The Issue The issue in this case is whether the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board denying Petitioner's application for conditional use approval should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 16, 1990, the Petitioner filed an application for conditional use approval with the Respondent seeking permission to operate a personal watercraft rental business at a motel and restaurant located at 601 South Gulf View Boulevard on Clearwater Beach. According to the application, the Petitioner proposes to rent two "Hobie cat" catamaran sailboats, and four to ten "wave runners". The Petitioner proposes that the vessels would be escorted westward, north of and parallel to, the marked boat channel in Clearwater Pass, then northwestward to open waters where, according to Petitioner, a "safewatch and service unit of nonpropeller power" would "monitor" customer activities. The subject property is located between South Gulf View Boulevard and Clearwater Pass, west of the Clearwater Pass Bridge, and is comprised of two zoning districts, an upland portion that is zoned CR-28, or Resort Commercial "Twenty-eight", and a beach front portion that is zoned OS/R, or Open Space/Recreation. Clearwater Pass separates Clearwater Beach and Sand Key Islands, and is the only open access between Clearwater Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. A convenience store is located north of the property, and hotels are located east and west of the property. At the hearing before the Respondent's Planning and Zoning Board on March 13, 1990, the Planning and Development Department recommended denial of the application. In its written report to the Board, the planning staff based its recommendation upon the recommendations of the City's Harbormaster and Marine Advisory Board, which in turn were based upon concerns for safety due to the heavy boat traffic in the Clearwater Pass channel and at jetties along the southern end of Clearwater Beach and the northern end of Sand Key, all of which are located in the vicinity of the subject property. Based upon the testimony of Harbormaster Bill Held, it is found that state and federal approval of markers to mark off a private corridor in Clearwater Pass to accommodate Petitioner's proposed activities would be unlikely. During the hearing before the Board, the Board heard testimony from several persons in opposition to this application based upon concerns regarding the safety of swimmers due to careless operation of similar types of vessels, and strong currents in Clearwater Pass. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board discussed the application prior to voting. Members of the Board expressed concerns regarding public safety due to the dangerous condition of the area. The Board then voted unanimously to deny the application. Subsequently, the Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal, resulting in this case. During this final hearing, Ronald Hollins, President of Gulf Fun, Inc., and agent for the Petitioner, testified that his proposed business would operate seven days a week, from sunrise to sunset, or approximately twelve hours daily. Petitioner testified that his personal watercraft rental vessels would be escorted during trips both from the subject property westward to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and also during return trips, and that a "safety service" boat would monitor the rental vessels while in operation, with the escort boat and the "safety service" boat being in radio contact with a base unit at the motel property. The rental vessels would be prohibited from crossing Clearwater Pass to the south side of the boat channel, and would be limited to an area of operation bounded on the south by Clearwater Pass and on the north by Pier 60 on Clearwater Beach. Petitioner proposes to employ only three or possibly four employees to operate the escort boat, the "safety service" boat, and the base location, to rent the personal watercraft vessels, show a video tape and give a safety booklet to customers, as well as to otherwise supervise the rental vessels during the approximately 84 hours per week that his business would be in operation. Petitoner has never operated a similar business. Based upon the testimony of Richard Howard, captain of a charter boat which regularly goes in and out of Clearwater Pass, it is found that personal watercraft vessels frequently present a hazard to navigation due to the manner in which they are customarily operated. Specifically, personal watercraft operators in Clearwater Pass engage in practices such as towing swimmers on inner tubes, purposely spraying water at boats, and jumping the wakes of boats in the Pass. The activities proposed by Petitioner would exacerbate the insufficient clearance between boats in the channel, boats anchored at the beach, and swimmers, and would, therefore, be inappropriate in Clearwater Pass. The currents in Clearwater Pass are found to be dangerous to boaters on a regular basis, based on the testimony of Arnold Abramson, bridge tender at the Clearwater Pass bridge and Harbormaster Bill Held. A significant number of personal watercraft operators do not demonstrate an understanding of the rules of navigation, or of the currents in the Pass. Based on the testimony of Marine Patrol Office Bill Farias, it is found that the lack of apparent common sense which is frequently demonstrated by personal watercraft operators in Clearwater Pass creates a dangerous condition for others. A common practice is to jump the wake of boats, which results in a loss of control in mid-air. The jetty at the western end of Clearwater Pass obscures vision, making it difficult for incoming boaters to see personal watercraft in the vicinity of the motel, and also making it difficult for personal watercraft operators to see incoming boats. There is another boat rental operation in the area of this subject property, located at the Hilton Hotel, but this existing operation predates the adoption of the Clearwater Land Development Code. The Clearwater Pass bridge had 12,000 drawbridge openings in the past year, and is one of the busiest in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent J. Michael Buffington is a Certified Deputy Pilot for the Port of Tampa and is licensed by the Board of Pilot Commissioners. On January 16, 1983, respondent was on duty and was assigned to pilot the M/V SUNNY MED on its inbound transit of Tampa Bay. The SUNNY MED is a general cargo vessel of 4908.25 gross registered tonnage. It is 378 feet long and has a beam of 55 feet. The draft of the vessel, then in Ballast, was 5 feet forward, about 10 feet midship and 14 feet 6 inches aft. Prior to boarding the vessel, respondent checked the board at the pilot's station for notices of hazards to navigation. Upon boarding the vessel at 0550 hours in Egmont Channel, respondent was told by the Captain that the draft of the SUNNY MED was less than 15 feet. At the time of boarding, the 3 to 5 foot seas were somewhat rough and winds were blowing at approximately 15-20 knots. The vessel was not handling well, was yawing considerably and was slow to respond to the rudder. Respondent had to correct the quartermaster on two or three occasions for "chasing the compass." Respondent approached the Sunshine Skyway Bridge at 0800 hours. There was to be a shift change of crew at about the same time. The 0800 crew is typically the least experienced watch on a vessel and respondent, who had previously encountered difficulties with the quartermaster, was somewhat concerned about the abilities of the new shift Upon approaching the Sunshine Skyway Bridge, respondent observed the outbound DAVID D. ERWIN lining up to go under the bridge. The Hendry Dredge Number 5, a pipeline dredge, was located in the vicinity of 9 B Cut. On previous occasions, the Dredge captain had requested pilots on board a vessel having a small draft to proceed around the dredge outside the channel if they were able to do so, so as not to interfere with the dredging operation. Respondent was aware of these prior requests, though no such request was made on January 16, 1983. In fact, the dredge was not in operation on this particular morning. In order to avoid a close situation with the DAVID D. ERWIN in the A Cut, and being concerned with the abilities of the new watch, and also knowing that he would be going outside the channel later to go around the Hendry Dredge at B Cut, respondent left the dredged channel after passing through the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. Respondent then proceeded inbound parallel to the dredged channel along the "Old Ship Channel," also called the "flats," in an area known to have 18 to 22 feet of water. It has been the custom and tradition for many years to vessels of small draft (less than 18 feet) to use the flats in this area of Tampa Bay. Indeed, it is necessary to leave the marked channel and traverse the flats in order to reach some of the ports in that area of Tampa Bay. Some 500 ships per month utilize the dredged channel area, and it is customary for the smaller draft vessels to give way to the larger draft vessels in the marked, deep draft channel. As respondent was travelling inbound in the Old Ship Channel near the Hendry Dredge, he was aware of the M/V BERGO travelling outbound and the MARINE FLORIDIAN travelling inbound in the dredged channel. The captains of these two vessels were having radio discussions as to where they would meet, and respondent was listening to the discussions. They were attempting to time their arrival in between the Hendry Dredge Number 5 and the turn into C Cut from B Cut so that they could negotiate their passing in a spot other than a turn in the channel or the location of the dredging equipment. Both the BERGO and the MARINE FLORIDIAN are between 80 and 100 feet wide, were heavily laden at the time, and their drafts were between 32 feet and 33 feet 6 inches. The dredged channel can handle a maximum draft of 34 feet, and is approximately 400 feet wide in this particular area. The two vessels had only about 6 inches of water beneath them and the BERGO was "crabbing" due to the current. Respondent made the decision to remain outside the dredged channel as the two loaded vessels negotiated their meeting and passing. He knew he had adequate water beneath him and he felt this was the safest and most prudent course of action to follow. Both the captain and the BERGO and the captain of the MARINE FLORIDIAN agreed that it was wise and prudent for respondent to stay out of the dredged channel at that time, though neither had requested respondent to do so. As the SUNNY MED proceeded outside but parallel to the dredged channel, it struck an uncharted and unmarked submerged barge, causing extensive damage to the SUNNY MED. The collision occurred approximately 1500 feet southwest of Buoy 1 D and about 200 feet outside of the marked channel. The barge, owned by the Hendry Corporation, was sunk in June of 1982 during a tropical storm. It was submerged in approximately 22 feet of water with 7 feet of water covering it from visibility. No Notice to Mariners advising of this obstruction had been issued. Mishap reports filed by the Hendry Corporation with the United States Army Corps of Engineers in July of 1992 stated that the sunken stern nipple barge was recovered and salvaged in July 1982. While the respondent knew that the Hendry Corporation had lost some equipment in the tropical storm occurring in June of 1982, he was not aware that any vessel had sunk.
Recommendation Bases upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found not guilty of violations of Section 310.101(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21SS-8.07(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, and that the Administrative Complaint filed against the respondent be DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April, 1984. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: W. B. Ewers, Esquire P.O. Drawer 9008 Coral Springs, Florida 33075 J. Michael Shea, Esquire P.O. Box 2742 Tampa, Florida 33601 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker Executive Director Board of Pilot Commissioners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Permitting History This development was originally known as North Largo Yacht Club and was owned and developed originally by the Largo Brand Corporation. That developer and this development received Development of Regional Impact approval from the county commission of Monroe County in accordance with Chapter 380, Florida Statutes in 1974. In 1975 that developer received various permits and water quality certifications authorizing construction of the "Atlantic Marina" (the existing marina) from both the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The marina was ultimately constructed and no further governmental approvals are required for the present Respondents to make full use of the existing marina which has an authorized boat capacity of 363 boat slips, which are situated around long piers extending from the shore of the marina basin out into the marina basin. Sometime after construction of the marina, the mortgagee, through foreclosure, obtained title to the property from Largo Brand Corporation which has since dissolved, ultimately conveying it to City National Bank as trustee under a Florida land trust. City National Bank filed the present application in its original form but in February, 1984, conveyed the property to Port Bougainville, Inc. and Port Bougainville Enterprises, Inc., the present Applicant/Respondent who succeeded City National Bank as the real parties in interest prosecuting the present permit application, as modified. The permit application as it presently exists is the result of various modifications suggested by the Department of Environmental Regulation and agreed to by the present Applicant/Respondents, which had the effect of causing the Department to change its position from one of denial of the permit to one of approval, by issuance of a Notice of Intent to grant the permit in June of 1984. The Applicant/Respondent's original decision to apply for the new permit was based upon aesthetic considerations and a desire to redesign and change the theme of the development and the marina itself. It is thus proposed that the boat-mooring facilities be moved to the periphery of the basin and the piers or docks extending out into the basin be removed. This would create an open body of water in the basin, more in keeping with the "Mediterranean Village Harbor" theme of the entire development. The original application filed in early 1984, called for realignment of the docks rather than removal, and the creation of various baylets or inlets along the access canal and contained no proposal for shoaling the existing boat basin. The Department used this original proposal as a basis for its Intent to Deny the Permit Application since it considered those modifications unacceptable in terms of the likelihood that it might degrade water quality or at least not improve the ambient water quality then existing in the marina basin and entrance canal. The Respondents acceded to the demands of the Department, employed additional consultants and redesigned the project, including the creation of a sophisticated hydrographic model by which, and through which, the Respondents ultimately proposed (with the Department's agreement) to revise the application as follows: Shoal the entire basin and canal system to no more than -6 Ft. mean low water; widen and sculpt the access canal on the west side and install solid flow baffles on the east side so as to create a sinusoidal or curving configuration in the canal to improve mixing of the water in the canal and basin system; remove the existing docks and construct new docks around the periphery of the basin so as to provide a decreased number of boat slips and capacity for a total of 311 boats; install one bubble screen surrounding the fueling facilities to contain oil and fuel spills and another at the entrance of the access canal where it opens into the Garden Cove Channel so as to prevent organic materials from outside the canal and basin system from being carried into it with tidal currents and wind; installation of "batter boards" along the length of the waterward or easterly and southeasterly side of the access canal so as to protect the mangroves along that side of the canal from the effects of wake energy caused by boats. After further "free-form" review, investigation and negotiation, the Department required, and the Respondents agreed to make the following additional modifications to the marina development plan: Shoal the north end of the basin to -4 ft. mean low water; slightly reconfigure the access canal and install an additional wave baffle on the eastern periphery of the canal in order to improve circulation in the western portion of the boat basin; relocate the proposed fueling facilities more toward the rearward center of the basin in order to further isolate them from the outstanding Florida waters lying at the outward, "seaward" end of the project; provide funds necessary to more adequately mark the Garden Cove Channel in accordance with the requirements specified by the Department of Natural Resources so as to further ensure that boat traffic and possible propeller damage could be prevented to the marine grassbeds and other marine life on either side of the Garden Cove Channel; install tidal level gauges at the mouth of the Garden Cove Channel which would show boaters wishing to use the channel and access canal the current, minimum depths prevalent in the channel and canal; grant to the Department a "conservation easement" binding upon the Respondent which would provide the following: That no hydraulic connection be made from any of the upland lakes on the Respondent's property to the marina, to the canal, to the channel or any other state waters; an agreement not to employ boat lifts that would require a dredge and fill permit from the Department; an agreement not to apply for additional permits so as to increase the number of boat slips in the marina beyond the 311 presently proposed; to develop a reef management plan in conjunction with the Florida Audubon Society to include educational programs for the public as well as underwriting the installation of mooring buoys and adequate channel markers in the John Pennekamp Reef Park, the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) involved in this proceeding. During the time of construction of the proposed marina modifications, the entire marina will be closed and isolated from the waters of Garden Cove by the installation of a dam at the entrance to the marina access canal where it opens into Garden Cove. The dam will remain in place until turbidity resulting from the dredging, filling and construction has settled and the waters in the marina have achieved the turbidity standards required by the Department and its rules contained in Chapter 17 3, Florida Administrative Code. All the proposed modification work will be performed landward of the surveyed mean high water line. Additionally, a storm drainage system will be installed which will prevent any stormwater runoff from being deposited into the marina harbor. The stormwater runoff will be routed away from the harbor through the use of a reverse gradient around the periphery of the harbor and runoff from the adjacent real estate development will be thus routed away from the harbor into grass swales to be collected into holding areas for filtration. Ambient Water Quality in the Marina and Garden Cove Respondents tendered Dr. Earl Rich, a professor of Biology at the University of Miami as an expert in ecology and he was accepted without objection. Since 1974 he has conducted extensive studies with attendant sampling, observation and water quality monitoring in the Port Bougainville Marina. Beginning in 1983 he also performed certain chemical analyses on the water samples from the marina. Photographs taken underwater in the marina basin were adduced and placed in evidence, as were the results of the observations and tests. It was thus established that there is a dense growth of macroalgae in the marina at a depth of about six feet, although at the nine-foot level there is much less such growth. Concomitantly, the deeper holes in the marina basin exhibit a low dissolved oxygen reading and are largely responsible for the frequently occurring, low dissolved oxygen reading in the marina system that is lower than acceptable standards embodied in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Garden Cove itself is a shallow embayment open toward the Atlantic Ocean in a generally easterly direction, characterized by a rocky or coarse sediment bottom substrate. It is characteristic of this area that organic materials such as seaweeds and the like, are transported by currents and winds into Garden Cove from other marine areas. The underwater vegetation in Garden Cove is lush. There are extensive shallow-water marine grass beds. These vegetated areas support a large population of marine animals and fish. Dissolved oxygen is, of course, essential to the metabolism of these organisms. The two primary means for oxygen to enter the water are as a result of photosynthetic activity of marine plants and through oxygen entering the surface waters through waves and wind action, with that surface water being distributed and mixed so as to disburse the action throughout the water column. The term biochemical oxygen demand or BOD, refers to the rate at which organisms use oxygen in the water. If there are many active photosynthetic organisms, as in Garden Cove, the production of oxygen during the day, as for instance by the seagrasses in the cove, exceeds the BOD of the plant and animal community in the water body, in which case the plants contribute excess oxygen to the air. During hours of darkness, plant and animal communities in the water body will continue to consume oxygen although there will be no photosynthesis to contribute oxygen. Therefore, in an underwater community rich in plant and animal life, such as Garden Cove, the dissolved oxygen level is typically higher during the daylight hours and BOD readings will be decreased during the night, reaching a low level during the early morning hours. Frequently, dissolved oxygen readings in Garden Cove are below state standards for waters of the State under natural conditions. These low DO readings occur commonly in Garden Cove during conditions of calm wind. Indeed, Dr. Rich has measured dissolved oxygen in Garden Cove below the four-part per million state standard even before the present marina and canal were ever constructed. Since the opening of the marina there have been times when the DO readings in Garden Cove have been lower than those inside the marina itself. Hydrodynamics of the Modified Marina The proposal by the permit applicant calls for widening the access channel into the marina to approximately 130 feet by excavating upland on the western bank of the canal. The access canal will then be reconfigured during the excavation into a winding or curving fashion. That adjustment, along with the solid flow baffles to be installed on the eastern bank of the canal, will set up a winding or sinusoidal flow of tidal currents. The sinusoidal flow will induce secondary helical currents that will move water repeatedly from the top to the bottom of the canal and then back, thereby significantly improving the mixing action. The improved mixing of the waters in the canal and marina will serve two purposes: It will disperse any pollutants so as to reduce pollutant concentrations. It will disperse the oxygen introduced into the surface waters by wave and wind throughout the water column. Dr. Bent Christensen is Chairman of the University of Florida Hydraulics Lab. Using knowledge gained in hydrographic modeling as a result of work he performed in carrying out a "Sea Grant study" under the auspices of the University of Florida, Dr. Christensen designed a computer model of the proposed Port Bougainville marina and access canal by which, in turn, he designed the winding access canal which will emulate nature in producing a turnover of water induced by current velocities and canal configuration, rather than by temperature differences in water. The computer model takes into account tidal flows and wind-induced velocities which are important to mixing of water within the system. Using this model, Dr. Christensen was able to redesign the marina canal so as to improve water quality within that system as well as improving the quality of water leaving the system into Garden Cove. Drs. Lee and Van de Kreeke are ocean engineers who testified as expert witnesses on behalf of Petitioners. They sought to dispute Dr. Christensen's conclusion that the redesign would improve DO levels within the marina based upon their independent determination that a different design would increase flushing times for the system. Flushing, however, is a simplistic way of analyzing water quality. Flushing analysis assumes that the only means to improve water quality is to replace water within the system with water from outside the system. The Christensen model and the resulting proposed design of the marina and canal, on the other hand, improves water quality through internal mixing action. The proposed design actually reduces flushing time, but more importantly, maximizes dispersion of water within the system and along with it, dissolved oxygen. The design introduces dissolved oxygen throughout the water column in the system through internal mixing because of the sinusoidal configuration of the canal and the helical currents the canal configuration sets up. The concentration of pollutants measured by the State Water Quality Standards are, in turn, reduced through the same hydrodynamics. Dr. Van de Kreeke admitted that a key ingredient in his model was the assumption he had regarding BOD in the system, but he had no idea what the BOD extant in the Port Bougainville system might be. He also admitted that his calculations did not take into consideration the factor of wind mixing of the waters in the system and acknowledged that wind can and does play an important role in flushing and mixing the waters in marinas. Finally, Dr. Van de Kreeke admitted that he could not fully analyze Dr. Christensen's assumptions in arriving at his model and design because he did not have the information Dr. Christensen relied upon. Thus, Dr. Christensen's model and design is accepted as more credible than that of Drs. Van de Kreeke and Lee. That model and design establishes that the quality of water exiting the marina into the Outstanding Florida Waters in Garden Cove will be improved by the modifications proposed to be constructed in the marina. Impact on Benthic Communities The northerly end of the marina basin will be sloped from -6 feet to - 4 feet. This widening and shallowing of the marina basin and access channel will have the affect of promoting the growth, regrowth and welfare of the benthic communities in the waters in the marina and access canal by providing greater light penetration to the bottom of the marina. The widening will have the effect of causing a greater portion of the marina bottom to be lighted during the day since at the present time, the bank and surrounding trees shade the marina basin for substantial portions of the day. The increased light penetration will result in more photosynthetic activity by the plant life in the marina and canal such that increased amounts of oxygen will be produced enhancing the dissolved oxygen levels of the marina waters. In that connection, the Respondents' expert, Dr. Rich, has examined a number of marinas and