Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns property adjacent to Sims Creek located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Petitioner is undertaking a development on the property. The development was initiated by the Great American Anvil Corporation, the previous owner of the property. The development as originally conceived included construction of a dock in Sims Creek. The Great American Anvil Corporation applied for a permit to the State Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. On February 5, 1975, a permit was issued to allow Great American Anvil Corporation "to construct eight (8) finger piers each twenty feet long by two feet wide, and three triangular piers twenty feet long by five feet wide at the base and two feet wide at the top" in Sims Creek. The permit was issued for construction of the docking facility and by its terms expired on a specified date. The permit was never assigned or transferred to Petitioner. The permit has expired, and is no longer effective. A bulkhead has already been constructed along Petitioner's property. Petitioner is seeking a permit which would authorize it to construct a perimeter dock which would run along the approximately three hundred foot border of Petitioner's property and Sims Creek, and extend four feet over Sims Creek. Petitioner is also seeking to construct ten piers out from the perimeter dock, each of which would be twenty-five feet long and two feet wide. Mooring spaces would be provided for sixteen or more boats The perimeter dock and the ten piers would be supported by pilings which would be placed in the creek bottom. The permit application provides that the pilings would be installed by a process called "jetting". Sims Creek is a natural, navigable tributary of the Loxahatchee River. The mouth of Sims Creek on the Loxahatchee River is located in fairly close proximity to where a canal known as the "C-18 Canal" empties into the river. Sims Creek is a winding stream which has been relatively undisturbed by development. Petitioner's project is located approximately one thousand to fourteen hundred linear feet upland from the mouth of the creek. Approximately five hundred feet upland from the proposed docks, the creek veers sharply to the south and becomes significantly more shallow. The creek is influenced by both estuarine and tidal flows. During high tides, water flows from the Loxahatchee River upland into the creek. During low tides the water flows out of the creek into the Loxahatchee River. In addition, water generally drains through the creek into the river. The creek has good flushing characteristics. The "residence time" for water in the creek is typically one day, except in isolated pockets along the shoreline, and in deeper basins which occur in the creek. The area of the creek where the proposed docks would be constructed is a basin area. Waters reach a depth of eight feet. This area of the creek is stressed in water quality terms. Dissolved oxygen values measured at the site are in excess of Department standards. This is the result of the depth at the location; the oozy, organic bottom soils; and the fact that a storm water outfall and a sewage outfall enter the creek on the opposite side from Petitioner's property. The creek is generally more shallow than in this basin area. Near to the mouth of the creek, water depths are as shallow as 2.25 feet during high tide. The deepest continuous channel from the proposed docks to the mouth of the river is approximately three feet at high tide, and from one to one and one-half feet at low tide. The shallower areas of the creek are characterized by sandy bottoms, good water quality, and a rather high level of plant and animal activity which is diverse. Shorelines along most of the creek are dominated by mangrove vegetation. There is presently a limited amount of boating activity that occurs in the creek. Persons who testified at the hearing witnessed at various times from one to seven small motor craft in the creek. Construction of the perimeter dock and piers in the manner proposed by Petitioner in its application would have significant adverse short term water quality impacts. The "jetting process" for installing pilings would result in considerable turbidity which would be likely to violate state standards within the area of construction, and downstream to the mouth of the creek. These short term adverse impacts could be alleviated by installing the pilings through a "driving technique" and by use of turbidity screens. Petitioner has expressed a willingness to utilize these construction techniques. The proposed docking facility is likely to have an adverse impact upon water quality in Sims Creek. The project, if completed, is likely to cause violations of the Department's water quality standards. Dissolved oxygen levels in the area of the proposed project already exceed the Department's standards. The Petitioner's proposed docks would cover a significant portion of the water surface with docks, and this would exacerbate dissolved oxygen levels. Furthermore, increased boating activity in the area would, due to the interjection of greases and oils, further adversely impact dissolved oxygen levels, and can reasonably be expected to lead to violations of the Department's standards for biologic oxygen demand and oils and greases. Petitioner's proposed docking facility includes mooring spaces for approximately sixteen boats. The dock would serve therefore to increase boating activity in Sims Creek by three times or more Sims Creek is difficult to navigate without disturbing the productive shallow bottom areas. Increased boating activity is likely to disturb these areas and to lead to the destruction of a natural marine habitat. Sims Creek is too shallow a water body to sustain the sort of boating traffic that would be generated through construction of a docking facility such as Petitioner has proposed. Sims Creek is sovereignty land of the State of Florida. Petitioner has not received approval from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources to use Sims Creek in the manner proposed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation denying the application submitted by Landin Ltd, for a dredge and fill permit to construct a docking facility in Sims Creek, West Palm Beach, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 5th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis R. Johnson, Esquire 308 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33458 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Counsel for the respective parties stipulated to the following facts: Quayside Associates, Ltd., is a Florida limited partnership whose address is 10670 N.E. Quay Plaza, North Miami, Florida 33134. Respondent is the Department of Environmental Regulation, an agency of the State of Florida as defined in Section 120.52(1), Florida Statutes. This Petition relates to the Department's File