Findings Of Fact The Applicant, John E. Bravo, applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dockage facility. The proposed facility will consist of a 910 foot pier with a "T"-shaped platform structure extending perpendicular in two directions from the seaward end of the pier, all of which is designed to accommodate 56 boat slips, restricted to the use of pleasure boats only. The proposed project site is located on the southeast side of "Long Point" and would extend into the waters of East Bay, which is a tidally influenced water body in Bay County, Florida. The project site lies in Class II waters of the State. The waters involved are not approved for shellfish harvesting, however, but rather are under a shellfish harvesting prohibition imposed by the Department of Natural Resources. The portion of East Bay involved also lies within the Intracoastal Waterway. The waterway is approximately 6,000 feet wide at the site of the proposed docking facility. The water along the shoreline of the area is shallow for a considerable distance waterward. The bay bottom is characterized by profuse seagrass for approximately 500 feet waterward of mean high water. Beyond that point, the seagrass (Cuban Shoal Grass) dissipates and disappears. The first 400 feet waterward of the mean high water line at the location of the proposed dock, is shallow and not truly navigable. The water then deepens to approximately five feet at mean low water some 525 feet from the shore. This distance from the shore marks the beginning of the area where no significant amount of seagrass exists and where the boat docking slips and mooring pilings would be installed in a waterward direction down the remaining length of the proposed dock. The water depth continues to increase to approximately 20 feet at the proposed location of the end of the dock. The dock would be constructed of pilings driven into the bay bottom supporting the decking of the walkway portion and "T" portion of the dock. The "T" would be installed on the seaward end of the dock, perpendicular to the walkway portion of the dock with most of the boat slips installed and operated at that point. The length of the docking facility is dictated by the fact that the Applicant seeks to locate the boat slips in a manner so that all boats will be moored and operated well beyond existing seagrasses. In fact, the length of the dock is more than absolutely necessary to accomplish this purpose since water depth and avoidance of seagrasses could accomplished with the dock ending approximately 700 feet from the mean high water line. In an abundance of caution, however, in order to avoid the possibility of propeller dredging and prop wash damaging the bottom substrates and grasses, and since the Intracoastal Waterway is over a mile wide here, the Applicant elected to design the dock in the length and configuration proposed. Such will cause no unreasonable impediment to navigation. In this connection, the Applicant has agreed to post Coast Guard- approved safety lights on the dock which will warn boats of its presence in hours of darkness. Further, the dock does not extend far enough into the 6,000 foot wide Intracoastal Waterway to pose a hazard to barge and other boating traffic in the Waterway. Some of the Petitioner's witnesses revealed that shrimp boats pull their nets during shrimping operations closer than 900 feet to the shore line and in the vicinity of the grass beds. While the presence of the dock may alter the trawling pattern of shrimp boats and the operations of other commercial fishermen, as well as water skiing and boating by members of the public, this may in fact have a beneficial effect by promoting the public interest in preserving marine habitat and the conservation of marine resources by preventing some damage to the grass beds. Such marine grass beds are valuable nursery areas for fishes and other marine animals, the effects upon which must be considered in weighing the various statutory indicia of the public interest which must be satisfied before granting a dredge and fill permit. Further, because the dockage facility at issue would be an isolated one with no significant similar docks in the immediate vicinity, the likelihood that it would pose a navigational hazard to water skiiers, fishermen, shrimpers, and other commercial and recreational interests is rather insignificant. Water Quality The water quality issues posed by a project such as this typically involve the water quality parameters of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, bacteriological quality, turbidity, oils, greases, fuel, paint or varnish, solvents and heavy metals, as contemplated by the below-cited rules concerning general surface water quality criteria and the specific rules related to Class II surface waters. The project site is located in Class II surface waters of the State. Those Class II waters are classified by the Department of Natural Resources as "not approved" for shellfish harvesting. The zone of the Class II waters of East Bay in which shellfish harvesting is not approved extends some two miles eastward of the project site. Marinas and dockage facilities such as this one, which will accommodate fairly large boats in significant numbers, typically pose potential pollution problems involving deposition of nutrients in State waters in the form of fish carcasses and offal, garbage and human wastes. Additionally, boats can pose pollution hazards because of attendant dumping of grease, oil and fuel residues in marina waters as well as the deposition of trash in various forms such as paper and plastic items as a result of human use of the boats and the marina facility itself. Perhaps the most severe potential problem is the deposition of human fecal matter into the water as a result of the flushing of marine heads on the larger boats, which the dockage facility will accommodate in the slips as designed. The fecal coliform bacteria which emanate from the deposition of human wastes into the waters around such a dockage facility can be concentrated in oysters and other shellfish to such an extent as to cause severe illness, permanent disability or even death in humans. Consequently, in order to avoid this problem in a magnitude which would violate the water quality parameter in the rule cited below for bacteriological quality, substantial measures must be taken with a project such as this to avoid the deposition of human wastes from the dockage facility itself and from the boats using the slips. In furtherance of this end, the Applicant proposes to allow no live- aboard vessels to be occupied over night while moored at the docking facilities. Live-aboard vessels are deemed to be those with sleeping accommodations and marine heads. The Applicant also proposes to employ a full-time dock master seven days a week, eight hours a day to ensure that all dockage users are familiar with dockage rules, and who would enforce them, especially that prohibiting any discharges from vessels using or docking at the marina. The rules would be incorporated in the dockage lease agreements. The dock master would be responsible for the clean up and correction of all unauthorized discharges. In view of the potential for sewage discharges from marine heads, even with sewage pump-out facilities and the other restrictions on the use of live-aboard type boats, the additional protective measure of requiring a sewage pump-out line and pump-out equipment, including a storage tank and a means to direct sewage pumped from boats into the upland sanitary sewer system, should be imposed as an additional condition. Additionally, the restriction against over night stays aboard boats, the discharge of marine heads into the marina waters and the requirement for use of the sewage pump-out system should be publicized on large, easily legible signs at various points on the pier so that all boat slip renters or users can be on notice of the restrictions and the dock master's and the Department's enforcement of them. Additional potential sources of nutrient and bacteriological degradation of the dissolved oxygen content and bacteriological integrity of the surface waters involved can be posed by the deposition of fish carcasses and parts, as well as food wastes and other garbage in the marina waters. In order to prevent this, the Applicant has proposed to provide fish cleaning stations located on the upland and to require all fish carcasses and other related wastes to be placed in upland containers and not disposed of in the Class II waters at the dock site. Additionally, waste containers will be located along the length and perimeter of the dock facility for garbage, with regular emptying of the containers enforced by the dock master to prevent spillage. In connection with the upland fish cleaning sites to be installed, the drainage waters or waste water from fish cleaning stations should be directed into an upland disposal system so that it may be ensured that the water does not get back into the Class II waters of the bay. In addition to the above measures, pump-out facilities and equipment will be provided by the Applicant for used engine oil removed from boats and oil and water from boat bilges. These wastes, under agreed-upon conditions, would be transported by pipeline to the upland to a storage tank pending proper disposal. Trash, garbage and other refuse will be deposited in dumpsters for removal by municipal garbage disposal services. No fueling facilities or fueling of boats will be allowed. Additionally, oil spill clean up materials will be maintained on the marina site in sufficient quantities to allow clean up of the maximum spill expected from the largest boat typically using the marina pursuant to the leases for the boat slips. In order to further lessen the possibility of spills of oils, greases and fuels, the permit should be conditioned (as should the leases) upon no boat maintenance being performed at the marina site other than minor engine adjustments. In this context, an additional enforcement measure will be in the boat slip rental agreements themselves. The agreements will contain restrictive provisions requiring lessees to properly handle and dispose of fish carcasses and wastes, used engine oil, bilge water and requiring them to comply with sewage pump-out and refuse disposal conditions enumerated above. Upon completion of the facility, the dock master will manage and accomplish maintenance of the various items of equipment, such as the pump-out facility, on an eight hour a day, seven day per week basis and will enforce the restrictive provisions incorporating the above conditions in the boat slip rental agreements. Those restrictive provisions should include putting the lessees on notice that violation of any of the conditions enumerated above and in the boat slip leases will result in a breach of the lease and removal of their vessel from the marina and reporting of the violation to regulatory authorities. The various expert witnesses agreed that the proposed permit conditions enumerated above, if enforced, would adequately protect water quality as to the above parameters at issue. The Class II water quality standards will not be violated by the installation and operation of the project as proposed, provided the above conditions are strictly enforced and adhered to. Mr. Jack Taylor, the expert witness for the Petitioner, agreed that the above measures would reasonably ensure that the marina will not cause pollution and contravention of Class II water quality standards, but feared that enforcement problems would prevent such conditions from prevailing. In view of the measures enumerated above which will be undertaken by the Applicant to ensure that water quality standards are adhered to, including the liberal use of warning signs for marina customers and slip lessees, the use of a full-time dock master to enforce the conditions and including the enforcement measure of putting the conditions as restrictions in the slip rental leases, it has been shown that the enforcement will be reasonably adequate. An additional and important enforcement measure can be incorporated into this project, however, by requiring the Applicant to submit an operation and maintenance plan for the marina and requiring a monitoring program under the auspices of the Department for at least a year of operation in order to ensure that the project operates as it is proposed under the above-delineated conditions. The Department has continuing enforcement power and the monitoring program would, with regular monthly inspections, allow early detection and correction of any water quality violations, to and including the voiding of the permit and the closing of the marina operation should violations prove severe and uncorrectable. 1/ Such a monitoring program and marina operation and maintenance plan should be required as a condition to granting of the permit. 2/ Finally, it should be pointed out that the area of East Bay where the project would be built is Class II shellfish prohibited waters. The proposed project itself will not likely adversely affect shell fishing to the extent of closing additional waters if the above water quality safeguards are imposed as conditions on the permit and on the marina operation. This is especially true because the boundary line of the shellfish approved water to the east is at least two miles away, which distance incorporates a substantial mixing zone in the open waters of East Bay to sufficiently dilute pollutants which might emanate from the marina or other sources to levels such that the shellfish waters presently open will not be subject to any further closures by the Department of Natural Resources, as a result of this installation. The primary reason the shellfish waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project are closed to harvesting is the presence of the Military Point Sewage Treatment Plant which discharges its effluent into the waters of East Bay, such that the DNR's dye flow studies reveal that a 5.1 square mile buffer zone around that plant is necessary for closure to shellfish harvesting to ensure that the public health is not adversely affected by consumption of shellfish from the waters in that buffer area. That buffer area includes the proposed marina site. Additional significant pollution sources include fecal coliform bacteria, oils and greases and other contaminants associated with rainfall events and resultant urban runoff from the City of Parker and surrounding areas, including septic tank leachate and petroleum residues. These influences also currently add to the reasons why shellfish harvesting is precluded in the area of the proposed facility. It was not demonstrated that the addition of the marina and the boats operating under the above strict conditions will result in any additional closures to shellfish harvesting in surrounding, presently approved areas as a result of any water quality degradation posed by the subject project. Public Interest The public interest criteria-enumerated at Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, which are actually at issue in this proceeding concern: (1) whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or property of others, (2) whether it will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including their habitats, (3) whether the project will adversely affect navigation, water flow or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, (4) whether it will adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in its vicinity, and (5) whether the current condition and relative value of the functions of the natural area involved at the project site will be adversely affected by the proposed activity. There is no issue or dispute raised concerning the permanence of the project for purposes of criteria number 5 under this subsection, nor as to number 6, concerning historical and archaeological resources. Concerning criteria numbered 1-4 and 7, of this subsection, it has been demonstrated that the project will not likely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others if constructed and operated according to the conditions delineated herein. Some members of the public testifying on behalf of the Petitioner objected to the interference they feared the dock would cause with their jogging along the shoreline and feared an impediment to their use of the area for water skiing. This is the only dock in this vicinity, however, and such interference is minor. It will be well lit in order to avoid impeding navigation or posing a danger to the public health or safety during hours of darkness in terms of the public's ability to safely operate boats in the area. There is some potential for the project adversely affecting conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats in that, if boats are permitted to operate in the vicinity of the dock and use the dock for mooring, loading and unloading purposes, and the like, closer than 500 feet off shore, harmful propeller washing or dredging of the bottom sediments and seagrasses growing therein will result. If such erosion of the bottom and seagrass growth begins occurring, it will adversely affect and gradually destroy the area as a habitat for fish and other marine life, which is of particular importance since such Cuban Shoal Grass stands are quite beneficial as nursery areas for fish and other organisms. Thus, if boating activity were allowed unimpeded around the dock, including in the near shore area within 500 feet from the mean high water line, the resultant erosion and propeller damage to the seagrass beds in the bottom would indicate that, as to criteria 2 and 3 of the above subsection, that the project would not be in the public interest and would be contrary to the public interest. This same consideration is true with regard to the fourth criteria concerning whether the project adversely affects fishing and recreational values or marine productivity for similar reasons. If marine habitat is disrupted or destroyed in whole or in part in the vicinity of the dock due to erosion and other damage caused by boat and propeller contacts with the bottom or prop wash near the bottom, then as to this criteria, concerning marine productivity and recreational value, the project will be contrary to the public interest also. To the extent that nursery areas for fish and other valuable marine organisms are destroyed, the recreational value in terms of quality of fishing will certainly be diminished. The "current condition and relative value of functions" being performed by the area of marine habitat affected by this project must also be considered. In a like vein, this particular area constituting dense growths of seagrasses has a relatively high functional value as a marine habitat and, particularly, a nursery for marine animals. This current condition and value of the area should be accorded a fairly high status in weighing and balancing the various considerations used in determining whether the project is or is not contrary to the public interest. If the boats which are to use the marina upon its construction and operation are permitted inside the grass bed area, roughly within 500 feet of the shore, then clearly the considerations mentioned above will be the subject of adverse effects caused by the boats' operation which in turn is a direct result of the installation of this marina, the dock and the slips. In view of the reasonable likelihood of the project causing some of the adverse effects mentioned above, resulting from contact by boat propellers and boat hulls with the grass beds or erosive prop wash caused by operation of boats in water so shallow that the propellers are too near the bottom, the Applicant has agreed to a condition which will effectively remove boats from the seagrass bed area, provided it is strictly enforced. That condition would provide that boats and the slips in which they would be moored cannot be landward of 600 feet off shore of the mean high water line along the sides of the seaward extending dock. All boat slips are to be located seaward of that point. The Petitioners, however, raised a valid point that, the dock being so long, the natural tendency of boat operators would be to moor their boats along the sides of the dock as close into shore as boat operation is possible in order to more easily load and unload their boats. In order to prevent this problem from occurring, therefore, an additional condition should be imposed on the permit which would provide that the sides of the dock be enclosed by a fence out to the 600 foot mark and of such a configuration and type as to prevent boat operators from mooring boats to the sides of the dock and gaining ingress or egress from their boats on the dock shoreward of the 600 foot point mentioned above. In other words, if it is made impossible to enter or leave a boat from the dock in the area of the seagrass beds, this would substantially reduce the likelihood that the seagrass beds would be damaged by boats using the dock. Additionally, prominent signs should be posted on or in the vicinity of the dock announcing the necessity to avoid operating boats landward of the point mentioned above and the necessity of avoiding contacting the seagrass beds with boats or boat propellors. If this condition is adhered to and strictly enforced, as even Petitioner's expert witness concedes, it will prevent the chief source of adverse effects upon the public interest. An additional consideration in determining whether or not this project is contrary to the public interest concerns its effect upon navigation. This has already been discussed in the above Findings of Fact. Since this would be the only dock in the immediate area, it is found that the presence of the dock, even though it extends a significant distance seaward of the shore line, will still not pose a significant impediment to navigation. Additionally, as has been pointed out above, the public interest might be served in a positive way by the installation of the dock to the extent that it might prevent shrimp boats and other fishing boats pulling nets from using the shallow seagrass area which will help prevent uprooting and other damage to the grass beds caused by the nets and associated fishing gear. Finally, it should be pointed out that to a certain extent the project will positively serve recreational values and the public welfare, in the context of balancing the various public interest considerations, because at least half the boat slips will be reserved for public use and because the addition of such a marina or docking facility will enhance the public's ability to obtain recreational value from the State waters involved in East Bay by improving marine access to those waters for fishing, boating, skiing and other purposes. In short, reasonable assurances have been provided that the project is not contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the application of John E. Bravo for the dredge and fill permit at issue be GRANTED, provided that the terms and conditions enumerated in the above Findings of Fact are incorporated in the permit as mandatory conditions. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1987.