observed very healthy benthic communities in marina harbors more densely populated with boats than will be the proposed marina. Another significant improvement in the ecological status of the present marina will be the placing of a bubble screen device across the mouth of the entrance canal. This will have the effect of preventing floating organic materials such as sargassum, from entering the marina. Marinas typically experience problems related to dissolved oxygen levels in their waters because of an accumulation of floating organic material which tends to settle to the bottom creating excessive biochemical oxygen demand in their decomposition process, thus resulting in decreased dissolved oxygen levels. Thus, the bubble screen will aide in decreasing BOD. Likewise, a bubble screen device is proposed to be placed around the fueling facilities in the rearward portion of the marina basin so as to prevent the spread of pollutants such as spilled oils, greases and fuels, which may occur during routine fueling operations from time to time. Inasmuch as the modifications have been shown to cause some improvement in the dissolved oxygen level in the waters of the marina basin and access canal, it has been demonstrated that the modifications will not interfere with the conservation of marine wildlife and other natural resources. The bodies of water consisting of the marina, the access canal and Garden Cove, at the present time support a diverse marine community that can be expected to continue to flourish. Neither will the proposed activity destroy any oyster or clam beds, as none have been shown to exist in these waters. Dr. Rich has monitored waterways and offshore waters at a nearby, comparable marina, The Ocean Reef Club, for approximately ten years. He has discerned no noticeable impact on the benthic communities within that marina from a very heavy boat traffic during that period of time. The boats using The Ocean Reef Club Marina are typically larger than will use the Port Bougainville facility and boats of over 100 feet in length commonly use The Ocean Reef Club. In terms of impact on offshore benthic communities, he has observed no visible impact by the heavy amount of boat traffic using The Ocean Reef Marina from the standpoint of comparison of the experience with that marina, in terms of biological impacts, with the marina configuration proposed by the Applicant/Respondents. In short, the proposed marina configuration as contrasted to the existing permitted marina, represents an improvement because of the increased surface area providing increased oxygen exchange through wave and wind action, the shoaling which will also be beneficial to dissolved oxygen levels because of its enhancement of photosynthetic processes, and because of the proposed marina management steps designed to prevent floating organic material from entering the marina. Thus, the modified design was shown to provide a meaningful improvement in general ecological conditions within the marina and hence, in the offshore waters of Garden Cove with which the marina waters exchange and mix. Water Quality Dr. Eugene Corcoran is Professor Emeritus of the Rosensteel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences. He is a marine chemist and performed a chemical analyses of the samples taken for the water quality report presented by Respondents and in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 17. Dr. Corcoran also performed the analyses for the ongoing water sampling program conducted by Dr. Renate Skinner, an expert witness for Petitioners. The Petitioners accepted Dr. Corcoran as an expert witness without objection. The proposed marina modifications involved in this permitting application were thus shown to cause no violations of the state standards for dissolved oxygen. The Rio Palenque Water Quality Study in evidence indeed documented a number of instances where dissolved oxygen fell below the state minimum standards of four parts per million in the present marina. Once the modifications are completed there still may be instances when dissolved oxygen falls below that standard, but this can be attributed to natural phenomenon and the same relatively low levels of dissolved oxygen below state standards have been observed in the offshore waters of Garden Cove itself, which is an Outstanding Florida Water. Significantly, however, it was established that concentrations of dissolved oxygen will likely increase as a result of these modifications, the inducement of the helical flow and consequent vertical mixing, the widening of the entrance canal and the shoaling of the bottoms in the marina basin and canal, as well as the measures to be taken to reduce the deposition of organic materials in the marina basin and canal. The only water quality criteria placed in contention by the Petitioners and Intervenors were dissolved oxygen and copper. Although a number of Petitioners' witnesses were qualified to address the impacts of water quality on different marine organisms, only Dr. Curry was qualified as an expert in water quality. Dr. Curry's chief concern was with dissolved oxygen, which is based on the Rio Palenque Study showing present low values for dissolved oxygen in the marina as it now exists. Dr. Curry did not establish that the proposed modifications to the marina would themselves cause dissolved oxygen violations and although he testified in great detail concerning his attempt to compute the amount of copper that might be given off by the bottom paint of boats in the modified marina, he was unable to render an opinion that the modifications would increase copper levels in the waters in the marina. He acknowledged that his calculations were based on the assumption that all the boats in the marina would be using copper anti-fouling paints and his calculations took into account an assumption that all boats in the marina would have been painted within the last six months as a base datum for his calculations. Additionally, he did not take into account dispersion ratio associated with the hydrodynamic forces present in the modified marina. Dr. Curry admitted that he had never studied copper levels in a marina environment and was unable to explain the chemical effects on water quality of copper anti-fouling paints on boats. In all his sampling, he only found one instance of a violation of the Chapter 17-3 copper standard and that occurred within only a few millimeters of the hull of a newly-painted boat. Other fallacies involved in Dr. Curry's analysis, concern the interaction of seawater with copper bottom paint. Since seawater has a high level of carbonates, copper is immediately complexed with organic compounds such as amino acids. These organic complexes are soluble in seawater and indeed, serve as important nutrients to phytoplankton and other beneficial marine organisms. Thus, that portion of the total complex copper precipitated from the water as well as that portion taken up as nutrients would not be included in any concentrations of copper measured in the water column. Additionally, Dr. Curry's computations did not take into account the dispersion of copper concentrations due to mixing or flushing, which has a direct beneficial effect on reducing concentration of copper and other pollutants in the water column. Thus, Dr. Curry's computations are deemed immaterial, inasmuch as he effectively admits that the modifications to the marina would not be detrimental to water quality. The proposed modifications will not lower ambient water quality or significantly degrade the waters in the adjacent John Pennekamp Park, Outstanding Florida Waters. Since it has been established that the marina modifications will likely improve water quality within the marina, logically, the water quality in the park to some degree might be slightly improved, since those waters exchange with the waters in the marina. There will be no increase in concentrations of any pollutants emanating from the Port Bougainville Marina as a result of the proposed modifications. Improved Marking of Garden Cove Channel The Applicant/Respondents are required to provide improved navigational markers in the Garden Cove Channel, pursuant to an amended development order. Additionally, they have agreed to provide additional channel markers delineating the channel from the entrance of the existing marina to the Garden Cove Channel proper. With regard to the Garden Cove Channel, the Respondents proposed to move certain existing channel markers to more clearly identify that channel, which would make certain portions narrower and thereby eliminate boat passage over some shallow areas populated with marine grasses which presently lie within the marked channel. The Respondents also propose to add two more sets of channel markers at the seaward end of Garden Cove Channel, so that boats exiting the channel heading for the open sea will avoid certain shallow marine grass areas. The reason for this is to avoid possible damage to valuable marine grass beds and habitat which might be caused by prop wash of boats crossing over them, as well as actual contact and scouring by propellers or potential grounding of boats navigating these areas. Witness Balfe for the Respondents has personally sounded the entire length of the access canal and Garden Cove Channel. His soundings are admitted in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 19 and are unrefuted. It was established therefore, that the bottom configuration of that access channel is basically flat or level with only minor irregularities of less than a foot. There are no rock outcroppings or other obstructions which would reduce the controlling depth below -4 feet. Approximately 12 times per year however, during "spring tides", the ambient water depths in Garden Cove could be expected to go below -4 feet mean low water. During these times the tide will be approximately 6 to 8 inches below that normal depth. Perhaps 25 times per year the tide is 5 or 6 inches below that mean low depth. The tide gauge which will be installed will alleviate possible propeller scouring or grounding damage to grass beds and marine habitat, especially during those abnormally low tides, by providing boat operators a current, up-to-date reading on the depths in the channel. Contributions to Park Management Plan and Marina Management Plan The Applicant/Respondents have agreed to a permit condition requiring a financial commitment to assist in the management of the John Pennekamp Park so as to minimize the adverse impacts of human use of the park. This commitment includes the provision of $75,000 to finance a study and preparation of a management plan for the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, which would include study of the feasibility of inaugurating an entry permit system for the park, a testing and certification program for commercial dive boat operators, possible zoning of the park to allow recovery of the park coral reefs and other resources from the impacts of human visitors, locating central mooring buoys so that visitors' boats could be moored in one restricted area to avoid damage to the delicate coral reefs, and more adequately marking the boundaries of the park. Additionally, the Respondents propose to provide $50,000 for the acquisition of anchor buoys to be placed in selected areas of the park and to provide funds to finance a survey to more adequately identify the boundaries of the park. In order to more adequately protect water quality in the marina itself, the Respondents will inaugurate a marina management program which will include the installation of a sewage pump-out station and a pump-out station for motor oils and lubricants for boats. In addition to the two bubble curtains mentioned above, the Respondents will install containment booms and absorption mats and will permanently maintain a boat equipped with absorption mats and suction equipment for fuel or oil spill removal. The marina will prohibit persons living aboard boats, to prevent attendant sewage effluent problems, and will prohibit maintenance of boats, including painting and oil changes, while boats are in the water. This program will be monitored by an environmental protection officer employed by the condominium association under the auspices of the Respondents. Many of these marina management provisions are already requirements of the Port Bougainville 1982 development order referenced above. Management of Inland Lakes Although the use and management of the inland lakes on the Respondents' property is not directly involved in this permit application proceeding, the Respondents' overall development plan encompassed by the development order anticipates that at a future time a boat lift will be installed on upland so as to allow boats to be transferred from the inland lakes into the marina for access to marine waters. The lakes themselves, however, will not be open to the marina or to outside waters. The inland lakes are anticipated to provide dockage for approximately 200 boats, with restrictions against boats exceeding 20 feet in length and boats powered by combustion engines. The Respondents expect that the inland lakes will be primarily used by small boats such as canoes or sailboats. Dry storage for boats will be maintained on an upland site, for which a DER permit is not required. Neither is a permit for a boat transfer facility required since it would not involve dredging, filling or construction over water. The use of a boat lift, although it itself is not an issue before the Hearing Officer in this proceeding, would involve the potential of 200 or more boats using the marina in addition to those for which the marina is designed. This could occasion substantially greater risk for oil, grease and fuel spills and other potential damage to the water quality within the marina and damage to the marine habitat, grass beds and so forth within the marina, the access canal and the adjacent areas in Garden Cove. Accordingly, the conservation easement which the Respondents have agreed to provide the department as a condition to the grant of this permit should be amended to add a further condition on a grant of this permit so as to preclude placement of boats from the inland lakes into this marina or its access canal. Such a restriction would comport with the proposed uses of the inland lakes established by Mr. Scharenberg, the Respondent's principal. Boating Impacts Boat traffic in the Garden Cove Channel area is significant, with heaviest traffic occurring on the weekends when approximately two to three hundred boats navigate that channel. The boats presently using Garden Cove Channel come from a number of nearby marinas, small fishing docks and dry storage areas, as well as from a marked navigational channel called North Creek that provides access to the Garden Cove area and the Atlantic Ocean from Largo Sound. A small canal cuts through Key Largo into Largo Sound and provides access for boats in the Black Water Sound and other areas on the west side of Key Largo to the Garden Cove area and the Atlantic. The Port Bougainville Marina is expected to attract a mix of boats typical for such a marina, with the majority consisting of boats ranging from 27 to 35 feet in length. Approximately 20 percent of the boats will likely be in the 40-foot range. Larger boats may also use the marina, particularly those with a shallow draft, and "shoal draft" sailboats of 35 to 40 feet can safely navigate in and out of the marina. The marina, as it would be modified, would permit use of boats with a draft of up to three and one-half feet, although deeper draft boats could use the marina by timing arrivals and departures for the high tide, which is a common mode of operation by boat operators in the Florida Keys and other marine areas. The Port Bougainville Marina will contribute approximately 30 to 50 boats to the Garden Cove boat traffic on an average weekend out of the possible 311 boats in the harbor as it is proposed to be constructed. There will be a lesser number of boat arrivals and departures during the weekdays. The primary users of boats in and out of the marina will be people who own condominiums in the attendant real estate development. Temporary visitors, not owning boats moored in the marina, would typically use the dive charter boats and other rental boats in the surrounding areas, such as at the Ocean Reef facility. The existing marina which is already permitted and can be fully used at the present time from a legal standpoint, could accommodate the same reduced number and sizes of boats as the proposed modified marina by simply removing some of the present docks and finger piers. The Respondents propose to maintain approximately 20 slips for boats which are not owned by condominium unit owners, and they anticipate operating six to seven deep-sea charter boats as well as five smaller skiff-type charter boats, and perhaps as many as two dive charter boats with additional demands for charters to be serviced by charter boats in the surrounding areas. Boating adverse impacts on the marine benthic communities inside and outside of the marina will be minimized by the construction configuration of the marina and boat slips, the shoaling and widening of the marina basin and canal, and the channel marking and tidal gauging provisions proposed by the Applicant/Respondents. These safety arrangements would be further enhanced by the above-mentioned restriction on the placing of boats into the waters of the marina and canal from the inland lakes. The configuration of the proposed modified marina and the shoaling will have a beneficial effect in rendering use by extremely large boats, which might cause propeller, wake or grounding damage to the marine benthic communities unlikely because of the inaccessibility caused by the intentional shoaling. Coral Reef Impacts Dr. Peter Glynn is a qualified expert in marine ecology and was accepted as an expert witness in that area with particular emphasis, through his long specialization, in the ecology of corals and coral reefs. He has researched the effects of sediments, herbicides, pesticides, oxygen levels, temperature, salinity, tidal effects and oil pollution on corals. He testified as a rebuttal witness addressing concerns raised by Petitioners' and Intervenor's witnesses with regard to boat traffic, attendant turbidity and possible synergistic effects on coral reefs caused by oils, greases, low oxygen levels and turbidity. Dr. Glynn has studied corals in many areas of the world including the Caribbean and the Florida Keys. The coral reefs in Florida are similar to those in the Caribbean area and belong to the same "biogeographic province." He has dived in and examined the Garden Cove area and found four species of small reef building corals in Garden Cove. These were found in the vicinity of a shipwreck near the channel entrance to Garden Cove and the remainder of the corals observed in Garden Cove were in the bottom of the boat channel running through Garden Cove. There were no corals observed on the grass flats and in shallower areas of Garden Cove. The corals occurring in the boat channel are in isolated colonies of less than a foot in diameter. The Petitioners and Intervenors attempted to raise the possibility of synergistic adverse effects on corals posed by combinations of oils, oxygen levels, temperatures and sedimentation or similar impacts. It was not shown how or at what concentration turbidity might combine with various oxygen levels, temperatures or degrees of light penetration to produce such effects, however. The only type of synergistic effects on corals Drs. Glynn and Corcoran have observed is that between oils and pesticides. Although this effect has been demonstrated in another study area far removed from the Florida Keys, no such pesticide and oil synergistic impact has been observed in the Florida Keys area, chiefly because it is not an agricultural area characterized by significant use of pesticides. Likewise it was not established that suspended sediments in the Garden Cove area could have an adverse effect on corals by reducing light penetration. In tropical areas such as the Keys, light penetration is often saturating or in greater quantities than are really needed for healthy coral growth and indeed, many corals in these areas have pigments that naturally shield them from excess light because these coral species actually can suffer from too much light penetration. Additionally, Dr. Glynn has observed good coral reef health and growth in areas that are highly turbid. It was not established that an increase of sedimentation deposit on corals will necessarily have an adverse impact, particularly because most corals can accept a substantial amount of fine-grain sediment deposition without adverse effect. The manner in which the proposed marina modifications will be accomplished will minimize sedimentation at any rate since the canal will be dammed off from Garden Cove until all work is completed and all sedimentation within the marina and marina access canal has subsided to levels compatible with the state standards for turbidity. In any event, there is no evidence that boat traffic in Garden Cove at the present time influences the distribution and health of live coral, particularly since the main coral abundance in Garden Cove occurs in the heavily-used boat channel at the present time. Likewise, Dr. Glynn established that sediments from any increase in boat traffic in Garden Cove will not likely drift out on the offshore reef tract and be deposited on the reefs to their detriment in any event, since the fine sediments occurring in Hawk Channel and in Garden Cove, are largely precluded from deposition on the offshore reefs because the waters over the reef tract offshore have very different physical characteristics. That is, there is distinct interface between the inshore and oceanic waters caused by the strong wave assault and current action near the reefs, which precludes the fine sediments from the inshore areas remaining in the area of the reefs. Finally, any increase in the number of people visiting the Pennekamp Park attributable to use of the modified marina will not inevitably lead to degradation of the reefs. By way of comparison, studies of Kaneoi Bay in Hawaii where a major pollutant source from human sewage caused degradation of the coral reefs, showed that when sewage effluent was subsequently directed away from the reefs, the reefs rejuvenated and repopulated and are now used extensively for recreational activities without observable biological degradation. These studies are consistent with studies Dr. Glynn referenced with regard to Biscayne Bay National Park, which have shown no significant degradation occasioned by human visitation of the reefs in that park. Those studies have not shown a significant difference between the health of the "controlled reefs" and the reefs which are allowed to be used for recreational purposes. It was thus not established that there will be any degradation of the corals in the near-shore areas of Garden Cove nor in the offshore reef areas occasioned by any increased boat traffic resulting from the modification of the marina. Indeed, it was not demonstrated that the mere modification of the marina, which will actually accommodate fewer boats than are presently permitted, will cause any increase in present boat traffic at all. Dr. Glynn, in the course of his teaching and studies in the field of marine ecology has become familiar with the causes and effects of Ciguatera toxin in marine environments. He recently participated in the study of possible Ciguatera toxin at the grounding site of the freighter Wildwood on Molasses Reef, some miles distant from the marina site. All cases reported of such harmful concentrations of this toxin have originated from open water, outer coral reef environments, and not from near shore areas such as those involved in this case, where seagrasses and mangroves are the dominant marine communities. Ciguatera toxin organisms require clear open ocean water with strong currents and well-developed coral reefs which are found offshore in the Keys and not in the near-shore mangrove-type environments. The cause of Ciguatera is a concentration of toxin in the food chain. Although the bacteria that cause Ciguatera Toxin in fish, and resulting harmful effects in humans, occur everywhere in marine waters, the bacteria are not a hazard because generally, conditions are not appropriate for the bacteria to multiply. The two main species of dinoflagellates, that have been associated with causing Ciguatera poisoning do not occur in an environment such as the Port Bougainville Marina. They are typically concentrated in larger fish such as snapper, grouper and barracudas which cause problems when they are eaten by people. These species are not generally found in the inshore mangrove and grassbed areas such as are involved in the case at bar. Thus, the concerns expressed by Petitioner's witnesses concerning the possibility of Ciguatera poisoning occurring because of possible damage to corals and coral death caused by the dredge and fill operations, and boat operation associated with the marina and Garden Cove are, in reality, only unsubstantiated speculation.
