Findings Of Fact The Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) is state-owned property. Title is held by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. It includes some 13 miles of Atlantic Ocean beach within St. Johns County. Within the boundaries of the Preserve is included the Guana River State Park (the Park). It, too, is state-owned. It is managed and operated by the Division of Recreation and Parks (the DRP) of the Department of Environmental Protection (the DEP). Some of the Preserve's Atlantic Ocean beaches are included within the boundaries of the Park. The "wet sand," or "hard sand," area of the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve is the area of the beach between mean high water and mean low water. The mean high water line is essentially the landward extent of the ocean at mean high tide; the mean low water line is essentially the landward extent of the ocean at mean low tide. When the tide is low, this entire area of the beach is exposed. It remains wet and, generally, relatively hard-packed during the time it is exposed. However, there are beds of "red shell" in this part of the beach that are softer. In the summer, this part of the beach averages approximately 50 feet in width. In the winter, when the waves and tides generally are higher, it is narrower. In the Preserve, the mean high water line usually is indicated both by debris washed up during the highest tides and left on the beach and by a "shelf." This "shelf," made by the erosive action of the ocean waves during the highest tides and during storms, rises at an angle of approximately 45 degrees and can be from one to four or five feet high. Landward of this shelf is the "dry sand" or "soft sand" beach, also sometimes referred to as the "upper beach." It extends landward from the mean high water line to the vegetation line, where the dunes start. Usually, some pioneer vegetation is found in the uppermost reaches of this part of the beach, forming what is called the "foredune" area of the beach. The tides along the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve are semi- diurnal, i.e., there usually are two high tides and two low tides a day. These high and low tides last approximately one hour, and each day they occur approximately an hour later than they did the day before. There are five beach access points with motor vehicle parking areas located along U.S. Highway A1A within the Preserve. Three are within the Park. There is parking for approximately 120, 68, 79, 42 and 25 vehicles in these five parking areas. There also is a current proposal for the addition of three more access points in the Park, with parking for a total of 340 vehicles, five beach bathhouses, and five pedestrian overpasses. There are many other places where pedestrians can walk from A1A to the beaches, including 30 County-controlled access points. But there are no lawful parking areas adjacent to any of these other access points at this time, and parking on the right-of-way of A1A is prohibited. Currently, the only lawful motor vehicle access to the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve is to the south of the Preserve. Prior to the agency action challenged in these proceedings, motor vehicles lawfully could be driven onto the beach at this access point and be driven north into the Preserve, so long as they remained below the mean high water line. A former access near the north end of the Preserve has been cordoned off. To leave the Preserve, motor vehicles would have to be turned around and driven back south to the same motor vehicle access point. Due to the restricted access to the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve, not much use is made of those beaches. In comparison, beaches to the south are used much more heavily. Of the relatively few who use the motor vehicle access to the south and drive on the beach north through the Preserve, some ultimately use the beaches to picnic, swim, surf, beach-comb and similar activities; some probably just drive on the beach. There was no evidence quantifying the uses currently being made of the beaches in the Preserve. In the past, homemade motor vehicles called "skeeters" were built with a light-weight chassis and over-sized wheels. They were used for driving on both the hard and soft areas of the beaches, as well as illegally in the dunes. This practice has been curtailed due to better enforcement of the prohibitions against driving in the dunes, a generally heightened environmental consciousness among the public, and prohibitions against driving the "skeeters" on public highways. Generally, there has been less driving on the beaches of the Preserve in recent years, although the practice persists at a reduced level. At all times of the year, it sometimes is impossible to drive along the entire length of the beaches in the Preserve without driving on the soft sand area. This is especially true during the winter months when the waves and tides are higher and storms are more frequent. But even in the summer months, there are times when "red shell beds" in the "wet sand" part of the beach must be circumvented to avoid getting stuck. Especially when the tide is not at its lowest, the only way to avoid some of these "red shell" beds is to drive over the "shelf" and onto the "soft sand." Depending on the tides, this may also be necessary in order to turn a vehicle around on the beach. In many places, the "soft sand" area is not very wide, and it would be necessary under those circumstances to drive in the "foredune" area. The times of the daily high and low tides can be obtained relatively easily by members of the public. But there is no assurance that all persons who would drive on the beaches would know the times of the tides. Nor is there any assurance that persons who drive the "wet sand" or "hard sand" part of the beaches at low tide also would plan to both start their beach drive and their return trip during low enough tides to be able to avoid driving on the "soft sand" part of the beach. For these and other reasons, it would be difficult, if not practically impossible, to effectively monitor beach driving throughout the Preserve and consistently enforce a restriction to driving only on the "wet sand" or "hard sand" areas of the beach. In the summer months, sea turtles lay eggs in nests dug in the sand of the foredune and dune areas of the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve. After a period of incubation in the nests, the turtle hatchlings dig themselves out of the nests and crawl to the ocean to begin their lives in the sea. Driving motor vehicles over nests on those parts of the beaches in the summer months could crush eggs in their nests or pack the sand hard enough to reduce the number of hatchlings that emerge from the nest alive. In addition, driving motor vehicles in these area, even in other parts of the year, can leave ruts in the beach that disorient hatchlings that leave the nests in summer so that fewer reach the ocean alive. Sea turtles crawl out of the ocean to their nest sites at night. Artificial lighting can disturb their nesting and egg-laying activities. However, it seems that moving lights, or lights that turn on and off (in the manner of car lights), create more of a disturbance than stationary lights, such as those more often found at residences along the beaches in the Preserve. The Management Plan does not prohibit artificial lighting along the beaches in the Preserve, but it recommends that further attention be given to this problem and that ways to address the problem be explored and pursued in cooperation with the County. Various shore birds, including the threatened least tern, make their nests in the foredune area of the beaches in the Preserve. Driving on the foredunes destroys and disturbs nesting habitat and disturbs the nesting activities of these birds. In addition, both these ground nesting shore birds and a variety of migratory birds make use of different areas of the beaches to rest and feed. Driving on the beaches disturbs these activities, as well. The only known nesting colony of least terns in St. Johns County is located in the Park, where beach driving is prohibited. The Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has utilized F.A.C. Rule 16D-2.002(4)-(5) to prohibit driving or parking motor vehicles on the beaches of the Park by not designating the beaches as driving or parking areas within the Park. At least parts of the beaches in the Park have been posted as areas where driving motor vehicles is prohibited. In order to develop a management plan for the Preserve, the manager of the Preserve personally researched the geology, climate and natural resources of the Preserve, as well as the records of the County, and also collected data pertaining to the Preserve from several state agencies. Over the course of a year, the manager's input was taken into consideration, and a management plan, called the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve Management Plan (the Management Plan), was developed for the Preserve. It was adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund on December 17, 1991. The Management Plan recites in pertinent part: At the present time, motorized vehicular traffic is permitted, by county ordinance, below the natural vegetation line on the beaches adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean in St. Johns County. Vehicles are not allowed on the 4.2 miles of beach within Guana River State Park. The coarse coquina sand and steep profiles of the beaches in the preserve make driving on the wet sand area difficult. Drivers are forced to cross the dry sand area, damaging the foredunes, pioneer dune vegetation and sea turtle nesting habitat. Due to the negative environmental impacts resulting from this activity, motorized vehicular traffic shall not be considered an authorized activity on sovereign submerged lands within [Prime Resource Protection Area] PRPA beach management areas of the preserve, and therefore will be prohibited. Under the Management Plan, all of the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve are Prime Resource Protection Area, and the driving of motorized vehicles on them is prohibited. On June 11, 1993, the DEP's DRP sent St. Johns County a letter advising that, based on the Management Plan, DEP no longer would permit the driving of motor vehicles on the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve. The proposed amendment to F.A.C. Rule 18-20.004(7), incorporating the Management Plan, was noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 6, 1993. On or about August 18, 1993, the DEP agreed not to enforce the beach driving prohibition in the Preserve until these cases are resolved.
Findings Of Fact Sarasota County and MPS both filed extensive exceptions to the Recommended Order. I have grouped these exceptions according to the following issues: Manatee Protection, Turtle Nesting impacts, Fisheries impacts, Seagrass impacts, Wetlands Impacted, Water Quality Improvement, Public interest Balancing Test, Miscellaneous Exceptions, Requests For Additional Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law. I shall discuss and rule on each exception by the above groupings. 1. Manatee Protection Sarasota County Exception Number 1 and MPS Exception Numbers 6 and 8 are directed to the issue of adverse affects on the West Indian Manatee. Sarasota County and MPS take exception to Finding of Fact ("FOF") No. 24, claiming that there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that it is anticipated that increased motorboat traffic in the pass vicinity would be an increased potential danger to manatees. MPS additionally takes exception to the finding in FOF No. 29 that maintenance dredging will entail a danger to manatees similar to that during the construction phase. At the outset, I note that where a Hearing Officer's finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence I am not permitted to reweigh the evidence and reject the finding of fact. See, e.g., Florida Debt. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 120.57(1)(b)1O., Florida Statutes. In this case the record does contain competent substantial evidence supporting FOF Nos. 24 and 29. The Hearing Officer's finding that increased motorboat traffic is an expected result of opening of the pass is not disputed. FOF No. 34. The area is designated as a critical habitat for the West Indian Manatee. FOF No. 22. The prefiled testimony of Ms. Kimberly A. Dryden states that "[a]n increase in boat/manate collisions associated with increased boat presence in the pass may occur." Dryden, PF-11. Ms. Dryden was admitted as an expert in wildlife biology including expertise in manatees, and her prefiled testimony was accepted into evidence. TR-756-760. Finally, the fact that Sarasota County itself proposed a manatee protection plan involving, among other things, that all project vessels operate at "no wake" speeds, supports the finding that increased motorboat traffic in the pass vicinity would be an increased potential danger to manatees. Sarasota County and MPS point to the public notice of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Hearing Exhibit 26) and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter (Hearing Exhibit 27) as overwhelming evidence that no adverse effect on the manatee is expected. In essence, Sarasota County and MPS are asking me to reweigh the competent, substantial evidence. As noted above, I may not lawfully do that. The parties do not dispute the Hearing Officer's finding that maintenance dredging is expected to be needed as long as the inlet remains open. FOF No. 21. For the reasons set forth above, the Hearing Officer's finding that maintenance dredging will present a danger to manatees similar to the construction is supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. Sarasota County and MPS also assert that FOF No. 24 must be rejected because it is contrary to a stipulation of fact by the parties. Indeed, the record shows that a prehearing stipulation was filed and accepted into the record without objection at the hearing. TR-8. Stipulation of Fact No. 24 states: With the implementation of recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is not expected that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the manatee or its habitat. Steven Sauers, Director of the Coastal Zone Division for Sarasota County, testified that he believed the County "could adhere to these [U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service] recommendations under a condition of authorization." TR-94-98. I note that when the prefiled testimony of Ms. Dryden was accepted into evidence at the hearing, neither Sarasota County nor MPS objected to those portions dealing with manatee impacts as being contrary to Stipulation of Fact No. 24. I must therefore consider whether the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the stipulation, and whether the Hearing Officer, as the ultimate finder of the facts, is bound by a stipulation of fact when the record contains competent, substantial evidence which conflicts with the stipulation. It has long been the eablished rule of law that stipulations of fact properly entered into are binding on both the parties and the court. See, e.g., Troup v. Bird, 53 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 1951) (where case is tried on stipulation, no further or different facts will be presumed to exist). Where a party seeks to be relieved from a stipulation, he or she generally must file a timely motion, with notice to opposing parties, showing good cause and no prejudice to opposing parties. U.S. Fire insurance Co. v. Roberts, 541 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Lopez v. Dublin Co., 489 So.2d 805, 807 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Munilla v. Perez-Cobo, 335 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. den., 344 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1977); Villa v. Mumac Construction Corp., 334 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Curr v. Helene TransportatIon, 287 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Good cause requires showing of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, withholding of facts by the adversary party, or such other element as would render the agreement void. Spitzer v. Bartlett Brothers Roof in, 437 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Citv of Vero Beach v. Thomas, 388 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In this case, neither the Department nor the Respondent Intervenors sought to be relieved from the stipulation, and there is no contention that any basis for good cause exits to be relieved from the stipulation. However, it is also a long established rule of law that failure to contemporaneously object to the admission of contested evidence is a waiver of the right to object. See, e.g., Swan v. Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 404 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); DeLuca v. State, 384 So.2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. den., 389 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1980); Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, Section 104.1 (2d Ed 1984); Section 90.104, Florida Statutes. in this case the testimony which conflicts with the stipulation was pre-filed before the hearing and the opposing parties had ample opportunity to review it before the hearing. Yet, although Sarasota County did raise objections to certain portions of Ms. Dryden's pre- filed testimony, no objection was raised to the portion relevant to impacts on manatees. TR-754-760. There is also authority for the proposition that when evidence contrary to a stipulation is introduced at trial without objection, the finder of fact is not bound by the stipulation. Special Disability Trust Fund v. Myers, 492 So.2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), cause dism'd, 491 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1986); Espada Enterprises Inc. v. Spiro, 481 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Woods v. Greater Naples Care Center, 406 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. den., 413 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1982). In consideration of the above authorities and circumstances, I conclude that the Hearing Officer was not bound by the stipulation and could properly consider the relevant portion of Ms. Dryden's pre-filed testimony. Therefore the record contains competent, substantial evidence in support of the above findings of fact. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are denied. Turtle Nesting Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 2 and MPS Exception No. 7 dispute FOF No. 26, which states that: "Once dredged, the beach area in the pass vicinity would be permanently lost for the purpose of turtle nesting." Sarasota County and MPS argue that although a portion of the beach will be removed to create the inlet, the loss of beach will not significantly impact on turtle nesting. Sarasota County and MPS contend that the "overwhelming weight" of the evidence is contrary to FOF No. 26. They are in essence asking me to reweigh the evidence. For the reasons stated above, I cannot do so. If the finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence, then I am not at liberty to reject it. Florida Department of Corrections, supra; Section 120.57(1) (b)10., Florida Statutes. Ms. Belinda Perry, Projects Coordinator in the Coastal Zone Division of Natural Resources of the Sarasota County Natural Resources Department, testified that she had maintained records of sea turtle nests in the vicinity of Midnight Pass. She testified that on the average over the last eight years there have been four nests per year in the area that the new inlet at Midnight Pass will be located. Perry, TR-537-538; Perry PF-2, 5, 8. This is competent, substantial evidence of an adverse impact on the nesting habitat of sea turtles. Sarasota County and MPS argue that this impact is not "Significant." If I were to consider the "significance" of the loss of 4 nests per year for the purpose of accepting or rejecting FOF No. - 26, I would in effect be weighing that evidence. This I may not do. If the finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence I may not reject it. Although not articulated, Sarasota County and MPS may be arguing that when evidence which supports a finding of an adverse impact on an endangered or threatened species is "not significant," then such evidence or finding of fact cannot be considered when weighing the seven factors set forth in the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. I reject any such argument as contrary to the law. Neither the statute nor any authority requires a minimum threshold weight for any of the factors. The statute merely requires the Department to "consider and balance" the seven criteria. For the foregoing reasons, Sarasota County's Exception No. 2 and MPS's Exception No. 7 are rejected. Fisheries Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 4 and MPS Exception No. 10 challenge that part of FOF No.-3- that states "the flushing and arrival of predator fishes will adversely affect the nursery habitat now enjoyed by the fish community currently within the LSB." (emphasis added) Sarasota County and MPS contend that this finding is unsupported by any competent substantial evidence in the record. I disagree. Robert L. Stetler, Environmental Administrator, Wetlands Resource Management for the Department's Southwest District testified as follows: Q. What impact on fisheries does the present, i.e., closed condition of the Midnight Pass area have? A. Current conditions in the backwater area of Midnicht Pass as mentioned Before, as quiescent in nature. This influences the fisheries utilization to the competitive advantage of the smaller species and of the early life stages of many of the larger pelagic fish species. The additional cover afforded by seagrass communities and the very shallow water nature of large portions of the site tend to limit successful predation on the smaller specimens. The periphyton communities associated with shallow water areas and seagrass beds also provide large quantities of food to the smaller or younger fish. The conditions now found at Midnight Pass enable it to be classified as a nursery area because they perform the functions of feeding and protecting the early life stages of numerous fish species. Nursery areas like the pass region have been identified as essential to the maintenance of healthy, well balanced fish populations. Q. Does a quiescent estuarine zone provide any particilar benefit to commercially important fish species? A. Under the estuarine conditions, water quality also contributes to the success and/or failure of certain fish species. Many of the estuarine dependent fish species have life histories that include spawning in or near the marine environment and the mitigation [sic] of the larval forms into areas of lower salinity, sometimes lower dissolved oxygen and, in the summer months, often very high water temperatures. These harsh conditions are tolerable to a early life stages of several commercially important fish species and further protects them from predation by adult piscivorous (fish eating) fish that cannot tolerate these conditions. Some of the important commercial species exhibiting this life cycle are the Tarpon, Spotted Seatrout, Redfish, Mangrove snapper, Sheepshead and Mullet. Q. What, in your opinion, would be the overall impact to fisheries resources from the opening of Midnight Pass? A. The overall impact of the project to fisheries would be significant. Reactivating an inlet would produce conditions conducive and reintroducing larger, motile, pelagic fishes into the area. increased flushing would likely occur resulting in increased salinities, higher energy conditions from waye and tidal action. The recreational fishery would probably produce more larger fish utilizing the pass as a migratory, spawning and feeding site. However, the direct impact of the project would also result in the loss of significant portions of the nursery habitat previously described. Q. in your opinion, would opening Midnight Pass be in the public interest from a fisheries standpoint? A. No. Q. Why not? A. The expected physical damages associated with reopening the pass -- increased water depths, destabilization of the substrate by tide and wave energy and destruction of existing shallow water habitat will eliminate or significantly change the habitat characteristics and water guality conditions essential to the early life stages of many fish species. Loss of nursery habitat has been a long-term trend to Tampa and Sarasota Bay due to past dredge and fill activities and increased development. This long-term loss results in a need to classify remaining nursery areas, like Midnight Pass, as critical habitat warranting special protection. (emphasis added) Stetler PF-11-13. This prefiled testimony was accepted into evidence. TR-836, 839. When read in its entirely it clearly provides competent, substantial evidence to support the above finding of fact. Mr. Stetler testified that the existing nature of LSB provides a nursery for certain fishes that in the early stages of their life take advantage of areas of lower salinity, sometimes lower dissolved oxygen and, in the summer months, often very high water temperatures. Such harsh conditions protect them from predation by adult fish that cannot tolerate such conditions. He further testified that reopening Midnight Pass would result in increased flushing, increased salinity, and the loss of significant portions of the above characteristics with a consequent loss of significant portions of the nursery habitat. This testimony is competent, substantial evidence supporting FOF No. 32. Therefore, i may not disturb this finding of fact. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Seagrass Impacts Loss of Seagrass Sarasota County Exception No. 5 and MPS Exceptions Nos. 10 and 11 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the submerged areas of LSB in the vicinity of the inlet are vegetated with seagrasses (including shoalgrass, turtle grass, manatee grass, and halophila), and that a significant portion of these grasses will be dredged if the proposed project is implemented. FOF No. 33. The Hearing Officer also found that the dredged seagrass areas will no longer serve as a nursery to young fishes. FOF No. 34. Sarasota County and MPS contend that only 10 acres of seagrasses will be dredged, and that the evidence shows that reopening Midnight Pass will cause more dense growth of seagrasses in those areas not dredged. Sarasota County and MPS also contend that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that all four of the above noted types of seagrasses would be lost. The gist of Sarasota County's and MPS's argument is that the loss of ten acres of seagrss is less than 10% of the total seagrass acreage in the project area, and therefore is not significant. Sarasota County and MPS further argue that even if the loss of 10 acres of seagrass was significant, it would only be a temporary loss because the opening of Midnight Pass would result in greater seagrass growth, density, and diversity in those areas not dredged. Neither Sarasota County nor MPS take exception to the finding that l0 acres of seagrasses will be dredged, and that, due to the depth of the channel to be dredged, seagrasses would not be expected to reseed or colonize in the deep channel cuts. FOF No. 34; Prehearing Stipulation of Fact No. 22. The record contains competent, substantial evidence that in the vicinity of the project there are 108 acres of seagrasses. Lewis, PF-6 (accepted into evidence TR-425-436). A loss of ten acres of seagrasses would be a loss of more than 9% of the total acreage in the vicinity of the project. A loss of seagrass can have an adverse impact on a fish nursery. Leiby TR-507, 509-510. I reject any suggestion that such a loss is not significant. MPS and Sarasota County contend that there will be no net loss of seagrass because the loss of the ten acres will be offset by increased growth, density, and diversity of seagrasses in the areas not dredged. in asking me to reject the above noted findings, Sarata County and MPS are in effect asking me to weigh the evidence of the impact of the loss of ten acres against the evidence that increased growth, density, and diversity of the seagrasses elsewhere will soon offset any reduction in nursery value to young fishes. When I rule on exceptions to findings of fact I cannot reweigh the evidence. If the record contains any competent, substantial evidence to support the finding, I must accept it. Finally, as to issue of the types of seagrasses present, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that all four of the species mentioned in the finding of fact are found in the project area to be dredged. Stetler PF- 6, TR-843-845; Wilber PF-33, TR-908-915; Dryden PF-5-7; Prehearing Stipulation of Fact No. 21. For all of the reasons set forth above, i reject the exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS. Propeller Dredging of Seagrass Sarasota County Exception No. 6 and MPS Exception No. 12 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "increase motorboat traffic which is an expected result of the pass reopening, would also limit grasses from re- establishing in shallower areas due to damage caused by propellers." FOF No. 34. Sarasota County and MPS do not dispute that opening - Midnight Pass will increase motoboat traffic in LSB. Dr. Wilber testified that the "foreseeable increased boat utilization, especially by large boats will increase seagrass bed damage through prop dredging . . . ." Wilber PF-31. There being competent, substantial evidence in the record supporting the above finding, the exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are denied. Wading Bird Habitat Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the grassy flats will no longer be available to the numerous species of wading birds which frequent the areas since the closure of the pass." FOF No. 33. Ms. Dryden testified that wading birds now use the shallow tidal flats and mud flats which are proposed to be removed. Dryden PF-4-8, 10-11. Mr. G. Jeffery Churchill testified that, as a result of the project, approximately 9 acres of wading bird feeding habitat would be lost. Churchill PF-16-17, TR- 485-487. The record contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the above finding. Therefore, Sarasota County's exception is denied. Wetlands Impacted Sarasota County Exception No. 6 and MPS Exceptions Nos. 5 and 12 take exception to the finding that the dredging proposed by the County would eliminate at least 50 acres of wetlands. FOF Nos. 17 and 34. Sarasota County and MPS contend that only 1.1 - 1.3 acres of vegetated wetlands will be lost. This contention appears to be based on the assertion that submerged lands are not "wetlands" within the meaning of Sections 403.91 - .929, Florida Statutes. I reject Sarasota County's and MPS's narrow construction of the meaning of jurisdictional wetlands. Section 403.912(1) sets forth the powers and duties of the Department in permitting activities in wetlands, including activities "in waters to their landward extent . . ." (emphasis added). The term "waters" includes "rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters." Section 403.031(12), Florida Statutes. the term "wetlands" therefore is inclusive of surface bodies of waters up to and including the limit of the Department's jurisdiction as established by Section 403.817, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-301, F.A.C. Dr. Wilber testified that the project would dredge 43.8 acres for the two access channels, 3.6 acres for the sediment basin, and 7.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the inlet channel. Wilber PF-5-6. Dr. Wilber further testified that habitat within the proposed channels consisted of valuable biological communities of a natural character that would be severely disrupted or eliminated if the project were permitted. Wilber PF-9. The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the above finding. The exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are rejected. Water Quality Improvement Sarasota County Exception No. 7 and MPS Exception No. 14 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the water quality within LSB will not be significantly improved as a result of the reopening of the inlet. "FOF No. 38. it is contended that this finding is immaterial and irrelevant. These exceptions also challenge as irrelevant the Hearing Officer's finding that "it is impossible to conclude that marine environments serve a more useful purpose than estuarine systems." FOF No. 38. I agree that it is not required that the proposed project improve the water quality in LSB in order to be permittable. Permitting of a dredge and fill project in an Outstanding Florida Water requires that the applicant show that the project is clearly in the public interest, and that reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, including a showing that the existing ambient water quality within the OFW will not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity. Section 403.918(1),(2), Florida Statutes; Rules 17-4.242(2) (a), 17-302.300, F.A.C. The applicant must also show that secondary impacts of the project, and cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable similar projects in the same geographical location will not result in violations of water quality standards, and will not result in the project being not clearly in the public interest. Conservancy, Inc. v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, Inc., No. 90-520 (Fla. 1st DCA, March 29, 1991); Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. The analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts is not a third test; rather, it is a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards, and that the project meets the applicable public interest test. Conservancy, Inc., supra; Peebles v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FALR 1961 (DER, April 11, 1990); Concerned Citizens League of America v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 4237, 4246 (DER, March 29, 1989). if the applicant is unable to satisfy the applicable public interest test, the applicant may propose or accept measures to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. 4/ On the other hand, throughout these proceedings Sarasota County has attemptd to justify the project and show that it is clearly in the public interest by asserting the project will improve water quality in LSB. For example, at page 7 of Sarasota County's Proposed Recommended Order it states: Sarasota County has convincingly demonstrated that it meets the statutory criteria for approval of this project in this Outstanding Florida Water. The project will not degrade ambient water quality, and it will cause an improvement in water guality, not only in the immediate vicinity of the Pass but throughout Little Sarasota Bay. This improved water guality will in turn reap substantial benefits to the degraded marine habitat, the flora and fauna, commercial and recreational fishing and the public's general enjoyment and ability to use Little Sarasota Bay. (emphasis added) Similarly, Sarasota County stated in its opening argument at the hearing that: TR-14. We think that there has been a decline in water quality and it will continue to decline and it will continue to get worse. By reopening the pass, we think we can stop that decline. We think that there will be such considerable improvements to the bay to be clearly in the public interest. The Hearing Officer's finding is clearly relevant to Sarasota County's assertion that the claimed improvement in water quality will make or help make the project to be clearly in the public interest. Similarly, since the reopening of the pass will cause the reversion of LSB from an estuarine to a marine ecosystem, the Hearing Officer's finding on the failure to show that a marine ecosystem has a more useful environmental purpose is also, at least arguably, relevant to the public interest test. 5/ The record contains competent, substantial evidence which supports this finding. Nearhoof PF-8-12, TR-891-895; Wilber PF-17-18, TR-920-921. There being competent, substantial evidence to support the finding, I shall not reject it. The exceptions are there denied. Public Interest Balancing Test Sarasota County Exceptions Nos. 8 and 12, and MPS Exceptions Nos. 15 and 17, take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the beneficial changes expected to result from the reopening of the pass do not offset the adverse affects reasonably expected to be caused by the dredging." FOF No. 39. Exception is also taken to FOF No. 43, which states that it was not established that the project is clearly in the public interest. The gist of these exceptions is that the balancing test is a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Even if that were so, the error in mislabeling would be harmless. Even though I agree that the ultimate determination of the public interest balancing test is a conclusion of law, I do not agree that predicate findings of ultimate facts are not appropriate. Florida Audubon Society v. Cullen, ER FALR 91:018 (DER, Sept. 27, 1990). The Hearing Officer's FOF Nos. 34 and 43 are predicate findings of ultimate facts sufficiently supported in other findings of fact for each of the seven criteria in the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes. See for example: Department's Response To Request For Admission No. 17, and R.O. at 21 and 23, accepting MPS's proposed finding of fact- No. 74, and Sarasota County's proposed finding of fact No. 50 (project will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare); (b) FOF Nos. 17, 22, 24-26, 29, and 32-35 (regarding conservation of fish and wildlife, etc.); FOF No. 36 and R.O. at 23, accepting MPS's proposed finding of fact Nos. 134 and 135 (regarding navigation, flow of water, erosion or shoaling); FOF Nos. 32 and 33 (regarding fishing recreational values or marine productivity); FOF No. 21, 29 and 37 (regarding temporary or permanent nature of project); FOF No. 28 (regarding historical and archaeological rsources); and FOF Nos. 30 and 38 (regarding current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by project). The exceptions are therefore rejected. Miscellaneous Exceptions Sarasota County Exception No. 9 Sarasota County Exception No. 9 contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence for the finding that the Department has not permitted the destruction of a habitat of this size without requiring extensive mitigation. FOF No. 40. Mr. Randall L. Armstrong, then Director of the Division of Water Management of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, testified that he had worked at the Department since 1972, and that "[i]n my experience with the Department in issuing permits under those statutes (Sections 403.918-.919] the Department has never permitted the destruction of such a large area of viable habitat without requiring extensive mitigation." Armstrong PF-9, TR-1017. Sarasota County's reliance on the testimony of Mr. Lewis about lack of mitigation in a Key Biscayne project is misplaced since that project occurred before the enactment of the Henderson Wetlands Act in 1984. Lewis TR at 482. in any event, FOF No. 40 is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. The exception is denied. Sarasota County Exception No. 11 and MPS Exception No. 16 Sarasota County Exception No. 11 and MPS Exception No. 16 complain about FOF No. 42, yet do not dispute its correctness. The finding is a irrefutable finding that no mitigation is proposed for 10 acres of seagrasses which will be dredged. The exceptions are merely an assertion that mitigation is not necessary for the loss of seagrasses because additional seagrass will grow elsewhere. This contention was addressed above under the heading of Seagrass impacts. Furthermore, the Department has the ultimate authority to determine whether mitigation is required and, if so, whether the proposed mitigation is adequate. 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 522 So.2d. 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The exceptions are rejected. Sarasota County Exception No. 3 Sarasota County's Exception No. 3 claims to take exception to FOF No. 29 but does not dispute any of the facts stated therein. The exception is rejected. MPS Exception No. 1 This exception quibbles over an immaterial issue of semantics in FOF No. 2, i.e., whether the project is to "dredge an inlet" or to "restore" the past inlet. The exception is rejected. MPS Exception No.2 MPS takes exception to FOF No. 4 which states that LSB was designated an Outstanding Florida Water. The gist of MPS's exception is that the Environmental Regulation Commission excluded Midnight Pass when LSB was designated as an OFW. Since "Midnight Pass" no longer existed as a body of water when LSB was designated an OFW on April 29, 1986, the exception is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. MPS Exceptions No. 3 and 13 MPS takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding in FOF No. 7 that prior to the closing of Midnight Pass the "beach along the northern stretch of Casey Key eroded badly." MPS also excepts to the finding that without beach renourishment the restoration will cause "harmful erosion" along Casey Key. FOF No. 37. MPS does not dispute the erosion; rather, MPS complains about the choice of words describing the degree of erosion. The choice of words is not material to the underlying validity of the finding. The exceptions are without merit and are rejected as immaterial. MPS Exception No. 9 MPS takes exception to FOF No. 30, contending that there is no support in the record for a finding that, as a result of the evolution of LSB from a marine to an estuarine system, LSB has a longer freshwater residence time. MPS is misreading FOF No. 30. It is clear that FOF No. 30, when properly read, states that as a result of the closure of the pass LSB has evolved from a marine to an estuarine system, and that this evolution is a consequence of the longer freshwater residence time which was caused by the closing of the inlet. This is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Echernacht TR-707. MPS also takes exception to the finding that levels of dissolved oxygen and salinity within LSB are fairly typical for a healthy estuarine system. FOF No. 30. The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support this finding. Wilber PF-32. The exceptions are rejected. Requests For Additional Findings of Fact Sarasota -County Exceptions Nos. 3, 10, and 13 through 16, and MPS Exceptions Nos. 4 and 18 are in essence asking me to make additional findings of fact, or to accept proposed findings of fact which were rejected by the Hearing Officer. I may not lawfully make an independent determination of a disputed fact. Cohn v. Department of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039, 1047 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985). Accord, Miller v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 504 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Inverness Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 512 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Friends of Children v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As to Sarasota County Exception No. 14, which requests a finding of fact that the project will not adversely affect the pubic health, safety and welfare, I note that the Hearing Officer accepted this finding of fact which was proposed in both paragraph 74 of MPS's proposed recommended order and in paragraph 50 of Sarasota .County's proposed recommended order. See R.O. at 21 and 23. Therefore, I consider the requested finding of fact to have already been made by the Hearing Officer. No additional finding is required of me. Sarasota County Exception No. 15 asks me to make specific additional findings of fact in relation to effects of the project on marine productivity. Sarasota County orrectly points out that a finding regarding whether the project will adversely affect marine productivity is needed to conduct the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. However, I note that the Hearing Officer's FOF Nos. 32 and 33 are sufficient predicate findings for her to consider and weigh this criteria in the balancing test. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer has considered and ruled on Sarasota County's proposed findings related to marine productivity as set forth in Sarasota County's proposed recommended order paras. 105-108 and 110 (accepted) and para. 111 (rejected as vague). See R.O. at 22. Sarasota County Exception No. 15 is essentially a reiteration of proposed findings of fact which had been asserted before the Hearing Officer. Where the Hearing Officer clearly and specifically addressed and ruled on the proposed finding in the recommended order, I am not required to provide further reasons for my ruling. Britt v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 492 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), overruled on other grounds sub nom., Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1988). I concur with and adopt the Hearing Officer's rulings as being based on competent, substantial evidence, and therefore reject the exception. Sarasota County Exception No. 16 asks me to make specific findings with regard to cumulative impacts. The matter ofwhether the proposed project will have any significant adverse secondary or cumulative impacts was a disputed issue at the hearing. See Prehearing Stipulation at 24, Stipulated Disputed issue VI(A)9. Section 403. 919, Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the cumulative impacts of the project in conjunction with other existing or future projects where there is a "reasonable likelihood" of similar project applications in the same geographic location in the future. Caloosa Property Owners Ass'n v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Reasonable expectation of future projects is the polestar of cumulative impact analysis. Chipola Basin Protective Group v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 11 F.A.L.R. 467, 477 (D.E.R. December 29, 1988). Testimony at the hearing showed that the Department conducted an evaluation of the project for cumulative impacts and was unable to identify any such impacts. Wilber PF-30, TR-949-950; Armstrong TR-1021-1022. A finding that the Department conducted a cumulative impact analysis and concluded that it was unable to identify any cumulative impact was proposed by Sarasota County in its Proposed Recommended Order, paras. 118 and 119. - These findings were accepted by the Hearing Officer (R.O. at 22). Therefore, the requested findings of fact have already been made by the Hearing Officer, and no additional finding is required of me. The exception is therefore rejected. MPS Exception No. 18 asks me to adopt numerous proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer expressly rejected. The Hearing Officer expressly ruled on each of these proposed findings of fact. (Recommended Order at 23-24) Where exceptions merely reiterate proposed findings of fact which had been asserted before the Hearing Officer, and where the Hearing Officer clearly and specifically addressed each in the recommended order, I am not required to provide any further explicit reasons for my ruling. Britt v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, supra. I concur with and adopt the Hearing Officer's rulings on these proposed findings of fact. I therefore reject the above exceptions. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Public Interest Test Sarasota County's Exception To Conclusion of Law No. 2, and MPS Exception No. 20 take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that "the County has failed to establish that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest." Conclusion of Law No. 6, R.O. at 15-16. As I noted in my earlier discussion on findings of fact, in order to obtain a permit to dredge and fill in an Outstanding Florida Water, the applicant must show, among other things, that the project is clearly in the public interest. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Failure of the applicant to make that showing makes the project not permittable. In order to determine whether the project is clearly in the public interest, the Department must consider and balance the following seven factors set forth in Section 403.918(2)(a): Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. In order to consider and balance these factors it is necessary, of course, to make sufficient findings of fact as to each factor. As I discussed above, the Hearing Officer had accepted or expressly made findings of fact relevant to each of the above factors. in Conclusion of Law No. 6, she considered and balanced those factors in reaching her determination that it was not shown that the project is clearly in the public interest. I am, of course, not bound by the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law. I am free to substitute my own legal conclusions for those of the Hearing Officer, so long as competent, substantial evidence supports my legal conclusions. Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 16 FLW D458 (Fla. 2d DCA, Feb. 20, 1991); Hunter v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); MacPherson v. School Board of Monroe County, 505 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Section 120.57(1) (b)lO., Florida Statutes. I have considered and balanced each of the seven criteria set forth in Section 403.918(2) (a) in the light of the findings of fact discussed above. I concur in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that it has not been demonstrated that the project is clearly in the public interest. In reaching my conclusion I am aware of the holding in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) that no net public benefit need be shown. I conclude that Findings of Fact Nos. 17, 22, 24-26, 29 and 32-35 on balance establish that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Findings of Fact 32 and 33 on balance show that the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in LSB. Findings 30 and 38 on balance sfrthat the current conditiofr of LSB makes it a valuable estuarine ecosystem which will be lost if the project is permitted. Finding of Fact 36 and MPS proposed findings of fact Nos. 134 and 135, which were accepted by the Hearing Officer, on balance show a net benefit to navigation. And, the Hearing Officer's acceptance of Sarasota County's proposed finding of fact No. 50, and MPS's proposed finding of fact No. 74, allow me to conclude that the project will not adversely affect the public health, welfare or safety. I note that there is abundant proof that the project is permanent in nature and that there will be no adverse affect on historical or archaeological resources. When I consider and balance all of these factors and their relevant facts, I conclude that the adverse impacts outweigh any benefits, and therefore donclude that there has been no showing that the project is clearly in the public interest. Since I have determined that it has not been shown that the project is clearly in the public interest, I must also consider any mitigation which Sarasota County has proposed. Sarasota County and MPS contend that no mitigation is needed for the loss of ten acres of seagrasses because reopening the pass will result in recolonization of new areas of seagrass, greater density of growth in existing areas, and greater diversity of seagrass species. Even when I assume that Sarasota County's and MPS cotentions are true, I still conclude that the adverse effects of the loss of ten acres of seagrass will not be mitigated by the proposed project. 6/ Accordingly, I reject the exceptions. Water Quality Improvement Sarasota County Exception To Conclusion of Law No. 1, and MPS Exception No. 19, challenge the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law No. 4. Specifically, the exceptions challenge the statement that "[t]he County has not established, however, that the reopening of the inlet will somehow improve water quality and justify the proposed dredging." Conclusion of Law No. 1, R.O. at 14. To the extent that the Hearing Officer may have thought that a showing of improvement in water quality was a requirement for obtaining a permit, she erred. However, for the reasons set forth in my previous discussion of water quality in relation to findings of fact, Sarasota County and MPS had made improvement in water quality an issue in determining whether the project was clearly in the public interest. Rather than erroneously imposing a requirement of improvement of water quality, it appears that the Hearing Officer was merely making a predicite observation prior to conducting the public interest balancing test. Regardless of how one interprets the above matter, it is clear that the issue does not affect the outcome of this case because both the Hearing Officer and I have concluded that there has been no showing that the project is clearly in the public interest. I therefore reject the exception on the basis that the conclusion of law is not erroneous, or if error, then it is harmless error. Having ruled on all of the exceptions it is ORDERED: Except as is otherwise stated in this Final Order, the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Sarasota County's Permit Application No. 581473069 is DENIED. NOTICE OF RIGHTS Any party to this Final Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Order is filed with the clerk of the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation CAROL BROWNER Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL. 32399-2400
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by Sarasota County. DONE and ENTERED this 19 day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-3533 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant, speculative or immaterial to the issues of this case. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 through 29 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is accepted with the deletion of the quotation marks around the word monitor and with the deletion of the last phrase following the words "survival rate" which is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant or not supported by the record. Paragraphs 32 through 36 are accepted. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 38 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 42 through 44 are accepted. Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraphs 46 through 48 are accepted. Paragraphs 49 through 53 are rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues, comment, repetitive, or argumentative. Paragraphs 54 through 62 are accepted. Paragraph 63 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 68 through 73 are accepted.