The Issue The issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided by Sarasota County (County) for the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44040881.000 authorizing the proposed alteration of a drainage ditch in the City of Sarasota (City), and whether Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, was entitled to receive notice of the application pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation established in 2010 whose only members are Erika and Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt. In 2010, Petitioner purchased parcel 2009-16- 0015 in a tax deed sale. The parcel consists primarily of the submerged lands within the marina basin adjacent to the project area. Petitioner contends that the tax deed accords it ownership of the western most 130 feet of the existing ditch and that the County is not authorized to do work on that property. The City and County dispute this claim and it is now being litigated in circuit court. The City claims ownership or control of all of the project area to be addressed under the permit. The City authorized the County to apply for and construct the improvements authorized by the permit pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the County for consolidation of stormwater management responsibilities. The District is the agency charged with the responsibility of controlling water resources within its geographic boundaries and to administer and enforce chapter 373 and the rules promulgated in rule division 40D. The County submitted the application pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the City and will construct, operate, and maintain the project if the permit is issued. The Project U.S. Highway 41, also known as Tamiami Trail, travels through downtown Sarasota. During rainy months, between Fruitville Road and Second Street, U.S. Highway 41 experiences frequent roadway flooding. At the area where U.S. Highway 41 floods and between the Quay development to the north and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to the south, is a stormwater ditch that drains west into a marina basin or bayou adjoining Sarasota Bay. However, it does not directly discharge into Sarasota Bay. The ditch is an upland cut drainage ditch approximately 650 feet in length and has been in existence for decades. The ditch is covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit issued to the County for the surrounding communities. Contaminants in the stormwater system are addressed under this permit. The ditch provides the only outfall for an approximately 46-acre heavily urbanized drainage basin for which stormwater is collected through the stormwater system. The stormwater is discharged into the drainage ditch through a double concrete box culvert under U.S. Highway 41 and is ultimately conveyed to a marina basin adjoining Sarasota Bay. The ditch is located in what was originally platted as the right-of-way for Eighth Street (now known as Second Street) on the Central Broadway subdivision plat within the City. Pursuant to an earlier exemption determination by the District, in 2004 the County conducted maintenance dredging on the easterly portion of the drainage ditch in an effort to remove the sediments and vegetation that had built up in the ditch over the years and reduced its flow. Since that time, the ditch has again filled in as a result of the significant amounts of sedimentation from stormwater flows entering and settling in the ditch and significant amounts of vegetation. Also, flooding on U.S. Highway 41 has become more frequent. In its current condition, the ditch is approximately eight to 12 feet wide and eight to 12 inches deep, is poorly drained due to the sedimentation and heavily overgrown mangroves and nuisance vegetation, and is tidally influenced. Accumulated sediments in the ditch are approximately four feet thick at the eastern end and become thinner at the western end of the ditch. In August 2009, staff from the City, County, District, and Florida Department of Transportation met at the site of the ditch to conduct a pre-application meeting and discuss possible ways of addressing flooding problems at this location. Aside from the ditch improvements being proposed by the County, the only other remedy is to pipe the ditch, which is cost-prohibitive and would defeat the County's goal of keeping as much desirable vegetation in place as possible. To address flooding and maintenance concerns, on September 8, 2011, the County submitted an ERP application to the District to seek authorization to dredge and undertake ditch improvements. The application identifies the ditch as being within City right-of-way. Included with the application was a letter from the City authorizing the County to apply for the ERP on behalf of the City pursuant to their interlocal stormwater agreement. At the time the application was filed, the County Property Appraiser's Office Geographic Information Systems tax parcel map showed the ditch and dredge area as being within the City right-of-way. The proposed project consists of reconstruction of the ditch with a defined channel to be lined with rip rap and geotextile fabric and the addition of two sediment sump boxes. Some of the mangroves and nuisance vegetation will be removed as necessary to construct the ditch improvements. Mangroves will be preserved where not impacted by construction. The Property Dispute Petitioner claims ownership of the western 130 feet of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. As noted above, at the time the permit application was submitted, official property records showed the existing ditch as located within City right-of-way. Therefore, the County and District had no reason to doubt City ownership or control of the ditch area. A recently filed circuit court action seeks to determine ownership of a portion of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over all actions involving the titles and boundaries or right of possession of real property. District rules permit applicants to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the proposed project area in order to conduct the activities to be permitted. An applicant with eminent domain authority that does not have ownership or control for all property necessary for the proposed project may rely on its eminent domain authority to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. The permit will be conditioned to prohibit construction until all ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project is acquired by the permittee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.301(1)(j); BOR § 2.0. The proposed permit contains Specific Condition No. 8 which enforces this requirement. Reasonable assurance of sufficient ownership or legal control of the project area is provided by virtue of the City's and County's eminent domain authority and the fact that the proposed permit prohibits construction until the permittee acquires all necessary ownership or other legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. Notice Requirements Petitioner contends the permit should be denied because it did not receive notice of the application pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). That rule provides that when the applicant is an entity with the power of eminent domain that does not have current ownership or control of the entire project area as described in the application, the applicant shall provide the property owner(s) identified in the application with so-called eminent domain noticing, which consists of (a) written notice of District receipt of the application, and (b) written notice of agency action on the application. Persons entitled to eminent domain noticing are owners of property located within the proposed project area as identified in the county property appraiser's records within 30 days prior to the filing of the application. The purpose of the District's eminent domain noticing provision is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to owners of property subject to being condemned or otherwise acquired by the applicant for part of the project area. As originally submitted, the application proposed some activities extending approximately ten feet into the marina basin and beyond the claimed City right-of-way. The permit application did not indicate City ownership or control of submerged lands within the marina basin. Consequently, in its request for additional information (RAI), the District advised that pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b), eminent domain notices to affected landowners would be required for any proposed easements over offsite property. As part of the application process, a seagrass study was prepared which showed seagrasses and oyster beds growing in the marina basin just beyond the end of the ditch, where some construction activity was proposed. Because seagrasses were observed growing at the end of the ditch, the County responded to the RAI by scaling back the project to confine activities to the City's right-of-way. With the change in project area, offsite easements were no longer necessary for the project. Thus, the project no longer required eminent domain noticing pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). The County and District acknowledge that Petitioner did not receive eminent domain notices. Although not provided notice, Petitioner nevertheless became aware of the permit application during the course of its own application process with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for an ERP to construct a 4,760-square foot, ten-slip docking facility on its adjacent submerged lands in the marina basin. The lack of notice has not prevented Petitioner from challenging the project or has otherwise prejudiced it. Having received actual notice of the permit, Petitioner filed a timely objection and request for hearing in this matter. Petitioner contends that while it does not oppose the ditch dredging, it would have wanted an opportunity to suggest a re-design of the ditch to include a dingy dock and kayak launching facility. Although it has known of the project since at least May 21, 2012, when it filed its first petition, and probably several months earlier, Petitioner has not provided the County or District with any alternative designs to maximize the potential for recreational use of the drainage canal. There is no requirement for ERP applicants to provide alternative designs to maximize potential public recreational uses. Requiring the County to do so would impose requirements that go beyond the conditions for permit issuance. ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, a permit applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to water quality, water quantity, and other environmental resources. For activities proposed in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters, reasonable assurance must also be provided that such activities are not contrary to the public interest and do not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The conditions for issuance of an ERP are set forth in rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302. The standards and criteria in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has met the conditions for issuance in those two rules. The parties have stipulated that the project either complies with the following conditions for issuance or that they are not applicable: 40D-4.301(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), (j), and (k) and 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. Also, rule 40D-4.302(1)(c) and (d), which concerns projects located in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to certain shellfish harvesting waters or which involve vertical seawalls, is not applicable to this matter. Based on the parties' Stipulation, at issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands (40D-4.301(1)(a)); will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by wetlands and other surface waters (40D-4.301(1)(d)); will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that applicable state water quality standards will be violated (40D-4.301(1)(e)); and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (40D-4.301(1)(f)). Petitioner also contends that the County has failed to give reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts, as required by rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) and (b). Water Quantity Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) requires reasonable assurance be provided that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Existing and post-construction flows were modeled by the County using the accepted Inter-Connected Pond Routing model. Drainage calculations demonstrate that for the 25-year storm, the flood stage will be reduced by 1.94 feet, and for the 100-year storm event, by 1.75 feet, which will provide flood relief. Modeling results demonstrate a reduction in flood stages not just for U.S. Highway 41 but for other adjoining properties. The evidence establishes that while the project is not designed to eliminate all potential flooding, flooding during normal events will be reduced. Specifically, no adverse water quantity impacts were demonstrated with respect to Petitioner's adjacent submerged lands. Improvements proposed to the ditch will increase its storage capacity and allow water to flow more efficiently. By increasing the storage and hydraulic efficiency of the ditch without generating any additional runoff volume, the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts and will have no adverse water quantity impacts on the receiving waters. Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, including adjacent submerged lands owned by Petitioner. Impact on Value of Functions Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that project activities "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District." The existing ditch provides limited ecological functions for fish and wildlife, as it contains significant levels of exotics and nuisance vegetation that provide little in the way of habitat. The removal of the nuisance vegetation, improved water circulation, and decreased sediments will be an improvement. The proposed ditch reconstruction and replanting with other vegetation will provide a more suitable habitat for younger life stages of fish such as sea trout, red fish, and hog chokers, which are species typically found in tidally influenced drainage systems. Overall, the proposed project will result in an improved habitat available for fish and wildlife. The project will retain as many of the existing mangroves as possible, thereby retaining the ecology of the mangrove wetlands. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions being provided to fish and wildlife and will actually improve the ecological functions provided by the ditch. Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that the proposed ditch alterations will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. The parties have stipulated that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in rule chapters 62-522 and 62-550. Petitioner contends, however, that reasonable assurance has not been provided concerning possible impacts relating to surface water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, the anti- degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, or the groundwater permitting and monitoring requirements of rule chapter 62-522. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the activities will adversely affect the groundwater protection provisions of rule chapter 62-522. The proposed ditch alterations do not involve activities relating to these state water quality standards. Under BOR section 3.2.4, reasonable assurance must be provided for the short term and the long term that water quality standards are not violated. As to potential construction or short-term impacts, the proposed construction work involves the removal of sediments accumulated in the ditch, reconstruction of the ditch to be wider and deeper and within a more defined course, the addition of rip rap and geotextile fabric on the ditch bottom, and replanting of the ditch banks with salt- tolerant grasses and other vegetation to provide soil stabilization and erosion control. The proposed permit addresses the potential for turbidity during construction activities to cause short-term water quality violations by authorizing a temporary mixing zone and by requiring the installation of turbidity barriers and ongoing turbidity monitoring during construction. To further minimize the potential for any water quality violation during construction activities, construction methods will include the use of cofferdams or similar techniques to provide a barrier between the open water of the marina basin and the work being constructed within the ditch, which will be undertaken in segments starting at the eastern outfall at U.S. Highway 41. These provisions adequately address the potential for any short- term water quality impacts and are consistent with BOR provisions relating to short-term water quality. As to possible long-term water quality impacts, the evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not add any additional pollutants or new pollutant source to the receiving waters and will not cause or contribute to any violation of water quality standards. To the contrary, by removing existing stormwater sediments, which are known to contain pollutants, controlling sedimentation through collection of sediments in sediment sumps, and armoring the ditch channel to prevent erosion, water quality is expected to improve. The proposed sediment sumps to be added as a best management practice are appropriately sized to handle the approximately 5,600 pounds of sediments that accumulate annually in the ditch, as determined by annual pollutant load calculations provided by the County. The sumps will be located most efficiently at the outfall where the ditch begins. Preventing sediments from entering the receiving waters is one of the best things that can be done to improve water quality in nearby Sarasota Bay. Improvements in water quality are also expected to occur as a result of the addition of rip rap that will dissipate the flow energy, thereby allowing any remaining sediments to settle down, and the geotextile fabric that will keep soil in place and not allow it to float up. The sodding and replanting of the ditch embankments will also prevent side erosion from occurring, which erosion could add sediments in the ditch. Once constructed, the ditch will be regularly maintained by the County, with sediments to be cleaned out of the sump on a quarterly schedule. Any sediments settling on the rip rap and on plant vegetation would be cleaned out as needed, as determined by regular inspections. Petitioner contends that reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, and the anti-degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, will not be violated by the proposed activities. Its expert opined that the impact of the proposed activity on state water quality standards cannot be determined because no sampling of the receiving water was conducted, the permit does not require compliance monitoring, and the existing ditch sediments were not sufficiently analyzed. The evidence establishes that it can be reasonably presumed, without compliance monitoring or sampling, that the water flowing from the 46-acre urbanized watershed served by the ditch contains sediments and other pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. Most of the expected pollutants are contained within, or settle into the sediments that are deposited into, the ditch. By removing sediments through the use of adequately sized sediment sumps, slowing the water down to allow suspended solids to settle out within the ditch, adding geotextile fabric and rip rap covering the ditch bottom, establishing vegetation on the ditch sidebanks to prevent erosion, and implementing periodic maintenance through vacuum removal of collected sediments, the proposed activities will remove pollutants from the water flowing into the ditch and discharging into the marina basin and ultimately entering Sarasota Bay. Thus, it is reasonable to expect without sampling or monitoring that the proposed activities will improve water quality. In addition to identifying the positive benefits of the proposed activities, the evidence established that the proposed activities will not add a pollutant source to the receiving waters. This was not credibly disputed by Petitioner. Because the project does not generate pollutants, the proposed activities will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. There is no reason to require pre-construction or baseline sampling to compare with post- construction sampling, as no pollutants will be generated. The removal of sediments and ongoing ditch maintenance will result in an improvement in water quality. Therefore, it can be reasonably assured without requiring sampling or monitoring that the activities will not result in any violations of state water quality standards. Secondary Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f) and BOR section 3.2.7 require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. As originally proposed, the project included activities extending beyond the end of the ditch and into the marina basin, where seagrasses and oyster beds are present. By avoiding impacts to these resources, the project also avoids any secondary impacts to manatees that may frequent Sarasota Bay. Turbidity control measures to be used during construction will also avoid secondary impacts to these resources. Petitioner provided no evidence that secondary impacts would occur as a result of the project. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not result in any secondary impacts to the water resources. Public Interest Test Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that activities to be located in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, as determined by balancing certain criteria, or if such activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the activity will be clearly in the public interest. The proposed activities are not located within Sarasota Bay, a designated OFW. Petitioner provided no evidence that the proposed activities would significantly degrade that body of water. Therefore, the County need only demonstrate that the proposed activities are not contrary to the public interest. The parties have stipulated that rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)6., which governs historical and archaeological resources, is not applicable to this matter. The remaining criteria at issue are whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values of marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The evidence establishes that the project will reduce flooding during normal stages and remove sediments. By reducing the potential for roadway flooding and improving water quality through sediment reduction, the project will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others. Efforts were made to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters in the design of the project. Proposed activities will involve the removal of some of the existing mangroves. Based upon an analysis conducted pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Manual, the unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will result in a functional loss score of 0.08. Unavoidable wetland and other surface water impacts anticipated from the project will be appropriately mitigated through the use of a 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA). The evidence demonstrates that the project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to conservation of fish and wildlife, including any endangered or threatened species, or their habitats and will actually result in an improvement in wetland and other surface water functions and habitat. The evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water and will not cause erosion or shoaling. The ditch reconstruction will prevent the possibility of shoaling at the downstream end of the ditch adjoining Petitioner's submerged lands by increasing the width of the ditch, slowing the water down, removing sedimentation along the ditch bottom, and reducing erosion through the planting of salt-tolerant sod and other vegetation along the ditch side banks. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence. No adverse impacts are expected to occur with respect to fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed activity. By removing sediments, the project will provide an improvement to fishing and recreational activities in the marina basin and Sarasota Bay. Petitioner raised concerns regarding the amount of floatable material that will be discharged from the ditch as a result of removal of mangroves. As provided in the permit plans, significant portions of the mangroves will remain undisturbed. Under current conditions, the ditch and mangroves do not prevent or trap all trash and floatables entering the ditch. On-site observations of existing conditions confirmed there is not a large amount of trash and floatables currently being retained by existing mangroves. Any temporarily retained floatables within the ditch area ultimately float out to Sarasota Bay with the tide. The evidence establishes that even with the removal of some mangroves, the project is not expected to result in an easier flow or increased amount of floatables entering the marina basin. Finally, because the project activities do not add floatable materials to the ditch, requiring the County to implement design changes to remove floatables would exceed what is necessary to meet the conditions for permit issuance. Petitioner also raised concerns regarding the levels of fecal coliform and the possibility of illicit connections to the stormwater collection outfalls to the ditch. The ditch is part of a MS4 permit that is regulated pursuant to NPDES Permit No. FLS000004 issued to the County. The NPDES permit governs stormwater discharges within the unincorporated portions of the County, the municipalities within the County, and that part of Longboat Key that is in Manatee County. The primary function of the MS4 permit is to address issues of water quality as they relate to stormwater discharges. The MS4 permit requirements would be the appropriate regulatory framework to address elevated fecal coliform, illicit connections, or other water quality concerns in the stormwater emanating from the drainage basin served by the ditch, and not the ERP regulatory program. Having weighed and balanced the six applicable criteria, and based upon the evidence presented, the County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on wetlands and other surface waters, as further described in BOR sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.8.2. BOR section 3.2.8 provides that if an applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, then the regulated activity is considered to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts upon wetlands will be provided through the use of the 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek ROMA. The evidence establishes that the proposed mitigation fully offsets the impacts and is within the same drainage basin as the proposed impacts. No adverse cumulative impacts will occur with the project. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence of adverse cumulative impacts. Impaired Receiving Waters Petitioner contends that the project does not comply with the requirements of rule 40D-4.301(2) and related BOR section 3.2.4.5, which are applicable when existing ambient water quality does not meet state water quality standards. Rule 40D-4.301(2) provides that if an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant shall meet the requirements of BOR section 3.2.4.5 and related sections cited in that provision. Together, these provisions require that where existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant must demonstrate that for the parameters that do not meet water quality standards, the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If it does contribute to the existing violation, mitigation measures will be required that result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for the parameter that does not meet standards. The marina basin that is the receiving waters for the ditch has been identified by DEP as impaired due to levels of mercury in fish tissue. The evidence demonstrates that the project will not contribute to this water quality violation. Although not required to implement mitigation measures that will cause a net improvement of the levels of mercury in fish tissue, the evidence establishes that to the extent existing sediments contain mercury deposits, removal of the sediments reduce a source of mercury that can be ingested by fish in the receiving waters. Water Quality Certification Petitioner contends that Specific Condition No. 9 of the proposed permit, which expressly waives certification of compliance with state water quality standards, is contrary to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, and inconsistent with the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j). As explained by unrefuted testimony of the District, the water quality certification provisions of Section 401 allow states an opportunity to address the water resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under Section 401, a federal agency cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States unless the affected state has granted or waived Section 401 certification. A state may grant, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification allows the federal permit or license to be issued. Denying certification prohibits the federal permit or license from being issued. Waiving certification allows the permit or license to be issued without state comment. Pursuant to rule 40D-4.101(4), an application for an ERP shall also constitute an application for certification of compliance with state water quality standards where necessary pursuant to Section 401. Issuance of the permit constitutes certification of compliance with water quality standards unless the permit is issued pursuant to the net improvement provision of section 373.414(1), or the permit specifically states otherwise. By letter dated February 2, 1998, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, DEP has delegated to the state's five water management districts the authority to issue, deny, or waive water quality certifications under Section 401. DEP has also established categories of activities for which water quality certification will be considered waived. Under the DEP delegation, water management districts may waive water quality certification for four situations, one of which is when the permit or authorization expressly so provides. This is still current DEP direction. The types of permitting decisions which constitute the granting of water quality certification and the types of activities for which water quality certification could be considered waived are also addressed in the current Operating Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DEP, and the five water management districts. According to both DEP guidance and the water management district agreement with the USACE, water quality certification will be considered waived when the permit or authorization expressly so states. The District most often expressly waives water quality certification for permits issued pursuant to the net improvement provisions and for projects that discharge into impaired waters. Proposed Specific Condition No. 9 of the permit expressly waives water quality certification due to the fact that the receiving waters are listed by DEP as impaired. Conditioning of the permit in this manner is consistent with DEP guidance and District practice under these circumstances. Although water quality certification for federal permitting review purposes is waived, the project must still comply with water quality requirements by demonstrating that the proposed activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards or if the activities contribute to an existing violation, that a net benefit is provided. The evidence establishes that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards and is not expected to contribute to the receiving water impairment of elevated mercury levels in fish tissue. While not required, the project is nevertheless expected to have a positive benefit on overall water quality and likely will reduce mercury levels in fish tissue by removing the sediments that contain metals such as mercury. The District's waiver of water quality certification is consistent with Section 401, the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j), and applicable regulatory practices for Clean Water Act water quality certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of ERP No. 44040881.000 to the City and County, as joint permittees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Blake C. Guillery, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6758 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Michael A. Connolly, Esquire Fournier, Connolly, Warren & Shamsey, P.A. One South School Avenue, Suite 700 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6014
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioner, Champagne Estates (petitioner or applicant), is a limited partnership that owns a tract of land identified as Lots 1-5, Block 88, PGI Section 9A in Punta Gorda, Florida. The property fronts on the south side of the Peace River, a Class III water body which lies within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, a water body designated as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Petitioner is in the process of constructing a thirty unit, two phase luxury condominium project on its property. As an added amenity for the unit owners, petitioner proposes to construct a multi-slip dock in a tear shaped basin that juts slightly inward from the Peace River. It is applicant's proposal to build a dock that has created this controversy. By application dated April 4, 1989, petitioner sought the issuance of a dredge and fill permit from respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). If approved, the permit would authorize the construction of the dock. The application was received by DER's Fort Myers district office on April 14, 1989, and was given a staff review for sufficiency. After additional information was requested by DER and filed by the applicant, an on-site inspection was conducted by DER personnel on June 2, 1990. An inspection report was thereafter prepared on July 14, 1990, and was used in the formulation of the agency's preliminary decision. That decision, which was styled as a notice of permit denial, was issued on July 25, 1989, and cited several grounds for DER's preliminary action. They included (a) a fear that degradation of waters would occur, (b) applicant's alleged failure to show that the project was not contrary to the public interest in six respects, and (c) a concern that the project and its cumulative impacts would be contrary to the public interest. The agency's notice of permit denial prompted the applicant to initiate this proceeding. The application and project area Applicant initially sought authorization to build a two hundred sixty- three foot dock with six finger piers, a terminal platform and thirteen boat slips. The agency's intent to deny permit was based on that proposal. After the proposed agency action was issued, petitioner modified its application to downsize the dock to one hundred feet with only four finger piers and eight mooring slips. The structure will have a "T" configuration. Under the modified proposal, the finger piers will have a length of twenty feet while the mooring slips are twelve feet wide. Applicant advises that the boats which will use the facility will average between twenty and twenty-six feet in length with drafts of two to three feet. This size and draft is comparable to commercial fishing boats which now frequent the deep water basin to catch mullet. If the application is approved, applicant proposes to place rock riprap at the toe of the existing vertical concrete seawall and to plant red mangroves in the intertidal areas. It also proposes to prohibit "live aboards", fueling and maintenance at the facility. Despite the above modifications and restrictions, DER advised petitioner on October 5, 1989, that the application was still unacceptable for the same reasons as originally given. The parties have agreed that the modified application is the subject of this proceeding. The basin in which the construction will occur was excavated in the 1960's. A thirteen foot deep east-west channel runs parallel to the shore several hundred feet from the shoreline. There are existing seawalls on both the southern and western shorelines of the project area which form an "L" at the intersection. The basin is tear shaped with a width of approximately one hundred feet and commences some one hundred feet waterward of the shoreline. The "T" finger pier structures will be at the southerly edge of the existing basin thereby giving vessels access to the east-west channel. During low tide the bottom of the water body is exposed for more than one hundred feet seaward of petitioner's property. Thus, most, if not all, of the dock will be over exposed areas during low tide, and even during high tide the water in the surrounding basin area will be no more than a few feet deep. The proposed project has existing condominiums on both sides. Virtually all of the remaining lots on either side of the project stretching a mile or so in both directions are developed with single or multifamily units. If approved, petitioner's dock would be the only such dock in the immediate area on the south side of the river. Water quality concerns An applicant for a dredge and fill permit is obliged to provide "reasonable assurance" that water quality standards will not be violated. Since the proposed project is within the boundaries of the Charlotte Harbor Aquatic Preserve, which is designated as an OFW, special water quality considerations come into play. More specifically, the project must maintain the ambient water quality standards of the OFW. This means that a permit cannot be issued for a project that will lower the ambient water quality, that is, the water quality existing one year prior to the date the body was designated an OFW, or the water quality existing one year prior to the project, whichever is better. One way in which ambient water quality can be degraded is by the resuspension of bottom solids caused by the churning of boat propellers. The likelihood of this condition occurring is made greater when insufficient water depths exist in combination with the existence of mucky, silty bottoms. The bottoms surrounding the proposed docking structure are nonvegetative and vary from hard sand in the shallow areas to a mucky silt layer in the deeper sections of the area. The accumulated sediment in the deeper section of the basin is on the order of twenty-four inches. While the hard sand bottom will readily settle out, the mucky bottom sediments will likely be churned by the boat activity in the absence of sufficient water depths. There is conflicting evidence regarding the depths of the water in the area of the basin where the proposed dock will be constructed. In support of its application, petitioner provided a chart indicating the topography of the sea bottoms at the proposed dock site. However, the geographic survey chart does not establish that sufficient water depth exists for the proposed dock. Rather, the more credible evidence establishes that the bottoms of the basin where the proposed dock will be built are often exposed and during low tides the sea bottoms are exposed up to approximately one hundred to one hundred fifty feet seaward of the seawall. Moreover, in the winter months, the westerly winds push the water out of the basin and cause the exposure of sea bottoms up to two hundred feet seaward of the seawall. When these shallow depths are coupled with the soupy texture of the bottom sediment, it is found that resuspension of the bottom sediment will occur as a result of boat activity at the proposed docking site. To the extent turbidity is now present in the basin due to the activities of the commercial fishermen, these turbidity levels will be exacerbated. If, as applicant suggests, the proposed facility will eliminate the commercial mullet fishing activities within the basin, there is no reasonable assurance that the new levels of turbidity will not exceed those now present. Therefore, it is found that applicant has not given reasonable assurance that the water quality standards will not be degraded. The agency's next concern involves its so-called "free-from" standard, which literally means that assurance must be given by the applicant that a water body will be "free from" various types of man-induced components (e. g., debris, oil, and scum) that float in such amounts as to form a nuisance. Thus, applicant was required to give reasonable assurance that the project would not cause an accumulation of debris and other items on the surface of the water in such amounts as to constitute a nuisance. The project site is "L" shaped, the "L" caused by the intersection of two seawalls on its western side. During the inspections of the project site by DER personnel, an accumulation of debris (grass clippings, styrofoam cups, coconuts, etc.) was observed in the corner of the "L". Indeed, applicant concedes that "some such debris is regularly present in the vicinity of the proposed docking structure" but contends that the docking facility will not cause significant additional floatsom or scum. However, it is found that due to the shape of the basin and its lack of sufficient water depth, the project will exacerbate the accumulation of debris so as to cause a nuisance. Finally, because of the shallow water in the basin, there exists the likelihood that dissolved oil or visible oil will form in the waters and affect its taste or give rise to an odor or otherwise affect the beneficial use of the waters. D. Public Interest Considerations In order for a permit to issue, and because the project is in an OFW, the applicant is obliged to show that the project "will be clearly in the public interest." The public interest test involves a consideration of seven statutory criteria. In this case, DER contends that six of the seven criteria enumerated in the law (s. 403.918(2)(a)1.-5. and 7., F.S.) have not been satisfied. The first criterion requires an inquiry as to whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare of the property of others. In this regard, it is noted that the proposed activity will take place in an OFW, a pristine water body. According to the agency, the maintenance of that water body "is in the welfare of all the citizens of the State of Florida, not just the residents of Champagne Estates or the adjacent condominium owners." Because the operation of boats will cause a degradation of the waters in the basin area, this will have an adverse effect on the public welfare. While applicant proposes to offer mitigation in the form of riprap and new mangroves, the success rates for mitigation proposals such as this are less than fifty per cent and do not offer sufficient assurance to counter the adverse effect on the public welfare. The second criterion concerns whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Uncontradicted testimony established that stingray, bait fish, sheepshead, minnows, brown pelican, osprey, bottlenosed dolphin, and loggerhead turtles habitat the project area. In addition, the proposed dock has been designated as a critical habitat for the manatee. Due to the resuspension of bottom solids caused by boat traffic in the shallow waters, the wildlife and fish in the area of the proposed dock will be adversely impacted. This is because elevated levels of turbidity are detrimental to aquatic species that breath water, especially for those that filter feed and pass the fluid through their bodies. The next relevant criterion is whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling (i. e., cause an area to shallow in). As to this criterion, applicant's uncontradicted evidence that the project will not affect navigation, the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling is accepted, and it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. The fourth criterion in issue is whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. While the fishing or recreational values should not be adversely affected, the turbidity caused by the boats propellors will impact the marine productivity in an adverse manner. Therefore, this criterion has not been met. The next criterion concerns whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The evidence shows that the project will be of a permanent nature, that is, once constructed, the applicant does not plan on tearing down the structure. However, neither party offered evidence as to how this consideration comes into play in the context of the public interest test, and it is accordingly found that applicant has not satisfied this requirement. The last disputed criterion concerns the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. By virtue of the increased turbidity levels, it is found that the relative value and use of the area will be degraded. E. Cumulative Impacts In its proposed agency action, the agency contended that "the project and its cumulative impacts . . . also fail to be clearly in the public interest." This objection is grounded on the statutory requirement that the agency consider the "other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations." (s. 403.419(3), F.S.) According to an agency witness, applicant's project, if approved, would be the only docking facility on the south shoreline of the Peace River for some distance in either direction. Although DER does not have any pending applications for docks, and knows of none that will be filed, it "felt" there was a potential cumulative impact in that other condominium projects in the area would seek a docking permit once it became known that applicant had constructed such a facility. However, this "feeling" is insufficient to establish a finding that there is a potential adverse cumulative impact related to the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Champagne Estates for a dredge and fill permit be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner: 1-3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. 4-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 9-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 11. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. 12-13. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. 16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 17. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 18-19. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 20. Rejected as being unnecessary. 23-24. Partially adopted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. Respondent: Partially adopted in finding of fact l. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 3-5. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 6-8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 2. 9-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 15-41. Partially adopted in findings of fact 6-11. 42-53. Partially adopted in findings of fact 12-18. 54-56. Partially adopted in findings of fact 19-20. 57-62. Partially adopted in finding of fact 13. 63-64. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, contrary to the more credible and persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P. O. Box 2159 Punta Gorda, Florida 33949 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The City owns and operates a marina at the Godman Yacht Basin which is contiguous to Flamingo Canal a Class III body of water comprising a man made dead-end canal. Petitioners live along the Flamingo Canal. In 1924 DER issued a dredge and fill permit to the City of Cape Coral to allow the construction of 39 boat slips in the basin. That permit prohibited any boat and motor maintenance in the basin. In assessing the City's request for modification of this prohibition DER representatives visited the yacht basin and reinspected the facility and the land area from which water drains into the basin. Current regulations by the city prohibit the discharge of refuse or waste from boats in the basin. Nevertheless, as testified to by Petitioners' witnesses, refuse and waste is often discharged from boats and finds its way into Flamingo Canal. Petitioners' primary concern is that if boat maintenance is allowed, more boats will visit the basin and more fouling of the waters will occur. The survey by DER personnel found that the City had no equipment at the basin to contain or clean up an oil spill if one accidentally occurred, and that storm water run-off from one parking lot near the basin discharged more pollutants in the basin than could be expected from limited boat and engine maintenance. To alleviate the storm water run-off problem the City, as a condition to the removal of the boat repair prohibition, agreed to install infiltration trenches through which this run-off from the parking lot will pass before entering the basin. The City further agreed to provide oil/fuel spill control devices at the facility and to monitor the water quality in the basin and report its findings to DER. The infiltration trenches are designed to treat the first one-half inch of rainfall falling on this parking lot before it reaches the basin. The heaviest load of pollutants from paved surfaces used by automobiles is carried by the first surge of rainwater; therefore, a system designed to treat the first one-half inch of run-off is acceptable. The direct, untreated discharge of storm water into the yacht basin contributes more pollutants including oils, greases and heavy metals, to the basin than would the performance of minor boat and motor maintenance. Accordingly, the net result of allowing minor boat and motor maintenance coupled with the installation of the infiltration trenches will result in higher water quality in the basin. Petitioners contention that these infiltration trenches will treat only a small portion of the total storm water run-off entering the basin, while true, over- looks the maxim that half a loaf is better than no bread at all. No evidence was submitted that petitioners, as well as the majority of the population of the City of Cape Coral, are willing to pay the taxes required to raise the funds necessary to provide such treatment of all storm water run-off entering the basin. The permit proposed to be issued contains provisions which have been accepted by the City of Cape Coral. These include a requirement that the city provide oil/fuel spill control devices at the yacht basin; that all boat owners be provided with written information concerning protection of the basin's water quality; that only chlorine and biodegradable cleaning agents be used at the facility; and finally, the City submit to DER extensive water quality data for the basin through at least 1989, to permit a closer monitoring of the water quality in the basin by DER to insure acceptable water quality standards maintained.