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, RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, issue the requested permit subject to the conditions incorporated in the agreement or "conservation easement" executed between the Department and the Respondents with the further condition added to that conservation easement such that the deposition of boats from the inland lakes system into the marina and its access canal be prohibited. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth J. Rickenbacker, Esquire 10500 Southwest 108th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Michael F. Chenoweth, Esquire 522 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael Egan, Esquire, Robert Apgar, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION SIERRA CLUB: UPPER KEYS CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation; PAMELA BERYL PIERCE, and FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation, Petitioners, and DOAH CASE NOS. 84-2364 84-2365 FRIENDS OF THE EVERGLADES, INC., 84-2385 a non-profit Florida corporation; 84-2827 THE FLORIDA DIVISION OF IZAAK (Not consolidated) WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation; UPPER KEYS CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, INC., a non-profit Florida corporation, Intervenor-Petitioners, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and PORT BOUGAINVILLE ASSOCIATES, LTD. a Florida limited partnership, and PORT BOUGAINVILLE ENTERPRISE, INC. a Florida corporation, Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact On January 19, 1984, Applicant applied to DER, pursuant to Sections 253.123 and 403.087, Fla.Stat., and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, F.A.C., for a permit and water quality certification to construct a 36-slip docking facility in Baker-Carroll Pointe Waterway (the lagoon). While the lagoon is located in Class II waters, the waters are prohibited for shellfish harvesting. On October 31, 1984, DER issued its letter of intent to issue the requested permits. Protestors timely filed a petition for formal administrative proceedings. Protestors' substantial interest will be directly affected by issuance of the subject permit. The proposed facility will be located as close as 50 feet to the main residential building of Protestors, and the proposed docks will be accessed by way of a seawall which is part of Protestors' common area. The Marina The permit sought by the Applicant would allow it to construct a 36- slip docking facility consisting of 615 linear feet of 5 foot wide marginal dock set 6 feet waterward and running parallel to an existing concrete seawall, with three 5 foot by 6 foot access ramps from the seawall to the marginal dock, and eighteen 30 foot by 4 foot finger piers extending waterward of the marginal dock. Nineteen mooring piles are to be installed. Total dock area is to be 5,325 square feet. The facility will be constructed of pressure treated piles and lumber. No fuel facilities are proposed. Applicant proposes to sell the 36 slips to unit owners in the Surf Colony complex, that is Vanderbilt Surf Colony I, Vanderbilt Surf Colony II and Vanderbilt Surf Colony III, and, if and when constructed, Vanderbilt Surf Colony IV and V. Each of the existing buildings contains 65 units. DER's October 31, 1984, letter of intent, proposed to issue the permit subject to the following conditions: Turbidity screens shall be utilized and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. The lagoon shall be designated a "No Wake" zone. Markers and/or signs (PVC pipes or piles) shall be erected at the entrance to the shallow cove prohibiting navigation in said area with limits to be approved by the Punta Gorda DER office. No liveaboards shall be allowed at the permitted facility. No boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning shall be allowed at the permitted facility. Trash receptacles shall be located at approved locations on the dock. The easternmost dock limit shall be lighted at night or equipped with reflective markers to aid navigation. No construction of the project shall take place until appropriate DNR approval is granted for the project per Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. The project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria. 17-3.121 - Criteria - Class III Waters - Recreation, Propagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife: Surface Waters. Applicant has agreed to comply with all conditions established by DER. The Marina Site Baker-Carroll Pointe Waterway (the lagoon) is a partially man made navigable lagoon, with access to Water Turkey Bay which lies to its east. The south side of the lagoon is bulkheaded (along the proposed docking facility site), and the north and west side of the lagoon is composed of dense mangrove forest within the Delnor-Wiggins Pass State Recreation Area (Park). The waters of the proposed project abut and mix with those of the Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) of the Park. Rule 17-3.041(4)(c), F.A.C. The Park is located on the western and northern shores of the lagoon, and the Park's boundary is located underneath the existing lagoon. The Park has a boat ramp and dock at the mouth of the lagoon. Associated with the ramp are 36 parking spaces for boat trailers. The access channel from Water Turkey Bay varies from 100 to 150 feet wide, the end of the lagoon is approximately 200 feet wide, and the lagoon is approximately 700 feet long. The bulkheaded shoreline has a shallow, 6 foot wide shelf that is covered by a few inches of water during low tide and is colonized by oyster assemblages. Depths increase rapidly from the edge of the shelf to -7 to -8 feet NGVD approximately 40 feet offshore. Depths at the finger piers will be -4.5 to -6.5 NGVD feet. The majority of the central lagoon has uniform depths of -7 to -8 feet NGVD with approximately one foot of silt overlying a firm substrate. Increased depths of -9 to -10 feet NGVD are found in the channel leading from the lagoon to Water Turkey Bay. Channel depths within Water Turkey Bay are -5 feet NGVD or less. Except for a shallow cove at the northwestern extreme of the lagoon, water depths of -5 to -7 feet NGVD are found approximately 30 feet waterward of the mangrove fringe along the western border of the lagoon. In the immediate project site there are no seagrasses or other significant biota. The only productive area within the project site is the shallow six foot wide shelf which parallels the bulkhead and is colonized by oyster assemblages. There are no other significant biota because the area was extensively dredged in the late 1960s or early 1970s. Seagrasses are found in the smaller cove located in the extreme northwest of the lagoon. The western and northern shores of the lagoon are extensively populated by red, black and white mangroves. Aquatic fauna known to inhabit the vicinity, and found in association with the grassbeds in Water Turkey Bay, include lightening whelks, blue crabs, sheepshead minnows, mullet, pin fish, and silver perch. Areas of Concern During construction of the marina elevated turbidity may be expected by disruption of the lagoon sediments caused by installing the facility's pilings. This can, however, be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. Shading of the benthic environment is a long term impact associated with marinas. While there are presently no seagrasses in the project area, the 6 foot wide shelf which parallels the bulkhead is colonized by oyster assemblages and algae. Since the marginal dock will be placed 6 feet waterward of the seawall, sunlight will be permitted to reach the productive shelf which parallels the seawall. Additionally, since the marginal dock is 5 foot wide, the closest any boat will be to the seawall will be 11 feet. This will result in a buffer zone of 5 feet between the waterward extreme of the 6 foot shelf and any boat moored at the marina. Boats by their very existence and operation present potential negative short term and long term impacts to the environment. Potential damage from existing craft and those which occupy the marina to the seagrass beds in the extreme northwest portion of the lagoon will be eliminated or minimized by the planned installation of markers and/or signs prohibiting navigation in that area. Potential damage from wave action generated by boat operation will be eliminated or minimized by designating and posting the lagoon as a "No Wake" zone. The fueling of boats, hull maintenance and sewage discharge are additional pollution sources associated with marinas. While the proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities, and while no liveaboards, boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning will be allowed at the marina, additional conditions must be attached to the permit to eliminate or minimize potential impacts from these potential pollution sources. In addition to the special conditions established by DER, the following special conditions are necessary: All craft docked at the marina shall be prohibited from pumping bilges and sewage into the waters of the lagoon. Ownership and use of the boat slips, or any of the marina facilities, shall be limited to those person(s) who own condominium unit(s) at the Surf Colony complex, to wit: Vanderbilt Surf Colony I, Vanderbilt Surf Colony II, Vanderbilt Surf Colony III, and, if and when constructed, Vanderbilt Surf Colony IV and V. Leasing or any other use of the boat slips, or the marina facility, by any person(s) other than the actual owner thereof shall be prohibited. Since the facility is small, and a full-time dock master is not proposed, limiting ownership and use of the boat slips to owners of condominium units at the Surf Colony complex will provide reasonable assurances that the conditions imposed on the requested permits will be complied with. Prohibiting the pumping of sewage and bilges will provide reasonable assurances that DER standards for bacteriological quality will not be violated. Protestors suggest that oils and greases, including lead found in marine fuels, could cause a degradation of water quality and affect the biota in the area. Protestors presented evidence through Dr. Nancy Nicholson, an expert in marine ecology and marine biology, that oils, greases, and lead could reasonably be expected to be ejected into the water column from boats occupying the marina, and that such pollutants, after entering the sediments, could be expected to enter the food chain. Protestors offered no evidence of the quantities of oil, greases or lead which could be expected to be injected into the water column, or to enter the food chain, other than "they are not large." Petitioner offered no evidence that the oils, greases or lead emitted by the boats occupying the marina would cause or contribute to a degradation of water quality below DER standards, or impact marine resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest. Juxtaposed with the opinion of Protestors' expert is the empirical testimony of DER's witnesses, Terri Kranzer, an expert in water quality and aquatic biology, and Douglas Fry, an expert in dredge and fill impacts on water quality and aquatic biology, that the proposed facility and its operation will not cause or contribute to a degradation of water quality below DER standards and will not impact marine resources to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest, so long as the Applicant complies with the permitting conditions. Protestors also suggest that turbidity, caused by boats operating from the marina, could cause a degradation of water quality and affect the biota in the area. Protestors' witness, Dr. Nicholson, testified to observing boats increase turbidity within the lagoon. She further performed a Secchi depth test, which measures the distance to which light will penetrate water, in the lagoon area. The background was measured at 42 inches. After the passage of a motorboat through the subject lagoon, the Secchi depth was reduced to 27 inches, and returned to the background level in 2-1/2 to 3 hours. Dr. Nicholson further testified that if the sediments "kicked up" were of an oxygen poor material, that they could scavenge dissolved oxygen from the waters. Protestors offered no evidence, however, which equated the Secchi depth test with the tests and standards established by DER for turbidity and transparency. There was no evidence, assuming turbidity did increase during boat activity, that DER standards for turbidity and transparency would be violated. Further, no evidence was introduced that such turbidity would cause or contribute to a degradation of the dissolved oxygen levels of the lagoon below DER standards. Contrary to the testimony of Dr. Nicholson, Protestors' other witness, William Doherty, a resident of the Surf Colony complex testified that he had operated his own 28 foot boat in the lagoon, and observed other boats operating in the lagoon, and never observed any increased turbidity. Terri Kranzer testified to the same effect. The depth within the lagoon is adequate for navigation, and there should be no increased turbidity caused by boats operating in the lagoon unless they venture into the shallow cove in the northwestern part of the lagoon. Designating the lagoon as a "No Wake" zone, and prohibiting navigation within the shallow cove, would provide reasonable assurances that there would be no increased turbidity associated with the proposed facility or its operation. Finally, Protestors suggest that if the proposed facility is permitted, DER's standard for Biological Integrity, Rule 17-3.111(4), F.A.C., will be violated. Dr. Nicholson conducted a sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates on the bulkhead of the lagoon and on the bulkhead of a nearby yacht basin, in order to calculate a Shannon-Weaver diversity index for both areas. The Shannon-Weaver index for the yacht basin reflected a level of benthic macroinvertebrates of less than 75 percent of that measured in the lagoon. The results of Dr. Nicholson's sampling are not, by her own admission, statistically significant. The lagoon and yacht basic are entirely dissimilar. The lagoon, with its diverse mangrove forests and large opening into Water Turkey Bay flushes well and is an area rich in biology. The yacht basin, on the other hand, is connected to Water Turkey Bay by a small channel and is completely bulkheaded. No valid comparison can be drawn between the lagoon and the yacht basin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a final order be entered, granting permit #05-134042-4, with the following amendments: Where the permit reads, "To install an additional 64 boat slips . . .", change to "To install an additional 21 boat slips, for a total of no more than 46 boats . . ." Add to the specific conditions attached to the permit, paragraph 7., to read: "The breakwater to be installed at the entrance of the northern basin will be angled outward along a line that, if extended, would intersect with the southeastern corner of the property on the north shore of the basin." DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 10th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Walker, Jr. 6175 North Harbor City Blvd. Melbourne, Florida 32940 Harry and Vivian Stahler Donald and Mark Stahler 6190 North U.S. #1 Melbourne, Florida 32940 Vivian Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the adjoining neighbor of Harrie E. Smith, the applicant, and runs the Coral Lagoon Resort. This is a commercial establishment which consists of rental units fronting on Bonefish Bay with an interior canal and a series of small boat docking facilities which give each unit docking space and water access. The Petitioner keeps two tame porpoises at the end of this canal which are a tourist attraction. The Petitioner's operation is tourist oriented particularly to those who come to the Keys for fishing or diving excursions. The application to the Department of Environmental Regulation is to the installation of a wooden dock which runs parallel to the Petitioner's northern boundary line. The applicant, Mr. Smith, runs a commercial boat repair facility alongside Mr. Goss' establishment and it is clear there have been misunderstandings between them in the past. The dock has been installed and as noted above, the application to the Department of Environmental Regulation is for an after-the-fact authorization. The department has indicated it intends to grant the permit as it does not see that the dock will degrade water quality or create a condition adverse to the public interest. The petition maintains that the dock will cause water quality problems in that it will encourage the docking of boats which will spill oil, gas and other contaminants into the waters and thereby degrade water quality. It should be noted that the Petitioner maintains extensive docking facilities in his establishment and could be subjected to the same argument.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Orange County Parks Department is entitled to a dredge and fill permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation for the construction and installation of a boat dock on Lake Down.
Findings Of Fact The Application On November 1, 1989, Orange County Parks Department (Orange County) applied for a dredge and fill permit to construct a floating boat dock in the Town of Windermere on Lake Down. The application, which is dated September 7, 1989, describes the proposed project as a "public improvement of an existing boat ramp facility." The application describes a floating dock attached by short hinged sections to fixed docks that would be affixed, at normal water elevations, to upland. The application explains that the purpose of the dock is to accommodate boats and pedestrians in loading and unloading boats at the ramp. The dock would, according to the application, reduce wave and wakedisturbance action on the existing shoreline and thus reduce the current rate of erosion at the site. The application assures that no existing vegetation would be disturbed except in the area of the fixed docks. According to the application, the floating dock and two fixed docks would measure about 420 feet long by 7 feet wide with several wideouts of about 10 1/2 feet. The dock is designed to moor 15-18 boats simultaneously. The location map attached to and a part of the application shows that the dock would be at the southernmost extent of Lake Down. The survey attached to and a part of the application provides submerged and upland elevations in the vicinity of the proposed dock. The survey states that the water elevation of Lake Down is 98.8 feet. Nothing indicates whether 98.8 feet is the average water elevation or the water elevation on the date of the survey on June 28, 1989. Other portions of the application describe the composition of the dock parts. The only parts in contact with the water would be galvanized steel pilings, which would be jetted or driven not more than 15 feet deep into the submerged bottom, and plastic floats attached to the bottom of the dock for floatation. The application also indicates that construction-period turbidity would be controlled through the use of turbidity curtains. Another diagram attached to and a part of the application superimposes the dock over the submerged elevations. A note on the diagram states that, under "Plan 1 and Plan 2, Orange County would excavate existing grade under floating dock to elev 97.0." The applicant proposed excavation under the dock due to the shallowness of the water under and lakeward of the dock. The diagram depicts a dock that would run parallel, rather than perpendicular, to the shore. The diagram discloses that the proposed dock would begin immediately east of the existing boat ramp. The diagram indicates that the floating dock runs about 390 feet. The elevation at the northwest corner of the west fixed dock is about 100 feet. At what the construction drawings call "average lake elevation" of 99.5 feet, the piling at the northwest corner of the west fixed dock would thus not be submerged. About 15 feet to the east of the northwest corner, where a hinge connects the west fixed dock to the floating dock, the elevation is between 98 and 99 feet. At average water elevation, the shoreside of the floating dock generally ranges from five to ten feet from the shoreline, with extremes of one foot at the southeast corner of the west fixed dock and 17 feet about 220 feet east of this point. The submerged elevations change significantlyunder the 390 feet of floating dock. On the lakeside, where boats would dock, the following elevations exist under the dock at 40 Dock interval 40' 80' 120' 160' Lakebottom elevation 95-96' 95' 92' 93' 200' 240' 280' 320' 360' 390' 91-92' 91' 92-93' 93-94' 96' 96' The submerged elevations are higher (and thus water depths shallower) on the shoreside of the dock, which would not be accessible to boats. For the back of the floating dock, the submerged elevations exceed 97 feet for the westernmost 40 feet and a short segment at the eastern end of the floating dock; the remaining elevations are less than 97 feet. Unlike the west fixed dock, which would stand almost entirely in upland even at average water elevation, the east fixed dock would stand almost entirely in water at the same water elevation. Also, the west fixed dock would be relatively small and run parallel to the shore beside the ramp. The east fixed dock would be oriented in a northwesterly direction from, and perpendicular to, the shore. The northwest and northeast faces of the east fixed dock would be accessible by boats. The submerged elevation under the northwest face, which is between 15 and 20 feet offshore from the average shoreline, is between 95 and 96 feet. The water depth adjoining the northeast face is shallower because the northeast face, although accessible to boats, would runupland, past the average shoreline at 99.5 feet, to an upland elevation of about 101 feet. The rate of drop of submerged elevation is uneven along the length of the proposed floating dock. Water depth increases more rapidly from the center of the floating dock. For instance, at the 200-foot interval from the west end, the elevation drops from about 91.5 feet at the front of the dock to 88 feet at a point ten feet lakeward of, and perpendicular to, the dock. In other words, the water becomes 3 1/2 feet deeper in the first ten feet. The lakebottom drops more gradually at the west and east ends of the proposed dock. For instance, at the 40 increase in depth ten feet out is only about 2 1/2 feet. At the north corner of the east fixed dock, the increase in depth ten feet out is only about 1 1/2 feet. The diagram also depicts the existing boat ramp that would be served by the proposed dock. The ramp, which is oriented in an eastnortheasterly direction from the shore, is less than ten feet north of the proposed west fixed dock. The ramp measures about 20 feet wide upland and about ten feet wider farther out into the water. The elevation of the submerged north corner of the lakeward end of the boat ramp is between 94 and 95 feet. The elevation of the submerged south corner of the lakeward end of the boat ramp is between 95 and 96 feet. The lakebottom isfairly flat at the boat ramp. Over its 40-foot length, the elevation of the ramp changes by only about 5 feet. A separate diagram attached to and a part of the application depicts the floats that would be attached to the bottom of the decking. The floats would be about 18 inches high and draw about three inches of water when the dock is supporting no weight. A 40-inch high railing would run along the back of the dock. However, the railing would not extend along the northwest and northeast faces of the east fixed dock. Thus, nothing would deter a boat from docking along these two faces of the east fixed dock. On November 9, 1989, Orange County filed an application amendment, which contains drawings that eliminate all excavation. The amendment states: "Dock will be relocated if conflict with existing shore occurs." This amendment was filed at the urging of a DER representative, who would not have recommended the application for approval without the change. There are other suggestions in the record that Orange County would be willing to amend its application to locate the proposed dock farther from shore and in deeper waters. However, Orange County did not specifically offer an amendment, and the record offers no indication where the dock would be, if Orange County again amended the application. On June 20, 1990, Orange County informed the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) by letter that the legal description provided with the application was inaccurate. The letter provides a new legal description and a list of adjoining property owners. Mr. Rosser, Ms. Grice, and Mr. Patterson own property adjacent to the proposed project or reside in close proximity to Lake Down so as to be substantially affected by any material degradation of water quality. The new legal description encompasses only 1.46 acres rather than the 12.16 acres set forth in the original application. The land eliminated from the application is west and north of the existing boat ramp. Orange County plans to make considerable improvements to the existing boat ramp, such as by the addition of substantial parking and a septic tank on the land eliminated from the original application. However, the present application does not request any permit for such work. The Intent to Issue On February 26, 1990, DER filed an Intent to Issue the permit for which Orange County had applied. The Intent to Issue indicates that the permit is to construct a floating dock on Lake Down about 420 feet by 7 feet, plus wideouts, and notes that the request to dredge along the dock had been withdrawn. According to the Intent to Issue, the bank between the north side of Conroy-Windermere Road and the shoreline has eroded, probably as a result of boaters pulling their boats onto shore for temporary mooring. Although DER did not determine the water elevation on the date of the inspection, the Intent to Issue reports that water depths range from a few inches alongshore to about three feet at the shoreside of the proposed dock. The Intent to Issue notes that Orange County is currently trying to condemn the land north and west of the boat ramp to upgrade the launching facility with a larger ramp, picnic area, and parking spaces for between 50 and 100 vehicles. The Intent to Issue finds that the proposed docking facility and its associated boat traffic would not result in violations of state water quality standards nor degradation of ambient conditions in Lake Down or the Butler Chain. Except for limited construction-period turbidity, which could be controlled with a siltation barrier, displacement or disruption of the lakebottom would reportedly occur only during piling installation, and shoreline vegetation would be removed only at the fixed docks at either end of the floating dock. Addressing prop dredging, the Intent to Issue notes: It is not anticipated that damage to the lake bottom will result from boats moving into and away from the dock. If water levels fall to particularly low levels, the county can close the ramp until adequate depth is available again. Addressing the possibility of increased boat traffic on the lake, the Intent to Issue states: It is not anticipated that use of ramp will significantly increase as a result of the proposed construction. Those individuals who are seriously interested in accessing the Butler Chain have done so despite the poor facility currently available. The new dock will provide mooring capability without causing shoreline erosion. Furthermore, the dock will provide a safer place for boatersto walk and wait. Presently, because there is no onsite parking nor mooring available, boaters park vehicles to the east of the boat ramp site in an undeveloped parcel. They then walk west along Conroy-Windermere Road while sharing the road shoulder with vehicles and trailers. The dock, in combination with the proposed (upland) sidewalk won't shorten the distance to be walked but will remove pedestrians from the roadway sooner to the relative safety of the mooring area. The Intent to Issue concludes that Orange County has provided reasonable assurance that the project will not result in violations of state water quality standards and that the project is clearly in the public interest. Thus, DER expressed its intent to issue the permit, subject to various conditions, in the absence of a timely filed petition. Specific condition 7 of the Intent to Issue addresses the issue of prop dredging: When the lake level drops to the point where boats entering and leaving the dock cause damage to submerged bottoms in the immediate area, the county shall close the ramp and dock until the water returns to acceptable levels. Specific condition 8 addresses the County's plans for additional improvements for the boat ramp facility: Issuance of a permit for the dock does not guarantee nor infer issuance of a permit orpermits for further improvements to the county boat launching facility. Additional Findings Regarding Upland Orlando and the more densely populated areas are generally to the north and east of the boat ramp; Orlando itself is about 10 miles away. The center of the Town of Windermere, which numbers about 1400 persons, is to the west of the boat ramp. About 80% of the users of the boat ramp approach the ramp from the east. A small vehicle-maneuvering area adjoins the ramp on the west. After unloading the boat into the water, the driver of the trailer-towing vehicle typically drives east on Conroy-Windermere Road about 1600 feet and parks on the south side of the road in a large unimproved lot. The County's permission to use the lot is terminable by the owner without notice. While the vehicle and trailer are being parked, the person or persons with the boat normally start the engine and idle just offshore from the ramp or moor on the sandy beach immediately east of the boat ramp. After parking the vehicle, the driver generally crosses to the north side of Conroy-Windermere Road and walks along a sidewalk running from the parking area to what would be the east end of the proposed dock. The