installation of the units. The site for the installation is suited for the proposal and is not within an area that is considered environmentally sensitive. Moreover, the PEP reef itself will add to the development of species since it should develop into a nursery habitat for young fish and other marine organisms. The installation of PEP reefs at other locations have proven to be both successful and unsuccessful. Having considered the studies performed by Dr. Bruno, an expert in coastal engineering and in measuring/modeling coastal processes, it is likely that the proposed project will be similar enough in design to installations reviewed by Dr. Bruno to allow the proposed project to be compared. Dr. Bruno has monitored three installations at three different sites in New Jersey. Each site had different results based upon conditions of each location. One site, expected to be most like the proposed site in Vero Beach, has experienced a reduced rate of erosion. Based upon Dr. Bruno's "real life" experience it is expected that the proposed installation will result in a reduction of wave height on the order of 10 percent to 20 percent. Consequently, the proposed installation should provide a benefit to the control of erosion. The reduction of wave height leads to a reduction in the erosive power of the wave field. Therefore, it is expected to result in a reduced erosion rate behind the PEP reefs. Additionally, Dr. Bruno's assessment of Dr. Zarillo's modeling work suggests that "in theory" the proposed site should experience a reduction in wave height as a result of the proposed installation. As a result, both scientific methods support the proposed project. No scientific study can, however, assure the success of this project. In fact, success may be derived from the value of the data which will be gathered during the monitoring period. Such data may assist in the future design of structures to reduce wave energy. The County's proposed monitoring plan contains detailed and adequate performance criteria to assure that the PEP reef system will be fully evaluated. The County has provided adequate assurance that it will comply with the permit conditions, including the modification or removal of the reef system if directed by the Department. All installation and monitoring as well as removal is to be performed at the County's expense. The PEP reef system will have no appreciable adverse impact on marine turtles. Construction is prohibited during nesting season under the terms of the permit. The PEP reef system will have no adverse impact on swimmers or boaters. The units are to be clearly marked and identified under the terms of the permit. No adverse impacts to Petitioners Walther and Clemens should be incurred as a result of the installation of the proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the permit requested by the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4045 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Walther: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 26, 29, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59, and 60 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation is hearsay as it relates to the record cited; however, although not stipulated, the record most likely supports the paragraph in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the factual conclusion that because another permit holder has failed to remove a reef that the County will similarly default on its obligation to do should the agency order the PEP reef removal. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant if it purports to suggest the contracting was improper; this proceeding does not consider the propriety of the contracting process. With the deletion of any emphasis and the last sentence which are rejected as argument, paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 18 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as hearsay; it is accepted that Mrs. Clemens opposed the permit and requested a hearing. Paragraph 27 is rejected as an incomplete statement and therefore not supported by the total weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 30 through 33 are rejected as law not statements of fact. Paragraph 34 is accepted in general terms but not as to the specific measurements cited. Paragraphs 35 through 38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. It is determined that the site is suitable for a non-biased, comprehensive analysis of the project. Paragraphs 39 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 45, it is accepted the reefs may settle but such is expected to be unlikely to impair the overall performance of the structure; therefore, the paragraph, as drafted, must be rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as unclear or incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 58 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 61, it is accepted that Dr. Dean envisioned a current being created that would run parallel to the shoreline as a result of the reef installation but otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 62, such statement is generally true; however, Dr. Dean did not conduct any sediment transportation test to verify that the structure in an open setting (as opposed to the experimental tank) would transport sediment as inferred. Paragraphs 63 through 67 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is accepted as accurate but the agency did not express, and the record does not establish, that there is a concern that the County may not honor its agreement to remove the PEP reef if directed to do so. Paragraph 69 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Clemens: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent Department: All proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department as listed are accepted. See comments below as to rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the County. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent County: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 through 30, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that an extensive renourishment program might damage the sensitive nearshore hardbottom community; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 16, with the deletion of the word "significantly" in the second sentence and the last sentence which are rejected as irrelevant, editorial comment, argument or not supported by the total weight of credible evidence, it is accepted. With regard to paragraph 18, the first sentence is accepted. As to the balance of the paragraph, with the deletion of the word "significantly" and the substitution of "might" for "could", the paragraph is accepted. Otherwise rejected as an inaccurate characterization of the weight of the record. With regard to paragraph 19, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as a compound statement of proposed fact some of which are accurate but which taken in whole constitute argument, unnecessary, irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 31, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence three, the paragraph is accepted. With regard to paragraph 32, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence two, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 35, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 36 through 38 are rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. The proposed PEP reef should not adversely impact the Vero Beach shoreline. Paragraph 44 is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraphs 47 through 53, it is accepted that the Petitioners did not establish that they will be substantially affected by the proposed project; however, their conduct does not rise to the level to establish participation in the administrative process was for an improper purpose. Consequently, the paragraphs are rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Lewis, Esquire John W. Forehand, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 702 Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Michael P. Walther 1725 36th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Adele Clemens 3747 Ocean Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Dana M. Wiehle Assistants General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherall Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