The Issue The issue here concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner, Hernstadt Broadcasting Corporation to be granted certain environmental permits from the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, which would allow the Petitioner to construct a radio transmitter tower and access dock within the Biscayne Bay which is located in Dade County Florida. 1/
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action, Hernstadt Broadcasting Corporation, owns and operates radio station WKAT, which is located in Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to pursue this enterprise. On April 30, 1980, the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation received an application from the Petitioner, which application requested permission to construct a radio transmitter tower and access dock in Biscayne Bay, Dade County, Florida. (The tower end dock are part of a proposed station complex in which the radio station building is to be constructed upland from the Bay.) The project, if allowed, would be located off the north side of the Julia Tuttle Causeway which connects the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach via the Biscayne Bay. The tower and access dock, if constructed, would be located in submerged lands owned by the State of Florida. In view of the location of this apparatus in Biscayne Bay, it would be subject to the provisions of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act found in Chapter 258, Florida Statutes, together with other provisions of statute and rule. To place the access dock in the Bay, the Petitioner proposes to drive pilings into the Bay bottom to support the access dock which is 200 feet long and four (4) feet wide. The support mechanism for the radio tower would also be constructed by the driving of pilings into the Bay bottom and the radio transmitting tower, once built, would be 400 feet tall and would have attached stabilizing guy wires connected to anchors driven into the Bay bottom. As the pilings are driven into the floor of the Bay, the displaced soils will be compressed into lower elevations or redistributed against the pilings. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15, admitted into evidence, is a copy of the original application for permit, which was modified by site plans and sketches depicted in Respondent's Exhibit No. 16, admitted into evidence, shortening certain dimensions related to the access dock. (These modifications came about subsequent to the Department of Environmental Regulation's permit application appraisal found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, which is dated June 23, 1980.) After review of the project, in the face of the aforementioned modifications, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a letter of intent to deny the permit request. This letter of intent was dated September 9, 1980, a copy of which may be found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, admitted into evidence. The authority stated for such denial are these provisions of Subsection 258.165(3)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), and Rule 17-4.242(1), Florida Administrative Code. Subsequent to the issuance of the letter of intent to deny, a further modification was made on the project increasing the length of the proposed access dock to the presently requested 200 feet. This modification is depicted in petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, admitted into evidence, which shows site plans and other pertinent information related to the project. Another modification to the project which the Petitioner claims is not subject to permit review by the Department of Environmental Regulation, and for which the Department of Environmental Regulation takes a contrary point of view, concerns the use of a grid of nickel-plated copper straps, approximately 40 feet by 40 feet, constituted of a mesh of approximately 1/4 inch in diameter by 1 inch sections to be placed underneath the tower and on the Bay bottom for purposes of grounding the tower. This item was not made known to the Respondent until September 30, 1980, at a time subsequent to the letter of intent to deny. The Petitioner in this action pursues the project on the basis of a joint use agreement entered into with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, in which the Department of Transportation, in return for the ability to use the radio tower for communications in connection with a surveillance and traffic control system for Interstate Highway-95 and for the ability of the City of Miami, Florida, to use the facility for a tactical communication repeater installation, would grant to the Petitioner the Department of Transportation's rights and opportunities as easement holder in the area where the subject project would be constructed. See Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. The Department of Transportation's rights stem from an easement grant from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13, admitted into evidence. The rights of the Petitioner, by assignment from the Department of Transportation, do not relieve Petitioner of the obligation to gain the necessary approval of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund in the person of the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for permission to use those submerged lands over which the access walkway and tower would be constructed, notwithstanding any rights and privileges assigned to the Petitioner by the Department of Transportation as easement from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. This is true because the perpetual easement granted from the Trustees to the Department of Transportation for right-of-way and dredging purposes related to the roadway which is constituted of the Julia Tuttle Causeway and to the adjacent Bay bottoms related to construction and maintenance of that roadway, does not envision assignment of the submerged lands to an entity in the position of the Petitioner, which entity does not have as its purpose the construction or maintenance of the roadway; hence, the necessity to gain permission from the Department of Natural Resources if the access dock and tower are to be constructed on the submerged land of the State. The easement held by the Department of Transportation is specific in nature and does not contemplate the construction of a radio station. (It is not necessary to comment on the question of whether a joint use agreement between the Department of Transportation and Hernstadt as that Department's assignee for rights and privileges bestowed upon the Department from the Trustees based on the easement rights granted on October 2, 1941, would allow the construction of the building of the radio station building which would be at the upland terminus of the access dock which also adjoins the radio tower, the Department of Environmental Regulation having offered no claim for permitting jurisdiction over the radio station building.) The Petitioner proposes to move its radio station from the existing location in Miami Beach because buildings in the general area of the radio station interfere with the radio signal and, in addition, there is interference caused by radio transmissions from Cuba. The terms of the license held by Petitioner on issuance from the Federal Communications Commission limit the movement of the station's transmitter tower to a location no more than four (4) miles from the current location. At the time of the hearing, the Petitioner had not located an alternative tower site, other than the proposed site. As stated before, if the tower were constructed, the State of Florida, Department of Transportation would utilize the tower in its communications network and the City of Miami Fire and Police Departments would likewise desire to use the tower. The Florida Marine Patrol and the Florida Highway Patrol would also be interested in using the proposed tower for communications purposes. The City of Miami Planning and Advisory Board and the City Commission of that municipality would be in favor of the construction of the proposed radio tower. Dade County, Florida, has adopted a Comprehensive Master Plan, copies of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. Within that document is a discussion of environmental concerns within the county to include Biscayne Bay and, in particular, concern for protection of environmentally sensitive areas such as Biscayne Bay and an interest by the County to provide a wide range of public water oriented opportunities for the populace. Subsequent to the time of the submission of the permit application, and specifically, in October, 1980, Dade County, through its Metropolitan Planning Department and in conjunction with the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management Department prepared a proposed Biscayne Bay Management Plan, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence. This plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, by an Ordinance, a copy of which may be found as the Respondent's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence. The Biscayne Bay Management Plan encourages the enhancement of public access to the Bay for uses such as fishing, boating, shoreline wading and view in and the preservation and enhancement of the environmental, chemical and aesthetic qualities of the Bay. Furthermore, if the necessary permission could be obtained, Dade County, has future plans to use the subject Julia Tuttle Causeway as a public access to the Bay. The location of the radio tower and associated facilities would interfere with the proposed use by Dade County. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in keeping with Section 403.0615, Florida Statutes, 2/ through a program in conjunction with Dade County is attempting the restoration of the biological and chemical characteristics of the Biscayne Bay. Some of the items included in this program would be enhancement of aquatic vegetation, including seagrasses and mangroves and the promotion of aesthetics and public access to Biscayne Bay, to include the area of the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Radio station WKAT presents public service programs; is a part of the Emergency Broadcasting System and broadcasts emergency information in times of natural disaster. On the question of environmental implications of this project, the placement of the pilings would cause the destruction of certain seagrasses in that area, while at the same time promoting the introduction of marine life along the surfaces of the tower and dock supports. Seagrasses in the area where the grounding system would be placed may be destroyed and although the copper to be used would be nickel plated, thereby inhibiting the release of the toxic properties of the coated copper, eventually the nickel plating would break down and the marine life communities adjacent to the mesh would be harmed by the copper. The loss of seagrasses under the grid could cause a reduction in fish population. The installation of the radio tower and access dock in the Biscayne Bay is an impediment to navigation; however, the Petitioner intends to place channel markers to divert boat traffic away from the tower and its environs. There is no expected difficulty with run-off, discharges or other forms of pollution related to the construction or operation of the tower facility, although there will be some turbidity caused in the construction phases of the project. The project would be located in a State Aquatic Preserve within the meaning of Chapter 258, Florida Statutes; would be located in waters of the State within the meaning of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes; would be in navigable water within the meaning of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, end would be in an Outstanding Florida Water within the meaning of Rule 17-4.242(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The 626-acre site of the proposed Riverbay development is currently undeveloped land located in Manatee County in the western portion of the City of Bradenton. Specifically, the property lies in Sections 22, 24, and 26. Township 34 South, Range 16 East, Manatee County. The site is owned entirely by Boyd, with the exception of the northern portion for which Boyd has a valid option to purchase. Tampa Bay lies to the north of the site and Perico Bayou lies to the west. Both are natural Class III water bodies. Boyd proposes to develop approximately 325 acres of the site primarily as residential, with an 18-hole golf course and recreational facilities, a commercial/professional area, lakes and attendant streets. The remainder of the site, approximately 300 acres, will be retained as a natural mangrove preserve pursuant to a conservation easement to be executed by Boyd upon receipt of the permit sought in these proceedings. The proposed project has been approved by Manatee County as a planned development residential district with a maximum total number of units not to exceed 957. The Riverbay site has been disturbed by human activity and has been subject to numerous alterations, including extensive mosquito control ditching, dirt roads, borrow pits and a perimeter dike with culverts and flapgates. The government- approved mosquito control ditches resulted in overdrainage of freshwater from adjacent uplands and allowed the incursion of saltwater into the uplands. In order to facilitate and enhance agricultural utilization of the site, and to protect the land from unusually high waters from the Bay, the perimeter dike was constructed with culverts and flapgates in the early 1970's. This dike and other internal drainage systems were designed to reduced interstitial soil salinity so that the land could be utilized for agricultural purposes. The primary site of concern in this proceeding is a sandy area located south of the northern mangrove area and separated from that area by the perimeter dike. Prior to the construction of that dike, the area was inundated by high tides. Since construction of the dike, inundation of the sandy area by marine waters has been limited to unusual storm surges that overtopped the dike or to those occasions when the flapgates required maintenance or adjustment. Over the years following the dike construction, the sandy area has been intermittently planted with grasses, mowed, disked and, when agricultural activities were temporarily reduced in that area, overtaken with some exotic vegetation and other weedy species. The salt tolerant vegetation in the sandy area is currently patchily distributed, and the area has basically little or no productivity in its present state. This is primarily due to the lack of tidal inundation and tidal exchange, which renders the sandy area minimally valuable as habitat for either terrestrial or aquatic organisms. Functioning salt marsh flats, also referred to as salt pans, salterns, salt barrens of salt flat wetlands, constitute an integral part of the life cycles of some fishes, such as snook, mullet and ladyfish. Juvenile fish rely upon these areas for food and protection during this early period of development. High, shallow salt marsh areas are also utilized for feeding purposes by wading birds and shore birds, such as the great egret, white ibis, tricolor heron, green heron and wood stork. While the salt fish flat area on the Boyd site could have value for fish and wildlife if it were returned to tidal influence, its is not currently a productive area from wither a fisheries or wildlife standpoint. Fiddler crab burrows were observed on the site, but these were found mainly around the ditches or existing culverts. The existing site is not conducive in its present state to the feeding, nesting or resting or rare, threatened or endangered species. The original DER jurisdictional determination was performed on the Riverbay site in May of 1983, and resulted in an inclusion of approximately 46 acres, some 35 or which were situated in the sandy area in the northern part of the property. This determination was validated in May of 1985. In the Spring of 1984, Boyd entered into discussions with the DER prior to filing its dredge and fill permit application, and a mutually acceptable site plan and mitigation package was developed. Boyd then submitted its application in February of 1985. After a hearing was requested, DER revisited its prior jurisdictional determination and concluded that it was in need of revision. Utilizing the jurisdictional criteria which existed prior to October 1, 1984, DER reduced the extent of its jurisdictional determination by including only about 16.5 acres of the sandy area, and again noticed its intent to issue the requested permit. At the time DER performed its new jurisdictional, it was its policy to utilize the pre-Henderson vegetation listing to determine jurisdictional wetlands when a grandfathered applicant with a validated jurisdictional line timely requested a reevaluation of that line. The mitigation plan originally proposed by Boyd was not altered as a result of the reduction of impacted jurisdictional acreage to 16.5 acres. The project as proposed by Boyd includes the filling of 16.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands located in the sandy area discussed above. In mitigation, Boyd proposes to create approximately 17 acres of wetlands from natural uplands located adjacent to undisturbed wetlands in the western portion of the property. Of these 17 acres, 1 1/2 to 5 acres are proposed for a saltern of salt pan habitat. The creation of a salt pan is experimental, but several experts attested to a high probability of success once proper elevations for vegetative plantings are determined. The remainder of the 17 acres of wetlands creation will be graded to the proper elevations, allowed to be inundated with tides and vegetated either naturally with mangroves or will be supplemented with hand plantings. The mitigation plan proposed by Boyd also includes some engineering measures to improve flushing in the northern mangrove area, which was found to be somewhat stressed, a surface water management plan which meets relevant criteria and a perpetual conservation easement to the DER of approximately 300 acres of mangrove areas on the northern and western boundaries of the property. This mangrove fringe will serve as a buffer between the open waters of Tampa Bay and Perico Bayou and the project site. Due to the existence of the perimeter dike, the area to be filled is isolated from Tampa Bay and the adjacent mangroves. The culverts can be sealed during construction to retain all fill materials and turbidity will be controlled. The stormwater system for the project site has received the approval of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and complies with the design and performance criteria set forth in Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. In its final configuration, the proposed project will contain various freshwater wetlands located landward of the perimeter dike. These include three existing borrow pits and the proposed stormwater retention ponds. These water bodies, as well as the attendant littoral zones surrounding them, will serve as habitat for aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Boyd will utilize state-of-the-art preserved pilings for any wooden structures located in jurisdictional wetlands. Such pilings will be treated in a manner that both prevents deterioration and prohibits the leeching of compounds into the water. At present, DER has no promulgated rule concerning mitigation for dredge and fill projects. Its policy is to review all projects on a case-by-case basis to determine the acceptability of the mitigation package offered by an applicant. DER's goal is to replace the environment with the same benefits to be lost from a particular wetland. DER has no established ratio between the extent of the mitigated area and the area to be filled. The area ultimately accepted in mitigation is dependent upon the existing condition of the area to be filled, in terms of its current form, function and vitality. As opposed to a "like- for-like" mitigation policy, it is DER's policy to review the similarity in form and function between the area to be lost and the area to be created or enhanced by the project. If the area to be lost or filled is stressed or damaged in its existing state, less mitigation is required. When evaluating a proposed dredge and fill project, it is DER's policy and practice to review the current situation on the site. If the site has been altered in a manner which did not require an environmental permit, DER looks at the land as it presently exists, for both jurisdictional purposes and to determine its form, function and viability for mitigation purposes. Neither flapgate maintenance nor mowing requires a DER permit. A DER official could not recall an instance when DER has required a permit for disking. Projects in the area surrounding the Boyd site present no adverse cumulative impacts in relation to the proposed Riverbay project. Indeed, the proposed conservation easement will serve to reduce the impact of this and similar projects on this site and adjacent, wetland areas. Manasota-88, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida as a charitable public interest non-profit corporation and has properly authorized this pending litigation pursuant to its charter and/or bylaws.
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 issue to be determined is whether Petitioner Cargor Partners VIII – Long Bar Pointe, LLLP (“Cargor”) is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2017).
Findings Of Fact Notice On February 17, 2017, the attorney for Cargor sent Joseph McClash a letter on law firm stationary. In the first paragraph of the letter it states, “Please allow this letter to serve as notice of Cargor’s intent to seek relief pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (the “Statute”) against you, individually as qualified representative, and the named Petitioner.” Cargor sent an email to McClash on February 28, 2017, reminding McClash that “the 57.105 deadline is March 10, 2017.” McClash referred to a motion for attorney’s fees that he received on or about March 13, 2017, but the motion was not shown to the Administrative Law Judge nor introduced into evidence. On April 5, 2017, the same day that McClash voluntarily dismissed the petition for hearing in DOAH Case No. 17-0655, Cargor filed with DOAH its motion for attorney’s fees under section 57.105. Contested Claims The renewal of a FDOW is governed by section 373.421(2), Florida Statutes, which states in relevant part that the FDOW shall be renewed “as long as physical conditions on the property have not changed, other than changes which have been authorized by a permit pursuant to this part, so as to alter the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands.” If the boundaries of wetlands or other surface waters have been altered without a permit, the FDOW cannot be renewed and an application for a new FDOW is required. The SWFWMD reviewer explained in a letter requesting additional information from Cargor: Please be advised that letters of exemption do not qualify as permits issued under Part IV of chapter 373, F.S. and therefore if work has been done on the site that has altered the wetlands or other surface water boundaries in association with a letter of exemption, a new formal determination application will be required. McClash claims Cargor did not qualify for the renewal of its FDOW because Cargor altered the boundaries of surface waters or wetlands on its property after the 2011 FDOW was issued and the some of the alterations were made pursuant to letter of exemption. In its February 17, 2017, letter to McClash, Cargor set forth six grounds for Cargor’s contention that McClash’s petition for hearing should be withdrawn. The first three grounds were described in Cargor’s letter as follows: The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, which is the subject of this Proceeding, does not authorize any construction activity. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. There is no injury in fact and no one is in immediate danger of a direct injury from the issuance of the Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, as of the date and time of filing the Petition in this Proceeding. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented. The Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters, dated December 28, 2016, is not a permit, license, or authorization. Consequently, no standing to challenge is or could be properly presented by an association. These were issues of law and they were decided against Cargor in an Order dated February 28, 2017. The fourth and fifth grounds described in Cargor’s letter involve the central issue in the case: Changes in the land have been previously authorized by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”) pursuant to existing and final permits including (i) SWFWMD ERP No. 43040157.001, dated August 6, 2014, (ii) SWFWMD CONCEPTUAL ERP No. 49040157.002, dated September 4, 2015, (iii) SWFWMD ERP No. 4304157.003, dated March 31, 2016, and (iv) SWFWMD Notice of Qualification for Permanent Farming Exemption, dated August 30, 2016. Changes in the land are authorized by the identified permits and authorizations. All changes in the land have occurred pursuant to the identified permits and authorizations. Allegations to the contrary are simply false and are not supported by material facts. In 2015, Cargor was issued a “Conceptual ERP” permit, which describes, among other things, planned modifications to some agricultural ditches. However, the conceptual permit does not allow the commencement of construction activities. On August 30, 2016, SWFWMD issued to Cargo a Permanent Farming Exemption, pursuant to section 373.406(13), which authorized Cargor to excavate three agricultural ponds in uplands. In its application for the exemption, Cargor also proposed to modify some agricultural ditches. On March 31, 2017, SWFWMD issued Cargor an ERP Individual Construction Major Modification, which, among other things, authorized work in ditches. This permit was issued just before McClash’s voluntary dismissal and, therefore, could not have authorized the changes on Cargor’s property that McClash described in the petition for hearing. Before filing his petition, McClash consulted with a wetland scientist, Clark Hull, about the merits of McClash’s proposed challenge to the FDOW renewal. Hull gave McClash an affirmative response, but his input was speculative because it was based on assumptions and representations that Hull had not investigated. McClash consulted with another wetland scientist, Pamela Fetterman, who conducted an “aerial, desktop review of publically available Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data.” Fetterman described her initial review as an evaluation of potential undelineated wetlands and other surface waters. The Administrative Law Judge ruled that the delineation approved by the 2011 FDOW became final and could not be challenged by McClash. McClash then asked Fetterman to review changes in physical conditions on the property that occurred after the FDOW was issued. Fetterman produced a report (McClash Exhibit R-6), in which she opined that the changes to physical conditions on Cargor’s property “have a high likelihood of affecting the previously delineated landward extent of wetlands and other surface waters.” She stated further: [C]hanges in physical conditions of the property took place prior to issuance of the [FDOW renewal] as purported “exempt agricultural activities”, and include ditch dredging alterations to delineated other surface waters. . . . A Permanent Farming Request for Exemption Confirmation letter was applied for on August 23, 2016 for construction of these ponds and modification of existing ditches, some of which were determined to be jurisdictional other surface waters by the subsequently re-issued [FDOW]. At the final hearing on fees, neither McClash nor Cargor made clear to the Administrative Law Judge: (1) the physical changes to the property that were alleged to be authorized by permit, (2) the physical changes that were alleged to be authorized by exemption, or (3) any physical changes that were alleged to be unauthorized. The sixth ground described in Cargor’s letter is as follows: The picture attached to the Petition as set forth in Paragraph 9, and the stop work allegation set forth in Paragraph 10 are irrelevant and have no factual relationship to any issue in the proceeding. Since any changes in the land have occurred pursuant to identified permits and authorizations, the allegations are simply false and/or intentionally misleading. It is not a basis for an award of attorney’s fees under section 57.105 that an irrelevant photograph was included in a petition for hearing. Moreover, the aerial photograph in McClash’s petition was relevant in this case because it showed the physical conditions of Cargor’s property. In the petition, McClash states that Manatee County issued a stop work order on November 16, 2016, for construction activities commenced on Cargor’s property without a County- approved erosion control plan. This allegation also pertained to physical changes to the property. All evidence about physical changes was relevant in determining whether Cargor was entitled to renewal of the FDOW. Fees Cargor claims fees based on 48.4 hours of attorney time (Edward Vogler) at an hourly rate of $410, and 3.6 hours of attorney time (Kimberly Ashton) at an hourly rate of $385, for a total of $21,230.00. The fees Cargor is seeking include the hours spent on legal issues raised by Cargor that were rejected by the Administrative Law Judge. These fees amount to at least $1,025. See Cargor Exhibit 1, Invoice entries for February 20, 2017. Cargor’s attorney testified that the fees are reasonable. Cargor did not call an expert witness to corroborate the reasonableness of the hourly rate and the reasonableness of the hours expended.