The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to a maintenance dredging exemption from environmental resource permitting. The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-5409 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the construction of a surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. (Applicant), owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge Applicant's claim of an exemption to maintenance dredge three canals serving the marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-5409, Petitioner challenges Applicant's request for an environmental resource permit to construct and operate a surface water management system on the uplands on which the marina is located. By stipulation, Petitioner has standing. Intervenor is a nonprofit organization of natural persons, hundreds of whom reside in Lee County. The primary purpose of Intervenor is to protect manatees and their habitat. Many of the members of Intervenor use and enjoy the waters of the State of Florida, in and about Deep Lagoon Marina, and would be substantially affected by an adverse impact to these waters or associated natural resources, including manatees and their habitat. Deep Lagoon Marina is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). By agreement with SFWMD, Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (collectively, with the predecessor agency, DEP) is the agency with permitting jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. The Marina Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove-lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Lagoon Marina is on Deep Lagoon, less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns the uplands and either owns the submerged bottoms of the canals or has a legitimate claim to such ownership. The attorney who examined the title at the time of the 1997 conveyance testified that the canals are entirely landward of the original mean high water line, so that the then-owner excavated the canals out of privately owned upland. Thus, the attorney opined that the canal bottom is privately owned. Some question may exist as to the delineation of the historic mean high water line, especially regarding its location relative to the waterward edge of the red mangrove fringe, which DEP would consider part of the historic natural waterbody. There may be some question specifically concerning title to the bottom of the northernmost canal where it joins Deep Lagoon. However, the proof required of Applicant for present purposes is considerably short of the proof required to prove title, and the attorney's testimony, absent proof to the contrary, is sufficient to demonstrate the requisite ownership interest to seek the exemption and permit that are the subject of these cases. From north to south, Deep Lagoon Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Manatees and Boating The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. Water Quality The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one-day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. Original Permit There are three types of permits relevant to these cases. The first is a dredge and fill permit (sometimes referred to in the record as a wetland resource permit or water resource permit)(DAF permit). The second is a surface water management (sometimes referred to in the record as a management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permit or stormwater management permit)(SWM permit). The third is an environmental resource permit (ERP). Several years ago, responding to a mandate from the Legislature, DEP and the water management districts consolidated DAF permits, which historically were issued by DEP, and SWM permits, which historically were issued by the water management districts, into ERPs. At the time of this change, DEP adopted, within the jurisdictional areas of each water management district, certain of the rules of each district. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF permit to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips, with an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking, so as to raise its marina capacity to 150-174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. In general, the Original Permit authorizes Applicant to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The record contains various references to "MLW" or "mean low water," "MHW" or "mean high water," and "NGVD" or "National Geodetic Vertical Datum." The drawings attached to the Original Permit state that MHW equals 0.96 feet NGVD and MLW equals about 0.40 feet NGVD. The Original Permit authorizes activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposes several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among these requirements is that Applicant must obtain the ERP that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 98-5409 (New Permit). Specific Condition 5 states: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. [As cited, this subparagraph contains modifications stated in a letter dated March 26, 1997, from DEP to Applicant's predecessor in interest.] Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addresses the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provides: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. * * * Specific Condition 11 adds: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 requires the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibits liveaboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 adds various manatee-protection provisions. Plan Views C and D, which are part of the Original Permit, depict submerged bottom elevations for the north and central canals, as well as from the south canal at its intersection with the central canal. Dated August 30, 1995, these "existing" bottom elevations across the mouth of the north canal are about -7, -8, and -4 feet (presumably MLW; see second note to Plan View B). The western two-thirds of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -6 feet MLW. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens to -7 to -9 feet MLW before it tapers up to -7, -6, and finally -3 feet MLW at the head; and the eastern third of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -7 feet MLW that tapers up to -6 feet and -3 feet MLW. The submerged bottom at the mouth of the central canal is about -8 to -9 feet MLW. The bottom drops to -6 to -10 feet MLW at the intersection with the south canal. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens slightly as it reaches the head, where it is -8 feet MLW. The submerged bottom of the south canal runs from -9 feet MLW at the intersection with the central canal and runs about 0.5 feet deeper at the head. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the Original Permit in 1988. The permit challengers appealed a final order granting the Original Permit and certifying, under the federal Clean Water Act, that state water quality standards were met. DEP premised its certification on the concept that water quality standards encompassed a net improvement in water quality of the poorly flushed canals. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the above-described 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the Original Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DEP's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following remand, DEP issued a final order issuing the Original Permit. On the certification issue, the final order revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341 as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Maintenance Dredging: DOAH Case No. 98-3901 Background The contentions of Petitioner and Intervenor as to maintenance dredging are: the proposed dredging exceeded what was necessary to restore the canals to original design specifications or original configurations; the proposed dredging exceeded the maximum depth allowable for maintenance dredging of canals; the work was not conducted in compliance with Section 370.12(2)(d), Florida Statutes; the spoil was not deposited on a self-contained upland site to prevent the escape of the spoil into waters of the state; and the dredge contractor did not use control devices and best management practices for erosion and sediment control to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter describes the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assures that Applicant's contractor will use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advises that the contractor will unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter states that the dredging "will be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the Original Permit, and will be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [Original Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divide the dredging into two areas. For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals (for the south canal, a portion running from the head along the northeast half of the canal) and then replace these materials with clean backfill material. This information is for background only, as the Original Permit authorized this contaminant dredging. For 4.84 acres, which run through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. The cross-sections for the north canal reveal relatively extensive dredging beyond the vegetation lines on both sides of the canal bottom. The dredging would extend up to, but not beyond, the edges of the prop roots of the mangroves on both sides of the canal bottom. The contours reveal variable, proposed slope profiles for the submerged sides of the canals, but the dredging would substantially steepen the submerged slopes of the north canal. It is difficult to estimate from the cross-sections the average depth and width to be dredged from the north canal, but it appears that the cross-sections proposed the removal of substantial spoil (an average of 4-6 feet) from areas from 20-40 feet from each side of the deepest point in the north canal. The dredging would alter the two most affected cross-sections, which are just inside the mouth of the north canal, by widening the deepest part of the canal bottom by 85 feet--from about 15 feet to about 100 feet. The drawings proposed much smaller alterations to the bottoms of the central and south canals: typically, spoil about 2 feet deep and 20 feet wide. All but one of the cross-sections revealed that spoil would be dredged only from one side of the deepest point. Additionally, the dredging in these canals would not involve any submerged vegetation; all but one of the canal sides was lined by existing seawalls. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated that it had determined that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement that the Applicant obtain an ERP. The letter warns that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter adds that DEP may revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provides a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Following receipt of DEP's letter acknowledging the exemption, Applicant's contractor proceeded to maintenance dredge the three canals. The dredging of the north canal took eight weeks. Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the Original Permit. As indicated in the March 3 letter and permitted in the Original Permit, the contaminant dredging took place at the dead-end heads of the north and central canals and along the northeast half of a slightly longer section of the south canal, starting from its dead-end head. In maintenance dredging the canals, Applicant's contractor did not exceed the specifications regarding depth and width stated in its March 3 letter. To the contrary, the contractor sometimes dredged slightly narrower or slightly shallower profiles than stated in the March 3 letter. For example, the contractor dredged the north canal to -6 feet NGVD (or -5.6 feet MLW), rather than -7 feet NGVD, as shown in the March 3 letter. The Depths, Widths, and Lengths of Dredging The March 3 letter asserts that -7 feet NGVD is the permitted elevation of the canal bottoms, pursuant to the Original Permit. This is incorrect in two respects. First, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect for all but the relatively small part of each canal that DEP has determined is contaminated. The Original Permit specifies design elevations for canal bottoms only in the contaminated area within each canal. Nothing in the Original Permit permits bottom elevations for any portion of the bottoms of the three canals outside of these three contaminated areas. Second, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect, even for the contaminated areas. The March 3 letter states -7 feet NGVD, but the Original Permit specifies bottom elevations, for contaminated areas only, of -7 feet MLW in the south and central canals and -6 feet MLW in the north canal. Thus, due to the differences between NGVD and MLW, the March 3 letter proposes dredging that would deepen the south and central canals by about five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit and the north canal by one foot five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit. Moreover, nothing in the record clearly establishes all aspects of the original design specifications of the three canals, whether permitted or not, or even all aspects of their original dredged configurations, if not permitted. There is no dispute concerning one aspect of the dredged configuration of the three canals: their lengths. Although there may be some dispute as to the original mean high water line near the mouths of the north and central canals, the original length of the canals is evident from the uplands that presently define them. As to the depth of the canals, although direct evidence is slight, Applicant has sufficiently proved indirectly the depths of the mouths of the canals pursuant to original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. The proved bottom elevations are -7 feet NGVD for each canal. Applicant proved these depths based on the prevailing elevations in Deep Lagoon in the vicinity of the mouths of the north and central canal and bottom elevations in areas of Deep Lagoon that are not prone to sedimentation. Additional proof of the bottom elevation of -7 feet NGVD at the mouths of the canals is present in the slightly higher permitted bottom elevations at the dead- ends of the north and central canals and landward portion of the south canal. There is some problem, though, with the proof of the depth of the canal bottoms between their mouths and heads (or, for the south canal, its landward portion of known contamination). Although the problem of the depth of the canals between their heads and mouths might be resolved by inferring a constant bottom elevation change from the deeper mouth to the shallower head, an unresolveable issue remains: the width of this maximum depth. As already noted, without deepening the deepest part of either cross-section, the contractor widened the deepest points along two cross-sections by 85 feet each. In terms of navigability and environmental impact, the width of the maximum depth of a canal is as important as its maximum depth. As to the width of the lowest bottom elevations of the canals, Applicant has produced no proof of original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. Nor has Applicant produced indirect proof of historic widths. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor in interest originally dredged the canal bottoms as wide as Applicant "maintenance" dredged them under the claimed exemption. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor geometrically dredged the canals so that their sides were perpendicular to their bottoms. Nothing in the record describes a sedimentation problem that might have narrowed the canals by such an extent that the dredging of the present widths, especially in the north canal, would be restorative. Nothing in the record even suggests that the original motive in dredging was navigability, which might have yielded relatively wide canal bottoms, versus upland fill, which would yield canal bottoms as wide as needed, not for navigability, but for uplands- creation. After consideration of all the evidence, no evidence supports a finding that the proposed dredging profiles, in terms of the widening of the areas of lowest elevation in each canal bottom, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original canal profiles, as originally (or at any later point) designed or, if not designed, as originally (or at any later point) configured. It is at least as likely as not that this is the first time that these canal bottoms, especially the north canal bottom, have ever been so wide at any bottom elevation approaching -7 feet NGVD. There is simply no notion of restoration or maintenance in the dredging that produced these new bottom profiles for these three canals. Transforming MLW to NGVD, -5 feet MLW is -4.6 feet NGVD. All proposed and actual maintenance dredging in the three canals dredged the canal bottoms to elevations lower than -5 feet MLW (or -4.6 feet NGVD), despite the absence of any previous permit for construction or maintenance of the canal from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Impact of Dredging on Manatees and Spoil Containment Prior to dredging, Applicant deployed turbidity curtains around the mouths of the two canals that discharge directly into Deep Lagoon. In this case, the turbidity curtains performed two functions. They contained turbidity and resuspended bottom contaminants within the mixing zone behind (or landward of) the curtains, and they excluded manatees from the dangerous area behind the curtains where the dredging was taking place. Petitioner and Intervenor object to the use of the turbidity curtains on two general grounds. First, they claim that the curtains failed to contain turbidity and resuspended contaminants from escaping the mixing zone. Second, they claim that the curtains adversely affected manatees. As executed, the maintenance dredging did not result in the release of turbidity or resuspended contaminants outside of the mixing zone due to the use of turbidity curtains. Applicant's contractor ensured that the curtains extended from the water surface to the canal bottom and sufficiently on the sides to prevent the escape of turbidity or resuspended contaminants. Although the March 3 letter did not indicate where the contractor would deploy the turbidity curtains, the important point, in retrospect, is that the contractor properly deployed the curtains. There is some question whether turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed across the mangrove fringe and into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Applicant's witness testified that water flows across the fringe only during the highest three or four tides per month. Petitioner and Intervenor's witness testified that water flows across the fringe as often as twice per day. The actual frequency is likely somewhere between these two extremes, but, regardless of the frequency, there is insufficient evidence to find that any turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed from the north canal into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Nor did the deployment of the turbidity curtains injure, harm, possess, annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any manatees. Applicant and its contractor carefully checked each canal for manatees before raising the turbidity curtains at the mouth of each canal, so as not to trap any manatees in the area behind the curtains. By ensuring that the curtains extended to the canal bottom and extended fully from side to side, they ensured that the curtains excluded manatees during the dredging. There is no evidence that a manatee could have entered the north canal from the Iona Drainage District ditch by crossing the red mangrove fringe; any breaks in the fringe were obstructed by prop roots that prevented even a kayaker from crossing the fringe without portaging. Applicant and its contractor checked for manatees during dredging operations. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the mere presence of the turbidity curtains in an area frequented by manatees adversely affected the animals. However, this argument elevates a speculative concern with a manatee's response to encountering an obstruction in its normal path over the practical purpose of curtains in physically obstructing the animal so as to prevent it from entering the dangerous area in which the dredge is operating, as well as the unhealthy area of turbidity and resuspended contaminants in the mixing zone. Under the circumstances, the use of the turbidity curtains to obstruct the manatees from visiting the dredging site or mixing zone did not adversely affect the manatees. In general, there is no evidence of any actual injury or harm to any manatees in the course of the dredging or the preparation for the dredging, including the deployment of the turbidity curtains. Petitioner and Intervenor offered evidence that maintenance dredging would result in more and larger boats and deterioration of water quality, which would both injure the manatees. However, as noted in the conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge excluded from DOAH Case No. 98-3901 such evidence concerning long-term impacts upon the manatees following the dredging. As for spoil containment, Applicant's contractor segregated the contaminated spoil from noncontaminated spoil by placing the contaminated spoil in a lined pit in the uplands. The contractor also brought onto the uplands clean fill mined from a sand quarry for backfilling into the dredged contaminated areas. There is evidence of the clean fill subsiding from its upland storage site and entering the canal waters in the mixing zone. Partly, this occurred during the loading of the barge, which transported the clean fill to the dead-end heads of the canals where the fill was placed over the newly dredged bottoms. The fill escaped into the water at a location about 100 feet long along the north seawall of the central canal, but the evidence does not establish whether this location was within the contaminated area at the head of the canal or whether the maintenance or contaminant dredging had already taken place. If the fill subsided into the water inside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water inside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor intended to add the fill at this location. If the fill subsided into the water outside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water outside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because it restored the canal bottom to a higher elevation following the dredging to an excessively low elevation. The subsidence of the clean fill into the water along the north side of the central canal is the only material that entered the water from the uplands during the dredging. Specifically, there is no evidence of dredged spoil entering the water from the uplands during or after the dredging. There is also no evidence that the maintenance dredging significantly impacted previously undisturbed natural areas. There is no evidence of such areas within the vicinity of Deep Lagoon Marina. New Permit: DOAH Case No. 98-5409 New Permit Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Original Permit Specific Condition 5, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an ERP and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. Prior to its reformulation as an ERP, the New Permit sought by Applicant would have been a SWM permit. The application notes that the general upland elevation is 5 feet NGVD and that stormwater runoff presently sheetflows directly to adjacent waterways without any treatment. During the application process, Applicant's engineer Christopher Wright, submitted a letter dated February 27, 1998, to Jack Myers, who is a Professional Engineer II for DEP. In response to a request from DEP for a "written procedure . . . to assure the proper functioning of the proposed . . . system," the letter states: Since the system is not designed as a retention system and does not rely upon infiltration to operate properly[,] operation and maintenance is minimal. Items that will need regular maintenance are limited to removal of silt and debris from the bottom of the drainage structures and the bleed down orifice of the control structure. A maintenance and inspection schedule has been included in this re-submittal as part of Exhibit 14. In relevant part, Exhibit 14 consists of a document provided Mr. Wright from the manufacturer of the components of the surface water management system. The document states that the manufacturer "recommends that the landowner use this schedule for periodic system maintenance . . .." The document lists 16 sediment-control items, but it is unclear whether all of them are incorporated into the proposed system. Four items, including sediment basins, require inspections quarterly or after "large storm events" and maintenance consisting of the removal of sediment; the "water quality inlet" requires inspections quarterly and maintenance consisting of "pump[ing] or vacuum[ing]"; the "maximizer settling chamber" requires inspection biannually and maintenance consisting of "vacuum[ing] or inject[ing] water, suspend silt and pump chamber"; and the "chamber" requires inspection annually and the same maintenance as the maximizer settling chamber. The proposed system includes the water quality inlet and one of the two types of chambers. By Notice of Intent to Issue dated November 5, 1998, DEP provided notice of its intent to issue the New Permit and certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code Section 1341. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the Original Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification. This waiver is consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The notices of intent (collectively, NOI) recite the recent permitting history of the marina. This history includes the Original Permit, a since-expired MSSW permit issued in 1988 by SFWMD, and then-pending requests--apparently all since granted--to revise the Original Permit by replacing the flushing canal with culverts, relocating a travel lift from the main canal to the north canal, and adding liveaboards to the marina. (Although mentioned below, these revisions, in and of themselves, do not determine the outcome of DOAH Case No. 98-5409.) Reviewing the proposed development for the site, the NOI states that the northerly part of the project would contain an indoor dry boat storage barn, a marina service operation consisting of a ship store and miscellaneous buildings, a harbor master building, an upgraded fueling facility, a parts and service center, a restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, and paved parking areas. The southerly part of the project would contain a new indoor dry boat storage barn, a boat dealership building, and paved parking areas in place of the existing buildings. The NOI states that the proposed water quality treatment system would comprise dry detention systems of several underground vaults with an overall capacity based on the total impervious area, including roofs, receiving 2.5 inches of rain times the percentage of imperviousness. Given the relatively high imperviousness of the finished development, this recommended order considers the percentage of imperviousness to be 100, but ignores the extent to which the post-development pervious surfaces would absorb any rainfall. For storms producing up to 2.5 inches of runoff, the proposed surface water management system, of which the underground vaults are a part, would trap the runoff and provide treatment, as sufficiently sized contaminants settled into the bottom of the vaults. Because the vaults have unenclosed bottoms, the proposed system would provide incidental additional treatment by allowing stormwater to percolate through the ground and into the water table. However, the system is essentially a dry detention system, and volumetric calculations of system capacity properly ignored the incidental treatment available through percolation into the water table. The New Permit notes that the wet season water table is 1.2 feet NGVD, and the bottom of the dry detention system is 2.5 feet NGVD. This relatively thin layer of soil probably explains why DEP's volumetric calculations ignored the treatment potential offered by percolation. The relatively high water table raises the possibility, especially if Applicant does not frequently remove the settled contaminants, that the proposed system could cause groundwater contamination after the thin layer of soil is saturated with contaminants. In any event, the system is not designed for the elimination of the settled contaminants through percolation. The treatment system for the boat wash areas would be self-contained, loop-recycle systems that would permit the separation of oil and free-settling solids prior to reuse. However, the NOI warns that, "during heavy storm events"-- probably again referring to more than 2.5 inches of runoff--the loop-recycle systems would release untreated water to one of the underground vaults, which would, in turn, release the untreated water into the canals. Due to the location of the boat wash areas, the receiving waters would probably be the north canal. As reflected in the drawings and the testimony of Mr. Wright, the surface water management system would discharge at three points: two in the north canal and one in the south canal. (Vol. I, p. 206; future references to the Transcript shall cite only the volume and page as, for example, Vol. I, p. 206). 67. The NOI concludes that Applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance of an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62-330, and Sections SFWMD--40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade ambient water quality in Outstanding Florida Waters pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. However, the design capacity of the proposed surface water management system raises serious questions concerning the water quality of the discharges into the canals. Mr. Wright initially testified that the surface water management system would be over-taxed by "an extreme storm event, probably a 25- year storm event . . .." (Vol. I, pp. 208-09). The record contains no evidence of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of runoff for the relatively impervious post- development uplands; the record contains no evidence even of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of rainfall. According to Mr. Wright, the 25-year storm would typically produce 8-10 inches of rain. (Vol. I, pp. 223 and 233). As already noted, the relatively large area of imperviousness following upland development and the relative imperviousness of the upland soils present at the site suggest that the runoff will be a relatively large percentage of the rainfall produced by any given storm event. It thus appears that the design capacity of the system is for a storm substantially smaller and substantially more frequent than the 25-year storm. Attached to the NOI is a draft of the New Permit, which contains numerous specific conditions and conforms in all respects with the NOI. Omitting any mention of SFWMD's Basis of Review, the New Permit addresses, among other things, the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the components of the proposed system. As set forth in the testimony of Michael Bateman, who is a Professional Engineer III and statewide stormwater coordinator for DEP, the surface water management system's operation depends on periodic pumping of the "thick, fine sediment," which appears to be a "cross between mud and sand" and will be laden with oil, grease, metals, and other contaminants. (Vol. II, p. 66). However, contrary to Mr. Bateman's assurance that the New Permit requires the periodic pumping or removal of contaminants that have precipitated out of the runoff in the dry detention system and dropped to the bottom sediment (Vol. II, p. 20), neither the NOI nor the New Permit requires, in clear and enforceable language, the periodic removal of settled solids from the underground vaults or their manner of disposal. New Permit Specific Condition 8 requires that Applicant maintain the boat wash area in "functioning condition," although specific inspection and maintenance requirements are omitted from the New Permit. New Permit Specific Condition 7 requires that Applicant "inspect and clean" all stormwater inlets "as necessary, at least once a month and after all large storm events," although the New Permit fails to specify that cleaning shall be by either pumping or vacuuming. By contrast to the marginally adequate inspection and maintenance provisions applicable to the boat wash area (inspections are required in Specific Condition 6, cited below) and stormwater inlets, the New Permit completely fails to specify enforceable inspection and maintenance requirements for the underground vaults. New Permit Specific Condition 6 addresses the operation of the vault as follows: Upon completion of the construction of the stormwater collection and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems and on an annual basis thereafter by September 30 of each year, the Permittee shall submit reports to the Department as to the storage/treatment volume adequacy of the permitted system. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the condition of stormwater inlets and control structures as to silt and debris removal and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens to function properly. The boat wash down areas shall be inspected for proper operation, i.e., no signs of wash water overflows from the containment area, condition of the containment area curbing, etc. Such reports shall include proposal of technique and schedule for the maintenance and/or repair of any deficiencies noted and shall be signed and sealed by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. A report of compliance with the aforementioned proposal shall be submitted by the Professional Engineer to the Department upon completion of the proposed work which shall be accomplished within three months of the initial report for each year. New Permit Specific Condition 6 requires annual reports concerning the sufficiency of the capacity of the underground vaults (first sentence), annual reports of the status of silt- and debris-removal from the inlets and control structures and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens (second sentence), inspection at no stated intervals of the boat wash area (third sentence), and annual reports with suggestions of maintenance schedules and repairs for the items mentioned in the first two sentences (fourth sentence). New Permit Specific Condition 6 promises only the preparation of a maintenance schedule at some point in the future. Failing to supply an enforceable inspection and maintenance program, Specific Condition 6 indicates that Applicant shall consider in the future techniques and scheduling of maintenance, presumably based on the report concerning system capacity. Such a requirement may or may not impose upon Applicant an enforceable obligation to adopt an enforceable inspection and maintenance program in the future, but it does not do so now. There is no reason why the New Permit should not impose upon Applicant an initial, enforceable inspection and maintenance program incorporating, for example, the clear and enforceable requirements that Applicant inspect all of the underground vaults no less frequently that once (or twice, if this is the applicable recommendation of the manufacturer) annually and, at clearly specified intervals, remove the sediments by resuspending the sediments in the water, pumping out the water, and disposing of the effluent and sediments so they do not reenter waters of the state. Although the record does not disclose such requirements, Applicant could possibly find manufacturer's recommendations for the boat wash components and incorporate them into an enforceable inspection and maintenance program more detailed than that contained in Specific Condition 8. However, for the reasons noted below, water quality considerations require a substantial strengthening of such a program beyond what is set forth in this paragraph as otherwise acceptable. At present, the bottom line on inspection and maintenance is simple: the New Permit does not even incorporate by reference the manufacturer's recommended inspection and maintenance schedule, which Mr. Wright provided to Mr. Myers. Nor was this shortcoming of the New Permit in its treatment of inspection and maintenance necessarily missed by Mr. Wright. He testified that he submitted to DEP the manufacturer's maintenance program (Vol. I, p. 205), but when asked, on direct, if the "permit in any way incorporate[s] the commitment in your application to this maintenance?" Mr. Wright candidly replied, "That I don't know." (Vol. I, p. 206). Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 5 Basis of Review Section 5--specifically Section 5.2.1(a)--imposes the "volumetric" requirement of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, as discussed above and in the conclusions of law. Petitioner does not dispute Applicant's compliance with this volumetric requirement, and the record amply demonstrates such compliance. Applicability of Basis of Review Section 4 The main issues in this case are whether the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 apply to the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. Because the record lacks any indication of other relevant pending or vested permits, without which, as noted in the conclusions of law, one cannot assess cumulative impacts, the remainder of the findings of fact will not discuss cumulative impacts, although, to some extent, increased boating pressure constitutes a secondary impact and a cumulative impact. Without regard to the differences between direct and secondary impacts, DEP has taken the position in this case that it could lawfully issue the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5 and without consideration of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In large part, DEP's witnesses justify this position by reliance on the historic differences between DAF permits and SWM permits and the fact that the New Permit is a former-SWM ERP. As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, the Basis of Review imposes different requirements upon former-DAF and former-SWM ERPs, although the Basis of Review does not refer to DAF or SWM permits by their former names. The identifying language used in the Basis of Review for former-DAF ERPs is "regulated activity" "located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands." References to "regulated activity" without the qualifying clause indicate that the following requirement applies to former-DAF ERPs and former-SWM ERPs. Several witnesses for DEP and Applicant testified that Applicant was entitled to the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5. For example, Mr. Wright testified that the water quality requirements for the New Permit required only a "cookbook calculation" to determine volume. (Vol. I, p. 204). Agreeing with a question that analysis of the water quality portion of the system requires "simply a straightforward mathematical calculation," Mr. Wright testified that the quality of discharged water, following treatment, will comply with state water quality standards in storms producing no more than 2.5 inches of runoff. (Vol. I, pp. 210-11). When asked to explain his answer, Mr. Wright testified, "It's kind of an implied situation, in that if you follow the guidelines that you are required to follow with respect to the calculations of water quality, that the end product is going to be in compliance with state standards." (Vol. I, p. 211). DEP witnesses agreed with Mr. Wright's analysis. For instance, Mr. Bateman testified, "The stormwater portion of the Basis of Review gets at that question [meeting water quality standards] by stating, 'if you follow the design criteria in the basis, you are presumed to meet water quality standards.'" (Vol. II, p. 40). Mr. John Iglehart, the program administrator for DEP's South District Office in Fort Myers, testified on the same point: "if . . . you meet the criteria, the engineering criteria, than you have met the presumption that you meet the rule." (Vol. III, p. 52). Mr. Myers also agreed, testifying, "with the stormwater management system, it's for the most part, let's say, fairly cut and dried as far as meeting criteria that is established within these rules and Basis of Review." (Vol. III, p. 144). He added: "Since the criteria for reviewing stormwater management systems and the discharge is based upon a presumed compliance with stormwater criteria and with state water quality, it is presumed it [the proposed system] does meet it." (Vol. III, p. 148). Mr. Bateman explained the historic basis for the water quality presumption given surface water management systems that meet the volumetric requirements: the ERP is a combination of the surface water management rules and the environmental . . ., the dredge-and-fill, and they didn't merge, they didn't marry very well in certain areas. In stormwater we look at--it's a technology- based criteria. We say, "If you build it this way, treat 80 percent of the average annual pollutant load, we're going to give you the permit on the presumption that you're doing the best you can. You're going to meet standards. Once you get into the wetlands, we take--we put on whole new sets of glasses. ALJ: Are you saying that the old dredge-and- fill is more performance-based, and the old MSSW is more technology-based, in that if you've put in the required technology, you've done your job? WITNESS: That is--yes. Dredge-and-fill is a more case by case. We look at the water quality. We look at ambient conditions. We look at hydrographics [here, largely tidal flushing]. It's more like a waste load allocation in that we're very specific. In stormwater, we can't afford to be. MS. HOLMES: So what you're saying is you can't point to the specific rule provision or regulation that excludes these criteria from surface water management systems? WITNESS: Well, you have to read [Basis of Review] Section 4 as a whole. 4.1 is specific to wetlands and other surface waters. 4.2 is environmental review. I mean, if you look at the thing in total, and the--and I realize it's confusing. But these rules are exactly the same in all the water management districts. They were developed together as the wetland criteria, the new dredge-and-fill criteria. They're exactly the same. The stormwater rules of all the [water management districts] is all different. That is for another day, making those all consistent. So these environmental wetland- type dredge-and-fill criteria are all the same, and they refer to in-water impact. [All references in the transcript to "end water" should have been "in-water."] ALJ: What do you mean by that term, "in- water impact?" WITNESS: In other words, dredge-and-fill impact. Construct and--I can't-- MS. HOLMES: May I continue, then? ALJ: Let him answer. What were you going to say? WITNESS: I think it takes a little knowledge of how these [rules] developed to know how they're applied, unfortunately. In other water management districts, it's clearer that these are in-water impacts. (Vol. II, pp. 57-59). In testifying to the exclusivity of the volumetric requirements in Basis of Review Section 5, with respect to former-SWM ERPs, these witnesses likewise opined that the secondary-impact analysis required in Basis of Review Section 4 also was inapplicable to the New Permit. For example, after testifying both ways on the necessity of considering secondary impacts in issuing former-SWM ERPs, Mr. Bateman concluded, "I'm not sure that [the requirement of considering secondary impacts] applies in this case. Certainty the rules apply, I mean, the rules apply. But certain rules are not applicable in this particular instance. I mean, I'm trying to think of a secondary impact associated with stormwater system, and it's difficult for me to do so." (Vol. II, p. 45). Mr. Bateman then testified that DEP did not consider such secondary impacts, as additional boat traffic, and probably did not consider cumulative impacts, such as other marinas. (Vol. II, pp. 51-52). In response to a question asking to what extent DEP considered post-development inputs of contaminants, such as heavy metals, when issuing a former-SWM ERP, Mr. Bateman testified: I have to tell you, very little. I mean, we--stormwater is pretty black and white. The link to secondary and cumulative impact is generally associated with in-water impact. And I realize the line is a little grey here. When we build a Wal-Mart, we don't think about how many cars it's going to put on [U.S. Route] 41 and what the impact might be to an adjacent lake. We just don't. It would be a little burdensome. In this case, I mean, it's a little greyer. (Vol. II, p. 47). Mr. Bateman was then asked to compare the relative impacts from a vacant, but developed, upland without a surface water management system with a proposed activity that would add a surface water management system to facilitate an intensification of land uses on the site so as to add new contaminants to the runoff. Mr. Bateman testified that DEP would apply only the volumetric requirement and not address the complex issue of weighing the potential environmental benefit of a new surface water system against the potential environmental detriment of contaminant loading (at least in storm events greater than the design storm event). Mr. Bateman explained: "The way it works, it is not a water quality-based standard. In other words, we don't go in and say it's so many pounds [of contaminants] per acre per year now. We're going to make it this many pounds per acre per year, and look at it in a detailed fashion. We do the [Best Management Practices], retain an inch and you're there." (Vol. II, p. 49). Agreeing with Mr. Bateman that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts resulting from the regulated activity, Mr. Iglehart testified: "It's our thought that we don't really look at secondary and cumulative impacts for the stormwater permit. . . . If it [the former-SWM ERP application] meets the criteria, it gets the permit. That--in the ERP, the previous dredge-and-fill side looks at the secondary and cumulative. The stormwater just--like Mr. Bateman testified." (Vol. III, p. 52). After some ambivalence, Mr. Myers also testified that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts for the New Permit: WITNESS: . . . I did not or I do not consider secondary impacts for the stormwater management system. MS. HOLMES: So, what about cumulative impacts? WITNESS: No. MS. HOLMES: So it's your testimony that you did not review secondary and cumulative impacts-- WITNESS: That's correct. MS. HOLMES: --of this system? WITNESS: What I can say is that the existing system out there, from what I can tell, does not have any stormwater treatment. Basically, it's running off into the canals. The proposed project will provide stormwater treatment for, not only the new construction, which is proposed mainly on the northern peninsula, but it is also provided for that area which is now existing, it will provide stormwater treatment for that area also. And I consider that--I don't consider that to be a secondary impact. I see it as an offsetting improvement to potential as far as the water quality. (Vol. III, pp. 144-45). As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, these witnesses have misread the provisions of the Basis of Review applicable to the New Permit. As noted in the conclusions of law, the requirements in the Basis of Review of analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts upon water quality and manatees are not limited to in-water or former-DAF activities. Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 4 Direct vs. Secondary Impacts In terms of construction, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the proposed system will violate any of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In terms of maintenance, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible, except for the omission from the New Permit of any provision for the safe disposition of the contaminant removed from the underground vaults. However, the maintenance issues are better treated with the operation issues. In terms of operation, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are substantial. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the analysis of the direct impacts of the operation of the proposed system is limited to the current level of uplands and marine activity at the marina. These direct impacts involve two aspects of the operation of the proposed system: the design capacity and the inspection and maintenance (including disposal of sediment) of the system components. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the secondary impacts involve the intended and reasonably expected uses of the proposed system. These impacts consist of the increased uplands and marine uses associated with the addition of 100 new wet slips, 227 new dry slips, and 115,000 square feet of building space with a restaurant. Apart from their contention that Applicant is required only to satisfy the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5, Applicant and DEP have contended that Petitioner is estopped from raising direct and secondary impacts because DEP considered these impacts when issuing the Original Permit four years ago. Perhaps the most obvious factual problem with this contention is that it ignores that the New Permit authorizes, for the first time, the construction of the 227 new dry slips and 115,000 square feet of buildings. As counsel for DEP pointed out during the hearing, the Original Permit was a DAF permit and did not extend to these upland uses. The contention that DEP considered these developments as secondary impacts because they were shown on drawings attached to the Original Permit gives too much significance to nonjurisdictional background items shown in drawings without corresponding textual analysis. More generally, the efforts of DEP and Applicant to restrict the scope of this case rely on a misreading of Original Permit Specific Condition 5. The purpose of Original Permit Specific Condition 5 is to "ensure a net improvement to water quality." The purpose of each of the requirements under Specific Condition 5 is to achieve an actual, not presumptive, improvement in water quality. Prohibiting the issuing agency from fully analyzing the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system reduces the likelihood that the ensuing New Permit will perform its role, as envisioned in the Original Permit, of helping to achieve an actual, net improvement in water quality. The concept of a "net" improvement is exactly what DEP's witnesses disclaim having done in this case--balancing the potential environmental benefits to the water resources from the proposed surface water management system against the potential environmental detriments to the water resources from the development and land uses that are intended or reasonably expected to result from the construction of the proposed system. The failure to analyze the net gain or loss inherent in this important provision of Specific Condition 5.B undermines the likelihood that the effect of Specific Condition 5.B--a net improvement in water quality--will be achieved. It is therefore illogical to rely on Specific Condition 5.B, as DEP does, as authority for an artificially constrained analysis of the eligibility of the proposed system for a former-SWM ERP. The estoppel argument also ignores that Original Permit Specific Condition 5.B anticipated that the issuing agency would be SFWMD. It is unclear how the parties to the Original Permit, including DEP, would bind what appeared at the time to have to be SFWMD in the exercise of its lawful authority in issuing SWMs or former-SWM ERPs. The attempt of Applicant and DEP trying to limit the scope of this case also overlooks numerous changed circumstances since the issuance of the Original Permit. Changed circumstances militating in favor of the comprehensive analysis mandated for former-SWM ERPs include: increased trends in manatee mortality; increased boating pressure; persistent water quality violations in terms of dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria; a dramatic deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels; the initial presentation for environmental permitting of the previously unpermitted 227 additional dry slips and the 115,000 square feet of buildings; the current canal bottom profiles resulting from excessively deep maintenance dredging; the absence of an updated flushing study; and the failure to dredge the flushing canal required by the Original Permit. Disregarding the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 in this case would thus repudiate Specific Condition 5.B, especially when, among other things, the water quality of the canals has deteriorated dramatically with respect to dissolved oxygen, the canals continue to suffer from serious copper violations, the canals were recently maintenance dredged to excessive depths, no flushing study has examined these subsequent developments, and the intended uses to be facilitated by the New Permit more than double the capacity of the existing marina. 2. Water Quality The direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system, based on current levels of uplands and marine use at the marina, would adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters, in violation of Basis of Review Section 4.1.1(c). The excessively increased depths of the canals, especially with respect to the substantially widened depths of the north canal, raise the potential of water quality violations, especially given the history of this site. Potential sources of contaminants exist today in the canal bottoms, uplands, and marine activity associated with the marina. The potential for water quality violations, especially with respect to dissolved oxygen, increases in the absence of an updated flushing study. The potential also increases with the introduction of liveaboards and failure to dredge the flushing canal (or its replacement with culverts). In the face of these current threats to water quality, the New Permit fails to require a system with adequate capacity to accommodate fairly frequent storm events and fails to impose clear and enforceable inspection, maintenance, and disposal requirements for the underground vaults. Although better, the inspection and maintenance requirements for the stormwater inlets and boat wash area unnecessarily present enforcement problems. The effect of these failures in design capacity and inspection and maintenance is synergistic. Deficiencies in vault capacity mean that storms will more frequently resuspend the settled contaminants in the vaults and flush them out into the canal waters. Excessively long maintenance intervals and poor maintenance procedures will increase the volume of contaminants available to be flushed out into the canal waters. Improper disposition of removed contaminants endangers other water resources. The introduction of untreated or inadequately treated water into the canals means the introduction of two substances that will contribute to the current water quality violations. Organics, such as from the boat wash operations and other uplands uses, will raise biochemical oxygen demand, which will accelerate the deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels. Copper removed during boat wash operations, leaching from painted hulls, or remaining in the uplands from past marina operations will also enter the canals in this fashion. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the proposed surface water management system will not result, in the long-term, in water quality violations. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed system, even as limited to existing levels of use of the uplands and marine waters, will not contribute to existing violations of dissolved oxygen and copper levels. Obviously, the situation is exacerbated by consideration of the uses intended and reasonably expected to follow the construction of the proposed system. With the growing popularity of boating in Lee County over the past 20 years, it is reasonably likely that an expanded marina operation, located close to downtown Fort Myers, will successfully market itself. Thus, many more boats will use the marina because it will offer more wet and dry slips and new buildings, including a restaurant, and the pressure on water quality will intensify with the intensification of these uses. The added intensity of upland and marine uses will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and copper, probably will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for total coliform bacteria and lead, and may contribute to the recurrence of water quality violations for other parameters for which the canals were previously in violation. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely affect the water quality of the canals. 3. Manatees and Manatee Habitat By letter dated June 26, 1998, from a DEP Environmental Specialist to a DEP permitting employee, the Environmental Specialist provided an initial opinion concerning the revisions that Applicant sought to the Original Permit so as to allow liveaboards, replace the flushing canal with culverts, and relocate the travel lift to the north canal. The letter accompanies a Manatee Impact Review Report, also dated June 26, 1998. The Manatee Impact Review Report notes the pending application for the New Permit. The report considers at length the extent of manatee use of Deep Lagoon and the nearby portions of the Caloosahatchee River. The Manatee Impact Review Report states: This project [i.e., the relocation of the boat lift to the north canal, addition of liveaboards, and conversion of the flushing canal to flushing culverts] is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft-related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. The secondary impacts expected with this project are compounded by the cumulative secondary effects from other facilities in this system. Just south of this project site, another marina was recently constructed (Sun City Corporation aka Gulf Harbor Marina aka River's Edge), which has approximately 190 wet slips. Since October 1995, there have been seven watercraft-related deaths within five miles of this project location. The Gulf Harbor Marina was constructed in late 1995, and was almost fully occupied during 1996. Watercraft-related manatee deaths increased significantly during this time, with one in December 1995, two in 1996 and four in 1997. Additional on-water enforcement by the City of Cape Coral was considered part of the offsetting measures to address the expected impacts to manatees from increases in boat density. This offsetting measure, however, appears to be ineffectual at this time. The Manatee Impact Review Report concludes that the north canal and its mouth are "particularly important" for manatee because of the availability of freshwater from the adjoining Iona Drainage District ditch immediately north of the north canal and "historical use indicates that this area appears to be the most frequently used area in the Deep Lagoon system." The report cautions that the relocated travel lift may significantly increase the number of boats in the little-used north canal, whose narrowness, coupled with moored, large boats on the one side, "would produce significant, adverse impacts to the endangered manatee." The Manatee Impact Review Report finds that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, unless several new conditions were added. These conditions include prohibitions against boat launching along the shoreline of the north canal and the addition of manatee-exclusion grating to any culverts that may be approved. As defined in this recommended order, the direct impacts upon manatees from the proposed surface water management system would be moderate. As defined in this recommended order, direct impacts would not involve any increase in boating pressure. The greater impacts would be in the deterioration of two measures of water quality that are crucial to manatees: dissolved oxygen and copper. However, the secondary impacts are dramatic, not de minimis, and arise from the intended and reasonably expected uses to follow from the construction of the proposed surface water management system. The increased boat traffic intended and reasonably expected from more than doubling the marina capacity, through the addition of 100 wet slips and 227 dry slips, and the addition of 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant, would adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters. Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial numbers of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species. 4. Minimization and Mitigation Due to their contention that Basis of Review Section 4 does not apply to this case, DEP and Applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the minimization and mitigation sections of Basis of Review Section 4. However, the record supports the possibility of design alternatives for water quality impacts, if not manatee impacts, that DEP and Applicant must consider before reanalyzing the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed system on the water resources and, if appropriate, potential mitigation options. Mr. Bateman testified that SFWMD is the only district that permits surface water management systems relying on the settling out of sediments in the bottom of a storage-type detention system. (Vol. II, p. 18). He explained that other districts rely on systems that, taking advantage of the three to four feet typically minimally available between ground surface and the top of the water table, retain the runoff and allow it to percolate into the ground. (Vol. II, p. 19). One relatively straightforward design alternative, which would address water quality issues, would be to perform a flushing study; analyze applicable drainage level of service standards imposed by state, regional, and local authorities; and increase the capacity of the surface water management system to accommodate the runoff from storms of sufficient size and frequency that would be accommodated by the proposed system. Another feature of this design alternative would be to impose for each component of the system a detailed, enforceable program of inspection, maintenance, and contaminant-disposal. This program would incorporate the manufacturer's recommendations for the manner and minimum frequency of inspection and maintenance, but would require more frequent removal of contaminated sediments during periods when larger storms are more numerous (e.g., a specified wet season) or more intense (e.g., a specified hurricane season), as well as any periods of the year when the marine and upland uses are greatest (e.g., during the winter season, if this is the period of greatest use). As testified by Mr. Bateman, the proximity of the water table to the surface, as well as South Florida land costs, discourage reliance upon a conventional percolation-treatment system, even though the site's uplands are 5 feet NGVD and the water table is 1.2 feet NGVD. The bottom of the proposed system is 2.5 feet NGVD, which leaves little soil for absorption. If the nature of the contaminants, such as copper, does not preclude reliance upon a percolation-treatment system, DEP and Applicant could explore design alternatives that incorporate more, shallower vaults, which would increase the soil layer between the bottom of the vaults and the top of the water table. If the technology or contaminants preclude reliance upon such an alternative, the parties could consider the relatively costly alternative, described by Mr. Bateman, of pool-like filters with an "actual filtration device." (Vol. II, pp. 19-20). The preceding design alternatives would address water quality concerns, including as they apply to manatees, but would not address the impact of increased boating upon manatees. The record is not well developed in this regard, but DEP and Intervenor have considerable experience in this area, and it is premature to find no suitable means of eliminating or at least adequately reducing the secondary impacts of the proposed system in this crucial regard as well. In any event, Applicant has failed to consider any design alternatives to eliminate or adequately reduce the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system. Having failed to consider minimization, DEP and Applicant have failed to identify the residual direct and secondary impacts that might be offset by mitigation. Applicant has thus failed to mitigate the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking its determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the application for an environmental resource permit in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 T. Elaine Holmes, Attorney 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact By application filed November 17, 1992, Petitioner seeks a dredge and fill permit for the construction of a private boat dock; a 24 foot by 26 foot platform for an "A" frame camping shelter; and a 4 foot by 18 foot boardwalk, all in jurisdictional wetlands along the water's edge of a small natural basin off of the Choctawhatchee River at Section 24, Township 2 South, Range 19 West in Walton County, Florida. The Choctawhatchee River has been designated an Outstanding Florida Water by Rule 17-302.700, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed project is located in Class III waters and is adjacent to Class II shellfish approved waters. The proposed project is not exempt from Respondent's permitting jurisdiction. Petitioner proposes to use the elevated "A" frame structure for recreational purposes for his family and friends. He owns 150 acres of land in the vicinity. He provided no reliable assurances that he, or the owners of 350 acres of adjacent property, would not subdivide and sell plots of the property in the future for construction of similar recreational facilities in these jurisdictional wetlands. There is no feasible land access to Petitioner's proposed project site. Petitioner proposes to use "port-a-potty" chemical equipment with a capacity of 5.5 gallons for the containment of human waste, hauling the waste, chemicals and equipment out on boats as necessary. Potable water will also be carried to the site via boat by the six to eight individuals contemplated to use the proposed project facility on an estimated 15-20 weekends per year. Petitioner's proposed portable toilet is not an acceptable method of sewage disposal for the number of individuals using the proposed facility. Reasonable assurances were not provided by Petitioner that transfer of such waste by boat will not, through accident or otherwise, be introduced into the river and degrade water quality. Petitioner was unable to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed permanent facilities would not attract and be used by other individuals, leaving garbage and waste behind. Petitioner's offer to place a "no trespassing" sign on the property is not an adequate substitute to monitoring of the property to prevent improper use by others. In the event of a severe storm, Petitioner's proposed structure would be subject to destruction and its constituent parts strewn on other land or into the water. The proposed construction would adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare and property of others. The proposed project will adversely impact the conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats. The proposed site area supports many endangered and threatened species, including the Atlantic Sturgeon and the bald eagle, which would be adversely affected by the project. Also adversely affected by the dwelling construction and subsequent loss of habitat would be rookeries of wading birds such as the Little Blue Heron and the Egret, both of which nest in these wetlands. While fishing for Petitioner and his family or guests at the proposed project would possibly be improved, Petitioner offered no credible evidence that fishing, recreational values or marine productivity in the area would not be affected. The wetlands where Petitioner proposes to build his shelter serve as a nursery area for shrimp and oysters. Destruction or degradation of waters of the wetland will have an adverse effect on any shellfish or marine life inhabiting the area. The permanent nature of the proposed project will result in a permanent impact on the wetlands in the vicinity of the project. Petitioner offered no evidence that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas subjected to the proposed project will not be affected. The area where the project is proposed is a highly productive estuary which interfaces with the Choctawhatchee River and Choctawhatchee Bay. This ecosystem provides habitat for various unique species of plants and wildlife and is the location of shrimp and oyster nurseries. Further, the estuary serves to clean the water, remove sediment, revitalize the water with oxygen, and convert nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus into plant material and ultimately into usable organic nutrients. The proposed project will lower existing ambient water within an Outstanding Florida Water. The increased docking of boats in shallow wetland waters could cause violations of water turbidity standards, resulting in decreased diversity of the Shannon-Weaver Index of Benthic Macroinvertebrates. Water quality violations would also result from increased oil sheen on the surface of the water. Secondary impacts of the proposed project include the loss of wetland habitat, impairment of wetland function, and violation of water quality standards due to increased boat traffic and the possibility of sewage contaminating the wetlands and surrounding environs. The proposed project fails to meet Respondent's requirements for issuance of a dredge and fill permit in view of the lack of reasonable assurances by Petitioner that prohibited cumulative impacts will not result; that Class II waters will not be degraded; that the project is clearly in the public interest; that ambient water quality standards will not be violated and that detrimental secondary impacts will not occur. Denial of the permit is consistent with other, similar permitting decisions by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application for issuance of Permit No. DF66-222039-1 to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2900 The following constitutes my rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed findings None submitted. Respondent's Proposed findings 1.-3. Accepted in substance, not verbatim. 4.-7. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Accepted. Rejected, legal conclusion. 10.-11. Accepted. Rejected, unnecessary. Accepted. Rejected, unnecessary. 15.-22. Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Foster F. Burgess, Route 1 Box 97-C4 Freeport, Florida 32439 Donna M. LaPlante Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact By application filed on October 29, 1980, Respondent/Applicant, Harvey B. Ulano, sought the issuance of a permit from Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to authorize the construction of a private pier for mooring a sailboat at 2640 Northwest Collins Cove Road, Stuart, Florida. A copy of the permit application may be found as DER Exhibit 1. The property in question lies on the North Fork of the St. Lucie River in St. Lucie County. The River is classified as a Class III Water of the Sate. Respondent/Applicant's proposal was received by the Department and reviewed for compliance with applicable State water quality standards. The Department concluded that all statutory and rule requirements, criteria, standards and provisions had been met, including those pertaining to biological productivity impact, water quality and navigation. On January 23, 1981, the Department issued its Letter of Intent to Issue a permit with certain conditions therein, including a prohibition against any dredging and filling associated with the project, the required restoration of submerged lands disturbed by construction activities to their original configuration, the employment of an effective means of turbidity control, and a prohibition against live aboards on boats docked at the pier. A copy of the Letter of Intent to Issue may be found as DER Exhibit 2. The applicant intends to construct a 276 foot long pier from an existing concrete retaining wall on his property which fronts the St. Lucie River. The pier will be built at a perpendicular angle with the shoreline and will be 6 feet wide for the first 240 feet, and 12 feet wide for the remainder of its length. There will be no building or boathouse constructed on the dock, nor will pilings extend above the docking until the area where the boats will be tied. The river is approximately 1500 to 2000 feet wide at the proposed project site. However, the depth of the water close to the shoreline is not sufficient to moor larger boats at low tide. Therefore, it is necessary that the length of the pier be 276 feet in order to insure a minimum 3-foot water depth at all times. Applicant's lot is odd-shaped in size. The waterfront footage is approximately 135 feet. Its sides measure approximately 330 feet on the north boundary and 200 feet on the south. The property of Petitioner, Werner Jungmann, adjoins that of Applicant on the south side and also fronts the river. The pier will be constructed on the northwest corner of Ulano's property, which is the most distant point from Jungmann. Because of the odd shapes of the Applicant's and Petitioner's lots, the end of the pier will project slightly within the lakeward extension of Jungmann's property line. However, the design of the pier is such that it should not obstruct or impair the view of the river now enjoyed by the Petitioner. Navigation in the river and existing channel adjacent to the pier will not be affected by the proposed activity. The shallow water depth in the river next to the shoreline already precludes movements by boats close to the shore. The Department has imposed certain conditions upon the construction and future use of the pier (DER Exhibit 2). These conditions, together with the plans submitted by Applicant (DER Exhibit 1), constitute reasonable assurances that the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed activity will not result in violations of the water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of the Florida Administrative Code, and that the proposed activity will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards, rules or regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue Respondent/Applicant, Harvey B. Ulano, a permit to construct a private pier for mooring a sailboat on the North Fork, St. Lucie River, subject to those conditions set forth in the Department's Letter of Intent to Issue dated February 23, 1981. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernon N. Sidaway, III, Esquire Post Office Box 3388 Fort Pierce, Florida 33454 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward B. Galante, Esquire Suite 310 Florida National Bank Building 301 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 33494