road and the sandy beach are separated by a thin strip of thick vegetation. Pedestrians continuing westalong the road, past a point across from the east end of the beach, must walk in the staging lane designed for vehicles waiting to enter the maneuvering area. An existing sidewalk on the south side of the road, which runs east of the ramp area, is not used as much because the sidewalk ends almost 800 feet east of the parking area. Pedestrians typically rejoin their boat at some point along the sandy beach immediately east of the boat ramp. When the boat is spotted, the pedestrian cuts through the vegetation on one of four or five paths running at intervals between the north side of the road and the beach. Traffic on these paths has worn them down noticeably from the prevailing elevations on either side. The same pattern is repeated upon the return of the boat, which is temporarily moored onshore to allow the driver to disembark, take the nearest path to the road, walk along the north side of the road to the parking area, cross the road, and return with the vehicle to the boat ramp. Normal summertime usage, when the boat ramp is used more frequently, involves a range of 30-65 boat launchings per day from the boat ramp. However, peak usage is much higher; nearly 400 trailers have been in the parking area at one time. Present upland usage of the boat ramp area is risky. The staging lane mixes pedestrians and motor vehicles towing trailers. The speed limit on Conroy-Windermere Road is 35 miles per hour at the parking area and 30 miles per hour at theramp, so westbound traffic is still moving rapidly past the staging lane. Also, Conroy-Windermere Road, which is an urban collector, is heavily travelled with an average daily traffic count of 9400 vehicles. Pedestrians crossing the road at the parking area 1600 feet west of the ramp must cross 22- 24 feet of highway. Pedestrians crossing the road at the boat ramp must cross about 50 feet of highway due to the presence of the staging lane and a painted median. Upland safety would be enhanced by separating pedestrians from the staging lane. However, the addition of the floating dock would not eliminate the risks associated with upland usage of the boat ramp. Persons still would be required to cross Conroy-Windermere Road, although a proposed crosswalk would reduce present risks somewhat. In addition, the existing sidewalk on the north side of the road would be reconfigured to lead to the floating boat dock, which would be incorporated into the sidewalk system leading toward the center of the Town of Windermere. For some persons using the dock segment of the sidewalk, such as young children and the disabled, close proximity with the water and mooring boats might prove unsafe. Conroy-Windermere Road has existed for many years, but the portion of the road parallel to the proposed dock was added only about 30 years ago. Previously, the road had turned south, but, following a serious traffic accident, the curve was straightened. Large amounts of fill were added to form the roadbed across the southern tip of Lake Down, which consequentlywas cut off from the remainder of the lake. This fill forms the bank leading to the shoreline directly parallel to the proposed dock. The boat ramp has also existed for many years. Years ago, grove trucks drove down to the lake in order to take on irrigation water. From time to time, persons would put in canoes at this point. Until the late 1960's, when Orange County paved the ramp, few if any powerboats were launched from the area or even used the lake. Today, the overwhelming majority of boats using the ramp currently are gasoline-powered motorboats. There are no restrictions on Lake Down as to the size of engine permitted on the lake, and the posted speed limit is 36 miles per hour. The area surrounding the boat ramp features few amenities. Apart from the maneuvering area, staging lane, and ramp itself, the only other improvements are an enclosed portable toilet and a dumpster garbage container. The Town of Windermere operates two boat ramps on the Butler Chain-- one on Lake Down and one on Lake Butler. Use of these ramps is reserved for Town residents and their guests. The remaining boat ramps on the chain are owned by corporations or private associations. Some boat traffic on the lake is from the use of private boat docks owned by persons owning lakefront land. Lake Down and the Butler Chain Designation as Outstanding Florida Waters By report dated January, 1984, DER recommended that the Environmental Regulation Commission designate as Outstanding Florida Waters the Butler Chain of Lakes: Lake Down, Lake Butler, Wauseon Bay, Lake Louise, Lake Palmer, Lake Chase, Lake Tibet, Lake Sheen, Pocket Lake, Little Fish Lake, and their connecting waterways. The January, 1984 report (DER Report), states that the Butler Chain drains into the Upper Kissimmee River Basin. Noting that Lake Down is the northernmost lake in the chain, the DER Report states that water flow in the lakes, which are interconnected by a series of man-made navigable canals, runs from north to south. Reviewing Florida and applicable federal anti-degradation policies protecting high quality waters, the DER Report states: This antidegradation policy is predicated on the principle that resources are so precious that degradation should not occur except after full consideration of the consequences and then only to the extent necessitated by important economic and social development. Scientifically, the principle is a valid one in that history has taught that adverse effects are difficult to predict. As scientific knowledge grows, previously unknown effects are discovered, and it is prudent to preserve our natural resources in the face of the unknown. DER Report, January 11, 1984 memorandum from DER to Environmental Regulation Commission, page 4. The Butler Chain covers 4700 acres. The largestlake is Lake Butler, which consists of 1665 acres. Lake Down, which is the third largest, consists of 872 acres. Depths of the lakes range from 15-30 feet. According to the DER Report, the upper seven lakes are oligo-mesotrophic with low productivity, high water clarity, and deeper waters. The lower three lakes (Sheen, Pocket, and Fish Lakes) are mesotrophic, with moderate productivity, high coloration of water, and shallower waters. The DER Report states that the water quality of the lakes is excellent. Lake Down had the highest level of dissolved oxygen: 7.1 mg/l. Biochemical oxygen demand was extremely low, in most cases, including Lake Down, less than 1.0 mg/l. Lake Down also had the lowest presence of chlorophyll a, which is a measure of the presence of algae, and a higher degree of biologically diversity, which is typical of a clean, soft-acid lake, according to the DER Report. The DER Report concludes that: An OFW designation will preserve the present environmental values of the Butler Chain of Lakes without any important environmental costs. The existing ecosystem and recreational use of the lakes is dependent upon the maintenance of sufficiently high levels of water quality, which an OFW designation would help to ensure. Id. at 23. The DER Report also includes a May, 1975 report of the Orange County Pollution Control Department, which concedes that the Butler Chain is: one of the few clean water systems left in the Central Florida area. The balance between available nutrient concentrations and the biotic communities has maintained an ecosystem free from the problems that are associated with more enriched systems. The balance is fragile and not well understood. Any activities which would effect this system will express itself [sic] in the aquatic habitat. May, 1975 report, page 4. At the time of its designation, the proposal received numerous endorsements and no objections. On August 16, 1983, The Orange County Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution urging DER to designate the Butler Chain as Outstanding Florida Waters. The Orange County Property Appraiser also supported the designation. In a letter to DER dated September 30, 1983, the appraiser warns that pollution could decrease surrounding property values and cost taxpayers substantial sums for cleanup. Additional Findings Regarding Lake Down Effect of Addition of Floating Dock 53. Neither the submerged galvanized steel pilings nor the plastic floats would allow materials to leach into the lake so as to affect measurably the composition or quality of the water. The increased turbidity during construction of the proposed floating dock also could be controlled so as not to have a significant effect on Lake Down. 2. Relevant Water Levels Water levels have fluctuated considerably in Lake Down. Since January, 1960, to present, the lowest recorded water elevation was 93.86 feet in February, 1987, and the highestelevation was 101.58 feet in August, 1960. Recorded water elevations were less than 97 feet from October, 1977 through August, 1979 and September, 1980 through November, 1982 (during which time the elevation attained 96 feet only six months). Water elevations were between 97 and 98 feet, inclusive, for an additional 29 months during this 31-year period. From March, 1987 through May, 1989, water levels were between 99 and 100 feet, attaining 100 feet only in December of 1987 and 1989. From June through August, 1989, water levels were between 98 and 99 feet. From September, 1989 through the date of the final hearing, water elevations were below 97.8 feet. From mid-March, 1990 through the date of the hearing, water elevations dropped from 97 feet to 96 feet; at the time of the hearing, the water elevation was about 96 feet. When the water elevation is 97.8 feet or less, the canal to Wauseon Bay and, from there, to Lake Butler is impassable to all but very small flatbottom boats. At these times, boat traffic tends to concentrate on Lake Down. Three witnesses for the County and DER testified as to the relationship between the water level of the lake and the operation of the floating dock. One witness for the County testified that the dock would float at 99.5 feet, which corresponds to ordinary high water. The designer of the dock testified that the east and west ends of the dock would cease floating at 96 feet. The DER representative testified that the dock and, pursuant to Special Condition 7, the ramp should beclosed at depths less than 95 feet. The meaning of Special Condition 7 is unclear. First, it is not clear what is meant by boats causing damage to submerged bottoms in the immediate area. Probably, this phrase means actual contact between the prop and bottom, which is known as prop dredging. Thus, boats cause damage to submerged bottoms when the depth of the water is about one foot or less. Special Condition 7 probably ignores the effect of prop wash, where the prop disturbs the bottom, including vegetation, by turbulence rather than direct contact. The second major ambiguity in Special Condition 7 cannot be resolved on the basis of the present record. The question is whether the ramp and entire dock must be closed whenever the water depth under any part of the dock is one foot or less (recognizing that the floats require about one foot of water). In the alternative, Orange County could close only that part of the dock as to which the underlying water depth is one foot or less. It is likely that DER and Orange County have different opinions on this question, with the County taking the latter position. Regardless how Special Condition 7 is construed, it fails to address the damage to submerged bottom that the"floating" dock will do when parts of it begin to ground. When partly grounded, the floating dock will pound up and down on the lakebottom in response to wave action and traffic on the dock. Over 40 feet of the shoreside of the dock will be grounded at water elevations of 97 feet or less, which, without regard to the effect of dock loading or wave action, is the point at which "dock dredging" commences. Water elevations have been less than 98 feet for a total of nearly seven of the last 31 years. The east and west ends of the lakeside of the floating dock would also begin to ground at a water level of about 97 feet. By the time water elevation falls to 96 feet, which existed at the time of the hearing, at least 80 feet of the west end of the floating dock and at least 30 feet of the east end of the floating dock would be grounded, again assuming no wave action and no load on the dock. Additionally, prop dredging would also take place at water elevations of 97 feet immediately adjacent to the dock, at its east and west ends. These water elevations have been experienced for a total of over four of the last 31 years. Another feature of the design of the proposed dock makes it likely that prop dredging will take place regardless of the water elevation. A popular area of the proposed dock would be the east fixed dock because it would be the closest point, by more than 100 yards in some cases, to the existing parking area. Boats could approach the northeast face of the east fixed dock up to an elevation of 101 feet. In other words, except in periods of unusual high water, some boats could and probably would use a section of the fixed dock in the same manner as temporary moorings are made today: in effect, by running up onto the beach. Prop dredging of the bottom would take place if boats approached the northwest face of the fixed dock when the water level fell to about 96.5 feet. The same is true for at least the first 40 feet of the west end of the floating dock. The resuspension of bottom sediment by prop wash would begin at depths of anywhere from 18 inches to seven feet, according to the testimony of the DER representative. Although important variables, such as the composition of the bottom and size and speed of the prop, affect prop wash, significant prop wash takes place for at least three feet under the prop. If three feet were the minimum depth necessary to avoid prop wash and, thus, lakebottom damage, the east 160 feet and west 70 feet of the floating dock would not be usable at water levels not exceeding 96 feet, such as at the time of the final hearing. The significance of lakebottom damage is great under and lakeward of the proposed dock. A thick carpet of bogmoss begins about ten feet offshore, which is roughly where the dock would begin, and continues out into the lake. Bog moss, which captures and retains sediments, would be damaged by the dredging action of the pounding floating dock when it begins to ground and boats using the floating dock at water elevations described in the preceding paragraphs. The phosphorus-rich sediments would then be resuspended in the water column. 3. Ambient Water Quality One of the key elements to preserving the health of Lake Down is to avoid conditions that can lead to the presence of excessive nutrients in the system. The presence of excessive nutrients, which leads to eutrophication, usually occurs because of the increased availability of a limiting nutrient. The limiting nutrient in Lake Down is phosphorus. Thus, a condition precedent to the eutrophication of Lake Down is an increase in the level of phosphorus in the water. The presence of phosphorus in the water can be detected directly, by measuring the phosphorus itself. The presence of phosphorus can also be detected indirectly, by measuring the effects of the nutrient or conditions that may result in the release into the water of additional phosphorus. Indicators of the nutrient levels of a lake include the presence of chlorophyll a, which, as a measure of the amount of algae in the water, is an indicator of the enrichment process. As a lake proceeds from an oligotrophic to a mesotrophic condition or from a mesotrophic to a eutrophiccondition, the presence of algae and chlorophyll a will increase. Indicators of conditions that may result in the release of additional phosphorus into the water include turbidity measurements and clarity data, such as Secchi depths. The sediment found in the submerged lakebottom contains greater concentrations of phosphorus in various organic and inorganic and soluble and insoluble forms than the water column itself contains. When this sediment is disturbed, part of the previously trapped phosphorus is released into the water column. The phosphorus is thereby made more readily available for supplying the nutrients necessary to contribute to the enrichment process, at least until the phosphorus settles back into the sediment where it can be locked up until redisturbed. As relevant to this case, the ambient water quality of Lake Down in the baseline year can largely be assessed in terms of the following data, which are obtained from Orange County Exhibit 13: chlorophyll a: 1.01 ug/l; turbidity: 1 NTU; total phosphorus: .01 mg/l; Secchi depth: 3.5 meters; and pH: 5.97. In the year ending immediately preceding the filing of the County's application, the following data were collected, according to Orange County Exhibit 13: chlorophyll a: 1.59 ug/l; turbidity: .75 NTU; total phosphorus: .01 mg/l; Secchi depth: over 3.5 meters; and pH: 6.36. In the summer of 1990, when the hearing took place, the County's expert collected from Lake Down the followingaveraged data, which are shown on Orange County Exhibits 15 and 17: chlorophyll a: 1.22 ug/l; total phosphorus: .011 mg/l; Secchi depth: over 4 meters; turbidity: 1.0-1.2 NTU's; and pH: 6.97. In the same summer, the Town of Windermere's expert collected the following data from Lake Down: turbidity: 0.92-1.8 NTU's; pH: up to 7.2; and total phosphate: .04-.05 mg/l. The only finding materially different from the findings of the County's expert is the amount of total phosphate. The findings of both experts are credited. The higher finding is supported by, among other things, the recording in the County's records of .037 mg/l of total phosphorus on May 15, 1990, according to Orange County Exhibit 12. In a phosphate-limited, oligo-mesotrophic lake such as Lake Down, total phosphates of .03-.04 mg/l require serious attention in terms of what may be the beginning of a significant degradation of ambient water quality standards. The increase in chlorophyll a is consistent with a trend toward enrichment of the lake since the baseline year. The record establishes the role of motorboat traffic in degrading ambient water quality. Bottom sedimentsoften contain many times more phosphorus than is found in the water column. In the case of Lake Down, sampled bottom sediment contained 11 mg/l of phosphorus, or over 200 times the amount contained in the water column. The phosphorus is trapped in the sediment, which, if disturbed, releases the phosphorus back into the water column. Prop dredging may resuspend the sediments and release the phosphorus, as well as destroy bottom vegetation that tends to retain the sediments. Prop wash also may resuspend bottom sediments, even to depths of seven feet beneath the churning prop. Ultimate Findings of Fact Impact of Proposed Dock on Boat Traffic The proposed floating dock would substantially increase use of Lake Down by motorboats. The dock would generate increased boat traffic on Lake Down because of improvements in navigability in the vicinity of the boat ramp and convenience for boaters in picking up and dropping off passengers and walking between the existing parking area and mooring area. The dock, which would be longer than a football field, is designed to moor 15-18 boats simultaneously. At typical current launching rates, the dock would be capable of mooring, at one time, one-quarter to one-half of the boats using the boat ramp on a given day. DER reasons in the Intent to Issue that boat usage would not increase significantly because persons seriously interested in accessing the Butler Chain have overcome the limitations of the present facility. This reasoning ignores persons more casually interested in accessing the Butler Chain. The above-described improvements in navigability and upland safety will increase the frequency of their visits, which presently may be limited to peak days, such as holidays. If the ratio of serious to casual users corresponds roughly to the ratio of typical boat launches to peak boat launches, the number of casual users may outnumber their more earnest counterparts by six to one. The large capacity of the proposed boat dock suggests that Orange County was targeting these more casual boaters. In theory, Special Condition 7 could have a substantial effect upon boaters' access to Lake Down if the ramp and dock were closed when water elevations fell to 97 feet, at which point much of the shoreside of the dock would already be grounding and boats could not approach the east or west ends of the dock without prop dredging. The ambiguity of Special Condition 7, whose meaning remains elusive even after DER and Orange County have had opportunities to explain its operation, precludes assigning the condition any significance, except as a clear invitation to litigate in the event the floating dock were constructed under the subject Intent to Issue. 2. Ambient Water Quality 79. As relevant to this case, the relevant ambientwater quality of Lake Down is the baseline year. The value of chlorophyll a was 50% lower in the year ending March, 1984, than in the year ending with the subject application. Total phosphorus was about the same, as were Secchi depths. Turbidity was 25% less in the latter year, but the lake had acidified slightly. 3. Changes in Water Quality The water quality of Lake Down has deteriorated since it was designated an Outstanding Florida Water. The amount of chlorophyll a has increased, which is consistent with increased levels of nutrients in the water column. By the summer of 1990, phosphate readings were as much as four or five times greater than in the baseline year and had reached a level that threatens water quality in a phosphate-limited lake such as Lake Down. The role of motorboat traffic in disturbing phosphate-laden bottom sediments and destroying bottom vegetation has been discussed above. The dock dredging at lower water elevations, which are frequently encountered, as well as prop dredging immediately adjacent to the dock, would be especially harmful in view of the thick carpet of bog moss present underneath and lakeward of the proposed dock. 4. Effect of Proposed Dock on Water Quality Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not lower ambient water quality standards with respect to the effects of dock dredging, prop dredging in the immediate vicinity of the dock, and prop wash associated with increased powerboat traffic on the entire lake. Boats presently mooring on the south shore undoubtedly dredge the bottom with their props. However, the effects are less destructive than the prop dredging that would be associated with the proposed dock, even ignoring the effects of dock dredging and prop wash from additional powerboats. First, fewer boats are using the area now than would be with the proposed dock. Second, although possibly once vegetated, the lakebottom adjacent to the shore is sandy without much vegetation or sediment, so resuspension of sediment and release of phosphorus is less of a problem presently than it would be with the use associated with the new dock. The record does not support a finding that the water quality of Lake Down has been adversely affected by the erosion of rubble and fill from the bank used to construct the realigned Conroy-Windermere Road 30 years ago. Concerns about unfiltered stormwater runoff bypassing the vegetated strip by pouring down the eroded paths into the lake are misplaced. Some governmental entity has installed a stormwater system along aconsiderable part of Conroy-Windermere Road, and the outfall is directly into Lake Down shoreside of the west end of the proposed dock. 5. Effect of Proposed Project on Public Interest Orange County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project would be clearly in the public interest after balancing the statutory criteria. The proposed project would achieve a net gain in upland safety, although not without exposing pedestrians using the sidewalk to new risks. The project would also increase boater safety by improving navigability in the vicinity of the boat ramp. However, degradations in water quality negatively impact the issues of public health, the property of others, the conservation of fish and wildlife, and fishing or recreational values, which ironically may be threatened as Lake Down risks becoming a victim of its well-deserved popularity. The current condition and relative values of the functions performed by the lakebottom also militate against a finding that the proposed project, which would be permanent in nature, is clearly in the public interest. The factors in the preceding paragraph outweigh the statutory factors in favor of a finding that the project is clearly in the public interest. In addition to the gains in upland safety and navigability, the other favorable factors are that the proposed project would not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. A neutral factor isthat the proposed project would not help or harm significant historic and archaeologic resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the application of the Orange County Parks Department for a dredge and fill permit to construct a floating dock 420 feet by 7 feet. ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Orange County Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-7 (except last sentence of Paragraph 6); 9 (except for last two sentences)- 11 (except first sentence); 12 (except that the amendment eliminated all construction-related dredging)-19 (except the railing in Paragraph 14 runs the entire landward side of the floating dock, but not the fixed docks); 20 (except the last sentence); 25; 27 (except last sentence); 29 (first sentence; however, the implication that the erosion is having an adverse effect on water quality is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence); 30 (except that the implication that wave and wake action are presently eroding the shore is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence); 32; 33 (in sense of increasing boater usage of lake, but not in sense of maintaining the water conditions on which the lake ultimately depends for its recreational value); 35-36; 39 (third and fourth sentences); 40 (there would be a net increase in upland safety); 42 (the crosswalk would somewhat increase upland user safety); 43; 44 (through the colon); 46; 48 (second and third sentences); 49 (except that the summer, 1990, findings of Windermere's expert are also credited); 51 (except as to the improvement in ambient water quality between baseline year and year immediately preceding the application); 52 (except for characterization of chlorophyll a value as very low) with attendant implication that this value, in conjunction with readings of .04-.05 mg/l of phosphate in the summer of 1990, is not cause for serious concern); 56-57; 59 (all but first sentence); 60 (second and third sentences); and 71 (last sentence). Rejected as irrelevant: 6 (last sentence); 11 (first sentence); 20 (last sentence); 21-22; 26 (second sentence); 28; 44 (following the colon)-45; 47; 54 (first sentence); 55 (there is no safe harbor for proposed projects whoseeffects would degrade ambient water quality, but still leave the waters in good condition); 67; and 74-75. Rejected as subordinate: 8; 9 (last two sentences); 28; 34 (second sentence); 41; 53; 63 (except for first sentence); 64; 69; and 74-75. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 23; 26 (first sentence); 27 (last sentence); 29 (second sentence); 31; 34 (except second sentence); 37 (except whether the proposed dock is a political "hot potato" is irrelevant); 38 (except that the existing facility is "very mediocre"); 50 (second sentence as to relevant ambient water quality and third sentence); 54; 55 (although the water quality in Lake Down remains generally good, recent readings of phosphorus levels of .04-.05 mg/l are a cause of serious concern); 58; 59 (first sentence, at least as to the bottom beginning around where the dock would be placed); 60 (first sentence); 61 (the County's own survey, which accompanied the application, has been credited over the incidental findings of an expert, who did not carefully establish the exact proposed location of the dock and was preoccupied with water sampling); 62 (strictly speaking, the County has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat dock will not lead to degradation in ambient water quality); and 63 (first sentence)-71 (except for last sentence). Rejected as unnecessary: 39 (first two sentences) and 72-73. Rejected as recitation of evidence: 48 (first sentence) and 50 (first and second sentences except for the identification of the baseline year and the year immediately preceding the application). Miscellaneous: 24: first sentence is adopted in substance as the average is probably about 10', although the distance is as much as 17'. The second sentence as to where the boat dock could be built--i.e., further away from theshore to reduce or eliminate dock dredging--is rejected as irrelevant. Orange County did not offer to amend its application, nor even provide a new location for the dock. In any event, the relocation of the dock in deeper water would not reduce the damage done to the lake by the prop wash associated with the additional boat traffic that the new dock would generate. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of DER Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-5 (except erosion-protection clause in Paragraph 4); 6 (first sentence, although the elevations have been discussed in detail in the findings and, though the dock probably averages about 10' from normal shoreline, it is as much as 17' offshore); 7-14 (except, as to Paragraph 8, 41-65 launchings represents typical summertime usage and 395 represents peak usage, probably on a holiday); 18; 19 (second sentence); 26-28; 30 (first sentence); 33-34; 37-39 (except, as to Paragraph 38, first sentence and last clause implying the need to control erosion to protect water quality); 41-42; and 46-47. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 4 (erosion-protection clause); 6 (second sentence because the County's own survey, which accompanied the application, has been credited over the incidental findings of an expert, who did not carefully establish the exact proposed location of the dock and was preoccupied with water sampling); 15 (except second and fourth sentences); 16 (first sentence); 17; 19 (first and second sentences); 25; 29-32 (except first sentence of Paragraph 30); 35; 36 (except first sentence); 38 (first sentence and last clause implying the need to control erosion to protect water quality); 40; and 43-44. Rejected as recitation of evidence: (second and fourth sentences). Rejected as irrelevant: (second through fourth sentences) and 19 (third sentence--there is no safe harbor forproposed projects whose effects would degrade ambient water quality, but still leave the waters in good condition--and last sentence). Rejected as unnecessary: 19 (last sentence as to benzene); 21-23 (except that the facts of this case, such as the quick elimination of benzene from the water and the proximity of sampling to boat periods of numerous boat launches and no rain, suggest that gasoline-powered boats, not stormwater, are responsible for most of the benzene finding its way into Lake Down); 24-25; and 45. Rejected as subordinate: 20. Rejected as repetitious: 36 (first sentence). Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Windermere Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-14 (except last sentence of Paragraph 11); 18-19; 26 (first and last sentences); 28 (first three sentences through "not be floating" and third and second to last sentences, although the prospect of either DER or orange County interpreting Special Condition 7 as requiring the closure of the entire facility for significant periods of time is highly remote); 33-34; 35 (as to intention to construct crosswalk); 38; 40 (first three sentences); 42 (first three sentences); 46 (first sentence); 49 (second sentence); 50 (except second sentence); 51 (first sentence); 52 (except last sentence); 54-57; 59 (first two sentences)-61 (except for final sentences in Paragraphs 60, as to benzene, and 61); 62; 65 (last sentence); and 67. Rejected as subordinate: 11 (last sentence); 15-17; 21-25; 27; 28 (all sentences not adopted in whole); 29-32; 35 (except as to intention to construct crosswalk); 36-37; 39; 40 (last sentence); 42 (last three sentences); 43-45; 46 (fourth sentence); 48; 49 (third and fourth sentences); 63; 65 (except last sentence); and 68-71. Rejected as irrelevant: 16; 20; 22; 49 (first sentence); and 53. Rejected as recitation of evidence: 26 (all but first and last sentences); 31; 35 (except as to intention to construct crosswalk); 41; 44-45; and 46 (second and third sentences). Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 28 (portion of third sentence following "not be floating"; Orange County's position as to the meaning of Special Condition 7 did not emerge from the record, largely because of an apparent lack of detailed understanding of the impact upon the submerged bottoms of particular water elevations in terms of dock dredging and prop dredging); 50 (second sentence); 51 (second sentence); 64; and 66. Rejected as unnecessary: 47; 52 (last sentence); 58-59 (last two sentences); 60 (as to benzene); and 61. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Rosser and Grice Adopted or adopted in substance: 1-39 (as to Paragraph 18, the only navigable connection and, as to Paragraph 19, the surface elevation); 45; 51 (at least as to desirability); 57 (except first sentence); 58; 59; 61-64 (except last sentence of Paragraph 64); 66 (second sentence); 68-69; 74 (fourth sentence); 75-76; 80-81; 83; 86; 88; 89 (the specific elevations have been discussed in detail in the order); 94; 96; 97; and 102. Rejected as irrelevant: 40-42; 52-55; 70-72; 74 (third and last sentences); 77-78; 84; 90; 101; and 103. Rejected as subordinate: 43-44; 46-50; 53-55; 57 (first sentence); 60; 73-74 (first and second sentences); 82 (first sentence); 85; 99-100; and 104-05. Rejected as unnecessary: 56; 59; 64 (last sentence)-66 (first sentence); 91-92; 95; and 98. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence: 67; 82 (second sentence); 87; and 93. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. Maclaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Joel D. Prinsell, Assistant County Attorney Eugene Legette, Assistant County Attorney Orange County Legal Department P.O. Box 1393 Orlando, FL 32802-1393 J. Christy Wilson, III Brigham, Moore, et al. 111 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1575 Orlando, FL 32801 J. Stephen McDonald John M. Robertson Robertson, Williams, et al. 538 East Washington Street Orlando, FL 32801 Robert W. Williams P.O. Box 247 Windermere, FL 34786 Carl D. Patterson, Jr. 219 Third Avenue Windermere, FL 34786
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the after-the-fact Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) and the November 19, 2019, proprietary Letter of Consent for a 2,203 square foot dock should be issued as described and authorized by the December 6, 2019, Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, entered between Respondent Andrew Kent and the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), in its own capacity, and in its capacity as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (“BTIITF”).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal in Romeo Point, Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. Petitioners use the waters of Doctors Lake for recreational purposes, and have navigated to and from Doctors Lake, or reasonably expected as riparian property owners to do so, via the permitted and dredged navigational boat access channel leading from the western canal to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. Petitioners have challenged the Consent Order that authorizes issuance of the revised general permit for a residential dock that bisects and severs the navigational boat access channel. Thus, Petitioners have standing under section 120.569. Mr. Kent is the owner of Lot 18 of the Romeo Point subdivision. Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18 in 2017, and constructed a home there, 2059 Castle Point Court, Fleming Island, Florida, in which he currently resides. Mr. Kent is a party to the Consent Order, and proposed recipient of the ERP and Letter of Consent at issue in this proceeding. DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 253, 373 (Part IV), and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Title 62, regarding activities in surface waters of the state, and in Florida Administrative Code Title 18, governing the use of sovereignty submerged lands. The BTIITF is a collegial body that holds title to sovereignty submerged lands within the State in trust for the use and benefit of the public. Art. X, § 11, Fla. Const.; § 253.001, Fla. Stat. DEP performs staff duties and functions on behalf of the BTIITF related to the review of applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which DEP has permitting responsibility. § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The SJRWMD “shall perform the staff duties and functions related to the review of any application for authorization to use board of trustees-owned submerged lands necessary for an activity regulated under part IV of chapter 373 for which the water management district has permitting responsibility as set forth in an operating agreement” between DEP and the SJRWMD. Id. Review and approval of general permits and individual ERPs in Clay County generally falls within the jurisdiction of the SJRWMD pursuant to the July 1, 2007, Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP (“Joint Agreement”). DEP and the SJRWMD have been delegated the authority by the BTIITF to take final agency action on applications for authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands, without any action by the BTIITF, with the delegated entity to be established by rule. § 253.002(2), Fla. Stat. Rule 18- 21.0051(2) provides that DEP and the water management districts “are delegated the authority to review and take final agency action on applications to use sovereignty submerged lands when the application involves an activity for which that agency has permitting responsibility, as set forth in the respective operating agreements.” Romeo Point Romeo Point is located on Doctors Lake in Fleming Island, Clay County, Florida. The confluence of Doctors Lake with the St. Johns River is generally considered to be at the U.S. Highway 17 bridge, with Doctors Lake to its west, and the St. Johns River to its east. Doctors Lake is tidally influenced, with the range of tides generally being about one foot from high to low, but as much as 1.25 feet and as little as 0.8 feet depending on the phase of the moon. In addition, there are times when a confluence of a full moon, low tide, and winds to the east can pull water from the lake, which can result in even shallow draft vessels grounding in normally shallow areas unless they have access to a deeper water channel. In 2002, the Romeo Point property was purchased by Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for development as a residential subdivision. The Romeo Point subdivision included the western canal on which five waterfront lots were created. Petitioners own waterfront lots on the western canal. As part of the development, two permits were applied for and obtained from the SJRWMD. Mr. Goria, a licensed professional engineer, was part of the development team. SJRWMD Permit No 40-019-86850-1 authorized the stormwater management system for the Romeo Point subdivision. Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP separately applied for permits from the SJRWMD and the Corps for “a boat access channel and [ ] a bulkhead on the western property line to facilitate access to Doctors Lake.” Its purpose was, specifically, to allow access for the future homeowners along the western canal to Doctors Lake. The boat access channel followed the course of an existing, though somewhat narrower channel used by the previous property owner and others. SJRWMD issued Permit No. 40-019-86850-2 (the “Dash-2 Permit”) for “[d]redging of a boat access channel and construction of a bulkhead along a section of the channel at Romeo Point Subdivision.” The boat access channel extended from the mouth of the western canal northward along the shoreline in front of and past Lots 19 and 18, then turning to the west at Lot 17 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake. The boat access channel was approximately 35 feet wide with 4:1 side contours, with its centerline about 30 feet off of the bulkhead. The Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit noted that “[t]he proposed dredging [of the boat access channel] will give water access to 5-lots along the western property line.” The SJRWMD Technical Staff Report for the Dash-2 Permit also established that, upon completion of construction, the “Final O&M [operation and maintenance] Entity” was to be the Romeo Point Homeowner Association. The boat access channel allowed vessels from the western canal to navigate around a cattail dominated shoal. Although the cattails no longer grow in the area, the shallow water shoal remains to varying degrees. Among the conditions made part of the Dash-2 Permit were that the permittee purchase 0.82 mitigation credits from the Sundew Mitigation Bank. The SJRWMD also issued a Consent of Use for state-owned submerged lands to Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP for “Dredging of Boat Access Channel in Doctors Lake at Romeo Point - Permit # 40-019-86850-2.” The permittee was required to pay $2,978.75 to DEP for severed dredge material, with the SJRWMD permit number provided to DEP on the check and the cover letter. On December 16, 2003, the Corps issued Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW) to Floridays Development Group, Inc.,2 to “construct a single-family, residential subdivision and bulkhead, dredge a man-made canal and entrance channel into Doctors Lake, and also construct 7 new single-family docks.” The Corps permit required the purchase of 1.86 mitigation credits. The permit plans clearly depict both the western canal and the boat access channel into Doctors Lake. The Corps permit also permitted shoreline docks at Lots 18 and 19, with the permitted dock at Lot 18 to extend from the bulkhead to the edge of the boat access channel. The shoreline dock was sufficient to provide navigational access from Lot 18 to the deeper waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel. The docks along the boat access channel were permitted as part of the Corps permit to ensure those docks would not block access to the channel. Other docks were also permitted by the Corps for the Romeo Point subdivision that extended further into Doctors Lake to provide navigational access for lots that did not have direct access to the boat access channel. 2 Floridays Development Group, Inc., was a company owned by Mr. Goria that owned the membership interest in Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP. There was no dispute that the Corps permit constituted Federal authorization for the boat access channel. By sometime in 2004, all construction authorized by the permits, including the dredging of the boat access channel, was complete, and Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP moved to the marketing and sales phase. On October 3, 2005, and as contemplated by the Dash-2 Permit, the SJRWMD permits were transferred from Romeo Point Joint Venture, LLP to Romeo Point Owners Association, Inc., for operation and maintenance. The transfer applied to both the stormwater permit and the boat access channel permit. There is nothing to suggest that the transfer to the owners’ association was improper or insufficient to transfer rights under the Dash-2 Permit. Navigation To and From the Western Canal When Petitioners bought property along the western canal, the boat access channel had been permitted and constructed for the specific purpose of providing those canal-front lots with reliable, deep-water navigable access to Doctors Lake. Persons owning, renting, visiting, or using those lots, or otherwise wanting to access the western canal, were customary users of the boat access channel. Water depths along the shoal that exists waterward of the boat access channel between the mouth of the western canal to the current location of the Lot 18 Dock were measured by DEP to range from 2 feet, 9 inches (33 inches) to 3 feet, 8 inches (44 inches) at a “rising tide towards high tide.” At the normal 12 inch tidal range, depths would be expected to range from 21 inches to 32 inches+/- at low tide. During full moons, the low tides could be as much as 0.25 feet (3 inches) lower over three or four days. Thus, the deepest area along the shoal could, on a monthly basis, be as shallow as 29 inches in depth. In order to address the issue of safe and reliable navigational access, conditions at low tide provide the best assessment of a waterway and the ability of boats to navigate in the area. Photographic evidence of Mr. Sheffler dragging his 20-foot boat through less than knee-deep water across the shoal at its deepest point near the Lot 18 Dock supports a finding that water depths across the shoal are, with regularity, insufficient to support safe navigation. In 2017, Mr. Sheffler purchased an existing home and boat lift on lot 23 along the western canal. The prior owner had previously kept a 24 and one half-foot boat on the boat lift. Mr. Sheffler kept a 21-foot Bayliner on the lift after he bought the house, which had a two foot, 10 inch (i.e., 34-inch) draft. He sold that boat with the thought of buying a larger boat for skiing, wakeboarding, and watersports with his four children. Those plans were shelved pending the resolution of this proceeding. Currently, Mr. Sheffler uses his father’s 19-foot Seafox center console boat with a 24-inch draft, which he used to navigate into Doctors Lake through the boat access channel prior to the time Mr. Kent constructed the Lot 18 Dock. He is able to navigate across the shoal at high tide, but otherwise the shoal presents an obstruction. In 2017, Mr. Davis built a home on lot 22 along the western canal that included a boat lift that could accommodate a 24-foot boat. Mr. Davis already owned a 19-foot Stingray boat with an inboard/outboard motor that he docked at his lot, and used the boat access channel to access Doctors Lake. Mr. Davis testified that, after July 4, 2019, when the Lot 18 Dock was substantially completed, he could not safely navigate around the dock, and that he ran aground on the shoal at low tide. His testimony is credited. Due to the difficulties in maneuvering his 19-foot Stingray across the shoal to the open waters of Doctors Lake, Mr. Davis postponed his planned purchase of a larger boat pending the results of this proceeding. Sadly, Mr. Davis passed during the course of the hearing, before he could buy the boat he wanted. Mr. Hudson is Mr. Davis’s son-in-law. He is an experienced boater, and has boated to the Davis home from Doctors Lake in his 20-foot Regal boat using the boat access channel. His boat is comparatively heavy, with an inboard/outboard motor and a 34-inch draft. Mr. Hudson was unable to easily and safely navigate to the Davis home after the construction of the Lot 18 Dock without grounding on the shoal at low tide. In 2017, Mr. Fuzzell purchased Lot 20 and Lot 21. Lot 20 partially fronts on Doctors Lake. Mr. Fuzzell constructed a house on each lot, each with a boat lift designed to accommodate a boat up to 26 feet in length. Mr. Fuzzell rents the house on lot 21, at which his current tenant keeps a 21-foot boat. Mr. Fuzzell built his house on Lot 20 with the expectation of purchasing a boat of sufficient size to put his family aboard, up to a 26-foot boat. Due to the blockage of the boat access channel by the Lot 18 Dock, the purchase was postponed and altered pending resolution of this proceeding. Mr. Ergle owns Lot 24 along the western canal. He has not developed the lot with a house or a boat dock. He is, nonetheless, a riparian owner. When he bought the lot, a primary reason was his expectation that he would be able to build a boat dock and keep a boat of around 24 feet. Mr. Ergle currently owns a small Boston Whaler, which he has used to visit his property. While the boat only has a 10-inch draft, Mr. Ergle has touched bottom along the shoal between the mouth of the western canal and the current Lot 18 Dock. Lt. Commander Van Hook testified to his familiarity with the area, and stated that “[i]f you were to come straight out from the channel, there's a shoal, shallow water out there, which I know about because I've gone through there. I wouldn't dare go that close to the shoreline because of how shallow it gets over that way.” Mr. Tomasi, a Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer (Ret.) visited the area in April 2019. He went through the area in Mr. Davis’s 19-foot Stingray, and testified that they “bumped bottom” with the boat’s hull at various places, including along the “deeper” areas along the shoal. The motor was tilted up as far as possible during the trip so as to avoid having silt sucked into the water intake which could damage the motor. Mr. Tomasi noted that, like bottom contours of any water body, “it's not a complete flat, glass bottom. I mean, you're going to have contours in the sea bed and there's going to be areas that get down. You're going to have some highs and some low areas out there.”3 He stated that, during the visit, “I never found a clear path to where I could come out going somewhere along that boat access channel and then be able to cut straight out without at some point bumping bottom.” It was Mr. Tomasi’s opinion that “[i]t's not a reasonable expectation that somebody should have to attempt to hazard their boat to get in and out of their dock or their canal.” His opinion is credited and accepted. The undersigned is not unmindful of the testimony of Captain Suber, who is every bit as worthy of respect as Lt. Commander Van Hook and Mr. Tomasi. Captain Suber visited the site at roughly low tide “a week or two” prior to the hearing in a “bay boat.” He testified that there were areas along the shoal that were not passable, but through trial and error, he was able to find a way out -- or rather a way in, since he was “out in the lake and looking in” -- without grounding. However his opinion regarding navigability was quite conditioned, providing that: Well, from -- from what I see, the waterway is -- you know, it is what it is.· It's shallow and you have to be cautious, but you can get in and out of that -- that canal at low tide. This is one of those areas where local knowledge is a -- is a must. Someone that don't know anything about the waterway right in this area, they probably would stay away from this. But if you live on this area of the waterway and you know the bottom out there, you should be able to get all of these vessels that have been in question in and out of there at any time by using caution If it's -- if it's an outboard, simpler, yes, all of them, any one that I would think would be able to get in and out of there. An inboard/outboard would be possible and probable. Inboards, those drafts on those are -- and they're so sensitive, you 3 Mr. Tomasi’s testimony supports a finding that, although DEP measured a maximum of 3.8 feet along the shoal at high tide, that does not establish 3.8 feet as a uniform depth around that point. Natural undulations could cause that depth to be more or less, which would explain the “bumping.” know, if I owned one, I probably would stay out of these swallower areas with one. Most people that have full inboards, they don't even want to try to get into places like that. Captain Suber’s testimony was worthy of belief. However, to the extent his opinion was that the Lot 18 Dock did not create an impediment to navigation, it was simply outweighed by other more persuasive evidence in the record. Purchase of Lot 18 Mr. Kent became aware that Lot 18 was on the market at some point in 2015, and engaged in a series of negotiations with the owners to purchase the lake-front property. After a period of unsuccessful efforts to purchase Lot 18, Mr. Kent “caught [the owner] at the right time,” and acquired the property in 2016. At the time of the purchase, Mr. Kent knew of lots on the western canal, but was not interested in them because “I didn’t want to be limited to the size of boat that I … used,” and “I wanted a long dock to put a -- I wanted a couple of boat lifts just like I do, just like the neighbors.” The line at which four-foot of depth in the boat access channel existed, and the point to which Mr. Kent would have to “wharf out” from Lot 18 to achieve four feet of navigable depth, was roughly 12 to 15 feet from the Lot 18 bulkhead. Around the last week of September or the first week of October 2017, prior to his construction -- or planning -- of the Lot 18 Dock, Mr. Kent, while on a walk around the neighborhood where he then lived, ran across his neighbors, Mr. Goria and Lt. Commander Van Hook. Mr. Kent knew that Mr. Goria had been involved in the development of Romeo Point, and took the opportunity to inquire about the area, and discussed his desire to build a long dock, similar to his neighbor’s dock to the north, extending from the shoreline of Lot 18 to the open waters of Doctors Lake. Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent of the existence of the permitted boat access channel that provided navigational access to residents of the western canal to Doctors Lake, a statement heard by Lt. Commander Van Hook. The conversation was memorable because Mr. Goria stated his belief that Mr. Kent was fortunate that his boat lift was going to be right on his bulkhead, which would save him considerable money on having to build a dock. When Mr. Kent expressed surprise, Mr. Goria explained that “we dredged a channel for the canal lot owners that goes and meanders right along your bulkhead and then goes out between you and [lot] 17.” Mr. Kent stated that he wanted a big dock,4 to which Mr. Goria stated that he would be blocking the channel near his bulkhead used by the canal front owners. Mr. Goria testified that Mr. Kent then stated that “well, that's their problem. They can't stop me.” Lt. Commander Van Hook testified, credibly and without reservation, that Mr. Goria “made it 100 percent clear on a two-way dialogue that without a doubt, there's a boat access channel that runs along the bulkhead that provides access from the folks that live back on the canal, the petitioners. … access to the deeper waters out in Doctors Lake.” He testified to his recollection of the conversation that “I know [Mr. Goria] said [the channel] ran parallel to the bulkhead that gets out there so parallel to the Romeo Point bulkhead. So if that puts it up against your lot, depending on how far it goes out there, I just know that it ran parallel. I don't know how far off.” He then stated that Mr. Kent’s “only response pretty much was he's going to apply either way. His plans were to build an extended dock.” When asked if it was reasonable for one to conclude that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the 4 Mr. Kent’s desire to have a big dock on Lot 18 was not new. As he testified at hearing, “I mean, hey, it's everybody's dream to live on the water. But for this particular area, I mean, come on. … Who wouldn't walk up to [Lot 18] and want a boat dock. I wanted a boat dock before I bought it.” boat access channel as a result of the conversation, Lt. Commander Van Hook replied, “Yes, sir, without a doubt.” Mr. Kent disputed his response, or even understanding, of the information provided by Mr. Goria, testifying unconvincingly that he thought Mr. Goria was talking about the western canal. Nonetheless, Mr. Goria provided clear and accurate information that a SJRWMD permitted boat access channel crossed the front of Lot 18 and provided residents in the area the 24-hour right to deeper water without restricting them to the tides, and that Mr. Kent was likely to have difficulty obtaining regulatory approval for his dock. While it is impossible to know what might have been going through his mind, the most reasonable inference that can be drawn is that Mr. Kent knew of the existence of the boat access channel, and knew that the Lot 18 Dock as he wanted it would sever navigational access for residents along the western canal.5 The First General Permit Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, and proceeded to make application to DEP for the first general permit. Since the Romeo Point subdivision was subject to two SJRWMD permits, the Operating Agreement between SJRWMD and DEP, dated July 1, 2007 (“Joint Agreement”), called for further permits affecting the area to be processed by SJRWMD. That did not occur. Mr. Kent hired C&H Marine, which prepared the application for the permit, submitted it to DEP, and ultimately constructed the Lot 18 Dock. The first general permit application called for the construction of “a single-family dock less than 2,000 sq. feet with one slip.” The application 5 Mr. Goria’s and Lt. Commander Van Hook’s testimony as to Mr. Kent’s statements, offered by Petitioners, constitute admissions of a party opponent, and are, therefore, not hearsay. § 90.803(18). Fla. Stat. Neither Mr. Goria nor Lt. Commander Van Hook has any direct interest in the outcome of this proceeding, and both were credible and persuasive. Their testimony is accepted, and supports the inference of Mr. Kent’s knowledge of the boat access channel and its effect on Petitioners prior to the permitting of the Lot 18 Dock. drawings showed that Lot 18 had 105 feet of frontage on Doctors Lake, and depicted a five-foot wide dock that extended 150 feet into Doctors Lake, with a 20-foot x 10-foot terminal platform and a boat lift totaling 865 square feet for a total structure of 1,665 square feet.6 The dock was depicted as being five feet above the mean high water (“MHW”) elevation. A 25-foot riparian setback was shown between the Lot 18 Dock and the adjacent property to the north. The boat access channel was at least six feet deep at its center, roughly 35 feet wide, and four feet deep only 12 to 15 feet from the bulkhead. Even a minimally competent investigation would have revealed the channel. However, the application identified underwater bottom contours and depths that gradually and evenly sloped from shallow at the bulkhead to four feet deep at the terminus of the Lot 18 Dock. As noted by Ms. Mann, “[i]t showed a smooth -- relatively smooth seafloor bed.” The length of the dock on the permit application drawings was not to scale, with the application drawing being shortened through the use of “continuation marks.” Those continuation marks subsumed the section of lake bottom through which the boat access channel ran. Thus, the channel was not depicted in the application. Regardless of intent or reason, by its use of continuation marks in the application drawings, the contractor quite effectively managed to conceal the channel from DEP.7 Since the application was being filed on his behalf, it was Mr. Kent’s obligation to ensure its accuracy. Mr. Kent, despite having been told of the permitted channel and of the existence of regulatory permits 6 There was no definitive measure of the width of Lot 18. Though the application indicated it was 105 feet, Mr. Kent testified that “I’ve seen 101. I’ve seen 106. I’ve seen 104. So I guess it depends where you measure. I have no idea.” DEP later measured the width as 101 feet. 7 Since Mr. Goria advised Mr. Kent that the boat access channel was going to make it difficult to obtain regulatory approval for his dock, the omission of what should have been a patently obvious subsurface feature existing no more than 15 feet off of the bulkhead, and the replacement of that section of lake bottom with continuation marks, seems more than coincidental. authorizing its construction, failed in that obligation, resulting in an application that was, at best, misleading. Furthermore, even accepting that neither Mr. Kent nor the contractor knew of the channel before construction commenced, which is a stretch, its existence absolutely had to have become apparent early on in construction. Mr. Kent or C&H Marine had an obligation at that time to disclose to DEP that the application was false and inaccurate. Neither did so. Upon receipt of the first general permit application, Ms. Mann reviewed the SJRWMD GIS system to determine if there were permits within a one-quarter mile radius of Lot 18. The depiction of that radius on a map appears to encompass most, if not all of the Romeo Point subdivision. The SJRWMD GIS system did not show any permits within the one-quarter mile radius except for a dock permit related to a lot to the north of Lot 18. Ms. Mann did not check the linked permit associated with that lot. Had she done so, she would have discovered the Corps authorization for the boat access channel. DEP’s ERP Checklist incorrectly indicated that the Lot 18 Dock application “was not in a WMD permitted area.” If DEP had correctly noted that the SJRWMD had issued permits for the Romeo Point subdivision, DEP would have had to coordinate the Lot 18 Dock application with the SJRWMD. DEP issued the first general permit on June 17, 2019, to “construct a 1,615 sq ft private residential single family dock consisting of an access pier and a covered boat slip and terminal platform, within Doctors Lake, a Class III Florida waterbody,” which included the Letter of Consent, as well as a State Programmatic General Permit V-R1 on behalf of the Corps. Notice of the first general permit was not provided to Petitioners either by actual notice or by publication. Petitioners’ Notice of the Lot 18 Dock After the first general permit was issued, Petitioners’ became aware of the proposed Lot 18 Dock when, during a homeowners’ association meeting that took place prior to the commencement of construction, Mr. Kent advised Mr. Davis that construction of the Lot 18 Dock was scheduled to begin the following week. That disclosure triggered a second meeting at Mr. Davis’s house that included the president of the homeowners’ association, Mr. Davis, Mr. Sheffler, Mr. Kent, and several other homeowners to discuss the fact that the Lot 18 Dock would block the boat access channel. Mr. Kent’s solution was not to delay the construction of the Lot 18 Dock to come to a solution, but rather, “if you guys ever[ ] get stuck and cannot navigate, I’ll participate in dredging your canal.” Petitioners made their concerns known to Mr. Kent well before the first piling was set for the Lot 18 Dock. Nonetheless, knowing then with certainty that a boat access channel existed along the shoreline in front of Lot 18, knowing that the application was misleading by omission, and knowing of his neighbors’ objections, Mr. Kent made no effort to disclose that information to DEP, and proceeded with construction. Petitioners advised DEP of their concerns on or about June 28, 2019, which included a description of the boat access channel,8 Petitioners expressed their objection to the Lot 18 Dock on the ground that it cut off their access to the permitted boat access channel. DEP took no action, despite then having knowledge that the application was false. Case No. 19-4192 On July 17, 2019, Petitioners filed a petition for hearing to challenge the issuance of the first general permit for the Lot 18 Dock. The petition alleged that DEP provided them with an extension of time to file the petition 8 The exact date on which construction commenced was not disclosed. However, on July 4, 2019, the boat access channel was still passable, with only string marking its path. Thus, by June 28, 2019, DEP had information showing the falsity of the application that should have triggered some inquiry before the boat access channel was severed. on June 28, 2019, which is corroborative of testimony that Petitioners advised DEP of the boat access channel on that date. Three weeks later, on August 7, 2019, the petition was referred to DOAH and assigned as Case No. 19-4192. The petition alleged, inter alia, that the Lot 18 Dock crossed the existing navigational channel that Petitioners used to navigate motorized watercraft to the open waters of Doctor's Lake and the St. John's River, and created unnecessary restrictions on Petitioners’ access to those navigable waters. Case No. 19-4192 was set for hearing to commence on October 17, 2019. On September 27, 2019, DEP filed a Notice of Intent to Change Agency Action and Motion to Put Case Into Abeyance, in which DEP stated that it had taken enforcement action on the Lot 18 Dock as built. The Notice stated that DEP intended to require that Mr. Kent apply for another permit, which Petitioners would be able to contest. On December 18, 2019, the presiding ALJ relinquished jurisdiction over Case No. 19-4192 to DEP. The Lot 18 Dock As-built The Lot 18 Dock, as constructed, deviated materially from the dock as permitted. As important as the fact that the Lot 18 Dock was not compliant with the permit is that, as pilings were being set during the period of construction, it could not have been overlooked9 that the proposed dock was bisecting the deeper water boat access channel. However, no one advised DEP of the existence of the channel, an omission that, given the facts and the record of this proceeding, could only have been intentional, and could only have been to conceal the existence of the deeper water channel from DEP and other regulatory entities while construction of the Lot 18 Dock was completed. 9 It is impossible to conclude that a marine contractor, regardless of their degree of competence, could fail to notice that they were setting pilings in six feet of water rather than two feet of water. The Lot 18 Dock was constructed to a length of 193 feet, exceeding the 160-foot length (which includes the ten feet of terminal platform) depicted in the permit application drawings. Going out that extra length also, as described by Mr. Kent, “gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth.” Therefore, instead of the dock ending at the permitted four-foot (48 inches) depth, he now had up to 53 inches of depth, all the better for a bigger boat. Mr. Kent testified that he directed the contractor to build out to that length, because it would be cheaper to have it done while the equipment was on-site, rather than waiting to have the extra length permitted. The as-built lift was 36 feet in length, rather than the permitted 34 feet, and will hold a boat of 32 feet.10 The walkway of the dock was measured by DEP to be two feet, seven inches above MHW rather than the required five feet as permitted. The as-built structure also included four unpermitted pilings and a second boat lift. Mr. Kent believed that the pilings would be “permittable,” so went ahead and authorized the contractor to install them without waiting for a permit. The second lift will “probably hold a 26-footer.” C&H Marine installed cleats on several pilings for the terminal platform/boat lift that were suitable to allow an additional vessel to tie-up to the dock. Those cleats were -- purportedly -- installed without Mr. Kent’s knowledge, and have been removed. Mr. Kent was on vacation for some of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock.11 Upon his return, the dock was completed despite Petitioners’ objections, and despite a DEP request that he stop work. 10 The size of the boat could likely be greater, since the covered slip/lift was built two feet longer than permitted. 11 Mr. Kent testified to a general lack of knowledge of the course of the construction due to his vacation. However, he knew of the extra pilings, and approved their installation because he thought they would be “permittable.” He testified that during his vacation, he contacted Michelle Neely at DEP to inquire about a “residential bridge,” a discussion memorialized by Ms. Neely on July 24, 2019, in correspondence to Mr. Sheffler, though there was no direct evidence that he advised her of the boat access channel. He was on the site (“I walked out there. And at some point -- I can't give you a date as to when. It was before the big piece was built. That's for sure.”) and authorized C&H Marine to extend the Lot 18 Dock from 160 feet to its as-built 193 feet, stating that “[w]hen I asked him to extend it, I knew that wasn’t permitted yet, but it was permittable.” These issues do not directly apply to the issue of The August Compliance Inspections Reacting to information from Petitioners, DEP conducted site inspections of the Lot 18 Dock on August 21, 2019, and August 27, 2019. The as-built conditions described above were noted by DEP at those times, as was the fact that the dock “appears to be approximately 19 ft from the northern neighbor’s apparent riparian rights lines.” The ERP Inspection Report noted “Significant Non-Compliance” with the Lot 18 Dock. The report identified the SJRWMD permit “to allow for boat access,” but claimed “[d]uring the review process, inquiry on the SJRWMD ERP GIS page did not reveal the existing [sic] of a SJRWMD permit.” The ERP Inspection Report recognized that the western canal homeowners “claim[ed] the dock impedes their ability to use the channel along the shoreline, that was part of the SJRWMD permit #40-019-86850-2, and access Dr’s Lake.” The DEP staff recommendation was to allow Mr. Kent to keep the Lot 18 Dock as constructed, with a monetary fine and a minor corrective measure. The ERP Inspection Report noted that if Mr. Kent wanted three boat slips on the Lot 18 Dock, he would need to apply for a single family lease. The ERP Inspection Report made no further mention of the boat access channel or the SJRWMD permit, and gave no recognition or accommodation for the seemingly legitimate concerns of the western canal homeowners. Based on its observations, DEP issued Warning Letter No. WL19-213 to Mr. Kent noting that the dock “was constructed in a manner not consistent with your permit application and its supporting documentations.” As was the case with the ERP Inspection Report, the Warning Notice made no mention of the boat access channel, the SJRWMD permit, or Petitioners’ navigational concerns. whether the Lot 18 Dock impedes navigability, which it would have done whether it was 93 or 193 feet in length, and whether it has one or three slips. However, these issues demonstrate a general conscious disregard for the permitting authority of DEP, and affect the weight to be given Mr. Kent’s testimony. The October Compliance Inspection On October 15, 2019, following a complaint of a further unpermitted addition, DEP conducted a third compliance inspection. Previously, according to Mr. Durden, DEP “negotiated” with Mr. Kent, advising him that if he removed the unauthorized cleats that had been installed on the Lot 18 Dock, DEP “could issue the permit, because then he would have only two boat slips.” The October inspection revealed that, after DEP issued the Warning Notice, and despite his having been advised of the two-slip limitation, Mr. Kent installed an unpermitted floating personal water craft (PWC) dock midway along the span of the dock that was suitable for landing a jet-ski. Mr. Durden testified that “[h]e removed the cleats [which had been installed to create a third slip on the unpermitted second boat lift pilings]. And then a period of time passed and then he decided to install the ski lift.” Counting the unauthorized PWC lift, the Lot 18 Dock had -- and currently has -- three boat slips under DEP’s jurisdiction. The installation of the unauthorized floating dock while permitting and enforcement were ongoing suggests an ongoing and blatant disregard for DEP’s permitting and enforcement authority. The Consent Order On December 19, 2019, DEP and the BTIITF entered into a Consent Order, OGC File No. 19-1272, with Mr. Kent to resolve all issues, including the unpermitted third PWC dock. Mr. Kent was charged a fine of $2,750.0012 to resolve the issues of non- compliance. Despite by then having information that established, as a matter 12 Mr. Kent was allowed to keep the Lot 18 Dock’s unauthorized “extra 30 feet [and corresponding] 4 or 5 more inches of depth,” the unpermitted second boat lift, and the floating PWC dock that was constructed after enforcement proceedings had commenced, without any corrective measures whatsoever, all for the modest “fine” of a $2,750, of which $250 was the “permit fee.” By the time the Consent Order was executed, DEP knew the Lot 18 Dock was severing a permitted navigational channel, and should have known, through months of involvement with Petitioners, including DOAH Case No. 19-4192 that the of law, that the Lot 18 Dock had three slips and did not qualify for a general permit, DEP nonetheless issued the revised general permit, including the Letter of Consent and water quality certification under the Clean Water Act. Mr. Kent was not required to obtain an individual ERP or a single family lease. At the final hearing, DEP admitted that an individual ERP is required and, in the course of this de novo proceeding, asks that the Lot 18 Dock be measured against those standards. DEP made no mention in the Consent Order of the boat access channel. The Consent Order did not note that severing the channel forces Petitioners to have to navigate through shallow and unsafe waters to get to Doctors Lake from their homes, on which they may -- and have -- run aground. The Consent Order did not acknowledge the existence of the SJRWMD Dash-2 Permit or the Corps permit. DEP had knowledge of all of those things both as a result of its involvement in DOAH Case No. 19-4192 and as evidenced by its August 21, 2019, ERP Inspection Report. The Boat Access Channel as a Navigational Channel The boat access channel was permitted as a navigational channel by the SJRWMD and the Corps, and permission to use state owned lands for that purpose was granted by the BTIITF. When the boat access channel was dredged, its entrance to and from Doctors Lake was marked with two PVC pipes, which remain in their original positions. It is not uncommon for people to mark channels with PVC pipe. While the pipes are by no means “regulation” Coast Guard approved channel channel was customarily used, marked, and provided Petitioners with their only means of reliably safe navigation between the western canal and Doctors Lake. Rather than acknowledging its mistake in permitting an illegal dock, regardless of the circumstances, DEP reacted with casual diffidence, questioning the validity of the SJRWMD’s Dash-2 Permit, overlooking the Corps permit, ignoring that the dock encroached into, and severed, a permitted, marked, and customarily used navigation channel, and generally minimizing Petitioners’ legitimate rights of navigation. Perhaps, as surmised by Mr. Sheffler, DEP was “trying to figure out ways to, you know, kind of save face.” However, the rationale and merits markers, and are not particularly distinctive, they are private markers that are known by and provide navigational and boating information to lot owners and other customary users in the area for whom the boat access channel was designed, permitted, and constructed, and who are customary users of the boat access channel. Ms. Mann testified that “[i]t was [DEP’s] position that this was not marked not in a way that we would determine it to be in a navigable channel. PVC poles in the water don't really mean anything.” However, DEP has no rule defining what constitutes a marker sufficient to establish a “marked channel,” or that would establish a limitation that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term. A preponderance of the evidence in this case demonstrates that the PVC pipes were, prior to its severance by the Lot 18 Dock, channel markers known to persons in and using the area as establishing the entrances to the boat access channel. Ms. Mann continued in her testimony, stating that “we saw plenty of people who went without needing to use the navigation channel, so we determined it was a customarily used navigation channel, that it was not needed.” At the time Ms. Mann visited the site, boaters could not use the navigational channel, since it was blocked. Boaters would not be relying on the markers since they marked the mouth of the channel on the other side of the Lot 18 Dock. Furthermore, Ms. Mann was on-site at close to high tide. That persons may, by necessity, be forced to navigate through unsafe waters or not navigate at all is no evidence that the navigation channel “was not needed.” The evidence in this case establishes by a preponderance of competent substantial evidence that the boat access channel was, before the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, both marked and customarily used. It provided safe and reliable navigable access to the western canal for residents -- or lack thereof -- of DEP’s actions are beyond the scope of this proceeding, which is not an enforcement case. and their families and guests. Though sparsely used by the general public for fishing or boating, there is nothing to restrict such use. The boat access channel is, by all factual measures, a “navigational channel” as described by DEP rule. Effects on Navigation When Mr. Kent purchased Lot 18, he had every bit as much access to the open waters of Doctors Lake as did Petitioners. He could have, as contemplated and approved by the Corps permit, constructed a parallel dock along the Lot 18 shoreline and freely accessed the navigable waters of Doctors Lake via the boat access channel in any vessel capable of operating in six feet of water. A preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence in the record establishes that the depths along the shoal are not sufficient during all normal periods to safely navigate without a reasonable likelihood of grounding. That evidence is persuasive and accepted. Mr. Durden credibly testified that a person is “allowed to wharf out until you reach a depth of at least four -- well, 5 feet, which [DEP] would consider a safe depth to be able to have a boat.” Furthermore when asked whether it is “the department's policy for issuance of consent to use sovereign land, that you're entitled to get to 4 feet for your dock,” Ms. Mann responded that “I believe that is actually part of our regulatory 62-330.” Mr. Durden testified, and the evidence supports, that the boat access channel varied from between six feet to seven feet, 11 inches in depth when he conducted his on-site measurements at a “rising to high tide.” Thus, even at the lowest lunar tides, the boat access channel provided safe navigational depths to the owners of the western canal lots, and to Lot 18, of greater than four and a half feet. Ms. Mann candidly admitted that before the Lot 18 Dock was constructed, Mr. Kent had more than four feet of access for a dock and boat at his bulkhead. Mr. Kent admitted that Petitioners “don’t have the same water access -- deep water access to Doctors Lake that they had before [he] built [his] dock,” and that “their canal is 4½ feet deep. The channel goes to 6 foot deep, and now that 6-foot depth isn’t there all the way.” In fact, the only means of accessing Doctors Lake in the absence of the boat access channel does not even approach 4 and one half feet in depth, being in most places less than half that at low tide. Ms. Mann’s testimony that “[w]e determined that vessels had plenty of space to maneuver around Mr. Kent's dock” was simply and substantially outweighed by countervailing competent, substantial, and credible evidence. The impairment to navigation in this case could not be clearer. Mr. Kent had no interest in purchasing a canal-front lot because he “didn’t want to be limited” in the boat he could use -- with the Lot 18 Dock being able to accommodate two boats and additional PWC, with one lift suitable for a boat of a minimum of 32 feet, and the other which would “probably hold a 26-footer.” However, neither DEP nor Mr. Kent seemingly have any issue with the fact that Petitioners were previously not limited in owning any vessel that their slips could accommodate (generally up to 24 to 26 feet), and now they are limited to smaller, shallow draft boats that, even then, occasionally ground on the shoal. DEP and Mr. Kent both minimized the effect of the reduced depth for Petitioners to navigate, seemingly arguing that a depth of 29 to 32 inches -- the deepest point along the shoal at or near low tide13 -- is just as good as the four-foot depth acknowledged as being “a safe depth to be able to have a boat” 13 The maximum depth measured by DEP along the shoal was three feet, eight inches at a rising to high tide. Subtracting the normal 12 inch tidal range results in a depth of two feet, eight inches+/- (32 inches) at low tide. Every month for several days during the full moon, tides may vary by up to an additional 0.25 feet (3 inches) on both cycles. Thus, depths at the deepest point along the shoal are regularly reduced to 29 inches+/-. Furthermore, Mr. Sheffler measured depths in the vicinity of the Lot 18 Dock that were closer to two feet (24 inches). Given natural variations that occur on the bottom of natural bodies of water, both sets of measurements are credible. and safe for navigation by Mr. Durden and Ms. Mann, is just as good as the 53 inches of depth gained by Mr. Kent from his unpermitted dock extension, and is just as good as the six-foot depth of the boat access channel. The shallower, unsafe depths across the shoal are not just as good. Even Mr. Kent admitted that inches have navigable value, testifying with regard to the settlement of his illegal dock extension: I paid that fine. But I did that because it gave me like 4 or 5 inches more of depth. I wouldn't have wasted my money to extend my dock if I didn't get that. ... I'm just saying that I paid the fine and did the extra 30 feet because it got me 4 or 5 more inches of depth. The natural variation of bottom depths, as described by Mr. Tomasi, reveals the fallacy of basing determinations of navigability on small changes in depth measured by inches that can be counted on one hand, and the folly of trading clearance in feet for clearance in inches. Respondents argue that Petitioners should just be satisfied with smaller boats, or plan their outings to correspond to the tides,14 or trim their motors up to the point they may lose control,15 or carefully thread their way through slightly and almost imperceptively deeper areas on the shoal, all while avoiding collision with the Lot 18 Dock16 -- none of which would guarantee that they would not ground their vessels. Meanwhile, DEP proposes to allow Mr. Kent, who already had deep water access to Doctors 14 Mr. Tomasi testified that due to the likelihood of hitting bottom while crossing the shoal at low tide, Petitioners would have to pick the times for boating based on the tides, both coming and going. If they went out at a falling tide, they would have to wait until the tide started coming in to get back. Mr. Tomasi credibly and correctly opined that safe navigation “shouldn't be restricted to tides nor should you be restricted to a moon cycle.” 