The Issue Is the City of Mexico Beach (the City or Applicant) entitled to the issuance of a joint coastal permit and consent to use of sovereign submerged land for the Mexico Beach Canal (Main Canal) and a municipal flushing outlet adjacent to 8th Street (8th Street outlet)? Those permits would be issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in response to DEP Application File No.: 0124938-001JC and DEP Application File No.: 0129039- 001JC, respectively.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Edmond Blount, Sr.; Edmond Blount, Jr.; and Robert Davenport are residents of the City of Mexico Beach, Florida. As residents they have access to the Main Canal, the public beaches adjacent to the Main Canal, and beaches adjacent to the 8th Street outlet. Edmond Blount, Jr., and Robert Davenport oppose the issuance of any permits by DEP which would allow the City to conduct dredging and the placement of dredge materials associated with the Main Canal. Those Petitioners and Edmond Blount, Sr., oppose the grant of necessary permits by DEP upon the application by the City to conduct occasional maintenance excavation at the 8th Street outlet to alleviate potential damage through erosion to properties adjacent to the 8th Street outlet. The City of Mexico Beach is a municipality in Florida which serves as the local government for that community. The City owns the Main Canal and 8th Street outlet. DEP is an environmental regulator with authority to issue or deny joint coastal permits and to grant or deny consent to use sovereign submerged lands belonging to the State of Florida. The joint coastal permitting authority and right to grant consent to use is pursuant to Chapters 161, 253, and 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 18-21 and 62B-49, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, DEP has joint coastal permitting authority upon sovereignty lands in the State of Florida below the mean high waterline (MHWL) of any tidal water of the State. The reference to sovereign land is an association with lands below MHWL held in trust by the State of Florida. The term tidal waters refers to waters in which there is an astronomical effect on the elevation of that water. The Gulf of Mexico which fronts the City is a tidal water of the State of Florida. The MHWL is established along the coastal regions in Florida, to include the Gulf coast that fronts the City. The MHWL is set based upon charting information concerning the local mean high tide, the average height of the high waters, and where this average intersects the land. PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MAIN CANAL On June 30, 1997, the City applied to DEP for a ten-year permit/water quality certification and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (the Trustees), which would allow the City to maintenance dredge the Main Canal entrance and place the dredge material on the beach east of the canal below the water's edge. This task would be accomplished by the use of hydraulic dredging device. In the course of these activities, approximately 660 cubic yards of material would be removed approximately four times a week. The application file number for the requested permit in the Main Canal project was: 0124938-001 JC. The City, through its application, provided a complete and appropriate application with adequate engineering data to support the proposed project. The Main Canal is located in the western part of the City and is partially located in sovereign submerged lands of the State of Florida where the canal intersects the Gulf of Mexico below the MHWL. On January 13, 1998, DEP gave notice of its intent to issue necessary permits for the activities to allow dredging and the placement of fill in association with the Main Canal. More specifically, the hydraulic dredge the City intends to use in the maintenance dredging of the Main Canal is a floating device which excavates the sand from the bottom of the entrance of the Main Canal and pipes the material onto the beach immediately east of the dredge site. The dredging activities may only be conducted in a manner designed to protect the beach-dune system, water quality and habitat for marine turtles. These restrictions in the conduct of the dredging are in accordance with the proposed joint coastal permit. The dredging activity is to remove and deposit clean beach sand that has been transported by coastal processes and deposited in the lee of the jetty within the Main Canal. There is no intent, nor permission under the proposed permit, that would allow disturbance of any sediments more landward of the extent of the canal. The dredging is necessitated because the entrance of the Main Canal slowly fills with sand being transported from west to east along the shoreline. The Main Canal is stabilized on both sides by jetties. The western-most jetty extends further out than the eastern-most jetty. The Main Canal has seawalls along its inside. A recreational area is located on the western side of the Main Canal. The Main Canal is highly utilized for purposes of commerce and recreation. The Main Canal constitutes an economic support for many residents of the City. The Main Canal in proximity to the Gulf and the Gulf itself are not considered outstanding Florida waters or aquatic preserves. The waters in the Main Canal and Gulf are Class III marine waters when considering the parameters for water quality under DEP statutes and rules. Competent evidence was presented concerning water quality sampling and results in the analysis of those samples for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria in relation to the Main Canal at its entrance where dredging would take place under the terms of the permit. Some values for fecal coliform and total coliform exceeded the allowable limits for those parameters as envisioned by Section 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, as preexisting conditions. However, the dredge operations will not lead to further degradation of the existing Class III marine waters in the Main Canal and degradation of the Gulf. The relatively clean sand being excavated does not contain fines or organics, which, through the dredging and placement of the sand on the beach following the dredging, would contribute to degradation of water quality standards. The activity associated with the dredging and placement of those materials on the beach will not cause a significant adverse impact to the beach-dune system, nor will the transport of sand from west to east along the beach as it presently exists be interrupted by the dredging and placement of the sand. The dredged material is being placed immediately east of the dredge operation avoiding a disruption of the natural processes of transport. The proposed disposal area is located on the beach at least 100 feet east of the canal below the waters edge at approximately minus 0.5NGVD. Finally, the deposit of the sand on the beach contributes to beach stabilization as opposed to depriving the beach of sand. The proposed permit requires that the dredge pipeline be retracted upon a daily basis during marine turtle nesting season from May 1 until October 31 each year. By this limitation in the operation of the dredge pipeline, marine turtles are not hindered in their behavior nor is their habitat unduly disturbed. The placement of the dredged sand on the beach would not be in the dry upland where the turtles would typically nest. The DEP Bureau of Protected Species Management reviewed the permit application for any significant adverse impact on nesting sea turtles and recommends the approval subject to specific conditions such as have been described. The dredging of the sand from the Main Canal and placement of that material on the beach will not cause significant adverse impact to the property of others. The Main Canal project will not create any significant erosion or turbidity. Given the small volume and coarseness of the dredged sand, elevated turbidity levels are not expected. The dredging of material from the mouth of the Main Canal and placement on the adjacent beach does not block lateral access to the beach, because the hydraulic dredge pipeline is placed at the water's edge with a discharge of dredge material being made at the water's edge in the area of the intertidal zone where water comes up to the beach. The exact discharge point is seaward of the area described as the intertidal zone. Given that the project associated with the Main Canal is located in Class III marine waters, it must not be contrary to the public interest. The project is not contrary to the public interest. PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 8TH STREET OUTLET On June 13, 1997, the City applied to DEP for a ten- year permit/water quality certification and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees. This would allow the City to conduct occasional excavation of the 8th Street municipal flushing outlet which connects to the Gulf, having in mind the alleviation of potential damage to adjacent beachfront properties. That potential damage would be expected to occur in the instance where there was an uncontrolled breach of the berm surrounding the 8th Street outlet due to high incidence of rainfall, thus eroding adjacent beachfront properties. With the advent of scheduled maintenance, excavation of the outlet that erosion is expected to be deterred. The application file number for the requested permit in the 8th Street outlet project was File No.: 0129039-001 JC. The City, in its application for necessary permits to conduct excavation at the 8th Street outlet, submitted a complete and appropriate application setting forth adequate engineering details. More specifically, the permit application contemplates the removal of approximately 20 to 40 yards of beach sand per excavation, with the material excavated being placed on the beach near the water's edge. The excavation would be approximately 4 to 5 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 2 to 3 feet deep. Ordinarily, the frequency of excavation would be one to two times per month. The excavation practices would be by the use of a backhoe other than in the sea turtle nesting season. While sea turtles are nesting, the plans contemplate excavation by hand by use of a shovel or similar tool. In addition, during the turtle nesting season the application contemplates that the excavation would be done during daylight hours, only twice a month, to reduce potential flooding of marine turtle nests due to a meandering outflow from the outlet. Other than in the marine turtle nesting season the excavation would be done on an "as needed" basis. On March 16, 1998, the DEP gave notice of its intent to issue a permit for the dredging at the 8th Street outlet. The conditions associated with the intended permit for dredging of the 8th Street outlet deter any significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system. In the area of the 8th Street outlet, a large box culvert runs underneath U.S. 98, the main highway in the city. That highway runs parallel to the beach. Once the water flows through the culvert, it accumulates in the outlet south of the road. In the instance where rainfall is diminished, the flushing outlet does not flow to the Gulf and the beach berm, which accretes seaward of the outlet, traps the water that is being released via the culvert. By contrast, in instances where heavy rainfall occurs, the water in the outlet collects to a point that it begins to flow away from the culvert in the direction of the Gulf. If the beach berm has built up over time, the path of that flow in high incidence of rainfall can encroach on buildings that are adjacent to the culvert on the south side of U.S. 98. When the rainfall is sufficient, and the water begins to flow, it reaches a sufficient velocity to move sand as a bed load. Under those circumstances, when the water strikes a ridged object, like a house foundation, the local water velocity will act to carry away the sand more readily from that location where the house foundation is found, by scouring out the sand near the foundation, undermining the building and risking the collapse of the building onto the beach. In the course of this process the water breaches the beach berm and flows towards the Gulf. In the instance where the berm on the beach has been breached, the water that has been released begins to scour the beach and establish a pattern that can run down the beach roughly parallel to the Gulf for a distance before flowing into the Gulf. By contrast, the controlled release of water from the outlet would cause less of an impact, in that it would create an immediate access through the beach berm to the Gulf without creating the potential for harm to upland property or causing erosion or scouring of dunes and vegetation in beach areas, some of which might contain turtle nests. Unlike the circumstances with high incidence of rainfall where adjacent property is eroded and damaged, the use of controlled maintenance excavation to relieve the outlet would not cause significant and adverse impact to adjacent property owners. The controlled release of the water in the outlet, unlike the natural release of that water in high incidence of rainfall, is more in the interest of the public when considering adverse impacts to property. The introduction of the water in the outlet, and its constituents, onto the beach and its consequences, is no more a problem whether based upon the natural event of high incidence of rainfall or the routine release contemplated by the project. Therefore, the alternative method of releasing the water by use of scheduled excavation is not contrary to the public interest. If anything, the use of periodic excavation to relieve the outlet would limit the breadth of discharge and the amount of discharge. The 8th Street outlet and the Gulf area adjacent to that outlet are not within outstanding Florida waters or aquatic preserves. The project site for the 8th Street outlet and the Gulf are within Class III marine waters. The existing Class III marine water quality parameters for fecal coliform and total coliform when considered in accordance with Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, have been exceeded in the 8th Street outlet. This is borne out by test results from samples gathered at the 8th Street outlet presented at hearing. However, as with the circumstance with the Main Canal, the effect of periodic excavation to relieve the outlet will not further degrade state waters found in the outlet. The results of water quality tests performed following sampling that relate to the amount of fecal coliform and total coliform in the Gulf that could be expected at the entrance of the Main Canal and as the discharge of water within the 8th Street outlet enters the Gulf show low values for those parameters. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the release of the water from the 8th Street outlet to the Gulf under controlled conditions contemplated by the permit application would cause a violation of the parameters for fecal coliform and total coliform in the Gulf, the receiving body of water, especially when compared to the existing release of water from the 8th Street outlet to the Gulf in high incidence of rainfall. This finding is also influenced by the fact that the most excessive values for total coliform and fecal coliform in the 8th Street outlet system were found 600 to 800 feet up the water course described as the 8th Street outlet. Similar to the Main Canal, the project contemplated at the 8th Street outlet would not require mitigation before being permitted by DEP. The 8th Street outlet project would not create significant adverse impacts on coastal sediment transport. The DEP Bureau of Protective Species Management reviewed the 8th Street outlet application and recommended approval with specific conditions. Those conditions offer adequate protection to marine turtles and their habitat. The conditions include project excavation that does not create parallel trenches in the sand that inhibit movement on the beach by sea turtles. The 8th Street outlet project will not create significant erosion concerns or turbidity concerns. The 8th Street outlet project does not block lateral beach access to the public, in that the excavation to relieve the outlet on a periodic basis is temporary, that is to say only in effect when the water is being released from the outlet to the Gulf. CONSENT TO USE SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS The 8th Street outlet project, as well as the Main Canal project, involves sovereignty submerged lands below the MHWL constituted of the beach and ocean bottom. The facts show that the City is entitled to consent of use to work on sovereign submerged lands in the Main Canal and 8th Street outlet projects.
Recommendation Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That DEP issue a final order granting the City the joint coastal permits and consent to use sovereign submerged lands in accordance with application File Nos.: 0124938-001JC and 0129039-001JC respectively, subject to specific conditions contained therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Edmond Blount, Sr. Post Office Box 13855 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Edmond Blount, Jr. Post Office Box 13854 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Robert Davenport Post Office Box 13926 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Gerard Murnan Post Office Box 13378 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Paul G. Komarek, Esquire Daniel and Komarek, Chartered Post Office Box 2547 Panama City, Florida 32402 Ricardo Muratti, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John McInnis, City Manager City of Mexico Beach Post Office Box 13425 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues in this proceeding involve whether the Respondent, St. Joe Paper Company ("St. Joe"), is entitled to a "dredge and fill permit" authorizing it to construct a marina for recreational boats, containing 84 boat slips, along the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. Embodied within that general consideration are issues involving whether St. Joe, in the construction and operation of the marina, can comply with water-quality parameters embodied in Chapter 17- 3, Florida Administrative Code, for Class III waters of the State, Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, as well as the public interest standards of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, and the standard concerning "cumulative impact" embodied in Section 403.919, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, St. Joe, seeks to construct and operate a recreational boat marina, consisting of a single, main pier, 12 feet wide and extending some 850 feet waterward in a westerly direction from the shoreline of the east bank of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. The main pier will join a terminal pier extending approximately 575 feet in a general north/south direction parallel to the shoreline of the St. Johns River, perpendicular to and abutting the longer main pier. Extended in a landward or easterly direction from the terminal pier structure will be four (4) individual "finger piers" ranging from 119 to 305 feet in length. Located along the individual piers and along a portion of the main pier near the waterward end of it will be 84 slips for recreational-type boats. Additionally, a breakwater system will be suspended along the outer perimeter of the terminal pier and northernmost and southernmost individual piers in order to reduce wave action and its effect on boats in the interior of the marina. Additional details concerning the marina design and operation are contained in the findings of fact below. The Site The site of the proposed marina is on the eastern shore of the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. At that point, the St. Johns River is almost two miles wide, being approximately 10,000 feet from shoreline to shoreline. The proposed marina site encompasses approximately 1,100 linear feet of river bank frontage. All of the adjacent upland property is owned by St. Joe, and St. Joe owns extensive additional river frontage to the north and south of the marina site. The nearest properties not owned by St. Joe are located 3,500 feet to the north of the site and 1,500 feet to the south of the site. The site is located approximately two miles north of Hallowes Cove, a relatively pristine, diverse and productive marine habitat. The site is characterized, landward of the terminal end of the pier and waterward of the upland, by an unvegetated "near shore area or tidal zone" which extends approximately 50 feet from the mean high-water line of the river to the mean low-water line. Waterward of this zone and extending to a depth of approximately two feet is a system of grass beds, (vallisnerida), commonly known as "tape grass". The grass beds extend approximately 200 to 250 feet from the shoreline. Waterward of the grass beds is an unvegetated area with a gradual slope to a depth of approximately six feet. From the six-foot contour of the river bottom, a relatively precipitous slope begins, extending to depths which exceed 19 feet. In this zone, there are no grass beds. Further waterward and extending beyond the most waterward extent of the the marina site, the river bottom rises somewhat to depths of 13 feet, 12 feet and 11 feet, in the direction of the center of the river. The river bottom substrate in the area of the marina is composed primarily of sand. This includes some shell and other coarse materials, with minor amounts of silt. In fact, organic silt is a very small portion of the bottom sediments, consisting, at a depth of four and one-half feet, of less than 1% silt and at a depth of 15 feet of less than 6% silt content. The present water quality prevailing at the marina site is good, and the benthic habitat in the general area is healthy and diverse. The most landward boat slips proposed at the marina will be located at a distance of approximately 275 feet from the most waterward extent of the grass beds. These most landward slips will be located in depths of approximately eight feet. Access to the marina will be from the north and south in defined channels marked on the west by the end of the individual piers and on the east by channel markers located at the depth contour of minus six feet. That is, the six-foot depth will be the most shallow portion of the channel marked by the channel markers, so that boats will not be permitted to navigate the shallower portion landward of the channel markers insofar as the marina's enforcement program can insure that. The approximate width of the northern channel is 75 feet, and the width of the southern channel is 50 feet. Due to the precipitous drop in depth beyond the contour of minus six feet, the average depth of the channels is 10 to 12 feet. The majority of the boat slips, as well as the basin of the marina, will be located in depths of between 10 and 18 feet. The consultant and expert witness who designed the marina, Erik Olsen, established that the length of the main pier and the location of the most landward of the boat slips and the location of the channel markers are all part of a design and plan intended to insure that marina and boat activity within the marina occur well beyond the extant grass beds and waterward of depths of six feet, to insure that no damage to the grass bed habitat area is occasioned by propeller scouring, "prop-wash", or grounding of boats. Other design measures are also intended to preclude boaters from entering the shallow depths and grass bed areas. Two tiers of signs will be located between the marina basin and the most waterward extent of the grass beds. First, regulatory buoys and signs are proposed to be located at the contour of minus four feet and will establish a "manatee protection zone" landward of that contour. The evidence reveals, however, that a safer contour for the manatee protection zone boundary to be established by the applicant would dictate placing the regulatory warning signs concerning the manatee protection zone at the same contour, minus six feet of water, where the channel markers will be located. This is because the marina will serve boats of up to 4.5 feet in draught. Secondly, a tier of signs will be located approximately ten feet waterward of the most waterward extent of the grass beds warning boaters that aquatic grass beds exist landward of the signs and that prop dredging and boat operation is prohibited. Such warnings at the locations found above should be mandatory conditions to any grant of the permit. A specific, agreed-upon condition is already in the draft permit issued by the Department prescribing the size and lettering of these signs and other design details. A railing will extend, as proposed by the applicant, along the main pier between the slips and the shoreline to discourage boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the slips. The evidence establishes that in order to more adequately insure protection of the manatee habitat area and the grass beds, a mandatory condition in boat-slip rental leases should be inserted to absolutely prohibit boaters from mooring along the main pier, landward of the boat slips. Because of the currents and significant water depth prevailing at the marina site, the marina construction will require no dredging nor will operation and maintenance of the marina require any dredging on a continuing basis. Additionally, in the interest of protecting water quality, no fueling facilities or boat fueling will be permitted at the marina at all; and the grant of a permit should be mandatorily conditioned on this basis. Neither will any boat maintenance or repair be permitted at the marina, including no hauling of boats or scraping or painting of boat bottoms. This condition should be clearly pointed out to users of the marina by appropriate warning signs regarding the prohibition against boat maintenance and repair, including warnings concerning the proper methods of disposal of used oil and other petroleum products. The marina will feature pump-out facilities for boat heads and bilges. The pump-out facilities will consist of a central pumping system in which waste is removed from the boats, transported by pipeline to an upland, central waste water collection and treatment system. No holding tanks or other storage of wastes will be located at the piers. The pump-out facility will serve not only the boat heads but also boat bilges in order to prevent contaminants, such as oil and boat fuel from entering the State waters involved. The piers will feature trash collection containers of appropriate number, size and location on the piers so as to provide convenient trash disposal for each boat slip. The piers will also feature plastic modular dock boxes to preclude boaters from randomly storing materials and equipment on the piers. No fish cleaning will be permitted on the piers at all, but rather must be accomplished on the uplands, with disposal of related wastes in the upland collection system. A "no wake" zone will be established in an area extending 500 feet north and 500 feet south of the marina. The "no wake" zone will be marked pursuant to requirements of the Florida Marine Patrol. The marked "no wake" zone should also extend waterward of the farthest waterward extent of the marina, as well as 500 feet north and south of it. Only private, recreational boats will be moored at the marina. All commercial boats will be prohibited. The marina will serve a Yacht Club to be developed by St. Joe in conjunction with the marina. Only members of the Yacht Club and their guests will be permitted to use the marina. This will assist with enforcement of the various conditions on marina operation and maintenance by the owners as to the boat-slip lessees