No. DF13-28371-6E. Petitioner was the applicant for the subject permit and will, as applicant, be directly affected by a denial thereof. On February 28, 1980, Petitioner applied to the Department for approval of its Phase II Docking Facility which included an elevated walkway with wave break panels, nineteen (19) new wet slips and twenty-five (25) davits. (Exhibit "1") On March 6, 1980, a completeness review form was sent to the applicant's representative by the Department. (Exhibit "2") On March 6, 1980, the applicant's representative responded to the comments of the Department and completeness summary by letter from J. Frederic Blitstein to the Department's Subdistrict Office. (Exhibit "3") As shown by the Department letter of May 29, 1980, response to the completeness summary were received by the Department from the applicant on March 7 and 11, 1980, with final Department of Natural Resources clearance, as requested by the completeness summary, received by the Department of March 14, 1980 (see Exhibit 4). The response of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources is attached hereto as Exhibit "5". On March 20, 1980, the representative of the Department made an on-site visit to the site as shown by the Departmental Summary Permit Processing Worksheet attached as Exhibit "6". On April 9, 1980, the Department received the comments and recommendations of the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management which indicated that it had "no objection to the issuance of the Permit" subject to certain stipulations and conditions. (Exhibit "7") On June 25, 1980, the Department held its scheduled Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Hearing in Miami, Dade County, Florida. On July 2, 1980, the Department issued a completion notice to the applicant indicating completion of the application on June 25, 1980. (Exhibit "8") On September 9, 1980, the Department issued its Letter of Intent to Deny which gives rise to the subject proceeding. (Exhibit "9") This Petition ensued and was filed with the Department on September 24, 1980. The State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter and has jurisdiction to make an Interlocutory Ruling regarding same. This Stipulation may be utilized for interlocutory purposes or for all subsequent purposes.
Findings Of Fact In April, 1976, Petitioner City of Miami, Florida (hereinafter "City"), filed application with Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (hereinafter DER), for a construction permit and water quality certification to fill submerged land which it owned in Biscayne Bay adjacent to the City's Bayfront Park. The proposed project, as finally developed, was described by DER as follows: The project would involve the filling of 2.06 acres of submerged land, owned by the City of Miami, in Biscayne Bay. A dock, varying in width from 15 to 45 feet, would be constructed adjacent to the bulkhead to provide temporary berthing space for 5 to 6 boats. Riprap would be placed waterward at the bulkhead and an artificial reef constructed next to the bulkhead/riprap. The stated purpose of the project by Petitioner in its letter of April 2, 1976, transmitting the application, was for the "redevelopment and eastward expansion of the present Bayfront Park." The application enclosed approval of the proposed project by the City Commission of the City of Miami and a biological assessment of the proposed construction by the Department of Natural Resources. (Exhibit 15) The project assessment by the Department of Natural Resources was set forth in a letter to the City, dated April 16, 1975, and was predicted upon an original proposal to fill some 6 acres of submerged land. The agency stated that the sparsely vegetated intertidal zone of the proposed fill area was of limited biological significance, but that filling open-water area would permanently remove it from the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, and that the cumulative effect of many such fill projects could have massive adverse biological effects on the preserve. It concluded that restoration of productive intertidal communities should be encouraged by the addition of sloping riprap along the face of the existing seawall. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission contributed its views to the DER by a letter, dated July 14, 1976. It agreed that the area had limited biological productivity, but that filling it would result in permanent removal of open-water habitat from the preserve and set a precedent for similar projects. It therefore recommended that a permit not be issued. The Director of the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management, by letter of July 12, 1978, also provided an evaluation of the application to DER. He and his staff found that the proposed construction represented the least amount of filling necessary to eliminate an existing shoreline configuration which served to trap a variety of floating debris, and would eliminate an aesthetically undesirable condition adjacent to the park by improving water circulation. It also stated that the low biological productivity of the area was due to the lack of a suitable habitat for the establishment of a viable benthic community, and that the proposed riprap and artificial reef should provide such a habitat and thus increase the productivity of the area. He stated that the proposed shoreline treatment would allow greater access to the Bay by the non-boating public and additional access to the park by boaters using the proposed dock area. Accordingly, that agency recommended approval of the permit subject to certain conditions as to the method of construction and the prevention of turbidity during the construction process. A further report of the Director, dated July 25, 1978, stated that an underwater survey of the proposed area showed a low diversity of benthic invertebrates and concluded that filling the area would not destroy a viable productive community, but would cover a sparsely populated, unproductive, barren mud bottom. (Exhibits 4-5, 12-13). The DER staff evaluation of the project, as contained in a report of Doctor Thomas L. Hart, agreed that the sparsely vegetated area which supported only small populations of various marine life would improve by the placement of riprap and an artificial reef by providing a habitat for a variety of invertebrates and protective cover for small fish. This report further found that filling the cove area would not destroy a productive marine community or produce a significant adverse water quality condition if proper techniques were used in the fill operation. Dr. Hart therefore concluded that the project met the requirements for a permit under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes. However, he concluded that the project would not qualify for an exemption under Section 258.165, Florida Statutes, the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act. He