15 Mr. Hudson is an experienced boater, and credibly explained that to “trim up” a motor on a boat causes navigation to become more “challenging,” and that “with the propeller pushing water behind you, you lose a certain percentage of control or navigation.” Mr. Tomasi echoed that observation. Their testimony is credited. Lake via the boat access channel, to maximize his ability to have more and bigger boats, to the detriment of Petitioners and anyone else desiring to safely access the western canal. Petitioners have not sought permission to recreate in unusually large vessels or vessels not suitable for the area. They are simply asking to be able to safely navigate to and from their homes in boats six to eight feet smaller than Mr. Kent’s 32-footer, i.e. generally the size of his spare. This case is not one in which Petitioners are requesting that Mr. Kent relinquish his riparian right of navigation so that they can have larger vessels, or vessels inconsistent with normal family recreation. Rather, it is Mr. Kent’s desire to have larger and more vessels that has created this dispute. The evidence is clear that Mr. Kent had -- and has -- an unrestricted ability to navigate to and from Lot 18 via the boat access channel. Thus, although the Lot 18 Dock is a clear impairment of Petitioner’s rights to navigation, the denial of the permit and Letter of Consent would create no impairment of Mr. Kent’s right to navigation, and in no way would constitute an unreasonable infringement on Mr. Kent’s riparian rights. As a result of the construction of the Lot 18 Dock, the boat access channel, a marked, customarily used, and validly permitted and constructed navigation channel, for which mitigation credits were purchased and severance fees were paid to the state, has been entirely severed with seemingly no concern for the adverse effects on navigation suffered by the persons for whom the ability to safely navigate was intended. The position espoused by Respondents in this case simply creates a substantial and entirely unnecessary impediment to navigation, violating both the plain- language of, and the public policy behind DEP’s ERP rules, and the BTIITF’s sovereignty lands authority. 16 Winds or seas can push a boat around, a situation that is exacerbated when the motor is trimmed up. Therefore, one would generally not want to get close to the Lot 18 Dock, or any Letter of Consent Rule 18-21.004(7)(g) provides that “[s]tructures or activities shall not create a navigational hazard.” As set forth herein, the preponderance of the competent substantial evidence in this proceeding firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock has created a navigational hazard by severing the permitted, marked, and customarily used boat access channel, thus, forcing Petitioners and other persons wanting to use the waters in the area to cross the shallow shoal, which is both unsafe and unnecessary. Ms. Mann testified that, in determining whether the Lot 18 Dock is the “minimum size” necessary, “we had taken that to look at the other docks in the area, and if he is on average with those other docks, then we consider it minimum size for that area.” However, the definition of a “minimum size dock or pier” in BTIITF rule 18-21.003(39) includes a comparison to other permitted docks as but one factor for consideration. The rule provides, in pertinent part, that: “Minimum-size dock or pier” means a dock or pier that is the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming based on consideration of the immediate area’s physical and natural characteristics, customary recreational and navigational practices, and docks and piers previously authorized under this chapter. The evidence in this case firmly establishes that the Lot 18 Dock is not “the smallest size necessary to provide reasonable access to the water for navigating, fishing, or swimming.” Mr. Kent had reasonable access to the water for navigating by using the boat access channel, and could have used any vessel with a draft of six feet or less from a shoreline dock as permitted by the Corps in 2003. The Lot 18 Dock did not take into consideration the area’s customary recreational and navigational practices, which previously relied on the boat access channel. Other previously authorized docks in the dock, with the potential to be pushed into the dock, damaging the boat, the dock, or both. area are not appropriate comparators because none have access to the boat access channel, and none encroach into and sever a permitted navigational channel, as does the Lot 18 Dock. The Lot 18 Dock is not, as a factual matter, a “minimum size dock or pier.” The Lot 18 Dock preempts substantially more sovereignty submerged lands than necessary for Mr. Kent to wharf out to four feet of navigable water. Environmental Issues Petitioners argue that substantial resources, predominantly seagrasses, exist in the area along the shoal, which seagrasses would be churned and scoured by vessels navigating across the shoal, and that the Lot 18 Dock is, therefore, contrary to the public interest. Since 1994, submerged vegetation has declined in Doctors Lake as a result of drought, invasive species, and hurricanes, particularly those in 2017 and 2018. DEP notified the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (“DACS”) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FFWCC”) of the Lot 18 Dock application. DEP did not receive comments from FFWCC within 30 days, which generally indicates that it did not have objections. See § 20.331(10), Fla. Stat. The response, if any, from DACS was not disclosed. On June 8, 2020, DEP conducted a limited environmental survey of the shoal area adjacent to the Lot 18 Dock and in front of the western canal. The purpose of the survey was to determine if there is plant or animal life in the area, if the shoal area is of any environmental importance, and if it contains any endangered or protected species. Nine samples were taken at various locations along the “top” of the shoal, including dredge samples, a dip net sample, and one Shelby core sample. All were taken from a boat. The DEP sampling revealed that the substrate consists mostly of sand, with less than 2 percent muck or organic material mixed in or on top. There was little animal or plant life, except for some juvenile clams of unknown species that appeared in several of the samples. There was one sample with two small plant fragments, but it was not known whether they rooted in the bottom or if they drifted in. Mr. Durden testified that “[t]here certainly was no substantial amount of vegetation found anywhere.” There were no endangered or protected species. DEP concluded that the shoal is of low environmental value and suitable for authorization for a permit. On June 5, 2020, Mr. Estes conducted a study of the shoal area to determine if there was a presence of submerged aquatic vegetation in the area. He was there less than a half an hour. He generally concentrated his study area to the shallower area of the shoal closer to the mouth of the western canal from the 2’9” to 3’3” readings as depicted on Joint Exhibit 10. He did not pay much attention to the area around the Lot 18 Dock. Mr. Estes found a “very sparse coverage” of eelgrass, which is a species common in Doctors Lake. He also found some clams between 4 and 5 centimeters on average, which he believed to be adults. Mr. Estes was not able to opine whether the clams were important to a blue crab fishery in the area since it was outside of the scope of his study. Mr. Estes could not state that the area was of any current ecological significance. Rather, his testimony was limited to an opinion that conditions at the site were suitable for reestablishment of eelgrass. He believed that boats crossing the shoal could leave “prop scars” which would interfere with submerged vegetation recruiting back into those areas. The evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the Lot 18 Dock, or navigation across the shoal, will interfere with the current environmental functions of the area, will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or will adversely affect fishing and recreation rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying an environmental resource permit for the Lot 18 Dock, whether it be the revised general permit authorized in the December 6, 2019, Consent Order or an individual ERP; denying the November 19, 2019, Letter of Consent or other form of state lands authorization for the Lot 18 Dock; and requiring measures to reestablish the boat access channel and Petitioners’ rights of navigation in recognition of their riparian rights of navigation and the valid St. Johns River Water Management District Permit No 40-019- 86850-2, and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit No. 200300284 (IP- RLW). DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 31st day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Terrell K. Arline, Esquire Terrell K. Arline, Attorney at Law 1819 Tamiami Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Zachary Roth, Esquire Ansbacher Law Suite 100 8818 Goodby's Executive Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32217 (eServed) Andrew T. Kent 2059 Castle Point Court Fleming Island, Florida 32003 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1985, Applicant filed a request with the Department for a permit to construct a marina in a manmade basin (Captain's Cove) located on Lower Matecumbe Key, Monroe County, Florida. The permit sought by the Applicant, as modified, would allow it to construct a 52-slip docking facility consisting of two 5' x 248' docks, each with fourteen 3' x 40' finger piers and twelve associated mooring piles; and, approximately 590 linear feet of riprap revertment requiring the disposition of approximately 300 cubic yards of rock boulders landward and waterward of mean high water (MHW). All docks and finger piers would be constructed of prestressed concrete supported by concrete piles; mooring piles would be pressure treated wood. The Applicant proposes to organize the facility as a condominium development; however, live-aboard use will be prohibited. A manager's quarters, office, restrooms and a parking area will be provided on the adjacent uplands. The Department's October 3, 1985, notice of intent to issue, proposed to issue the requested permit subject to the following condition: The permittee is hereby advised that Florida law states: "No person shall commence any excavation, construction, or other activ- ity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use." If such work is done without consent, a fine for each offense in an amount of up to $10,000 may be imposed. Turbidity screens shall be utilized and properly maintained during the permitted construction and shall remain in place until any generated turbidity subsides. Only non-commercial, recreational boats shall be allowed to use the proposed marina. The applicant shall incorporate this condition into the condominium document for the proposed marina and supply the Department with a copy of the document prior to any sales of the condominium. No live-aboard boats shall be allowed in the marina. This condition shall also be placed in the condominium document. A portable sewage pumpout wagon shall be provided at the marina. Pumpout effluent shall be properly disposed of by methods acceptable to the department; these methods and locations shall be approved by the department prior to construction. A supply of oil absorbent materials, designed to clean up small oil spills, shall be maintained at the marina office. At least sixty (60) days prior to construction, the applicant shall submit to the Punta Gorda DER office for review, a detailed list of equip- ment to be permanently maintained on site. This list of equipment shall be modified as necessary and approved by the department prior to construction. The uplands on the permittee's property shall be graded to direct stormwater away from the edge of the boat basin. No fuel facilities nor storage shall be allowed at the project. Only clean rock boulders free from attached sediments or other deleterious compounds, and of a minimum diameter of 2' or greater shall be installed as riprap. 1O. The Marathon Department of Environmen- tal Regulation office shall be notified 48 hours prior to commencement of work. "IDLE SPEED-NO WAKE" signs shall be placed at conspicuous locations at the docking facility with additional language that "this precaution exists throughout the length of the canal channel during ingress and egress". At least two trash receptacles shall be provided on each of the two main walkway piers: these receptacles shall be routinely maintained and emptied. Prior to dockage use by boats, marker buoys shall be established around all vege- tated shallow zones within the limits of the submerged property limits with signs advising boaters of "SHALLOW WATERS-NO ENTRY". Prior to construction, the applicant and the Mara- thon DER office shall meet to discuss accept- able locations for these markers. The project shall comply with applic- able State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria 17-3.121 - Criteria - Class III Waters - Recreation, Propagation and Management of Fish and Wildlife: Surface Waters. The Applicant has agreed to comply with all conditions established by the Department. The Marina Site Captain's Cove is a manmade navigable lagoon with access to Florida Bay through a 2,500' long by 100' wide canal located opposite the project site. The waters of Captain's Cove and the canal are designated Class III surface waters, and those of Florida Bay as Outstanding Florida Waters. The controlling depth for access to the proposed marina is found at the mouth of the canal, where Florida Bay is approximately 6' mean low water (MLW). Depths within the canal are typically 1' or 2' deeper than the controlling depth at the mouth. Captain's Cove is roughly rectangular in shape. It measures 1,400' northeast to southwest, and up to 500' northwest to southeast. In the vicinity of the Applicant's property, which is located in the northeast fifth of the cove, the cove measures 350' wide. The bottom depth of the cove is variable. The southwestern four-fifths of the cove was typically dredged to a depth of 25' MLW. Within the northeast fifth of the cove (the basin), a gradation in depths is experienced. The northwest portion of the basin, located outside the project site, is typically 5' - 6' MLW, and heavily vegetated by sea grasses (turtle grass, manatee grass, and Cuban shoalweed). The southeast portion of the basin, which abuts the Applicant's property, consists of a shallow shelf 10' - 20' in width. Beyond this shelf, the bottom drops off steeply to a depth of 20' MLW. The shelf abutting the Applicant's property is sparsely vegetated with mangroves, and provides limited habitat for aquatic fauna such as domingo mussels and paper oysters. Replacement of these mangroves and other shoreline vegetation with riprap would not significantly affect the biological balance within the cove and would provide suitable habitat for existing species. The waters within the cove are quite clear, and meet the Department's water quality standards except for a thin layer at the deepest part of the cove where dissolved oxygen violations were noted. The proposed marina is, however, to be located in the northeast fifth of the cove, opposite the access canal, where the waters are more shallow and water circulation more prevelant. As sited, the proposed marina will not exacerbate or contribute to a violation of the Department's water quality criteria. Areas of Concern During construction of the marina elevated turbidity may be expected by disruption of the basin sediments caused by installation of the facility's pilings. This can be adequately controlled, however, by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. Shading of the benthic environment is a long term impact associated with marinas. Since the boat slips will be located in the deeper 20' MLW depth of the basin, where seagrasses are not present, sunlight will be permitted to reach the productive areas of the basin lying at 5' - 6' MLW and no adverse impact from shading will be experienced. Boats by their very existence and operation present potential negative short term and long term impacts to the environment. Potential damage to the seagrass beds in the northwest portion of the basin will be eliminated or minimized by the planned installation of buoys and/or signs prohibiting navigation in that area. Potential damage from wave action generated by boat operation will be eliminated or minimized by designating and posting the marina and access channel as an "idle speed-no wake" zone.[footnote 1] [footnote 1: Intervenors raised some concern regarding possible impact to the Florida manatee. While manatee have been sighted in the access channel, their occurrence is infrequent. Marking the shallow areas and designating the area as an "idle speed-no wake" zone will provide reasonable assurances that the manatee will not be adversely affected by the proposed marina.] The fueling of boats, hull maintenance, boat cleaning (detergents), and sewage discharge are additional pollution sources associated with marinas. While the proposed marina will have no fueling facilities and no live-aboards will be allowed at the marina, additional conditions must be attached to the permit to eliminate or minimize potential impacts from these potential pollution sources. In addition to the conditions established by the Department, the following conditions are necessary: All craft docked at the marina shall be prohibited from pumping sewage into the waters of the cove. Use of the boat slips shall be limited to those person(s) who own the slip. Leasing of boat slips shall be prohibited. Living aboard any boat docked at the marina is prohibited at all times.[footnote 2] [footnote 2: During hearing some concern was raised regarding the definition of live- aboard. The Department's intent in specifying no live-aboards was that no person(s) stay overnight on any boat moored at the marina. The purpose of this condition is to clarify that intent.] No boat cleaning, hull maintenance, nor fish cleaning shall be allowed at the permitted facility. Limiting use of the boat slips to owners will provide reasonable assurances that the conditions imposed on the requested permit will be complied with. Prohibiting live- aboards, the pumping of sewage, fish cleaning, boat cleaning and hull maintenance, will provide reasonable assurances that Department standards for bacteriological and water quality will not be violated.
The Issue The issues presented in this hearing concern the request by Ortega Island, Inc. to be granted permission, by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, to construct a bridge across the Stockton Canal in Duval County, Florida. The permit review is under the general authority of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and associated rules.
Findings Of Fact In July, 1980, Ortega Island, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Respondent, filed an application with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, which would allow it to construct a bridge giving access from a mainland area to an adjacent spoil island known as Ortega Island. The spoil island was created in 1959. This proposed project is found in Duval County Florida. The island is approximately 42 acres in size and is adjacent to the Ortega River in an area roughly two and a half miles from the confluence of the Ortega and St. Johns Rivers. The body of water to be spanned by the proposed bridge is known as the Stockton Canal, a man-made canal. That canal is connected at its north and south ends to the Ortega River. The State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, which will now be referred to as the Department, reviewed the initial application of July, 1980, and a revision of May, 1981. The review was conducted by the Northeast District Office of the Department. A further modification was offered through a revised construction plan which dates from May, 1982. Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 4 is constituted of the initial applications related to the project design and certain comments made by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondent has sought the approval of its permit application based upon the belief that the project involves dredging below the mean high water line and filling above the mean high water line of waters of the state. Consequently, Department approval has been sought pursuant to those Sections 253.123 and 403.087, Florida Statutes, and the related provisions in Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. In the initial permit application of July, 1980, the applicant had proposed to construct a 20-foot concrete span, eight feet high, which was to be connected to the mainland and Ortega Island by the placement of fill material, thereby building causeways which extended approximately 55 feet into the canal from each end of the shore. This would have entailed the placement of 3,000 cubic yards of fill waterward of the mean high water line and reduced the canal width to 20 feet at the area of the bridge site. The Department did not look with favor upon the elimination of marine habitat by the construction of causeways and the attendant adverse impacts in the hydrographic regime in the Stockton Canal. This is shown in the Department's remarks found in Respondents' Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. To address those concerns, the Respondent employed Dr. Barry Benedict, an expert in the field of hydrographic engineering, who conducted hydrographic studies of the Stockton Canal. These studies are found as part of Respondents' Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. In summary, Dr. Benedict recommended that the bridge span be no less than 48 feet. Pamela Sperling, the hydrographic expert of the Department, reviewed these materials and concurred that a minimum span length of 48 feet would be necessary. This is reflected in a memorandum offered by Ms. Sperling, which is Respondents' Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. The May, 1981, revision of the project calling for 52 foot bridge span is the result of the Benedict study and the remarks of Sperling. That proposal would allow for 39 foot causeways on each end of the bridge and 2,000 cubic yards of fill material waterward of the mean high water line. Notwithstanding the acceptance of the hydrographic improvements related to the new provision, the Department still was concerned about adverse impacts to marine habitat which would occur with the placement of fill on related biological resources. Likewise, the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, United States Department of Interior, and United States Environmental protection Agency had expressed concern about this destruction. Those comments are found in Respondents' Exhibit Nos. 13 through 16 respectively, as admitted into evidence. In the face of these reservations, the May, 1982, revision was made, which would allow a total span of the waterway, eliminating causeways and fill material below the mean high water line. Following the May, 1982, revision, the Department issued its notice of intent to grant the permit. Notification was made on September 10, 1982, a copy of which may be found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 17 admitted into evidence. The permit application appraisal by the Department was conducted by Tim Deuerling, who is an Environmental Specialist who assesses dredge and fill permit applications. Mr. Deuerling additionally has expertise in the field of biology and water quality analysis related to dredge and fill activities. His appraisal of the project is based upon several visits to the site, and his impressions of the site are outlined in a report of October 30, 1980. A copy is found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. On April 1, 1983, a further revision was offered to the permit application. The initial aspect of that revision concerned stormwater disposal for a concrete bridge. The remaining aspect of the revision was the suggestion that a timber bridge be considered as an alternative structure. The April 1, 1983, revision formed the basis of the consideration of the project by way of final hearing. The Petitioners protested consideration of the April, 1983, revision contending that the revision was not appropriately reviewed by the agency, in that it constituted a substantial revision in the application process and was not the application which the agency had accepted in indicating its proposal to grant the permit in September, 1982. The hearing was allowed to go forward over the objection of the opponents to the permit, it having been determined by the Hearing Officer that the revisions of April, 1983, were not so remarkable that they would require a new permit application or further agency study and review prior to the formulation of proposed agency action in deciding to grant or deny the permit request. Further, it was determined that the April, 1983, revision could be considered without the necessity of additional notification of the issues to be considered in the hearing, there being an adequate opportunity for the applicant to develop the record in favor of those modifications and to allow the Department, Petitioners, and Intervenor to form the needed record response. In the dispute as considered at the final hearing, the petitioners and Intervenor contended that the project should not be allowed because it fails to comply with requisite provisions of 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the associated rules related to those statutes. In addition to the protest which has been made by those individuals having party status in this instance, there have been other written statements in opposition which may be found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 18 admitted into evidence, a composite exhibit. Those objections by Petitioners and Intervenor are more specifically detailed and discussed in further sections of this Recommended Order. Under the April 1, 1983, proposal, the concrete bridge is composed of a system of hollow cord deck members supported by concrete piles. There are six pile bents and four of those are within the waterway. The spacing between the piles is 24 feet minimum horizontal clearance, with the bottom of the bridge deck being eight feet above the water at the lowest clearance point. The bridge span is 130 feet, to allow the bridge construction to be completed without the placement of fill below the line of mean high water on either end of the bridge. The bridge approaches under the new proposal are constituted of asphaltic concrete roadways supported by fill material and that fill material is separated from the waterway by the use of sheet pilings. Water drainage from the deck surface of the concrete bridge would flow through a collection system, which is part of the bridge structure. The water, which is released from the bridge surface on the mainland side, would be transported to a stilling and percolation basin also serving a residential area of approximately 42 acres. The water from the 42 acres now flows through a grass swale before entering the canal. The project design would accommodate the 42 acre flow and the .35 acres from the bridge. The water from the 42 acre plot and the bridge project flows into the Stockton Canal after receiving some water