and their guests. This and all other conditions should be enforced by mandatory restrictions in the boat-slip leases. Likewise, the applicant has agreed to permit no "liveaboard" boats at the marina in order to avoid the possibility of sewage or other contaminants entering the State waters from liveaboard boats. The upland facilities will include restrooms, and signs should be appropriately placed on the piers to advise boaters and boat owners and operators of the availability of restroom facilities. The marina will not feature fueling facilities; however, St. Joe will maintain pollution containment supplies and equipment at the marina sufficient to contain any potential fuel or other petroleum spills from catastrophic events, such as the rupture of a boat fuel tank. Expert witnesses for St. Joe established that a "management and operational plan" designed to enforce the provisions enumerated above will be enacted by the applicant. The management and operational plan includes three mechanisms of enforcement: Warning signs. Boat-slip lease agreements which must incorporate all restrictions found to be necessary herein. These will contain an enforcement provision providing for mandatory eviction from use and lease of the marina facilities for any breach of those conditions by lessees or their guests. Management personnel will be employed on the marina property to enforce all restrictions and conditions designed to insure environmentally-safe operation and maintenance of the marina, and such personnel should be employed during all operating hours of the marina, not just during daylight hours, as proposed by the applicant. Signs will be posted at conspicuous locations at the marina and at the upland facilities of the Yacht Club informing boaters of the marina rules and prohibitions. The signage will be visible to Yacht Club members and their guests using the marina, and members' guests will be required, upon mooring at the marina, to register and to review the rules and prohibitions. Boat-slip lease agreements at the marina will incorporate these marina rules and prohibitions. Under the lease agreements, a violation of the marina rules or prohibitions by a member or guest will be considered a breach of the lease and will result in revocation of the lease and removal of the member's boat from the marina. A dock master will be employed at the marina to supervise the operation and maintenance of the marina and will be assisted by dock hands and other personnel in order to see that the conditions and restrictions referenced herein are enforced. The applicant has proposed such personnel being employed during daylight hours. However, in order to insure that the standards for operation and maintenance of the marina and boats using it will be enforced so as to avoid water-quality violations and violations of the public interest parameters delineated below, the permit grant should be conditioned upon such personnel being employed during all operating hours of the marina, whether daylight hours or not. If this is accomplished, the enforcement mechanisms outlined in the management and operational plan will reasonably insure enforcement of the marina's rules, prohibitions and conditions on any grant of the permit and likewise reasonably insure that water-quality and public interest standards are not violated. Upland Facilities The upland and Yacht Club facilities to be developed in conjunction with the marina will be located on approximately seven acres adjacent to the marina site. The Yacht Club and related facilities will include a clubhouse, parking, and a storm water treatment system which will serve the upland facilities. St. Joe has obtained a conceptual permit for the management and storage of surface waters for the proposed upland improvements, including the Yacht Club. It will also seek a permit for the storm water treatment system, itself. St. Joe, through its consultants, has investigated and opined that the installation of the proposed upland facilities are feasible and can comply with applicable regulatory criteria and is pursuing the necessary permits and approvals from local governments and state agencies. It will insure that all such is accomplished prior to initiation of construction of the Yacht Club facilities. The precise configuration and design of all upland facilities will be dictated by applicable local ordinances and the requirements of State regulatory agencies. Marina Impacts The applicant/Respondent and the Petitioners are in essential agreement, through the testimony of their witnesses, regarding the general potential impacts which may be posed by marinas in a general sense, when located in proximity to environmentally-sensitive areas. Concerning anticipated impacts of this marina at the subject site, however, St. Joe presented the testimony of three expert witnesses, as well as a hydrographic study. It was thus established that violations of the pertinent water-quality statute and rules and the public interest standards contained in the statute referenced herein will not be violated. The Petitioners, although presenting both lay and expert testimony regarding the water quality and habitat type and quality in the general area of the site and the general impacts that can be caused by marinas in such areas, presented no expert testimony or studies regarding the anticipated impacts of this particular marina, as designed and configured by the applicant, on the subject site and aquatic habitat. Water Quality Considerations Marinas are potential sources of pollutants which may adversely impact water quality. Different sources at a marina may generate different pollutants; and in this case, testimony addressed these potential pollutant impacts. The totality of the expert testimony taken at hearing establishes that the marina will not likely cause a violation of applicable water-quality standards. One witness for the Petitioners, Bill Watkins, was accepted as an expert in water quality. In describing potential impacts of the marina, however, he only opined that there "could be some effect on water quality"; however, he did not specifically establish adverse effects on water quality which could be anticipated or reasonably expected regarding violations of applicable standards. Mr. Watkins acknowledged: "As to whether or not that degree of pollution, and that's what we're talking about, degree of impact, would be something that would be, have a significant degradation effect, I could not answer without further site specific studies." Mr. Watkins further described the type of site specific information which would be required for him to make a proper assessment of water-quality impacts, including hydrographics and the nature of the sediments existing at the site. Other witnesses for the Petitioners similarly declined to opine regarding violations of the water-quality standards because site specific information was not available to them. Dr. DeMort, for example, explicitly declined to offer an opinion regarding water-quality violations. The opinions and testimony of the expert witnesses on water quality presented on behalf of St. Joe, as well as by the Department, are accepted in establishing that no water-quality violations by the construction and operation of the marina are anticipated. The reasonable assurance that water-quality violations will not occur through the construction and operation of the marina is illustrated by the unrefuted evidence concerning the hydrographics by which the site is characterized. A knowledge of site hydrographics is necessary to accurately determine potential water-quality impacts. A hydrographic study was prepared by St. Joe through the auspices of its consultant, Olsen Associates Incorporated. The experts who prepared that study testified on behalf of St. Joe at hearing, and a Department witness who reviewed the study testified by deposition. None of the Petitioners' expert witnesses addressed the subject of site hydrographics other than to note that they were an important consideration. Mr. Buckingham was accepted as an expert witness in the area of marine engineering with emphasis on hydrographics. He testified regarding the hydrographic study prepared and submitted by St. Joe. The study involved the collection of data at the site, including the gauging of water surface elevations over a two-day period in December of 1988; the comparison of those elevations to predicted elevations based upon historical data; a measurement of current velocities at the site; a dye study to assess the flow regime at the site; and the gathering of depth soundings and sediment samples to confirm the bathymetry and nature of bottom sediments at the site. The hydrographic study also involved the analysis of the data collected at the site. Hydrographics at the site are composed of two components, the transport of a pollutant by advective currents and the dispersion or diffusion of a pollutant within the water column. The physical transport by advective currents dominates the hydrographic circumstance prevailing at the marina site. A pollutant introduced at the site is more likely to be physically transported away from the site, in addition to being merely dispersed through the water column at the site. This is because of the relatively high current velocities prevailing. Both the transport and dispersion components were analyzed in the study to determine the time and distance necessary to reduce an initial concentration of a hypothetical pollutant to 10% of its initial concentration. A pollutant introduced at the site would be reduced to 10% of its initial concentration in less than seven minutes and within 400 feet of the site on the ebb tide and within 300 feet of the site on the flood tide. Moreover, the "plume" of this hypothetical pollutant would occur in a longshore direction parallel to the shore, as opposed to a direction toward the shore and would be of comparatively narrow width (approximately 30 feet). The hydrographics of this site are such that a complete water exchange will occur in 20 to 30 minutes at any point during the tidal cycle. The evidence thus demonstrated that the site is extremely well flushed by tidal currents. In his deposition, Ken Echternacht, of the Department, testified that data in the hydrographic study was realistic in his experience and that he had no questions or concerns regarding the data and methodology used to confirm that data. In addition to Mr. Buckingham's testimony and the study, itself, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht established that flushing is of no concern and is thoroughly adequate at the site. Dr. Echternacht is the Department's hydrographic engineer, whose function is to review all dredge and fill permit applications which may have impacts upon the hydraulics of surface water systems. He has reviewed approximately 1,500 dredge and fill permit applications. His testimony and that of Mr. Buckingham is accepted, as is that of other Department expert witnesses in establishing the excellent flushing characteristics of the site and that the construction and operation of the marina will not adversely affect the present hydrographic situation at the site, as that relates to establishing that no water quality violations will occur. All marinas are potential sources of pollutants. The first to be addressed involves the installation of the pilings themselves during the construction of the marina. This is a potential source of turbidity. Turbidity involves the suspension of bottom sediments and substrate material in the water column, which can pose, among other problems, the retardation of light penetration through the water column which can have an adverse impact on photosynthesis in marine grass beds. In extreme cases, it can cause the destruction of grass beds through killing of the grass by lack of adequate light penetration, as well as the smothering effect of sediments being deposited upon grasses. The method to be used by St. Joe in installing the pilings will be by "jetting" them into the bottom of the river initially and then driving the pilings into the river bottom to the required depth to support the piers. Witnesses for St. Joe and the Department established that this method will constitute an adequate safeguard to be employed during construction to minimize any turbidity. Any temporary or local turbidity caused by the installation of the pilings will be transitory and will pose no significant water-quality violation; however, turbidity curtains will, be employed, if necessary, by the applicant to control any such turbidity during construction. Another potential source of turbidity at a marina involves the dredging, washing or disturbance of the river bottom caused by boat propellers or boat keels. The evidence demonstrated that the risk of such "prop dredging" or wash at this marina will be negligible due to the design features and conditions at the site, including the channels and channel markers, and particularly by the depth of waters prevailing at the site. The marina basin and boat slips are located in water of sufficient depth to prevent prop dredging or wash. The =average depth of the entrance channels is between 10 and 12 feet. Maneuvering within the marina basin will occur in depths of 10 feet or greater. Although the most landward boat slips are located in depths of approximately eight feet, the average depth within most slips is approximately 10 to 12 feet. These depths are based upon the bathymetric survey of the site and confirmed by random soundings performed during the course of the hydrographic study in evidence. Further, these depths are "mean low water" depths. Mean low water reflects the "lowest expected level" within a 29-day tidal epic. The "mean lower low" level is the lowest expected level over the course of a year. That level prevailing at the site, according to the study, is 0.1 feet lower than mean low water. The maximum draught of boats expected to be moored at the marina is 4.5 feet. Thus, the depths in the marina will allow ample clearance between propellers and keels and the river bottom. The required clearance between boat bottoms and propellers and the river bottom can further be assured by proper placement of boats in the boat slips in the leasing process and in the assignment of boat slips to casual, temporary users of the marina. In other words, the larger boats will be assigned to the deeper, more waterward slips. Other measures include warning signs, which should be placed along the six-foot depth contour, along the landward edge of the entrance channels and beyond the waterward extent of the grass beds. This will insure that boaters do not stray into shallow-water, aquatic habitat areas. A second factor in determining the potential for prop dredging at the marina is the nature of the sediments themselves. Four witnesses, including those testifying for the Department and for the Petitioners, established that the sediments at the site are primarily sand-based, with minimal organic silt content. The sandy nature of the sediments minimizes the potential for turbidity caused by prop dredging or prop washing (hydraulic currents created by propeller operation) because sand, by its density, mass and weight, tends to settle out to the bottom much quicker if it is suspended in the water column. Even if prop dredging did occur at the marina, generating turbidity, the high flushing characteristic of the site would quickly transport and disperse any such turbidity and render it undetectable and likely prevent its deposition on the grass beds. A potential source of pollutants at a marina is boat fuel. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the design and operational features of the marina, primarily the absence of any fueling facilities, will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants generated by fueling operations. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is waste from boat heads and bilges generated by flushing boat heads or pumping out of bilges with bilge pumps. Expert witnesses for St. Joe, as well as the Department, established that the design and operational features with which this marina will be characterized will minimize or eliminate the potential for such pollutants to be generated because liveaboard boats will be prohibited, and the pumping out of heads and bilges will also be prohibited because of the conditions agreed to by the applicant for a grant of this permit. Another potential source of pollutants at a marina is the use of anti-fouling paint used on the bottoms of boats and the periodic scraping and repainting of boats. Expert witnesses for the Department and the applicant established that the operational features and design of this marina will minimize the potential for pollutants from this source because boat painting, sanding, and scraping and other operations attendant to boat painting will be absolutely prohibited at the marina. Finally, another potential source of pollutants would be trash and garbage materials. The potential for pollution from this source will be minimized by the use of trash containers and dock boxes located at frequent intervals around the piers and boat slips, as well as the instructional signs to be placed on the piers and slips by the applicant and the publication of marina rules in order to inform boat operators and guests of the necessity to dispose of trash in the proper containers. It has thus been established that the design and operational characteristics of the marina and conditions to be imposed thereon will minimize or eliminate the potential for pollutants to be generated and placed in the surface waters at the site. The marina will not occasion violations of applicable water-quality standards. Any pollutants which might be deposited in the surface waters at the site will be quickly transported and dispersed so as to be undetectable at the marina or in the vicinity of the marina because of the critical role played by the hydrographics prevailing at the site. Public Interest Impacts Much of the testimony at hearing regarding impacts upon the various public interest standards, including wildlife and habitats, focused upon the grass beds, and the benthic communities prevailing in deeper water at the site, as well as the fact that the site is used by manatees. Dr. Quinton White was accepted as an expert in biology and biological impacts of marina construction and operation. He testified on behalf of the applicant. His testimony and that of other expert witnesses offered by St. Joe and the Department established that there would be no adverse impact on benthic communities and organisms, including manatees, caused by the construction and operation of the marina. The Petitioners called expert witnesses on the issue of impacts on wildlife. Mike Allen, a Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, testified that he was not really qualified as an expert in fisheries or benthic communities but, rather, in terms of terrestrial species which are not involved in this proceeding. Lawson Snyder, another Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission staff member, was accepted as an expert in fisheries biology on behalf of Petitioner but testified that the marina's impacts upon fish and wildlife would not be detectable. Jim Valade, a Florida Department of Natural Resources staff member, was also accepted as an expert in marine biology, including fish and manatees, but testified that the permit applicant has taken steps to protect manatees in virtually all aspects and that his department's concerns regarding the safety of manatees have been adequately addressed by the design and proposed operation of the marina. Bill Watkins, a St. Johns River Water Management District staff member, was accepted as an expert in biology, but testified that the design of the marina provides the grass beds "a fair degree of protection" and declined to opine that the marina would have any adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Finally, Dr. Carol DeMort, in her deposition, specifically declined to render any opinion regarding adverse impacts upon wildlife or fish. Thus, the evidence adduced by the Petitioners at hearing did not rebut the evidence introduced by the applicant that the marina will have no detectable impacts upon wildlife or habitats involved in the vicinity of the site St. Joe introduced evidence concerning impacts from shading upon grass beds by the marina structures themselves and from turbidity "washed" onto, the grass beds by motorized boats maneuvering in the marina basin. Expert testimony was adduced that established that shading caused by the widest pier, that is, the main pier with a width of 12 feet, would have no adverse impact on the grass beds due to shading. That testimony was unrebutted and is accepted. Two expert witnesses for St. Joe, a marine engineer and a biologist, as well as a Department witness, established that, even assuming that turbidity was generated by propeller action in the marina basin, the turbidity resulting from prop wash would not be transported 275 feet from the marina basin offshore to the :grass beds at the inshore area. They attributed those opinions to the nature of the sediments involved which are not readily suspended, the flushing at the site, the distance between the basin and the grass beds, and the typical extent of prop wash from boats expected to be used at the marina. The Petitioners presented two witnesses, who testified regarding the impacts of prop wash. Mr. Allen, an expert in upland terrestrial species, testified regarding the potential for deposition of sediments on grass beds but also acknowledged that the hydrographics at the site, the distance between the marina basin and the grass beds and other protective measures would minimize this potential. One lay witness for the Petitioners testified to the effect that if a "handful" of boat owners in the marina violated the "no wake" restrictions and accelerated their boats in violation of those restrictions, they would cause turbidity to be placed upon the grass beds. His testimony was contradicted, however, by a marine engineer, who testified that prop wash is a function of many parameters (e.g., the RPM of the engine, the horsepower of the engine, the draught of the boat, and configuration of the propellers, etc.). He established that it would not be reasonable to expect prop wash extending twice the length of a boat. Regarding impacts upon benthic communities at the site, the applicant introduced expert testimony which established that the benthic communities in that vicinity of the marina, including the grass beds, fin fish, shellfish, and other organisms, will not be adversely impacted by the construction and operation of the marina in light of the safeguards which would be imposed upon the permit, as delineated herein. This is primarily due to the absence of significant concentrations of pollutants to be expected and the hydrographics prevailing at the site as that relates to the unlikelihood of boat grounding, prop dredging, and prop wash suspending pollutants and turbidity and depositing them on benthic community habitat areas. Only one of Petitioners' witnesses, Dr. DeMort, testified in her deposition concerning potential impacts upon benthic communities. Dr. DeMort made it clear, however, that she had conducted no investigations and studies necessary to enable her to render an expert opinion on the impacts upon the benthic communities prevailing at the site which might be caused by the marina's construction and operation. Her testimony in this regard only related to marina installation and operation in general and was not related to the specific design characteristics and proposed operational parameters of the subject marina. Manatees are an endangered species. There is much concern about their welfare with regard to the proposed project because all parties acknowledge that the site and the shoreward grass bed areas, particularly, are frequented by manatees, particularly for summer foraging. Manatees tend to forage in shallow waters and associated grass beds. Boats pose definite hazards to manatees and cause significant manatee deaths each year due to impact from boats, as much as 15% to 30% of the known population. In response to this hazard, the U.S. Marine Mammal Commission has recommended that grass beds be protected and that establishment of protective or "no wake" zones in manatee foraging areas be accomplished. In light of such restrictions voluntarily agreed to by St. Joe and its expert testimony in this regard and in light of the manatee education and awareness measures proposed by the applicant, it has been demonstrated that the marina will not have any negative impact on the manatee population in the area. The Petitioners' only expert witness concerning manatees, Jim Valade, indeed, opined that the marina had taken steps to protect manatees "in virtually all aspects". In this connection, the design features in the management and operational plan discussed herein and proposed by the applicant embodies measures to address potential impacts upon manatees which frequent the marina site. These include manatee awareness signs to be posted at the marina; and an additional specific condition has been agreed upon by the Department and the applicant which specifies the size, lettering and other details of the warning signs, and the location of them within the marina, all of which will be included in a plan to be submitted to, reviewed, and approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Additionally, a permanent educational display will be located at the Yacht Club informing boaters who frequent the facility of the presence of manatees in the area and the need to minimize the impact of boats upon manatees. During construction, if a manatee is sited within 100 yards of the marina site, construction activities will cease and not resume until manatees have left the area. A handbook will be prepared concerning manatees and the effect on them of boat operation, which will be distributed to employees of the facility and to Yacht Club members and guests. This requirement and the review of it by Yacht Club members and guests will be an integral requirement in the terms of the slip leases. Additionally, no docking facilities, pilings or cleats will be located along the portions of the piers not containing boat slips in order to discourage boaters from attempting to moor at those locations, which will reduce the number of boats frequenting the marina, as that relates to manatee safety. This portion of the St. Johns River functions as a highly productive juvenile fish nursery and sports fishing area. Therefore, an examination of the marina's potential impacts upon marine productivity, fishing and recreation in the area is an important consideration in this proceeding. The discussion of this potential impact involves the same issues discussed in connection with impacts upon water quality and wildlife habitat; namely, the generation of pollutants and the impacts upon the grass beds and benthic communities directly by boat operation itself. Unrefuted testimony adduced by the applicant and the Department has established that impacts upon the fish population and upon marine productivity, fishing and recreational values will not be adverse. No deliterious effect is likely to be occasioned the fisheries and fish habitat and the habitat of other aquatic organisms in terms of juveniles or adults or to the sport fishing values of the area in which the marina will be located. Indeed, the marina structures and the shade and concealment offered by moored boats will provide additional habitat for juvenile fish, as well as provide an additional source of food because of the "fouling communities" of life forms which will be expected to grow on the pilings. These will serve as food for juvenile fish and some species of adult fish which, in turn, will enhance the food supply of predatory fish operating at an upper level in the food web. The boats and structures themselves also will operate as a source of protection for certain fish populations from predators. The Petitioners produced a fisheries biologist as an expert witness, who testified in this regard; but he acknowledged that he did not know whether noticeable impacts on conservation of fish, marine productivity and recreational values will be caused by the installation and operation of the marina. He testified in a general sense that he feared some negative impacts might result but did not feel that any such impacts would be detectable based upon testimony he heard and deferred to, including testimony that the littoral zone would not be impacted by the marina to any significant degree. He ultimately opined that the marina would likely have little impact on sports fishing. The other witness produced by the Petitioners concerning impacts upon fishing and recreational values was unable to render any expert opinion, by her own admission, because she had conducted no studies or otherwise been provided information regarding the design and proposed operation of the marina. Consequently, the testimony adduced by the applicant as to these parameters is accepted; and it has been established that the marina will not adversely impact fisheries, fish conservation, aquatic habitat, sport fishing, recreational values and marine productivity in the area involved at the project site. Regarding potential impacts upon the public health, safety and welfare and property of others, the applicant and the Department adduced expert testimony that no adverse impact regarding these interests will occur. The testimony of Petitioners' experts similarly establishes that the marina would not pose safety hazards or would otherwise give rise to any noticeable impacts upon the public health, safety, welfare and property of others. Regarding potential impacts upon navigation or the flow of water, St. Joe and the Department introduced expert testimony to establish that the marina would not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water, and it is so found. The Petitioners' introduced no evidence regarding this subject. Regarding potential impacts upon significant historical and archaeological resources, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that no adverse impact as regards these resource parameters will occur. Although one of the Petitioners, in her testimony, speculated that the marina could "detract" from the William Bartram scenic highway, she was unable to specify how the marina would impact the highway or to what extent the highway was a significant, historical or archaeological resource. It is found that no such adverse impact on the William Bartram scenic highway will occur. Cumulative Impact Regarding cumulative impacts, the applicant and the Department introduced evidence that the marina would not give rise to impacts which, cumulative with the impacts of other marina facilities, would be significant. The evidence establishes that there are six marinas within four miles of this marina site; two upriver, and four downriver. Due to the hydrographic circumstances in the area and the distance of the other marinas from this site, it has been demonstrated that the addition of this marina to the area will not result in any adverse cumulative impacts. Mr. Mike Allen, the expert in upland terrestrial species (not involved in this proceeding), referenced in his testimony the cumulative impacts he feared on sports and commercial fishing. Mr. Allen made it clear, however, that his reference was not to cumulative impacts caused by the marina and existing marinas but, rather, to impacts which could be brought about by many such future facilities located in this particular area. The evidence does not reflect, however, that any other marinas are conceptually contemplated or are the subject of other permit applications for this area for the future. It is thus found that no significant adverse cumulative impacts will be occasioned by the installation and operation of the subject facility.