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Association, represents 1,053 condominium homeowners located in the Old Port Cove Community, a residential development in Palm Beach County, Florida. Old Port Cove Community consists of seven separate condominium buildings and associations. Many of the individual condominium homes/apartments within the complex border on arid overlook the Old Port Cove area of north Lake Worth which is the location of the two existing marinas operated by the Respondent Applicant and the site of the proposed marina expansion. The water in question is an essential part of the residential community and was, in many cases, a major factor considered by the homeowners purchasing in this community. At the time of development, going back a minimum of seven years, property owners were advised by the developer/Applicant (or its predecessor) that the marinas constructed or to be constructed would be for the exclusive use of the residents of the condominium apartment houses within the complex. On or about March 12, 1986, Respondent DER, received an application from the Applicant for a dredge and fill permit for the construction of a commercial addition to the northernmost marina currently existing at Old Port Cove Complex. The new construction was to consist of 1 pier of a total length of 911 feet with 50 boat slips and 26 finger piers. The new slips will be 45 feet in length of which 15 feet will consist of pier and the remaining 30 feet of open water terminated by a piling. The main pier would extend in a northeast direction from the easternmost point of the existing north pier for a total of 171 feet, then turn northwest for a total of 490 feet, and then turn southwest for an additional 250 feet to enclose an area of water leaving a 90 foot wide space for entry of boats into the enclosed area. The application for the permit contains as an attachment thereto an engineering drawing depicting the proposed marina expansion and its relationship to the existing marina. This expansion was proposed because of the growing need for boat slips in the area. The operator, currently providing a total of 289 slips in both marinas, (197 in the south and 92 in the north) proposes to construct 50 new slips for pleasure boats from 25 to 120 feet in length. Applicant proposes and commits itself to utilize the new slips for sailboats only. Notwithstanding the fact that there are approximately 1,261 additional slips available within a one mile area of the proposed site, the applicant contends it has been continuously turning away applicants for slip rentals in its facilities. If approved, the proposed new facility will constitute an approximate 4 percent increase in the total number of boat slips in the area, not counting the free moorings offshore in the Federal mooring in the center of the cove. Applicant presently operates one diesel fuel pump at the South Marina. No other fueling facilities exist at either marina operated by Applicant nor are any additional fueling facilities intended. Applicant has also entered into a contract with a local fuel spill control company to provide spill cleanup if necessary. At the present time, there are no pump-out stations for sewage at either the North or South Marina. Applicant proposes to install sewage facilities as a part of the approval package. Leasing agreements currently in effect require all boats using the marinas to certify they have U.S. Coast Guard approved heads on board before being allowed to dock at the marina. This requirement is not actively enforced, however. Most boats utilizing the facility are pleasure/non-commercial fishing boats. Individuals, mainly residents of the apartment complex, use the docks for fishing but there is some question as to the nature and availability of the fish population in the area. Manatees do frequent the area, however, not necessarily as far north as the marina in any great numbers, but several hundred yards to the south, congregating at times around the entrance to the intracoastal waterway which forks off to the northwest somewhat south of the south marina. Subsequent to the receipt of the Association's Petition herein, DER had numerous water quality tests performed and requested certain assurances from the Applicant designed to remedy or rectify numerous objections made by the Association in its Petition. Thereafter, on February 16, 1987, DER issued a Revised Intent to Issue in this case in which it addressed the Association's concerns and specified certain conditions to be included in the permit to protect the water quality and biological resources in the project area. These conditions included: A prohibition against commencement of any excavation or other construction activity prior to receipt of evidence of permission from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or DNR; A requirement for notification of the Division of Archives in the event any historical or archaeological artifacts are discovered within the project site; Provision for permanent sewage pump-out facilities to be provided at the south marina to replace portable facilities currently available, within 90 days of permit issuance, and the provision of temporary sewage pump-out facilities at the north marina which shall be in place and functioning prior to any work being commenced under the permit; The requirement for use of turbidity screens around the project site during construction to remain in place until turbidity behind. The screens falls to an acceptable level; The placing of educational signs, the content of which shall be coordinated with DNR, at both the north and south marinas, informing boaters that manatee may be in the area and requesting that care be taken; The posting of manatee warning signs in both marinas; The establishment of idle speed and no wake zones in both marinas and the access channels; A provision that permanent liveaboards connect their vessels with permanent sewage hook-ups at all times when the vessel is docked; and A provision against refueling facilities at the expanded north marina. Applicant and DER are satisfied that the conditions imposed by the terms of the Revised Intent to Issue satisfy all the current requirements of the statute and rules relevant to dredge and fill permits for projects of this nature. Many of the apartment owners, banding together as the Petitioner Association herein, strongly resist approval of the permit to construct the new marina for numerous reasons. They contend, first, that the construction of the new marina and the greater number of boats resulting therefrom, constitute a threat to the manatee population in the area. The Association is also concerned with water quality in the area, fire safety, wake damage, and noise pollution as a result of the proposal. Other considerations of the residents include parking and a diminishment in the resale value of their property. Several of the residents have seen manatee in the area swimming in the waters adjacent to the marina and in the "key" area on the other side of the peninsula. Many have scars on them and appear to have been injured by collisions with boats. Several residents have seen trash and debris in the water and have observed boats traveling at a high rate of speed just outside the existing marinas. In addition to debris, residents have seen oil and grease floating on the water and contend that the proposed wave baffles hanging down into the water from the extended pier will interfere with the natural flushing action of the winds and tides. Many of these same individuals complain of an extremely bad odor coming from the marina and they have observed boat owners either pumping their bilges directly into the marina water or washing their boats with detergents which are allowed to run overboard into the water. At least one resident, speaking for others as well, referred to a green space, an area of grass outside and between the buildings and the water. Originally, this area was supposed to be gardens and a recreational area for the residential complex, and the yacht club was to be a secondary appurtenance for the property owners. Now, with apartment owners making up no more than 10 percent of the occupants of the marina slips, for it seems as though the apartment residence owners are being shunted to the background and commercial activities, including the marina, are becoming paramount in the eyes of the applicant which still operates it. This green space is now proposed to be converted by the applicant to parking for the use of the marina patrons; all to the detriment of the apartment owners. There is some evidence that boat owners utilize the grounds of the apartment complex as a place to walk their dogs for canine toilet purposes and there is some evidence that numerous liveaboard boat owners, who do not have adequate toilet and bathing facilities on board their boats, utilize the pool, showers, and toilets ordinarily reserved for residents of the apartment complex. Noise from parties on the boats is often both excessive and disturbing and to the knowledge of at least some of those testifying on behalf of the Association, efforts by security personnel employed by the condominium associations to get the boat owners to curb the noise and disruption have been totally unsuccessful. One resident summed up the feelings of his co-owners when he indicated that these various factors translate to property value and because of the current situation with pollution, noise, lack of security, and the increasing commercialism, the result has been a substantial drop in property value. This witness feels that the more slips that are made available, along with their related annoyances, the less the value of the individual apartments will be. All feel that the addition of 50 more slips will increase the existing problems and none of the residents who testified for the association were of the opinion that the developer's controls will be adequate to alleviate or minimize the untenable situation which they now face. However, there was no evidence presented to substantiate the layman opinion of reduction in property value and it cannot be said, therefore, that this has or will really happen, and the amount of loss. Turning to the issue of water quality as effected by refueling operations and sewage disposal at the marina, the question of fueling facilities was not raised by the Association other than to object basically because of the potential for fuel spills. Applicant and DER contend that this problem should be taken care of through the contracting for the services of Glasgow Equipment Service, providing for 24 hour emergency response for fuel spills of any type. It is unreasonable to expect that a marina providing dockage for potentially as many as 289 motor vessels can be expected to be totally spill free. If proper refueling procedures are followed, and there is no evidence to indicate that they would not be, the incidence of fuel spills should be minimal and the contract with the clean-up service providing for around the clock response in case of a spill, appears to be adequate action to remedy the effects of any spill. There have been very few fuel spills in the history of the marina operation. The most recent resulted in a spill of no more than 3 to 5 gallons and clean-up was successfully accomplished with little damage. The Association made much of the fact that no disciplinary action was taken against the offender and that the boat in question is still an occupant of the marina. This incident is still under investigation, however, and final action has not yet been taken. At the current time, there are no pump-out stations for sewage at either the north or south marina. The applicants propose to install a pump-out sewage facility tied to each vessel berth in the south marina and to provide a portable pumpout facility which can be rolled to a particular spot to meet the needs of any vessel at the north marina. The Applicant has agreed to fund the project completely and has agreed to the special conditions contained in the Revised Intent to Issue regarding the pumping stations. Applicant and DER both arranged for testing of the water quality at the north marina to determine the current condition of the water. Dr. John D. Wang, an expert in coastal hydrodynamics on the faculty at the University of Miami, is familiar with the site of the proposed expansion and visited it last in November, 1986. At that time, he did a study on the flow exchange caused by tides and wind over a two day period. As a part of his test, he placed instruments in the water to take measurements of water motion, temperature, and salinity on the outer side of the current pier at the north marina and inside that marina at different depths. On the first day of the test, the tide was an ebb tide (receding) pulling water out of the marina area. However, at the same time, the wind was from the southeast which directly opposed the tide action. At the surface, the drogues (instruments) followed the wind. Those deeper in the water went with the tide. When the tide came in the next day, the drogues went to the north under the power of both wind and tide. Dr. Wang's experiment confirmed not only that the water moved in and out of the marina area, but also that the water circulated clockwise north along the west side of Lake Worth and south on eastern side. Dr. Wang thought this might be due to wind force, but regardless of the cause, it was a good indication that water was exchanged in the area. Dr. Wang concluded that the water in the marina was completely taken out within one hour and joined the circulatory pattern, being replaced by other water. The baffles placed on the piers to reduce wave motion will have some effect on the water circulation tending to reduce surface flow, but these baffles will not prevent the exchange of water due to circulation because they are limited to the top three feet of the water. In Dr. Wang's opinion, they may have some positive effect on circulation by preventing wave water from flowing back out. By the same token, the presence of boats in the marina will have but a marginal effect on water exchange. The draft of the boats utilizing this area is not much more than the wave baffles and there will still be ample water underneath to permit flow and exchange. In fact, in Dr. Wang's opinion, the location of this marina is almost optimal. By virtue of the fact that it is out in the open, water can flow freely through the area and no dredging is required. The flat, sloping bottom promotes water exchange. No evidence was presented to contradict this opinion and it is hereby accepted. Additional tests on water quality were run by Dr. Paul R. McGinnes, head of an independent consultant laboratory specializing in water quality and motion who visited the site several times doing three separate studies of dissolved oxygen, salinity, and water temperature at various depths and at different hours. As a part of his examinations, he also looked for oil (pollutants), and bacterial components. The water subject to tests for bacterial components was taken from the top foot at several locations in each of the three studies. In the 1983 study, tests showed fecal and coliform bacteria were present in sufficient quantities to constitute a few violations. In 1986, when he sampled for fecal bacteria only, the count was very low. In the 1987 test of samples taken twenty times over 24 hours, the fecal bacteria count was, in each case, within state limits. As to heavy metals, in 1983, levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, and zinc were not present. There was no evidence as to current levels. As to oils and greases, all studies showed very little present (below 5mg per litre) and what grease was there could consist of animal or vegetable fats. This is considered unlikely and it is found there is petroleum product in the water, though in insignificant quantities. Regarding dissolved oxygen, all tests showed compliance with state standards. Levels were comparable to other areas of Lake Worth. Dr. McGinnes is generally familiar with the state standards for Class III waters and believes the construction and operation of the new 50 slips at the north marina will in no way result in violation of state water quality standards. His opinion as to this construction is based on his tests, his conversations with applicant's personnel, and his experience with other similar projects. Granted, boats do tend to leak oil and that situation will raise the oil level in the immediate area of the leak. However, not all boats leak in all marinas and what leaks there are will tend to dissipate to a safe level within a very short period of time. In February, 1983, the coliform bacteria in the south marina were higher than in the north marina or in Lake forth in general. However, coliform bacteria does not appear to be a major problem in this case. In response to cross examination, Dr. McGinnes concluded that even if five boats dumped raw sewage in the north marina, it would not have any major negative impact on the overall water quality there. It would, of course, affect the sample taken in the area immediately after dumping, but not the overall quality over the long run. Dr. McGinnes' last sample was taken in February, 1987, which is a time of highest use. The water quality in and around the marina is generally as good as in the northern end of Lake Worth which is better than in the southern end of the lake. His examination of the water quality indicated no recognized violations of Florida water quality standards in the last two reports. The association's expert, Mr. Timmer, went to Old Port Cove in January, 1987 and saw numerous boats in the slips. He looked for inlets opening into the marine and for a bird population, either one of which could cause an increase in undesirable bacteria in the area. He found none. He took water samples for testing to see if the fecal coliform bacteria level in the marina was higher than outside it. During his tests, he took samples from 14 sites at three separate depths at each. His samples were duplicated for safety in case any one sample was compromised. Six of his samples were taken inside the dock area of the north marina; one was taken to the north several thousand yards; and four more were taken outside the area of the proposed marina. One was taken in the federal anchorage; several across the cove on the east side of the lake and one outside the cove, south of the Intracoastal Waterway inlet and west of the channel. The furthest test site was approximately one mile from the marina. When Mr. Timmer got his samples, he isolated the sets from each other; "refrigerated" them (placing them in a cooler without any ice), and upon completion of his sampling, took them to the McGinnes lab where analyses were done for fecal coliform bacteria. As a result of his tests, and relying on the report received from McGinnes Laboratories, Mr. Timmer concluded that the fecal coliform level within the marina was higher than outside the marina by 5 to 10 times. Surface samples, he felt, averaged out in excess of what he considered to be the state standard. Some of the lower level samples were high also. In no case, however, did any sample exceed a count of 15 outside the marina. Coliform standards, according to state rules, are to be averaged over a month's period of taking. In fact, the report received from the McGinnes lab concluded that because testing was not done over a month's period, the standard was not exceeded. These samples, even that one reflecting a reading of 560 bacteria per 100 ml at site 3a, did not come anywhere near the upper limits of the state standard and in fact was well within it. Mr. Churchill, a zoologist and ecologist and expert in marine biology made various studies of the benthic communities and fish population in the area of the proposed construction. He studied the soft bottom communities and took samples of the bottom in different areas both inside and outside the current marina and in the area where the extension is proposed. He found that the outside and the outer inside communities were much the same and had a low number of species. The inner inside was considerably different. It had a higher number of both species and individuals. A larger number is a better system and DER rules provide that one cannot build a project which would tend to reduce the number. Here, since the area where the construction is planned is outside the area of high species count and similar to the rest of the cove area, the construction would most likely not violate the state's rule. In fact, in Mr. Churchill's opinion, concurred in by other experts, the proposed project will, rather than negatively impact the environment for wildlife, enhance it by providing additional habitat. The pilings, forming supports for the piers and ties for the boats will provided habitat for small marine life which in turn provide food for larger life which is attracted. This testimony would tend to contradict the testimony of at least one of the residents who indicated that in his experience, the fish population in the area had declined radically over the years since he moved in and that about all one can catch in the immediate area now are some small sheepshead. This is in comparison to the larger variety and size of fish available to the angler several years in the past. No doubt, the fish selection and availability has diminished since the area was developed, but the question is whether the new construction will aggravate that situation and the answer appears to be that it will not. An additional water quality study was conducted by Dr. Martin Roessler, a marine scientist who did a water quality study in the area consistent with that done by Dr. McGinnes. He also did several of his own on- site inspections as to water clarity and marine plant and other life including reptiles and birds in the area. On his third visit to the site, he took water quality samples for testing for bacteria and other marine life. As a result of his tests, he concluded that water quality in the area should not be diminished by construction of the marina. During construction, the use of turbidity curtains and booms will tend to keep any temporary disruption to a minimum. He agrees with Dr. McGinnes and Mr. Churchill that the nature of marine life within the area should not be disturbed by the construction. He was unable to observe any sea grasses in the area (they are on the other side of the cove and not where he observed) and dredging would not be involved; only the driving of pilings which will disrupt the bottom only in the immediate area of the piling. Dr. Roessler's credibility was not damaged by the Association's evidence that a previous study done for another agency was rejected and he was not paid for the work done. There was insufficient evidence of detail and a broad-brush smear can not be held effective here. When Old Port Cove submitted it's application for its permit, it included the original draft and all requested information in a final product. This project documentation was evaluated by Ms. Janet Llewellyn, a supervisor with DER, who is an individual fully conversant and familiar with the dredge and fill rules and standards set forth in the statutes and the F.A.C. As to water quality, Ms. Llewellyn analyzed the information submitted by the applicant in response to her request for water samples at certain locations she had identified. These samples showed no current violation of the rules governing dissolved oxygen and fecal or coliform bacteria even with the boats that are currently in the marina. DER also requested "hydrographic information as a part of the reasonable assurance" test and this information was to deal with existing water quality and the flushing action of the tides and winds. Ms. Llewellyn has visited the site, albeit only shortly before the hearing, and as a result believes that the drawings submitted with the permit application are correct and represent the work to be done accurately. Recognizing that the field inspection report submitted by on-scene local DER personnel is somewhat negative in its evaluation of the project, she nonetheless disagrees with certain portions of this report which say that boats and piers will interfere with the flushing action of the wind and tide. She also disagrees with the statement that oil and grease will continue to degrade water quality. She feels that the inspector who did the report did not have available to him the hydrographic and water quality tests that she had. This information, submitted somewhat earlier, was sent to Tallahassee by the experts and was not forwarded to the field representative when the request for the survey was laid on. The Revised Intent to Issue, including as it does, the additional requirements laid on the applicant in such areas as sewage pump-out, liveaboards, fueling facility prohibitions, and the like came about as a result of misunderstandings between DER and the applicant and culminated in the applicant agreeing to try to ameliorate the situation and the issuance of the permit by compromise as suggested. DER is satisfied with the proposals contained in the Revised Intent to Issue and feels that approval of this permit will upgrade the facilities at the south marina as well as insure compliance with state water quality standards at the north marina. Together it will result in an upgrade in the water quality in the area. Ms. Llewellyn is convinced that there will be no negative effects on the water quality by the construction at the north marina and that the criteria contained in both the statutes and the rules, from an environmental standpoint, will not be violated. DER has no authority to consider other factors which appear to be among the most substantial complaints of the association members. She did not consider the possibility of damage to the scenic view by the addition because she did not consider it to be an issue. In her opinion, the question of damage to the property of others relates to damage to structure, property, wildlife, etc., and the impacts to these would be negligible. What she considers important is that the permit involved here is for construction, not operation of the marina and enforcement of continuing operational rules is another consideration entirely. When using the term "assurance" as a requirement for an applicant, the assurance required is not that the new slips will have no adverse impact, but that any adverse impact will not reduce the water quality below standards set out in the statutes and rules. Though not envisioned, water quality can be reduced from very high quality to high quality (a reduction in quality) and still be within standards. Additional scientific examination of the water and the immediate site was conducted by Dr. Kenneth L. Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer, physicist, and physical water quality expert with DER who reviewed the hydrographic study submitted with the application. He found that the drogue study showed water speeds of between .05 to .1 feet per second which was typical of the area. The placing of drogues and the resultant study and conclusions was not flawed by the lack of education of the individual who did the placing at the direction of the scientist. What is important is the education and knowledge of the supervising scientist who will take the information gathered and examine it. Considering that prevailing winds in this area during daylight hours are from the sea to the land, (SE to M), and at night the reverse occurs, any study made only during daylight or during nighttime would be flawed to the extent that it would examine only one part of the equation. Given the baseline information available to him, Dr. Echternacht concluded the project as described would not adversely effect water quality from a hydrographic standpoint. Flushing and circulation are important to water quality. If the water does not move, the pollutants added by outside factors, (here boats), accumulate and build up. On the other hand, the faster the water moves, mixed with turbulence, the faster the pollutant is disbursed and prevented from accumulating. At .05 f/sec, a particle of water would move 180 feet per hour. As a result, water will move the length of the marina, (450') in 2 1/2 hours. Therefore, if a spill occurred at the south boundary during an incoming tide, it would move to the north boundary of the marina within 2 1/2 hours and given a tide cycle of 6 1/2 hours, would still have 3 1/2 to 4 hours to move even further away, mix with other water, and be disbursed before being brought back to the marina by the outgoing tide. (However, there is evidence that the water moves in a clockwise direction and the likelihood is great that the contaminated water would not even come back to the marina but would head out down the eastern side of the cove.) This is a worst case situation because of the slow water movement rate utilized and it is, itself, a relatively fast movement. Admittedly, this water movement will be affected by obstacles in the water such as boat hulls, posts, pilings, and baffles. However, while these factors would slow up the water, they would also create turbulence and vortices in the water which, themselves, help mixing. From a practical standpoint, other factors are involved such as the size of the obstacle, etc. Here we are faced with a situation where the marina is not enclosed and the water flows freely. The water quality can be expected to be better than in an enclosed marina and even better in the new area than in the existing areas because it will be further away from the seawall. Taken together, in light of the evidence presented by both sides, it is found that a diminishment in water quality as a result of the construction of the proposed facility here would be minimal and would in no case, likely result in a reduction of the water quality to a level below that considered acceptable in the state statutes and rules. In addition to water quality, the residents were concerned about the threat of injury to the manatee population which, while not appearing in the immediate area of the proposed construction on a regular basis, does visit the area periodically. In addition, there is substantial evidence to establish that boats coming into and out of the marina, going down through the channel into the main part of Lake Worth and out through the cut, would pass through areas actively populated and visited by manatees and therefore, the opening of 50 additional slips for new boats, even in this less populated area, could have a substantial impact on the manatee population. There is no doubt that manatees do visit the area. There are sea grasses, if not in the immediate area of the proposed marina, certainly on the opposite shore of the north part of Lake Worth. It is uncontroverted as well that manatees have been seen near the marina and in the key area on the other side of the peninsula. However, the evidence introduced by the association's own witnesses, Mr. Rose and Dr. Odell, indicates that the manatee population tends to congregate in areas south of the entrance to the Intracoastal Waterway which, itself, is south of the Old Port Cove area. Many manatee congregate in the warm waters produced by the Riviera Beach power plant in the southern part of Lake Worth and go from there to other areas within the Lake Worth area to feed, even as far north as Hobe Sound and Loxahatchee. Generally, there are not enough sea grasses in the local area to keep them there. Manatees can range up to 12 feet in length and up to 3500 pounds in weight. Manatee deaths in Palm Beach County, of which boat deaths account for approximately 50 percent, are a serious danger to the survival of the manatee population. The greatest danger to manatees comes from power boats. While there is no evidence that sailboats are dangerous since they move slowly enough for the manatee normally to evade then, there nonetheless may be some danger as a result of their presence. Some manatees are crushed by barges and larger power boats. Some are killed by impact with medium and larger boats. In approximately 40 percent of the cases, impact kills without propeller injuries and it is hard to tell the size of the boat which did the damage. As to propeller deaths, boats from 24 feet up can kill by this method. The number of manatee deaths has increased lately as a result of boat and other man related causes and if this trend continues, the manatee population will decline and, possibly, become extinct. Mr. Rose, who is quite familiar with the habits of the manatee in this area, states that it is most likely that in traveling north to Hobe Sound and environs, the manatee would travel up the Intracoastal Waterway (the entrance to which is south of the proposed construction) and not go into the Old Port Cove area. Even if they were following the grass which runs along the east and north shores of Old Port Cove, the grass does not grow on the marina side and it is unlikely the manatees would come to the marina in the west to feed though they might come for other reasons and in fact have been seen in the "key" area. Dr. Odell, perhaps the foremost authority on manatees in the United States, has visited the area and, at this hearing, heard the testimony of the other witnesses. He contends that because of the food available in the form of sea grasses and mangrove seeds, primarily on the eastern side of the cove, the likelihood is that manatees would be found in that area. This is consistent with the testimony of Mr. Rose. Consequently, it is found that while manatees come to the area of the proposed marina from time to time, it is more the stray manatee than evidence of continued habitat. Dr. Odell's studies indicate that between 1974 and 1985, there were no manatee deaths recorded in north Lake Worth. However, it is possible that the dead manatee found elsewhere may have been injured or even died elsewhere, (possibly near Old Port Cove) and there well may have been others who were injured in the area who went elsewhere to die. There is, however, no evidence that this is the case. Dr. Odell considers that boats with a draft of between 5 and 7 feet would leave little clearance from the bottom in the bottleneck area south of the marina where the water depth is no more than 9 or 10 feet, to allow room for the manatee to avoid them. In fact, he feels that large, inboard powered boats pose the greatest threat to the manatee. While sailboats generally do not create a risk to the mammal, if the new 50 slips were to be limited to sailboats but all existing slips were to be converted to power boats, this would constitute a severe threat to the manatee population. Further, a change in use patterns, creating more traffic, would increase the risk to the manatee. The real issue is, however, how much time boats spend in manatee habitats. The more boats there are, the less desirable the situation. (Both experts agree, however that if the 50 new slips are limited to sailboats and the ratio of power boats to sailboats in the existing slips is not increased, there is really no legitimate reason, based on a threat to the manatee population, to deny this construction permit.) It would appear, then, that the risk to the manatee population is acceptable. Signs advising boaters to slow down and beware of manatee are good only so long as they promote awareness. There is, according to Dr. Odell, no evidence that they have reduced manatee mortality and given present trends of more power boats and the destruction of the manatee's habitat, one can expect the manatee population to decrease even further.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a dredge and fill permit to the applicant to construct an additional 50 slips at its north marina as proposed. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of May, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner, Old Port Cove Property Owners Association: 1. Accepted except that the undersigned would quell at the right of an individual who wore 44 foot "boots." 2-7. Accepted. 8. Accepted except for the Finding that sea grasses grow as close as 50 feet to the north marina. 9-10. Accepted. The north marina contains 92 slips which includes 66. Other findings contained herein are accepted. Accepted. Accepted but more in the nature of argument than fact and qualified by the fact that new liveaboards must agree to connect to the proposed central sewage system. Accepted. Rejected as argument rather than Finding of Fact. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 17-20. Accepted. 21. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence as relates to the first sentence. Accepted as to the cited contents of the survey. 22-23. Accepted. 24. Rejected as not supported by the evidence. 25-26. Accepted. 27-37. Accepted. 38. Immaterial. By Respondent, Old Port Cove Properties, Limited: 1-7. Accepted. 8-11. Accepted. 12-19. Accepted. 16-19. Accepted as recitations of testimony presented. Rejected as to a shortage of marina slips, accepted as to the rest. Accepted. Accepted as argument. By Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation: 23-25. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel S. Rosenbaum, Esquire Suite 720 450 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Douglas Wyckoff, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert A. Routa, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 213 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 =================================================================
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's application for a permit to connect his canal to the Caloosahatchee River be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1976.
The Issue Whether the proposed project will cause or contribute to violations of applicable state water quality standards contained in Rule 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Whether the public interest criteria of Section 403.918, Florida Statutes will be et. Whether the Respondent DER should grant the applicant RONTO a dredge and fill permit pursuant to the Notice of Intent dated February 8, 1988, in DER File No. 111353525.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent RONTO is the owner and developer of real property contiguous to state waters in Collier Bay at Marco Island, Collier County, Florida. The proposed project is a 4,704 square foot multifamily dock with thirty-eight boat slips. Most of the slips are designed for small boats that are 22 feet or less in length. Three slips are designed to allow the mooring of boats 35 feet or greater in length. This dock is planned to be a private facility which will be used for dockage only. The proposed dock is subject to the Respondent DERs permitting requirements because the construction activity is to take place in Collier Bay (Class II Waters) and the dock structure exceeds 1,000 square feet in size. There is no dredging associated with the project. The facility will extend into the bay from a canal which is directly connected to a deep water channel. A large portion of the dock will be outside of the canal, and the slips provided for larger boats will be located on the south side of the dock in the deeper water. Because the bay is a relatively shallow water body with a number of sand bars, the north side of the dock is designed to accommodate smaller boats which have less draft. The Petitioner is the owner of a single family home within the development which is adjacent to the proposed dock. All that is separating the Petitioner's backyard from the dock site is the canal. This canal is one hundred feet wide. The Petitioner filed a petition in which he disputed the appropriateness of the Intent to Issue filed February 8, 1988. In support of his position, the Petitioner identified a number of areas of controversy which he contends should cause the Respondent DER to reverse its preliminary decision to grant the dredge and fill permit on this project. Water Quality During the application process for the permit, the Respondent DER required water quality sampling done in the bay. Respondent DER designated three general locations from which the samples should be taken. One sample was requested from the mouth of Collier Bay as a control site. The next sample was to be taken from the mouth of the canal, and the third was to be obtained from the water directly under the proposed docks. The samples were collected by the Big Cypress Service Company and sent to an independent, state certified laboratory for analysis. The analysis revealed extremely high levels of lead, cadmium, and zinc in the sediments at all three sampling locations. All three samples exceeded the guidelines established by the Respondent DER's chemistry department to indicate potential water quality problems. In order to determine if sampling error had occurred, a second set of samples was requested by the Respondent DER. This set of samples was gathered by the Big Cypress Service Company in essentially the same locations as the first set. It was sent to a different state certified laboratory for analysis. The results of the analysis of the second set of samples did not show any elevated levels of metals. The first set of samples was considered to be inaccurate by DER because the reported concentrations of metals were not compatible with the project site. There were no indications that a toxic metal dump site which could logically cause such concentrations of metal to occur was located in the area. Even if some toxic metal dumping had occurred in the area, the control sample taken from the mouth of the bay should have revealed lower levels of the metals in its contents due to the flushing activity that occurs there. Because of the factual and logical inconsistencies, DER concluded that an error was made in the gathering of the first set of samples or in the laboratory analysis of them. The results of the analysis of the second set of samples met state water quality standards. They were accepted by DER as accurate and reflective of site conditions. The laboratory analysis of the second set of samples demonstrates that Collier Bay currently meets the criteria for surface waters and the more stringent standards placed upon Class II Waters. During the hearing, the Petitioner did not submit any contrary, reliable evidence based on objective or empirical information which was sufficient to rebut the prima facie showing that the second set of samples accurately reflects the water conditions at the construction site. Water Depths and Water Habitats There are sufficient water depths, based upon the Bathymetric profile and the appraisal and site inspection by the Respondent DER, for a dock to be built at the proposed site. The Bathymetric profile submitted into evidence was completed in June of 1988, prior to the administrative hearing. Although there were photographs and testimony presented which show that a sand bar exists at the mouth of the canal, the Bathymetric profile is found to be determinative of water depths at the site because of its recent compilation and because seasonal fluctuations in water levels cause photographs and testimony to be less reliable. Sea grasses create a positive habitat for the development of animal and fish wildlife. They promote sediment stabilization and provide a pollution filtration system. The placement of the dock at the proposed site will adversely impact upon the development of sea grasses in the canal and the shallow waters to the north and the northeast of the project. Fish, Fowl and Animal Wildlife There was insufficient evidence presented to establish that the local bird and fish habitats will be adversely impacted by the proposed dock. There was no evidence that the dock site is a bird roosting area, although an eagle has fished at that location on a regular basis. Bird life such as the ospreys in the area will be unaffected by human disturbances. Manatees have been regularly sighted in the Collier Bay area in large numbers. The evidence as to potential harm to this endangered species from the building of the proposed dock is inconclusive. Navigation The proposed dock will increase boat traffic in the bay. Due to the location, boats seeking to leave the dock to go to the river will speed across the shallow area to the north and northeast of the dock. Higher speeds are necessary to create a shallow draft to prevent the boats from running aground. There is no competent evidence to show that this activity will increase boating dangers within the bay. The proposed new channel from the dock to the existing channel on the eastern side of the bay will not create a new navigational hazard. Speeding boats from the south will have a clear view of the boats in the new channel for an extended period of time before they actually meet in the channel intersection. Mitigation In order to mitigate the possibility of the project having an adverse impact on the water quality, the Respondent RONTO proposed certain measures it would take to improve water quality at the site. The application for the permit was amended to include the following: "A riprap/mangrove area will be created between the existing seawall and the proposed docks. Monitoring and remedial actions will be performed to assure an 80 percent survival of the red mangroves." In order to create the riprap/mangrove area, the dock was redesigned to be placed several feet away from the seawall. It is anticipated that this small restoration program will promote sediment stabilization. This stabilization will become important when the project is completed because waste or debris resulting from the increased boat traffic will be expected to settle at the bottom of the canal and accumulate in sediments. The program will assist in keeping the sediments down in the canal bottoms. During the construction of the project, the placing of the pilings will cause turbidity which will affect the water quality standards on a short- term basis. In order to mitigate the temporary damage from pile placement, the Respondent RONTO will use turbidity screens to contain all generated turbidity. The riprap and the mangroves will assist in the functions of the biological systems at the site. As stated previously, the project will affect the sea grasses in the canal as well as those to the north and northeast of the project. The new positive habitat which will be created at the site will provide a more effective pollution filtration system than the one currently provided by the sea grasses. Because of the depth of the canal, and the inability of the sea grasses to attach and grow well around the site, the current conditions within the canal are unstable. The restoration program will be more stable than the sea grasses because of the nature of the program and because the Respondent RONTO will warrant the survival of eighty percent of the red mangroves for the life of the permit. The mangroves will also provide for the uptake of nutrients in the water column. This will help to support the development of marine life at the site. It is anticipated that there will be additional attachment opportunities and greater protection for the young marine life. The primary production of fish and wildlife species will be enhanced by the restoration program. Mangroves provide a habitat for approximately ninety per cent of the commercially valuable fish and shellfish species in the area. The riprap will provide a habitat for oysters, barnacles, and other marine organisms. As a result, there should be an increase in crabs and other marine life in the area. The Respondent RONTO has been required by the Respondent DER to space the deck planks at least three-eighths of an inch apart in order to allow for additional penetration of light through the planks. This will allow for photosynthesis to occur in plant life in the water. Plant production is encouraged in order to help maintain the adequate levels of dissolved oxygen for the Class II Waters in the canal area. Also, because of ecological development, the production of primary plant life provides the opportunity for additional marine life in the area. The riprap will stabilize the slope at the base of the seawall. This will prevent erosion in that area. To safeguard against injury or death to manatees in the bay area from the increase in boats, particularly boats which may be speeding to reach the river through the shallow areas, the Respondent RONTO has volunteered to place an educational display on the upland. This display will notify the boaters using the facility that manatees frequent the area. It will give them information about their habits and practices. In addition, the Respondent DER and the Department of Natural Resources are requiring the installation of manatee caution signs at the dock and in the access channels in Collier Bay. The entire bay is designated as an idle speed zone. There are numerous "no wake" and "idle speed" signs in the bay. If the boaters obey the boating rules and regulations within the bay and remain on the lookout for manatees as required, the addition of the thirty eight boat slips should have a minimal adverse impact on the manatee population. In order to mitigate the potential navigational problems the additional boats could cause in the bay, the Respondent DER has required the Respondent RONTO to clearly mark the proposed navigational channel from the docks to marker six in the existing channel with U.S. Coast Guard approved markers. These markers will be spaced one hundred feet apart. The marking of this new channel should eliminate some of the current navigational problems in the bay. The markers, by their location, will discourage boaters from entering the shallow areas north of the proposed docks. Balancing of Interests In the dredge and fill application appraisal, site review, and notice of intent to issue, the Respondent DER considered and balanced all of the required statutory criteria to determine that the project is not contrary to the public interest or applicable water quality standards. Areas of Controversy All of the areas of controversy raised by the Petitioner which are within the Division of Administrative Hearings' jurisdiction have been sufficiently met by the reasonable assurances of Respondent RONTO and the permit conditions required by Respondent DER. Based upon the evidence presented, it is concluded that the harms anticipated by the Petitioner will not occur.