treatment in the transport process. The volume of the percolation basin is 620 cubic feet. The establishment of this percolation basin will not adversely affect the adjacent properties in the 42 acre tract by prohibiting the flow patterns from that property or sufficiently change the quality of stormwater treatment from the adjacent property to cause adverse impacts on receiving waters in the Stockton Canal. Runoff from the bridge to the island side of the proposed concrete structure would flow through a swale system for treatment before entering the Stockton Canal. The treatment afforded all runoff is by surface flow and vertical percolation. The alternative bridge structure, i.e., the wooden bridge, would span the Stockton Canal and not require filling either waterward or landward of the mean high water line. Unlike the concrete bridge, the deck surface is pervious. Consequently, water may be introduced directly into the canal from the deck surface. The stormwater runoff on the bridge approach on the mainland side would be collected and discharged through the existing grass swale and from there, into the canal. Drainage from the bridge surface and approach on the island side would be through a swale system and from there into the canal. The Stockton Canal is constituted of Class III waters within the meaning of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, the Respondent is required to give reasonable assurances that the project would not violate water quality criteria or standards related to Class III waters. In this instance, construction and utilization of the concrete bridge, with its attendant approaches, would not degrade the water below those standards, that is to say, the necessary reasonable assurances have been given that the short and long-term effects of the project will not result in violations of Class III water quality standards. The latest concrete modification allows for the removal and treatment of the stormwater effluent which flows from the bridge surface and approaches. No fill is to be placed in the waters of the state below the mean high water line. (The mean high water line was established in the course of the hearing through the testimony and the evidence presented.) Fill will be contained by sheet pile. Turbidity screens will be used while the construction is underway to confine turbidity problems in the placement of the bridge pilings. Siltation barriers are to be employed while removing the existing root overhang on the island side of the bridge to avoid the deposition of those materials in the waters of the state. The timber bridge allows for water to flow directly from the surface into the canal but the contaminants introduced into the canal would not exceed standards. According to Harvey C. Gray, Jr., State of Florida, Department of Transportation, an expert in chemical water quality analysis, the expected constituents from the stormwater runoff from the bridge decks either directly or indirectly introduced into the canal would not violate water quality criteria parameters. Nor would leaching from the wooden bridge pilings present a violation of water quality criteria. These opinions are accepted. A study mentioned by Harvey Gray has established that the contaminants from the deck surface are usually contained in the first half inch of rainfall and the treatment arrangements for stormwater runoff are designed to accommodate that first half inch. The source of pollution on the deck is vehicular traffic and vehicular fallout. Moreover the transport of the stormwater over the land surface attenuates the concentration of pollutants. Don Clay Bayley is Chief of the Environmental Services Division, City of Jacksonville. Testimony given by the witness Bayley, who has some experience in testing for leaching of contaminants from wood pilings, pointed out the toxicity of those materials. He acknowledges, however, that treatment substances can be used which are not toxic. The applicant should use these substances if the timber bridge is employed. Bayley alluded to studies done by the Department of Transportation for the Buckman Bridge, which is a bridge serving Interstate 95, related to the fact that violations of lead, zinc, and copper standards of water quality have been found in that area. These observations did not take into account an acceptable mixing zone where the contaminants are to be introduced into the St. Johns River under the bridge. More importantly, the Buckman Bridge is very different in terms of the amount of vehicle traffic, in that there are an extremely high number of vehicles using that bridge, as contrasted with the limited use of the subject bridge. Therefore, Bayley's concerns are not well- founded. Otherwise, the timber bridge offers the same quality of protection as the concrete bridge and reasonable assurances have been given that the short and long-term affects of the project will not violate water quality standards for Class III waters. Nonetheless, the higher quality of water treatment would be received in the concrete bridge alternative. In support of the application, sufficient water quality sampling has been done to establish reasonable assurances that water quality standards shall not be exceeded. Moreover, nutrient loading is not expected as a result of the bridge construction. In addition, witnesses Deuerling, Tyler and Craft, employees of the Department and experts in water quality analysis, do not believe water quality criteria will be exceeded by this construction, and their opinion is accepted. In summary, the necessary reasonable assurances have been given that water quality criteria related to Class III waters, as found in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, will not be exceeded and that the project will not promote undue nutrient loading as contemplated by Rule 17-3.011(11), Florida Administrative Code. Peter Hallock, project engineer, established in his testimony that either alternative in the bridge design would not adversely affect drainage related to adjoining properties on the landside of the bridge. The concerns expressed by Dr. Arlynn Quinton White, Jr., Department of Biology and Marine Science, Jacksonville University, of the possibility of stormwater impacts, with particular emphasis on hydrocarbon concentrations, are not accepted. The runoff is not found to be violative of water quality standards in the receiving waters. These findings take into account the expected maximum number of average daily trips, 460. Given the number of average daily trips, the stormwater contaminants, which are untreated, would not violate DER water quality standards. The number of average daily trips on the proposed bridge is much less than the 4,000 trips over the study bridge referenced by the witness Gray and generally discussed before. That study did not show violations of the criteria for Class III waters, which is the classification for the Stockton Canal. The location of the study, while not in Duval County, dealt with sufficiently similar circumstances to allow the acceptance of those findings. Testimony was presented by Dr. Barry Benedict, author of the aforementioned hydrographic study. His testimony concerned an analysis of the flow patterns at present and following the installation of the bridge. The testimony was based upon results of the initial investigation or study, found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence and the update of April 18, 1983, found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. Dr. Benedict's analysis utilized a liberal estimate of the impact of the bridge on the canal system on the question of flow. His findings were to the effect that the bridge would cause minimal change in the flow velocity of the water and in sedimentation in the overall canal. He did not feel that the installation of the bridge would unduly hamper the flushing qualities in the canal or result in a flood hazard to adjacent properties. This was his opinion whether the concrete alternative or timber bridge were elected. Benedict felt that a maximum nine percent difference in flow would occur bringing the flushing time within the canal system from 3 hours and 30 minutes to approximately 3 hours and 45 minutes. This, in Benedict's mind, is not a substantial hydrographic alteration. In summary, Benedict felt that the installation of the bridge would have minimal impact in terms of hydrographics. Benedict's depiction of these matters is accepted as being correct. The Department of Environmental Regulation's hydrographic engineer and specialist in hydrodynamics and water quality analysis concurred with Dr. Benedict on the hydrographic effects of the installation of the bridge. Her concurrence is based upon a review of the Respondents' Exhibit No. 6. Ms. Sperling had also examined the site for the proposed bridge project and made independent calculations that the flow velocity would not be significantly influenced by the installation of the bridge. Ms. Sperling believes that a flushing time which is essentially one half tidal cycle or six hours is acceptable, and she believes that the flushing time in this project after the bridge installation will fall within three and a half to four hours. Sperling also indicated that she did not feel that the bridge project would have adverse effects on the water quality within the canal. The opinions of Sperling, as related herein, are accepted as factually correct. George Robert Register, III, who holds a bachelor's degree in biology and a master's degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering, gave testimony on the hydrographics within the Stockton Canal. Register's opinions were not based upon testing or calculations related to the project such as sediment analysis, studies of tides, or soil borings. He noted the gradual shallowing which has occurred within the canal over a period of years and expressed concern that the change in flow could result in a more rapid shallowing. He alluded to the observations of Frederick W. Brundick, III, a resident of the Stockton Canal, who has seen the shallowing occur over a 20-year period. Register also stated that he feels that the present situation in the Stockton Canal is similar in nature to a problem which occurred in another area of the Greater St. Johns River which is known as Mill Cove. In that instance, dramatic silting has taken place. Register contended that boat traffic helps to suspend the particles of soil and alleviate silting, an influence which will be diminished after bridge construction due to less traffic. Register indicated that the analysis of the hydrographics, which was done by Dr. Benedict, was insufficient and indicated that, in his opinion, a stability test should have been done related to the project area. The stability analysis pertains to whether the water system will continue in its present flow pattern or is on the brink of rapid shallowing. While the observations of Register and Brundick related to the shallowing of the canal system are accepted, Register's opinion that the present system will rapidly deteriorate into a more shallow configuration, as with the case with Mill Cove, is not accepted. Nor is Register's suggestion that a stability test was in order on this occasion found to be correct. The calculations by Dr. Benedict, confirmed by Sperling, are found to be the more accurate depiction of the effects of the installation of the bridge. The placement of the bridge is not expected to be an event which will imbalance the flow patterns in such a fashion that rapid siltation will occur. Based upon Department of Environmental Regulation reports, the types of sediments in the canal subject to water borne transportation are silty. They have low fall velocities, which would make them less likely to increase sedimentation in the canal system due to the installation of the bridge, when compared to other soil types. The sediment materials are very fine and not such that they would readily settle out due to minor reductions in the flow velocity, such as would occur with the construction of the bridge. Although the reduction in flow velocity within the canal system after the bridge build-out is not such that it would cause water quality violations or substantially impede the flow, there will be some increase in siltation. This change in sedimentation or siltation is recognized by the Respondent, in the person of its expert, Dr. Benedict. The fact of this increase in siltation would require channel maintenance within the canal, and no provision has been made in the application for channel maintenance. That maintenance is necessary to prohibit undue shallowing, especially at the location of the bridge. This siltation at the bridge will result based upon the placement of the pilings, which will slow the velocity of water, leading to attachment of marine organisms to the bridge pilings. Consequently, provision should be made for channel maintenance. Likewise, even though the Respondent hopes to eventually have a homeowner's association responsible for bridge maintenance, that issue of the development of the island was not considered in the course of this hearing, making it necessary for someone to maintain the constructed bridge and approaches prior to any future development. That provision had not been made and should be arranged for. Both the channel and bridge maintenance would be an appropriate responsibility for the applicant for permit. The necessity for the bridge and canal to be maintained by the applicant is not such that the Department, pursuant to Rule 17-4.11, Florida Administrative Code, should require proof of financial responsibility or posting of a bond. If the applicant is financially able to construct the bridge, it is determined that the applicant could be expected to be financially able to maintain the bridge and canal. Witnesses of the Petitioners, in particular, the witness Bayley, have expressed concern about the placement of fill material on Ortega Island, in that it is the belief of that witness that the placement of the fill would displace the muck layer which would then be forced into the canal. Witnesses White and Register supported Bayley's opinions reference the muck layer. There is, in fact, a muck underlay on the island, and the placement of the fill soil can be expected to force the transport of some of the muck underlayer. The amount of muck layer to be displaced is not certain; however, by placing the piling barrier at the edge of the canal the muck can be contained. The applicant has made provision for protection against the muck material where the pilings are proposed for installation. Nonetheless, it may be necessary to extend the length of pilings beyond the area of the bridge abutment and approach to the bridge on the island side, to contain this material, and the applicant should make any necessary modification to prohibit the introduction of the highly organic muck material which could cause problems with ph and dissolved oxygen content related to water quality standards. In summary, the applicant has given the necessary reasonable assurances that the muck material will not violate water quality standards in the water, subject to necessary adjustments in the piling design on the island side in the area of the bridge approaches to block the flow of the muck. On the related question of the overall stability of the island, the geomorphologic process evidence shows that the island is becoming more inundated with water. This is borne out by the observations of Mr. Brundick, a 20-year resident in the area of the island, and is more graphically described in the photographs which are Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. His finding is also supported by the observations of Dr. White to the effect that certain vegetational species seen on the island indicated that increased island area was under water. The placement of the bridge approach fill was not shown to be a critical contributor to this condition. Notwithstanding the island's long-term physical change, there was no indication that this condition, per se, when considered in the context of the building of the bridge and the approaches, indicates violation of the permitting statutes or rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation. The development or the construction of the bridge requires the dredging of material in waters of the state. Per Section 253.123, Florida Statutes and Sections 17-4.29, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent/Applicant needs to address the possible interference with conservation of fish, marine, and wildlife and other natural resources which the project may promote contrary to public interest. Respondent satisfactorily responds to those matters. The biological and ecological studies, which were done by the Department of Environmental Regulation, and reported in Respondents' Exhibits 8 and 9, indicate that the area in the Stockton Canal is not particularly productive in terms of its biological volume and diversity. There is very little litoral vegetation and submerged grasses are scarce. The most diverse area is in the proposed project site which formally was the location of a bridge. The remains of that bridge debris have promoted a more diversified biological community. To protect the species and habitat during and after construction, the applicant is using a full span bridge, which is in keeping with recommendations by various state and federal agencies. The testimony of the expert biologist Tim Deuerling of the Department of Environmental Regulation, was to the effect that the impacts of the project related to biological resources was minimal. Jeremy Craft, of the Department of Environmental Regulation, agrees with Deuerling and indicates that there will be no impact on the resources pertaining to fish, marine, and other natural resources. Moreover, both Deuerling and Craft felt that the placement of the bridge piling would grant an opportunity for increased biological diversity in the Stockton Canal. Jeremy Tyler also indicated that he was of the opinion that the bridge would not negatively impact fish, wildlife, and other natural resources premised upon the fact that no fill was being placed waterward of the mean high water line and no substantial changes in the hydrographics of the canal system. These opinions expressed by Deuerling, Craft, and Tyler are accepted as being correct. The installation of the bridge will not result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity including destruction of marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, and establishment of marine soils which could be used for producing plant growth useful for nursing or feeding grounds for marine life or interfere with the natural shoreline processes to an extent that is contrary to the public interest within the meaning of Subsection 253.123(2)(d) Florida Statutes. It was additionally established that the placement of the canal will not interfere with the endangered West Indian Manatee, the area of the canal having insufficient vegetation for the manatee to feed on. Any manatee passing through the area of the canal will not be hindered by the bridge's placement. Additionally, there may be some benefit to the placement of the bridge in that it would tend to slow the boat traffic, decreasing the possibility of injury to the manatee by boat propellers. This was established by testimony of the witness Deuerling. In summary, no showing was made that the project will adversely impact fish, marine, and other natural resources in the area to the extent that it is contrary to the public interest. Benedict and Sperling have established, through their opinion testimony, that the installation of the bridge would not have an adverse impact on the shoaling conditions which are occurring at the north and south entrances to the canal. This testimony is correct. The shoaling conditions will occur with or without the construction of the bridge. Moreover, as established through Benedict's testimony, during a flood stage condition, such as a flood tide five feet above mean high water, the bridge would make no notable contribution, in that it would cause a backup of water only in the range of two to three inches. The bridge, when installed, will reduce boat traffic. Nonetheless, at present, boats are not a primary factor in reducing the amount of siltation in the canal and a further reduction in the contribution which those boats make to reduction of siltation is inconsequential. Any positive contribution by boat traffic in reducing siltation is offset by the negative impact of that traffic on water quality. On the subject of hydrographic changes to be brought about by the installation of the bridge, there will be no substantial alteration or impediment to the flow of water in the Stockton Canal to an extent that it is contrary to the public interest. As briefly alluded to before, there will be some impacts upon navigation in the canal; however, those impacts do not reach the level of becoming a hazard to navigation or a serious impediment to navigation contrary to the public interest. At present, approximately 20 boats may use the canal in a weekend according to the testimony of Fred Brundick. The canal already has a "no wake" zone and the placement of the bridge will not tend to interfere with the speed of boat traffic through the canal. If anything, the placement of the bridge may assist in slowing down boat traffic within the canal for those individuals who tend to disregard the "no wake" zone. The shoaling, which has been spoken to in a prior paragraph, is most severe in the north end where minimum controlling depths of 3.7 feet mean low tide may be found as contrasted with 4.4 feet mean low tide at the south end. Therefore, southern access into the canal is easier for those persons who have residences on the canal and other persons who use the canal, when their boats have deep drafts. Smaller boats will be able to enter the canal from the north and south if the bridge is constructed, in view of the fact that the bridge affords an eight foot clearance. Those boats which would not be able to gain entrance into the canal after the construction of the bridge would be boats which require more than 4.4 feet of draft and greater than eight feet of vertical clearance. H. J. Skelton, a resident of the landside of the north end of the canal, testified in the course of the hearing and indicated that the placement of the bridge would limit the type and size of boat that he might wish to purchase in the future. At present, he does not own a boat or dock at his residence. Witness Brundick also established that he would be precluded from bringing one of his boats to his home because of the placement of the bridge, except at extremely high tide events. That boat is one which is infrequently moored at his home. Raymond Perry Harris, who lives on the canal, has difficulty bringing his boat through the north end at low tide, and he would be unable to utilize the southern entrance at low tide due to the 14 foot clearance necessary for the boat to go under obstacles such as the bridge. He brings this boat to the dock at his home approximately three to four times a month. Although it has been demonstrated that there will be some hindrance to local residents and others due to the placement of the bridge, the only hazard presented by the placement of the bridge concerns boat operators who are not attentive and water-skiers. This latter category of canal users would be utilizing the canal contrary to the "no wake zone, even without the placement of the bridge. Thus, water-skiers and careless boat operators are not the categories of individuals who use the canal and by doing so should cause the rejection of this permit request. On balance, the proposed bridge is not a hazard or impediment to navigation and its restrictions to the utilization of the canal are not contrary to the public interest. The minimal restrictions on navigation are within acceptable limits. The project, in its design, will not require the placement of fill below the line of mean high water. Determination of the mean high water line was made by a registered surveyor and that determination may be found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. Consequently, no local approval was sought pursuant to Section 253.1245, Florida Statutes (1982). There is no extension to land by the process of the construction of this project. However, there is an area of overhanging vegetation with an underlying undulation/indentation, which by its design causes the vegetation to be slightly above the water at low tide and under water at high tide, with the indentation being configured in a fashion which places the line of mean high water further landward than depicted by the applicant. The locale of these features is at the construction site on the island side. This phenomenon has occurred due to the changes related to erosion. The indentation or cave eroded because of tidal influences and boat traffic, leaving the vegetation mass. The overhang material would be removed, and this process does not involve the extension of land from a point above the line of mean high water into waters of the state. A siltation barrier would be used while this overhang is being cleared, and the sheet piling would be installed at or above the mean high water line, and associated work related to the installation of the pile would be landward of the line of mean high water. The applicant's plans do not show that the piling barrier or bulkhead will follow the configuration of that phenomenon. At present, there is a straight line bulkhead. Nonetheless, the applicant could vary the configuration and prevent the placement of fill in the water. To accommodate this problem from an engineering point of view, the bridge can be lengthened to assure that the bridge spans the entire waterway at the point of the phenomenon and thereby prevent any placement of fill waterward of the line of mean highwater. In addition, the bulkhead can be placed so that it follows the configuration of the undulation. In summary, treatment of the overhang problem will not require the extension of land into waters of the state by the placement of fill below the mean high water line as described in Section 253.1245, Florida Statutes (1982) . Moreover, the removal of the material in the overhang and the placement of the bulkhead to approximate the configuration of the cave and expansion of the bridge span on the island side are not actions which would violate water quality standards of the Department or are contrary to public interest related to conservation of fish, marine wildlife, or other natural resources. Neither will this tend to adversely impact or substantially alter or impede the flow of navigable waters contrary to public interest nor present a navigational hazard or serious impediment to navigation contrary to public interest. There is some indication of concern on the topic of decreased property values for residents on the landside on the proposed bridge. Likewise, testimony was given concerning the opinion of one homeowner that additional traffic would be hazardous to persons living in the present neighborhood adjacent to the canal. Additionally Phillip Fred Baumgardner is a member of the general public and gave testimony to the effect that the installation of the bridge would prohibit certain commercial boats from being able to work the canal. Owen Ganzel, who fishes in the area, expressed concern that the bridge installation would cause a decline in fish population; however, he indicated that lately, the Ortega Island area has improved These concerns are not substantial enough to cause the rejection of this permit application based upon public-interest concerns.