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of St. Joe Paper Company for the dredge and fill permit at issue be granted, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the Department's Intent to Issue, in evidence as St. Joe Exhibit 9, and accepted by the applicant, as well as those conditions found in this Recommended Order to be necessary and supported by the evidence, are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE AND ENTERED this 26 day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5053 Applicant's/Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-53. Accepted, but are subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on the same subject matter, particularly in those several instances where conditions on the grant of the permit have been recommended to be modified somewhat by the Hearing Officer in light of the totality of the preponderant evidence presented. Rejected, as unnecessary. Accepted. Respondent DER's Proposed Findings of Fact The Department submitted no proposed findings of fact but, rather, adopted those submitted by the applicant/Respondent. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioners, Hoffert, presented no proposed findings of fact but, rather, a letter in the nature of final argument which has been referenced and discussed in the above Preliminary Statement to this Recommended Order. Petitioners, Cornwell, submitted a post-hearing pleading; but it contained no specific, separately-stated proposed findings of fact, which can be separated from their mere recitation and discussion of testimony in evidence and arguments such that coherent, specific rulings could be made. Petitioners, Cornwell's post-hearing pleading did not conform to the instructions given to them by the Hearing Officer at the conclusion of the hearing concerning the appropriate manner for submission of proposed findings of fact, and they were submitted late. They have been considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order, however, in spite of the fact that they were filed in a tardy fashion. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 T. R. Hainline, Jr., Esq. ROGERS, TOWERS, ET AL. 1300 Gulf Life Drive Jacksonville, FL 32207 William H. Congdon, Esq. and Joanne Barone, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building Room 654 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Barbara Davis Winn 3448 State Road 13 Jacksonville, FL 32259 Mary and Irv Cornwell 2652 State Road 13 Switzerland, FL 32259
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc., is entitled to an environmental resource permit to construct a 516- acre residential development in Miami-Dade County known as Lakes by the Bay South Commons Project and, if so, under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact On May 18, 2001, Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc. (Lennar Homes), filed an application with Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) for an environmental resource permit (ERP) for a 516-acre residential development in Miami- Dade County known as Lakes By The Bay (Project). On June 12, 2002, Lennar Homes filed a revised ERP application for the Project. The application, as revised, is for an ERP conceptually approving the construction of a surface water management system to serve the Project and authorizing the construction to clear the site, excavate the wet retention areas, and expand an existing lake. Providing 3300 single- family residences, the Project is the last phase of a master planned residential development, which presently contains over 1500 residences north and west of the Project. The Project is bordered by Southwest 97th Avenue to the west, Southwest 87th Avenue to the east, Southwest 216th Street to the north, and Southwest 232nd Street to the south. Immediately south of the Project are a regional wastewater treatment plant and county solid waste landfill. These facilities occupy opposing banks of the C-1 Canal, which runs a short distance from the southwest corner of the Project. The Project site is drained, cleared, and infested with Brazilian pepper and melaleuca. The Project will impact 135 acres of wetlands, but these wetlands are severely degraded due to the construction of roads, berms, and canals. No evidence suggests that the site is presently used by any listed species. At present, drainage across the site is from west to east, where stormwater is intercepted by the L-31E levy and canal running along the west side of Southwest 87th Avenue. At its nearest point (the southeast corner), the Project is about one mile from the southern part of Biscayne Bay. Biscayne Bay is an Outstanding Florida Water. Much of its central and southern parts, including the area closest to the Project site, are within Biscayne National Park. In contrast to the northern part of Biscayne Bay, the central and southern parts contain significant mangrove-lined coastal wetlands. The bay bottom in southern Biscayne Bay hosts dense seagrass beds, and coral reefs within Biscayne National Park support a diverse community of marine life. The L-31E levy and canal redirect stormwater from the Project site south to the C-1 Canal, which runs, in this area, in a northwest-to-southeast direction before emptying into Biscayne Bay. The C-1 Canal drains an extensive area to the north and northwest of the Project. The landfill and water treatment plant are a short distance downstream of the Proposed Project. The parties have stipulated that the Project meets the following ERP criteria (with minor rephrasing from the stipulation): The Project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project is not located within an Outstanding Florida Water and will not result in the direct discharge of surface water into an Outstanding Florida Water. Lennar has proposed mitigation to offset the adverse impacts of the Project, and the mitigation is in the same drainage basin as the adverse impacts. Therefore, the Project will not generate unlawful cumulative impacts, in violation of Section 373.414(8)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. The Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(c), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(g), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(h), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will be conducted by an entity with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, as required by Rule 40E-4.301(j), Florida Administrative Code. No special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, Florida Administrative Code, are applicable to the Project. The Project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, as prohibited by Section 373.414(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes. The Project will be permanent, as addressed by Section 373.414(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes. The District issued its Staff Report on March 13, 2002. The Staff Report approves the proposed mitigation plan, which would enhance or create and preserve 135 acres of onsite wetlands by creating an upland buffer, emergent marsh and transitional herbaceous shrub areas, and tree island areas. Much of the proposed mitigation area will occupy the southern half of the perimeter of the Project site. As proposed in the mitigation plan, Lennar Homes will grant the District a conservation easement over the mitigation area and will be required to meet certain mitigation performance conditions. Shortly prior to the commencement of the final hearing in this case, the District decided to change the proposed permit regarding mitigation. The purpose of the change was to require Lennar Homes to allow the mitigation area to be used as a flowway between the C-1 Canal, upstream of the nutrient loads deposited by the landfill and water treatment plant, and an area to the east of the Project site. The receiving area consists of vestigial tidal creeks leading to presently remaining tidal creeks that empty into small embayments within Biscayne Bay. The general purpose of the change was to remediate the loss of freshwater flows into these tidal creeks, the embayments, and Biscayne Bay that resulted from the construction of drainage canals and levies, such as C-1 and L31-E. Accordingly, the District issued an Addendum to Staff Report on August 9, 2002. The Addendum adds an easement to the original mitigation plan by adding Special Condition #24, which states: No later than 30 days after permit issuance and prior to commencement of construction resulting in wetland impacts, the permittee shall submit two certified copies of the recorded flowage easement for the mitigation area and associated buffers and a GIS disk of the recorded easement area The recorded easement shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit 41. Any proposed modifications to the approved form must receive prior written consent from the District. The easement must be free of encumbrances or interests in the easement which the District determines are contrary to the intent of the easement. . . . Exhibit 41 (actually Exhibit 41A) is entitled, "Perpetual Flowage, Inundation, Construction, and Access Easement." Representing a grant from Lennar Homes to the District, the easement (Flowage Easement) is for any and all purposes deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, or incident to, or in connection with, the unrestricted right to regularly, or at any time, and for any length of time[,] overflow, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and through, store water on, and submerge the [encumbered property], together with the unrestricted right at any time to enter upon and access the [encumbered property], with any and all vehicles and equipment, including but not limited to the right to move, transport, store, operate, and stage equipment, materials and supplies, in order to construct, operate, and maintain any and all structures, improvements, equipment, pumps, ditches and berms upon the [encumbered property] deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, incident to or in connection with the implementation of the BBCW Project on the [encumbered property], or in connection with any project in the interest of flood control, water management, conservation, environmental restoration, water storage, or reclamation, and allied purposes, that may be conducted now or in the future by the [District], or to carry out the purposes and intent of the statutory authority of the [District], presently existing or that may be enacted in the future, together with all right, title, and interest in and to the [BBCW] Project Structures. * * * This Easement shall at no time be construed to alleviate or release [Lennar Home's] responsibilities and require [sic] under ERP Permit No. to construct and maintain an on-site mitigation area as described and authorized in the ERP Permit. Other provisions of the Flowage Easement impose all risk of loss in connection with the flowway upon Lennar Homes, which indemnifies the District from all losses, costs, damages, and liability in connection with the flowway. On September 5, 2002, after the hearing, but a few days before the taking of the post-hearing testimony, the District issued a Revised Addendum to Staff Report. The Revised Addendum restates Special Condition #24 with a few relatively minor changes and adds Special Conditions ##25 and 26. Special Condition #25 attempts to harmonize the Flowage Easement with the original mitigation plan contemplated by the Staff Report. Special Condition #25 provides that when the District exercises its rights under the Flowage Easement, other special conditions shall be deleted, so as, for example, to relieve Lennar Homes of its obligations to maintain the mitigation area (except for a 25-foot buffer) and post a mitigation-performance bond. Special Condition #26 changes the language in the conservation easement, which was contemplated by the original Staff Report and mitigation plan, to harmonize this easement with the Flowage Easement. Lennar Homes has submitted a version of the Revised Addendum to Staff Report that would satisfy its concerns. The Lennar Homes version would require the District, within 30 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes, to obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local environmental regulatory agency, although not the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which, under state law, would have to issue an ERP to the District before it could construct the flowway. The Lennar Homes version would also give the District only 90 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes within which to exercise its right to construct the flowway and would sequence events so that Lennar Homes would not spend the estimated $2 million on wetland enhancement and creation and then lose the investment due to the inundation of the mitigation site with water, as authorized by the Flowage Easement. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan plays a crucial role in this case. But for this plan, the District would not have attached the additional conditions contained in the Addendum to Staff Report and Revised Addendum to Staff Report--without which conditions, the District now contends that Lennar Homes is not entitled to the ERP. Congress initially authorized the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project in 1948. Objectives of the C&SF Project included flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, and protection of fish and wildlife. The C&SF Project attained these objectives, in part, through a primary system of 1000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water-control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Unintended consequences of the C&SF Project have included the irreversible loss of vast areas of wetlands, including half of the original Everglades; the alteration in the water storage, timing, and flow capacities of natural drainage systems; and the degradation of water quality and habitat due to over-drainage or extreme fluctuations in the timing and delivery of freshwater into the coastal wetlands and estuaries. In 1992, Congress authorized the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy). The objective of the Restudy was to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the South Florida ecosystem and provide for the other water-related needs of the region. Completed in April 1999, the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Restudy Report) notes that, among the unintended consequences of the C&SF Project, was "unsuitable freshwater flows to Florida and Biscayne bays and Lake Worth Lagoon [that] adversely impact salinity and physically alter fish and wildlife habitat." The Restudy Report states that, absent comprehensive, new restoration projects, the "overall health of the [South Florida] ecosystem will have substantially deteriorated" by 2050. The Restudy Report recommends a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Central and South Florida. This plan is known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Acknowledging the complex dynamics of the restoration goals identified in CERP, the Restudy Report establishes Project Implementation Reports to tie together CERP and the detailed design necessary for the construction of individual restoration projects and adaptive assessments to monitor the performance of individual components, incorporate new data, and refine future components. The Restudy Report is, among other things, a programmatic environmental impact statement. The Restudy Report states: "Due to the conceptual nature of [CERP] and the associated uncertainties, many subsequent site-specific environmental documents will be required for the individual separable project elements." In May 2002, the District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a draft of the Project Management Plan for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW PMP). Noting that a "major goal of [CERP] is to improve freshwater deliveries to Biscayne Bay," the BBCW PMP identifies the BBCW project as the means by which to restore some of the coastal wetlands and tributaries in south Dade County. The BBCW PMP states that the primary purpose of the BBCW project, which is one of sixty projects contained in CERP, is to "redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed into Biscayne Bay, away from the canal discharges that exist today and provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing and or improved coastal wetlands." The Cutler Wetlands subcomponent of the BBCW project encompasses the Project site. One of the objectives of the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent is to divert water from the C-1 Canal upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant to the east of the L-31E levy and canal. In connection with the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent and the possible role of the flowway identified in this case, the District retained Dr. John Meeder, a Biscayne Bay ecologist associated with the Southeast Environmental Resource Center at Florida International University, to perform an abbreviated study and issue a report concerning the conditions required for the restoration of the coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the coastal wetlands to the north of the C-1 canal and east of the Project site (Meeder Report). The Meeder Report studies two feasible freshwater delivery options and prefers a bypass flowway along Southwest 224th Street, across roughly the middle of the Project site and north of most of the proposed mitigation area, to the L-31E levy and canal. The distribution system resulting from the preferred route would use the natural grade of the land to divert the water to the coastal wetlands and tidal creeks to the east and south that are targeted for rehydration. The alternative flowway route would run along Southwest 232nd Street, in the approximate area of the Flowage Easement, but would require pumping to distribute the water north along the L-31E levy and canal for release to the targeted coastal wetlands and tidal creeks. Obviously, the District has chosen the less-preferred route to minimize the impact on the Project. The Meeder Report considers the amount of freshwater required for two rehydration options. In the first option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, which then empty into the embayments that lead to Biscayne Bay. In the second option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate the tidal creeks and the surrounding coastal wetlands. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate only the tidal creeks, the flowway would need to deliver 70 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 95 acre/feet per day in the wet season. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, the flowway would need to deliver 209 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 1139 acre/feet per day in the wet season. Several factors militate against an attempt to rehydrate the coastal wetlands surrounding the targeted tidal creeks. Potential errors in data and analysis increase in magnitude with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, and Dr. Meeder admitted that the largest value was very approximate. Potentially serious impacts upon salinity and associated vegetative communities increase in likelihood with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands. Also, the diversion of larger volumes of water from the C-1 Canal may have adverse impacts on downstream conditions. At the point of the C-1 Canal where it first enters the landfill and wastewater treatment plant (just downstream from the flowway), the average flow of the C-1 Canal is 350 acre/feet per day, but the median flow is only 160 acre/feet per day. (The average flow rate is skewed by occasional, very high daily flows of 4000 acre/feet during large storm events.) The larger volumes diverted to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands would, at times, withdraw a relatively large portion of the water from the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, the District justifiably elected to seek a flowway that would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, including the vestigial tidal creeks, but not the surrounding coastal wetlands. Petitioners and Lennar Homes have raised numerous other issues about the flowway that the District seeks to obtain. The District requires a 200-acre flowway to rehydrate adequately the vestigial tidal creeks, the presently remaining tidal creeks, the small embayment, and then the subject area of Biscayne Bay, but the mitigation area potentially available on the Project site is limited to about 135 acres, and some uncertainty exists as to whether the District can obtain control of the remaining land necessary to assemble a 200-acre flowway. Even the 200-acre flowway is probably insufficient to accommodate significant water treatment, so water quality issues remain outstanding, notwithstanding the better water quality upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant. Other issues arise from the requirement that the District obtain an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as well as one or more federal agencies, before it could construct the flowway. To the extent that this requirement delays and possibly precludes the construction of the flowway, this requirement militates against the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. To the extent that this requirement insures that the flowway will not cause flooding or adverse water quality in the tidal creeks, embayment, and ultimately Biscayne Bay, this requirement militates in favor of the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP; the absence of detailed specifications for the design and construction of the flowway precludes any assurance that the flowway would not flood or otherwise damage the upland portion of the Project site, so subsequent permit-review is essential to the present inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. It is impossible to credit the District's evidence that various transition-zone wetland species would survive inundation under unknown flow rates, of variable depths, and of unknown and possibly indefinite duration. Lennar Homes legitimately is concerned that its substantial investment in mitigation, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, would be wasted if the District constructs the flowway. As presently drafted, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions contemplate that Lennar Homes would construct the original mitigation, at a substantial cost, and the District would later construct and inundate the flowway through largely the same area. Marketing of parcels in close proximity to the flowway might be complicated by the uncertainty concerning what will occupy the area beyond a resident's backyard--a benign passive mitigation area or a flowway that may range from a intermittently wet slough or glade to a placid lake to a raging swollen river--and by the probability that the District would not construct the flowway until 2009. The District justifies the Flowage Easement and new special conditions on two grounds. First, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is harmful to the District's water resources. Second, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. The first argument misses the mark. A project that is otherwise permittable, except for the fact that it interferes with the establishment of a restoration project, does not harm the water resources of the District; such a Project interferes with the improvement of the water resources of the District. In this case, the parties have stipulated that the Project will not cause adverse impacts due to the original mitigation plan. If adverse impacts means anything, it means harm to the water resources of the District. The second argument requires the identification of the District's objectives. The Florida Legislature has declared at Section 373.1502(2)(a), Florida Statutes, that CERP implementation is "in the public interest and is necessary for restoring, preserving and protecting the South Florida ecosystem . . .." In May 2000, the Florida Legislature enacted the Everglades Restoration Investment Act, which commits Florida to contribute over $2 billion for the implementation of CERP-- Florida's share for the first ten years of implementation. The Florida Legislature has made the implementation of CERP an overall objective of the District. Several factors are important in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. These factors require consideration of the purpose of the proposed restoration project; the extent of completion of the project's design, permitting, and construction; if the project has not yet been designed or permitted, the likelihood of construction; when the project would be constructed; the impact of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions upon the proposed restoration project; and the existence of feasible alternatives to accomplish the same objectives as those achieved by the proposed restoration project. These factors generally favor the issuance of the ERP, but only with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The flowway project would rehydrate a portion of the estuarine waters of southern Biscayne Bay that are sufficiently healthy to respond vigorously to the new freshwater infusions, so the project is important. The C-1 Canal appears to be the only readily available source of sufficient volumes of freshwater to achieve the rehydration of the tidal creeks, and the proposed path through the Lennar Homes mitigation area appears to be the only readily available means by which to divert the freshwater to the targeted tidal creeks. If the flowway project is limited to the tidal creeks and does not extend to the surrounding coastal wetlands, the likely environmental impacts appear to be positive on the receiving areas and the downstream portion of the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, even though the project is at an early conceptual stage and construction would not start for six years, it seems likely to be constructed. The apparent difficulty in securing the necessary additional 65 acres may yet be overcome through property acquisition, and, if not, the District may be able to increase the capacity of the flowway without jeopardizing the adjacent uplands. For the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law below, other factors in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP require consideration of the impact upon Lennar Homes in accommodating the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. With two exceptions, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions do not impose an inordinate burden upon Lennar Homes. The flowway would occupy the portion of the Project site that would have been subject to the conservation easement that was part of the original mitigation plan. Lennar Homes' responsibility for maintenance is considerably lessened if the District constructs the flowway, whose special maintenance needs can only be met by the District or its contractors. Although Lennar Homes may experience some sales resistance due to the uncertainty of the use of the mitigation area, the assurances gained from the subsequent permitting process, during which the District will seek an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the construction of the flowway, should allay reasonable concerns about flooding and other damage to the adjacent uplands. In three respects, though, the District has abused its discretion in preparing the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. First, the District abused its discretion in requiring Lennar Homes to perform mitigation work in the mitigation area, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, to the extent that the products of such work will likely be destroyed or substantially harmed by the construction and operation of the flowway. The value of mitigation rests largely in the functions that it can support through longterm viability. The construction and operation of the surface water management system, the posting of a sufficient bond to guarantee future performance under either mitigation scenario, the execution and delivery into escrow of deeds and other legal instruments sufficient to meet the requirements of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions (subject to the two matters discussed in this and the two following paragraphs), and the construction of the portion of the original mitigation that would not be impacted by the flowway sufficiently respond to the need for mitigation, until the District finally determines the need for it to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement. Second, the District abused its discretion by omitting any timeframe for the District to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The timeframe proposed by Lennar Homes for the District to make this final determination of whether to proceed with the flowway is unreasonable and ignores the substantial period of time required to design, fund, and permit the flowway. But a timeframe may be especially important if Lennar Homes encounters more marketing resistance than might be reasonably anticipated. Therefore, the new conditions should provide that if construction of the flowway is not substantially completed by 2011, then the Flowage Easement shall be released and returned to Lennar Homes, upon its commencement, without delay, of the construction of any of the original mitigation that it did not already complete. Third, the District also abused its discretion in the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the allocation of liability for the flowway, including apparently its construction, maintenance, and operation. The District would impose this liability upon Lennar Homes, which would have to indemnify the District for construction damage or any malfunctions in the operation of the flowway, such as damage to adjacent uplands by flooding, erosion, or contamination. The District has imposed this restoration project on Lennar Homes and has done so, not to avoid harm to the District's water resources, but to achieve the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. The District and its contractors, not Lennar Homes, will construct, maintain, and operate the flowway. The District, not Lennar Homes, has the expertise in the design, construction, and operation of water-control facilities of this type. This record does not disclose a single legitimate reason to impose upon Lennar Homes the liability for any aspect of the flowway that does not result from the acts or omissions of Lennar Homes or its assignees as owners of the adjacent uplands. Although, as stated in its proposed recommended order, the District does not object to the standing of Petitioners, Respondents did not stipulate to the standing of any Petitioners. Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., offered no witnesses concerning their standing, and no exhibits address the standing of these parties. The record thus fails to demonstrate that Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., are substantially affected by the proposed agency action. Petitioner National Parks Conservation Association, Inc., (National Parks) is a not-for-profit corporation registered in Florida as a foreign corporation. The corporate purpose of National Parks is to protect and enhance America's national parks, including Biscayne National Park, for present and future generations. National Parks seeks the protection and enhancement of the Biscayne National Park through the successful implementation of CERP. National Parks has 350,000 members, including 19,900 in Florida. Members of National Parks use Biscayne National Park for recreational boating, fishing, snorkeling, fish watching, scuba diving, and camping (on the barrier islands). Members of National Parks are actively monitoring the implementation of CERP. Petitioner Florida Audubon Society, Inc. (Florida Audubon), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that was originally incorporated in Florida in 1900. The corporate purpose of Florida Audubon is to protect, conserve, and restore Florida's heritage through the preservation of the state's natural resources. Florida Audubon has adopted as its highest priority the design and implementation of CERP. Florida Audubon has 32,000 members in Florida, including over 2100 members in Dade County. Numerous of these members engage in bird watching, recreation, and scientific research in Biscayne National Park. Florida Audubon organizes membership trips to Biscayne Bay, conducts its annual Bird-athon and Christmas Bird Count in the vicinity of Biscayne Bay, and conducts various environment educational programs in and concerning Biscayne Bay. The issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would substantially impact the ability of the District to restore this part of Biscayne Bay. Without such restoration, the functions of Biscayne Bay will slowly decline until eventually the overall health of the entire South Florida ecosystem will be substantially deteriorated. Thus, National Parks and Florida Audubon would be substantially affected by the issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District issue the environmental resource permit with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions, as modified in accordance with the matters presented in paragraphs 39-41. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Richard Grosso Louise Caro, Certified Legal Intern Environmental & Land Use Law Center, Inc. Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Marcy I. LaHart Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 711 Talladaga Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Erin L. Deady Environmental Counsel 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850 Miami, Florida 33131 E. Thom Rumberger Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. 403 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Luna Ergas Phillips Douglas H. MacLaughlin Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Frank E. Matthews Gary V. Perko Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, Citrus Recreational Marina, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Marina"), is a corporation. Marina is the applicant for the permit which is at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility for, among other things, wetland resource permitting. The Department also has responsibility, pursuant to an agreement with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (hereinafter referred to as the "Water Management District"), for Management and Storage of Surface Water permitting within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Water Management District. Petitioner, Save the Manatee Club, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Save the Manatee"), is a non-profit, Florida corporation. The stated purpose of Save the Manatee includes protection of the manatee and its habitat through the promotion of public awareness, research and lobbying efforts. Petitioner, Friends of the Greenway (hereinafter referred to as "Friends"), is an organization which promotes responsible environmental policy in Citrus County. Save the Manatee and Friends are "citizens" of the State of Florida. They filed a verified petition for hearing in this matter. They alleged in the petition that the proposed facility will injure, harm, or otherwise pollute the state's natural resources. Members of Petitioners observe, study and enjoy manatee in Citrus County, including waters that would be impacted by the proposed facility. Marina's Permit Applications, the Department's Notice of Intent to Issue and the Petitioners' Challenge. On March 28, 1995, Marina applied to the Department for a permit for Management and Storage of Surface Water. On March 10, 1993, Marina applied to the Department for a wetland resources (dredge and fill) permit. The permits sought by Marina are associated with Marina's plan to construct a marina facility. The marina is to be constructed within an existing dolomite mine pit (hereinafter referred to as the "Mine Pit"). On or about February 6, 1996, the Department entered a notice of intent to issue the permit sought by Marina. A copy of the draft permit, permit number 092278259 and MS092681199, was attached to the notice of intent to issue. On or about March 13, 1996, Petitioners filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the Department's proposed decision to issue the draft permit. Marina's Proposed Facility. Marina's proposed facility is to be located in Citrus County, Florida. Citrus County is located on the west coast of Florida, north of Tampa, Florida, and south of the mouth of the Suwannee River on the Gulf of Mexico. As part of the proposed facility, Marina proposed to construct 256 wet slips (122 of which may be covered) on six floating docks, a boat ramp, a boat lift bay, a 63-boat dry storage facility, a convenience store with fueling and sewage pump-out facilities, a clubhouse, a stormwater facility and a parking area. The proposed facilities will also include a potable water system. The water system will provide drinking water to the clubhouse, bait stand, fueling facility, boat storage area and the marina docks. The proposed facilities will also include an on-site wastewater treatment facility. The treatment facility will consists of an aerobic system with on-site effluent disposal through drainfield lines into the soil. No sewage treatment percolation ponds will be included on the proposed site. The stormwater system for the proposed site will be separate from the wastewater treatment facility. The stormwater system will include the collection and treatment of stormwater in on-site basins prior to discharge into the Mine Pit. The system will be designed to retain the entire rainfall from a 100-year storm combined with wet detention and on-line systems involving percolation. All these systems have been designed to meet the design standards required by Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code. The post development runoff discharge rate for the proposed site is projected to be less than the current rate of runoff discharge on the proposed site. The proposed facility will not cause any increased flood risks on-site or off-site. No part of the surface water management system will be located within 100 feet of any public supply well. The fish cleaning stations included for the proposed facility will be located over land. Waste associated with fish cleaning will be collected for disposal. Wastewater from the stations will be directed into the wastewater treatment system for the proposed facility. Wastewater from boats at the proposed facility will directed to the wastewater treatment facility through two pumpout stations located near the proposed fueling facility. Solid waste from the proposed facility and boats utilizing it will be disposed of in trash receptacles located throughout the proposed site. They will ultimately be picked up by a solid waste hauler for disposal. Erosion around the Mine Pit will be controlled through the placement of 2,200 feet of rip rap, vegetation planting and other erosion control techniques. The Mine Pit where the proposed marina is to be constructed is located on the south side of the Cross Florida Greenway Waterway (hereinafter referred to as the "Greenway Waterway") (formerly known as the "Cross Florida Barge Canal"), approximately one half mile east of where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Greenway Waterway. The proposed site is approximately 4.75 miles from where the Greenway Waterway empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Mine Pit is U-shaped, approximately 31.4 acres in size, and has an average depth of -20 feet, with pockets of -33 feet in depth. Marina proposed to fill the Mine Pit to 13.0 feet NGVD, place 2,285 linear feet of rip rap, and dredge 4.75 acres of the Mine Pit to -13.0 feet NGVD. The waters of the northwestern corner of the Mine Pit are separated from the waters of the Greenway Waterway by a plug of land approximately 100 to 150 feet wide. Marina proposed to remove the plug to create an entrance from the marina to the Greenway Waterway. The removal of the plug will result in a lowering of the level of water in the Mine Pit by approximately 3 to 5 feet to sea level, the level of the water in the Greenway Waterway. Marina also proposed to excavate a flushing canal channel between the Greenway Waterway and the northeast corner of the Mine Pit. The boundary of the property on which the Mine Pit is located is approximately 100 feet from the Mine Pit at its closest location. The Mine Pit was excavated from lime rock and Ona fine sands; Pits and Udorthents (both manmade) soil types exist throughout the project site. Weedy vegetation dominates the historically disturbed upland area surrounding the Mine Pit. Saltbush (Baccharis halimfolia), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), dog fennel (Eupatorium spp.), marsh fleabane (Pluches spp.), and waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera) exist along the Greenway Waterway. Southern red cedars (Juniperius silcicola) are scattered throughout the area. Cattails (Typha spp.) have invaded the edges of the Mine Pit. Ownership of the Proposed Site Property. Marina has no ownership interest in the property where the Mine Pit is located. Nor has Marina ever held such an interest. The proposed facility site is held in three undivided interests. At the time the permit applications were filed by Marina, Marina had an option contract to purchase the proposed site. At the time of the final hearing of this matter, the option contract was no longer in force. Marina had also been authorized in writing prior to filing the permit applications to act as agent for the owners of the site for purposes of seeking environmental permitting. It was stipulated at the time of the final hearing that two of the three undivided interest owners had authorized Marina to act as their agent for purposes of obtaining the permits at issue in this proceeding. At the time of the final hearing, the third undivided interest owner did not authorize Marina to act as its agent for any purpose. Marina is agreeable to a new condition being added to the draft permit by the Department requiring Marina to submit documentation to the Department before any development of the proposed facility is commenced proving that Marina has acquired interests in the proposed site necessary for it to carry out the permit conditions. It is the Water Management District's policy in implementing Rule 40D- 4.301(g), Florida Administrative Code, which requires applicants to provide reasonable assurances concerning their proposed projects, is to require the land owner to be the permittee. The Greenway Waterway and the Surrounding Area. The Greenway Waterway consists of natural and man-made waters formerly intended to be used as the Cross Florida Barge Canal. The waters of the Greenway Waterway are classified as "Class III" waters. The Cross Florida Barge Canal was deauthorized on January 22, 1991. In its place was created the Cross Florida Greenways State Recreation and Conservation Area. The State of Florida owns the majority of the lands within the Cross Florida Greenways State Recreation and Conservation Area. The state can, therefore, control development along the Greenway Waterway. A portion of the Greenway Waterway was constructed as part of the Cross Florida Barge Canal by digging a canal from a spillway at Lake Rousseau, east-northeast of the proposed site, to the Gulf of Mexico. This portion of the canal (hereinafter referred to as the "Greenway Canal"), is straight and was designed for a depth of 12 feet. The actual depth of the Greenway Canal varies and, in some locations, is 18 feet deep. The Greenway Canal is also approximately 250 feet wide. The Greenway Canal intersects the Withlacoochee River, which is located to the east of the proposed facility. Prior to the construction of the Greenway Canal, the Withlacoochee River ran from a spillway at Lake Rousseau to the Gulf of Mexico. After construction of the Greenway Canal, the portion of the Withlacoochee River which connects with the Gulf of Mexico was, and still is, separated from the Greenway Canal by an earthen berm. The western portion of the Withlacoochee River (hereinafter referred to as the "Upper Withlacoochee"), continues to run from Lake Rousseau for approximately 1.3 miles to the Greenway Canal and then runs to the Gulf of Mexico through the Greenway Canal. The depth of the Upper Withlacoochee varies from river bottom which is exposed at low tide to areas of approximately 20 feet. The depth of water, the speed at which water flows and the amount of aquatic vegetation in the Upper Withlacoochee varies depending on the amount of water released from Lake Rousseau through the spillway. For the past year, the rate of flow in the Upper Withlacoochee has been relatively high. There are currently two public boat ramps, but no marinas, located on the Greenway Canal. One of those boat ramps is in disrepair and the evidence failed to prove that it is in use. There are no marinas on the Upper Withlacoochee or the Greenway Canal. There is a Florida Marine Patrol station located on the Greenway Canal approximately one-half mile east of U.S. Highway 19. Whether the presence of the station will have any impact on the enforcement of speed limits in the Greenway Canal is purely speculative. Approximately 2 miles west of the proposed facility is an existing active mining operation owned by Independent Aggregates. Barges transport mine product along the Greenway Canal from the mine to the Gulf of Mexico. Another organization, known as "Holnam", has been permitted by the Department to construct a barge-loading facility opposite the Independent Aggregates' barge facility and mine. It is unlikely, however, that Holnam will actually begin operating barges on the Greenway Canal. A speed limit of 25 miles per hour has been imposed by the Department throughout the Greenway Canal. The speed limit was imposed to protect West India Manatee that utilize the Greenway Canal. The Upper Withlacoochee has been designated an idle-speed zone by local ordinance. Crab traps are located along the banks of the Greenway Canal for approximately four miles into the Greenway Canal from the Gulf of Mexico. Traps are generally anchored to the bottom by lines and are spaced approximately 100 feet apart, 20 to 15 feet from the bank. A channel extends for approximately 12 to 15 miles into the Gulf of Mexico from the mouth of the Greenway Canal. The channel is marked. There are obstructions and shallow water outside this channel. Prudent boaters will continue in the channel for approximately four to nine miles before turning north or south into the Gulf of Mexico. Operators of smaller boats and those with knowledge of the area are able, however, to navigate north or south closer to shore. Impact on the Conservation of Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered or Threatened Species, or Their Habitat. The West India Manatee is an endangered species, which means that it is in danger of extinction. Approximately 3000 manatees are found in Florida waters. Approximately half are located on the east coast and half on the west coast of Florida. There is little interchange between the two groups. The State of Florida is attempting to restore the manatee population to a size which will help to insure its survival as a species. In order for the manatee population to survive, human development and interaction with manatees must be managed. Manatee habitat needs to be preserved from development. Two of the most significant challenges to the survival of the manatee are the number of manatees killed by boats and the increasing number of boats in Florida waters. Collisions with boats is the greatest known cause of manatee deaths (approximately 25 percent). Manatee change locations frequently searching for food, drinking water, resting areas, potential mates and birthing areas. They also return to preferred habitat features. Manatee are attracted to areas that are calm and quiet for birthing areas. Shallow water, accessible from deeper water, is essential for birthing. After giving birth, the mother and calf generally remain in the area for some period of time, sometimes as long as months, until the calf is able to survive elsewhere. They will leave an area, however, if disturbed. Boat traffic, even at slow speeds, can cause disruption to mothers and young calves. Boat traffic can separate a mother and calf. There are approximately 300 manatee in the waters of northwestern Florida (from Tampa Bay to the Suwannee River), which includes the area of the proposed facility and Citrus County. This population has been increasing in recent years. Manatee in the waters of northwestern Florida require a stable source of warm water during the winter. During the winter ambient temperatures drop below the level at which the manatees' metabolism will sustain them. As a result of the need for warmer waters, most of the manatee in northwestern Florida spend the winter in Citrus County. Kings Bay, Crystal River and Homosassa all provide warm water locations for manatee. These sites are located to the south of the proposed facility. Kings Bay is the most important winter manatee habitat on the west coast of Florida. During the rest of the year, when waters are warmer, manatee leave their warm water, winter habitats to forage and investigate other habitat. Manatee that winter in the warm water sites in Citrus County generally migrate to the north. They travel to, and past, the mouth of the Greenway Canal, returning by the same general routes in the winter. Manatee also linger at the mouth of the Greenway Canal at the Gulf of Mexico because that area offers a combination of a relatively deep-water channel with adjacent shallow water and aquatic vegetation. Manatee use the waters of the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee. The Greenway Canal is not, however, considered particularly good habitat for manatee. It has relatively deep water, steep banks, little fresh water and little vegetation of interest to manatee. In 1991 Citrus County adopted a Manatee Protection Plan as part of its comprehensive growth management plan. The Manatee Protection Plan does not identify the Greenway Canal as essential manatee habitat. The Manatee Protection Plan was adopted with the assistance of the Department. The Plan was based upon a compilation of manatee studies, marina inventory studies, and a comprehensive view of the county's waterway systems at the time the Plan was adopted. "Essential manatee habitat" is defined in the Manatee Protection Plan as "any land or water area constituting elements necessary to the survival and recovery of the manatee population from endangered status". Whether an area is "essential manatee habitat" is to be considered under the Plan as "a criteria for determining areas where dock facilities should be limited." The definition of "essential manatee habitat" for purposes of the Plan is different from the standard to be applied in by the Department in this case. The definition in the Plan is similar to the federal criteria considered and found to be different from that applicable to Department permitting cases in Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida, Inc., 609 So.2d 644, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The Manatee Protection Plan contemplates that a master plan will be undertaken to establish the capacity of the Greenway Canal for boat and marina facilities. That master plan has not been developed. The fact that the master plan has not been formally undertaken, however, is of little consequence. The Department, due to the State's ownership of the land surrounding the Greenway Canal, has been able to consider possible uses of the Greenway Canal for boating and marinas without a formal master plan. The Manatee Protection Plan does not support a finding that the proposed facility will not have an adverse impact on the manatee. Although the waters of the Greenway Canal do not constitute good manatee habitat, the Upper Withlacoochee is considered good habitat, depending on the amount of water being released from the spillway at Lake Rousseau. Manatee have used the Upper Withlacoochee for feeding, resting and birthing. The Upper Withlacoochee has limited human activity, light boat traffic, sources of fresh water, a warm-water spring and aquatic vegetation. The Upper Withlacoochee has been used for birthing. Infant mortalities reported in the area suggest that the Upper Withlacoochee is used as a preferred birthing area. The rate of mortality suggests a higher rate of successful births. Aerial survey and mortality data also suggests that the Upper Withlacoochee and the Greenway Canal are utilized throughout the year by manatee. Greatest use is seasonal. Aerial survey data underestimates the number of manatee utilizing the Upper Withlacoochee and the Greenway Canal due to the lack of water clarity and due to the meandering course of, and vegetation along, the Upper Withlacoochee. Manatee mortality data concerning the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlachoochee provides some indication of the fact that the number of manatee that travel through the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee is not insignificant. While there was considerable evidence presented concerning whether the number of manatee that utilize the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee is accurate or has been underestimated, based upon aerial survey data and manatee mortality comparisons, the critical fact proved by the evidence in this case is that a significant number of manatee do use the Upper Withlacoochee as habitat, including for birthing. The evidence also proved that, in order for manatee to use the Upper Withlacoochee, it is necessary that they travel the length of the Greenway Canal. Another critical fact proved by the evidence is to this matter is that manatee traveling to and from the Upper Withlacoochee must travel the Greenway Canal from the Gulf of Mexico past the proposed facility. The evidence was also unrefuted that increased boat traffic from the proposed facility will have the potential to adversely impact the manatee. That adverse impact will take the form of physical injury due to collisions and stress on manatee from increased human activity. The activity could reduce the use of the Upper Withlacoochee as habitat. What remains to be determined is whether the conditions of the draft permit will provide adequate assurances that the impact will not be contrary to the public interest. The Department's Bureau of Protected Species Management determined that, without the conditions to be added to the draft permit it suggested, the following impacts could be expected as a result of approval of the proposed facility: The probability of manatee/boat collisions increases with increasing boat traffic where boaters and manatees regularly inhabit the same waterways. While the current level of barge/vessel traffic does not appear to be a problem, increasing the amount of recrea- tional and commercial vessel traffic to the proposed levels in this narrow waterway is expected to adversely impact the endangered manatee. Barge trips may become more frequent, and barges traveling down the center of the canal drives manatees toward the edges of the canal. This increases the risk of manatee/recreational boat collisions, and increases the risk of these recreational boats driving manatees underneath, ahead of or behind traveling barges. The probability of lethal and sublethal propeller strikes increases. Also, there is not sufficient space for manatees between the canal bottom and the bottom of a fully loaded barge, with only one foot clearance as typical for loaded barges. The probability of a manatee being crushed will increase, and this impact is difficult to offset with conservation measures other than not allowing the activity. Page 2, Petitioners exhibit 7 and CRMI exhibit 10. The evidence in this case supports the foregoing conclusions. The increased boat traffic from the proposed facility, even if limited to sailboats and even if power boats are allowed at lower speed limits than currently in force in the Greenway Canal, may cause impacts with manatees due to the increased traffic and the use of the Greenway Canal by barges and recreational boats. It is possible that manatees, confronted by oncoming recreational boats and barges, may be forced into the path of barges and be crushed. Barges used by Independent Aggregates are approximately 72 feet wide and 250 feet long and are pulled or pushed by tugboats. The probability of this conflict taking place will be greater if barge use of the Greenway Canal is increased as proposed by Independent Aggregates. The greatest threat to the manatee of the proposed facility is the threat of death or injury as a result of cuts or blunt trauma from collisions of boats with manatees. This threat is primarily associated, however, with faster moving, power boats. Therefore, the extent of possible adverse impact on the manatee will be determined largely by the speed limit imposed in the Greenway Canal. To mitigate against the possible adverse impact on manatee, the Department has included certain conditions in the draft permit. Those conditions are found in Condition 6 of the draft permit and were recommended by the Department's Bureau of Protected Species Management. As a result of the Bureau of Protected Species Management's review of the proposed facility, it was recommended that the proposed facility not be approved if all of the conditions suggested by it were not included in the draft permit. All of the conditions recommended, except one, were included in the draft permit. The condition not included was one that provided that a violation of manatee speed zones would be grounds for revocation of the lease of any slip or dock space at the proposed facility. The lease revocation condition recommended by the Bureau of Protected Species Management was not included in the permit due to concern by the Department as to whether the condition could be legally imposed. The language of the memorandum of review of the proposed facility from the Bureau of Protected Species Management suggesting that the proposed project should not be approved unless all recommended conditions are accepted is standard language used by the Bureau and not intended to be strictly interpreted. The Bureau ultimately concluded that, despite its recommendation, it believes that the conditions of the draft permit are adequate to offset adverse impacts to the manatee. The Bureau's explanation is sufficient to eliminate any inference that otherwise may be drawn from its suggestion that the proposed facility should not be approved due to the exclusion of the permit condition concerning revocation of leases for speed zone violators. Condition 6 requires, among other things, that signs warning of possible manatee activity be displayed during construction, that personnel associated with the project be educated about the manatee, and that other measures designed to protect manatee during construction be followed. Due to the fact that most of the construction will take place in the enclosed Mine Pit, there should be little, if any adverse impact on manatee as as result of construction. Condition 6 also provides that permanent manatee warning signs and information concerning manatee be posted by the marina, and that a manatee awareness education program be established at the proposed facility. Condition 6 also limits the use of the boat ramp of the proposed facility to boats stored "on-site." The ramp will not be open to the general public. Finally, condition 6.l. provides the most important limitation of the use of the proposed facility. Condition 6.1 limits use of the proposed facility to sailboats and, therefore, prohibits the use of power boats: . . . until the applicant has provided documentation to the Department that manatee protection speed zones in the CFBC have been revised, approved by the Bureau of Protected Species Management, and posted in the CFBC. Occupancy of the facility by sailboats shall not be restricted. The limitation of the use of a marina to sailboats should adequately mitigate the adverse impacts to the manatee from the proposed facility. See Coscan, at 651. The effect of condition 6.l. is to allow Marina to obtain a modification of the draft permit after it is issued to allow power boats based upon events which may take place in the future. There are no guarantees that those events will result in reasonable assurances that the adverse impact to the manatee from power boat use at the proposed facility will not be contrary to the public interest. The speed zones which must be established and approved by the Bureau of Protected Species Management will be established, if at all, through rule- making procedures. See Rule 62N-22.011, Florida Administrative Code. The process would allow public input. Additionally, the outcome of the process would be subject to challenge under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Because of possible challenges to the efforts to impose speed zones, it is possible that speed zones adequate to reduce the adverse impacts to the manatee which would satisfy the public interest test applicable in this matter will not be adopted. The standards which the Department must adhere to in establishing speed zones are not the same standards applicable in this matter. In this matter, reasonable assurances must be given that there will not be adverse impacts to the manatee, a threatened species, contrary to the public interest. Establishing speed zones pursuant to other provisions of law will not insure that the reasonable assurances required for the issuance of the permit at issue in this case will be given. Although the resulting speed zones may be adequate to protect the manatee, there is no way to determine what kind of speed zones will be established. Without knowing the ultimate speed zones which may be established, or, more importantly, to know that the speed zones will meet the public interest test applicable in this matter, it is not possible to find the reasonable assurances Marina is required to provide at this time or at any time before the proposed facility is actually permitted. If reasonable assurances can be given that the use of power boats in the proposed facility will not be contrary to the public interest once speed zones are established, Marina or the owner of the proposed facility may apply for a permit modification. At that time the requisite reasonable assurances concerning power boat use can be determined. The provision of condition 6.l. allowing Marina to avoid seeking a permit modification at that time is, therefore, at a minimum, unnecessary, and at its worse, an effort to allow Marina to avoid having to provide the necessary reasonable assurances concerning the use of power boats. If only the impact on the manatee were considered in establishing speed zones, it could be concluded slow or idle speed should be imposed throughout the Greenway Canal and for some distance into the Gulf of Mexico in order to adequately reduce the adverse impact from the proposed facility on the manatee. Establishing speed zones, however, requires a consideration of other factors. The evidence in this case failed to address those factors sufficiently to recommend a condition to the draft permit concerning speed zones. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that reasonable assurances have not been given that there will not be unreasonable adverse impact to the manatee if the use of power boats at the proposed facility is allowed as provided in condition 6.l. of the draft permit. Other Public Interest Criteria. The evidence failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. The evidence also failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The docks and other marina facilities will all be restricted to the Mine Pit, which is not now open to navigation. There is adequate width in the Greenway Canal to allow boats to exit the Mine Pit into the Greenway Canal and for boats and barges in the Greenway Canal to pass each other. Rip-rap to be placed along the Mine Pit shore and other shoreline stabilization activities will be adequate to prevent erosion and shoaling. Groundwater flow at the proposed site should not be adversely affected by the proposed facility, except as discussed, infra. The proposed facility should not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Recreational values (boating and fishing) should be enhanced as a result of the proposed facility. If condition 6.l. is not eliminated and power boats are allowed in the Greenway Canal, there are no assurances that the recreational value provided by the manatee will not be adversely impacted. The proposed facility is intended to be permanent. The evidence failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect or enhance significant historical or archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. If condition 6.l. is not modified to eliminate the use of power boats automatically upon the establishment of speed zones, there are no reasonable assurances that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee will not be adversely affected by the proposed facility. Otherwise, the proposed facility should not have an adverse impact on current conditions and relative value of current functions of the area. Groundwater Quality Standards. The general geology in the area of the proposed facility and the Greenway Canal is known as karst terrain. Karst terrain is geology formed by the solution of limestone over millions of years. Sequential episodes of exposure of the Floridan aquifer, which underlies the area, occurs in karst terrain as the result of the natural formation of sink holes. These sink holes impact the movement of groundwater. Information exists to reasonably describe the hydrogeology of the area in "regional" terms. There is insufficient information generally available about the specific hydrogeology of the proposed site or the immediately surrounding area. Underlying the entire area and the proposed site in particular is the Floridan aquifer. The properties of the Floridan aquifer in coastal Citrus County, including the proposed site, can vary enormously over relatively short vertical distances. This variability impacts the movement of groundwater. The groundwater under the proposed site is classified as G-II. The terms "potentiometric surface" are used to describe the level to which groundwater will rise above sea level. The higher groundwater rises above sea level, the thicker the layer of underlying drinkable water should be before reaching an interface between drinkable and undrinkable water. In central Citrus County, the potentiometric surface is relatively low and flat at approximately 5 or 6 feet above sea level. The resulting interface between drinkable and nondrinkable water is found at 200 or more feet. Due to natural geological conditions, moving to the northwest of Citrus County, including the Greenway Canal area, potentiometric levels are higher. Therefore, thicker layers of drinkable water should be found around the proposed facility site and the Greenway Canal than in central Citrus County. Because of higher potentiometric surface in the area of the Greenway Canal, the layer of drinkable water would be expected to continue beyond 120 feet below the surface. Construction of the Greenway Canal has resulted in the intrusion of saltwater from the Greenway Canal into the groundwater. It has also resulted in the upconing of mineralized (sulfate) waters from deeper to less deep levels within the Floridan aquifer. These impacts have been significant with regard to the chloride levels (from the saltwater) and sulfate upconing. The impact of the construction of the Greenway Canal on saltwater intrusion and sulfate upconing is the result of the lowering of the surface waters to sea level in the Greenway Canal. The lowering of the level of water in the Greenway Canal has had the effect of decreasing the potentiometric surface and, consequently, reducing the thickness of the layer of drinkable groundwater. Saltwater has intruded along and beneath the Greenway Canal. The extent of this intrusion is represented graphically on Petitioner's exhibits 13 and 14. Saltwater intrusion has occurred primarily as a result of downward leakage of saltwater traveling up the Greenway Canal. The saltwater intrusion has been localized around the Greenway Canal. The wedge of saltwater intrusion has reached to approximately where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Greenway Canal, approximately one-half mile east of the proposed site. Although it is "theoretically" possible that the saltwater wedge could continue to move along the entire length of the Greenway Canal, the evidence fails to support such a conclusion. Due to freshwater discharges from Lake Rousseau, the evidence supports a conclusion that the saltwater wedge will not move further eastward to any significant extent. The lowering of the waters of the Greenway Canal to sea level has had the effect of bringing sea level elevations to the Floridan aquifer several miles further inland than had been the case before construction of the Greenway Canal. Groundwater adjacent to the Greenway Canal, which is at levels higher than sea level, has discharged into the Greenway Canal. This has caused a lower groundwater level and the movement upward of groundwater. Similar effects have occurred naturally along the Withlacoochee River. As groundwater rises it comes into contact with a geologic unit which contains calcium sulfate. The sulfate mixes with the groundwater causing the "mineralized" groundwater. While the change in surface waters in the Greenway Canal was quick, the change in groundwater quality from saltwater intrusion and sulfate upconing has taken place only as fast as groundwater in the area flows. Generally, groundwaters flow very slowly. The impact of the Greenway Canal on upconing of sulfates will continue over time. Mineralized waters will continue to move upward and, perhaps, laterally away from the Greenway Canal. Pockets of mineralized waters (containing sulfates) can be found naturally occurring around the proposed site. Sulfate enriched groundwater in coastal areas naturally move toward, and discharge into, the surface waters along the coastal boundary. This process occurs along the Gulf of Mexico and the shoreline of Citrus County. The construction of the Greenway Canal has disrupted this natural process. The Mine Pit, when it was in use, was dewatered to different levels at various times. The dewatering took place for varying periods of time. Usually, the Mine Pit would be completely dewatered for a period of approximately three months. On one occasion, the Mine Pit was dewatered for a period of two years (1989 to 1991). It was dewatered to allow the removal of dolomite. The Mine Pit was allowed to fill back up with water after each dewatering. The dewatering of the Mine Pit was regulated by the Water Management District. The permit allowing dewatering of the Mine Pit required that the permit holder mitigate for adverse impacts of dewatering, including the inducement of natural contaminants into the aquifer. The evidence failed to prove, however, the extent of adverse impacts of the dewatering or whether the permit holder actually mitigated against any such adverse impacts. The lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit caused some upconing of sulfates for the same reason that the digging of the Greenway Canal did. Lowering the water level in the Mine Pit lowered the potentiometric level. The evidence, however, failed to prove the extent of the impact or how long the impact lasted. The lowering of the water level of the Mine Pit to sea level by connecting the Mine Pit to the Greenway Canal as proposed by Marina will have the same general impact as the digging of the Greenway Canal on the upconing of sulfates. Unlike the impact of the dewatering of the Mine Pit, the proposed modification will be permanent. Lowering the water level will have the same type impact for the same reasons that the digging of the Greenway Canal caused upconing. The potentiometric level will be permanently lowered; the layer of drinkable water will be permanently decreased. The evidence failed to prove that the lowering of the water level of the Mine Pit to sea level as a result of the proposed project will have the same impact on saltwater intrusion. This impact is less likely because the Mine Pit is four and a half miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. The upconing of sulfates as a result of the construction of the proposed facility will cause the levels of sulfates found in some portion of the currently drinkable layer of groundwater to exceed water quality standards. The area impacted will consist of groundwater which would otherwise have been expected to be potable. Comments concerning the proposed facility were provided to the Department by the Water Management District. By letter dated August 16, 1995, the Water Management District informed the Department that it was anticipated that the proposed facility would result in saltwater intrusion and upconing of mineralized water and that the area's groundwater could be expected to be degraded inconsistent with Water Management District rules. In response to the Water Management District's comments, Marina agreed to undertake a hydrogeologic study to gather site specific information to address those concerns. As a part of Marina's study, one monitoring well was drilled on the proposed site. The well was drilled to a depth of 450 feet in order to gather data concerning water quality at various depths. In early 1996, the Water Management District concluded that the results of the study undertaken by Marina had resolved its concerns. The test well was drilled to the south of the Mine Pit, approximately 2500 feet from the Greenway Canal. The water quality tests run on water taken from the test well reflected a sharp change in water quality at a depth of approximately 120 feet. The water below that level contained high levels of sulfates: 552 milligrams per liter of sulfate. Immediately above the high sulfate waters, low sulfate levels (12 milligrams per liter) were found. This result is contrary to what would be expected to be found based upon the higher potentiometric surface in this area of Citrus County. Because the potentiometric surface is higher in the area, it would be expected that the layer of drinkable groundwater would be considerably higher than 120 feet. The findings concerning the thickness of the drinkable groundwater found at the test well are consistent with the conclusions concerning the impacts of the digging of the Greenway Canal. As a result of the digging of the Greenway Canal and the lowering of the water level to sea level, the resulting decrease in the potentiometric surface has caused the upconing of mineralized waters and a decrease in the layer of drinkable groundwater. The Department and Marina have not disputed the fact that drinkable groundwater will be impacted by the upconing of mineralized waters (sulfates) as a result of connecting the Mine Pit with the Greenway Canal and lowering the level of water in the Mine Pit to sea level. The Department and Marina, however, have suggested that the extent of the impact of the lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit will not extend more than 100 feet from the Mine Pit and will be limited to the proposed site. The evidence failed to support this position. The unplugging of the Mine Pit will have the effect of increasing the area of water below sea level in the area by 12 percent of the size of the area of the Greenway Canal. Data from test wells around the Greenway Canal and other data has indicated that the upconing of mineralized water as a result of the lowering of the water level in the Greenway Canal has extended considerably more than 100 feet from the Greenway Canal. In light of the fact that the Mine Pit is equal in surface area to 12 percent of the surface area of the Greenway Canal, there is reason to be concerned that the area of impact from the lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit will also be significant. In light of the foregoing, and due to the variability of the geology of the area, the data from a single well on the site is of questionable value. Data from a single well simply does not provide the information necessary for Marina to provide reasonable assurances that the impact on groundwater from its proposed facility will be limited to an area of 100 feet from the Mine Pit. There is simply not enough data concerning the Mine Pit to conclude with any reasonable assurance that the upconing of mineralized waters (containing sulfates) will be limited to an area of 100 feet around the Mine Pit. Because of the size of the Mine Pit in relation to the Greenway Canal and the impact on upconing from the Greenway Canal, it is more likely that the impact of upconing will exceed 100 feet. A log of geologic characteristics of the test well was maintained. A confining unit or layer was found between the high-sulfate and low-sulfate waters at between 110 and 120 feet below the surface. The evidence failed to prove, however, the extent to which the layer may extend horizontally from the well location. In light of the general geology of Citrus County and the region around the proposed site, insufficient data exists to reach any conclusion about the extent of the confining layer. Establishing the extent of the confining layer would require more extensive (and costly) study of the site. The existence of a confining layer would also have no significant impact on the degree of upconing as a result of lowering the water level in the Mine Pit. I. Surface Water Quality Standards. Petitioners stipulated that the proposed facility would not violate surface water quality standards except with regard to the standard for chloride. Because of the flow of fresh water from Lake Rousseau and the flushing canal to be constructed at the proposed site, reasonable assurances have been given by Marina that there will be sufficient flushing of the Mine Pit to preclude a violation of chloride standards for surface waters. The evidence presented by Petitioners concerning the possibility that the salt water wedge resulting from the construction of the Greenway Canal may extend landward and eventually into the Mine Pit was too speculative and "theoretical".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Citrus Recreational Marina, Inc.'s application for wetland resource permit (dredge and fill) and the application for Management and Storage of Surface Waters Permit. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Goodwin, Esquire Save the Manatee Club, Inc. 500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 210 Maitland, Florida 32751 Peter Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne Hrydziusko Assistant General Counsel Douglas H. MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Douglas Roberts, Esquire HOPPING, GREEN, SAMS & SMITH, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