found that placement of riprap for seawalls was required under that Act and any benefits derived from the construction of the artificial reef could not be used to justify filling the submerged land. He also stated in his report that elimination of the cove area to prevent the collection of debris was unnecessary since alternative means of removing the unsightly material could be developed. Dr. Hart therefore recommended that the permit application be denied. This recommendation was adopted by the DER in its Intent to Deny and Proposed Order of Denial issued to the City on October 27, 1978, which predicated its proposed denial on the inability of the City to demonstrate compliance with Section 258.165, Florida Statutes. (Exhibits 11, 17). The project will eliminate a cove created by the construction of Miamarina which is adjacent to the project area. The cove is bounded on its northern side by a 300 foot riprap revetment, on the western side by vertical sheet steel bulkhead fronting Bayfront Park, and on the eastern side by Biscayne Bay. A 1977 study of hydrodynamic factors affecting the area by an expert in oceanography and tide hydraulics showed that the cove was a "dead pocket" that, together with the adjacent riprap, collected floating debris in an eddy from lack of water circulation. He found that the debris, such as paper cups, old tires, and dead animals, and the like, was moved to the cove area by wind and that there was insufficient tidal action to flush it out of the area. He concluded that by redefining the shore to provide a straight line and extension of the outer bulkhead of the Miamarina to where it would meet the existing Bayfront Park bulkhead would provide maximum current velocity to move debris along the new bulkhead and eventually carry it into the Atlantic Ocean. He is of the opinion that any area of fill less than the 2.6 acres created by such a bulkhead would not sufficiently eliminate the existing problem of water circulation. Biological studies of the site by experts in the field show that it is a low area of biological productivity which is primarily attributable to turbidity of the waters and the silt-clay bottom which is anaerobic and receives stagnant material, thus providing degraded water quality and a poor habitat for the growth of plant and animal life. The proposed placement of riprap and the outside artificial reef below the low tide mark will provide places for attachment of marine organisms and an excellent refuge for a greatly increased variety of marine species. The marine organisms presently found in the area are much sparser than those in a normal area of the Bay. They are found mainly in the dredged mud bottom which is not considered to be a natural shoreline area. The collected debris at the site presents a serious maintenance problem for the City and engenders complaints from the public. Although greater than normal efforts are made to keep the area free of such litter, it is a continuing maintenance problem and detracts from the aesthetic value of the park and Biscayne Bay. (Testimony of Michel, Morrisey, Voss, Howard, Exhibits 1-3, 7-10, 14, 16). The proposed project is part of a comprehensive plan to enlarge and restore Bayfront Park to integrate its facilities in the environment, improve the appearance of the area, and increase use of the Bay. It is planned that an amphitheater, restaurant, and promenade will be constructed at the filled site sometime in the future. (Testimony of Ambruster) DER staff personnel who testified at the hearing agreed with the City's experts that the project site is not a natural condition and that conditions there are not conducive to the support of a large benthic population. They also agreed that the proposed construction has the potential for increasing biological productivity of the area. However, they were of the opinion that the project was unnecessary, would result in a loss of a portion of the Bay, and therefore was contrary to the intent of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act. (Testimony of Jones, McWilliams, Hart)
Recommendation That the application of the City of Miami, Florida for the requested permit be approved, subject to standard and customary conditions attached to the issuance of such a permit. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this day of 14th day of August, 1979. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Randall E. Denker, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 G. Miriam Maer, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Miami 174 East Flagleer Street Miami, FL 33131 Jacob Varn, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-2183 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, ET AL., Respondent. / BY THE DEPARTMENT:
The Issue Whether Rules 40E-400.315(f) and 40E-4.301(f), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7(a)-(d), Basis of Review Handbook for Environmental Resource Permit Application, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Royal Palm Beach Colony, L.P. (Royal Palm), owns three lots in Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, located in northwest Palm Beach County, Florida. Intervenor 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., is a not-for- profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. By letter dated March 19, 1998, Royal Palm notified SFWMD that Royal Palm was entitled to No Notice General Permits for Activities in Uplands (NNGP) for three of the lots which it owns in Unit 11, Lots 61, 245, and 247. Royal Palm intends to build one single-family home on each of the lots. The proposed development of the lots would include individual septic tanks and stormwater retention ponds. By letter dated April 9, 1998, SFWMD informed Royal Palm that SFWMD staff had determined that the three lots do not qualify for no-notice general permits for single family home construction. As part of the basis for denial of the NNGPs, the April 9, 1998, letter stated: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is not part of a larger common plan of development. See Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm Beach Colony is the owner of approximately 170 lots within Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, and the three proposed lots appear to be merely part of this large common plan of development. As an additional basis for denial, the April 9 letter stated: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including, but not limited to, significant interference with the construction and operation of a regional stormwater system needed for adequate flood protection and stormwater treatment in the Unit 11 area. See Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm filed a Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of the above-cited rules, Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f) and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Also being challenged are those portions of SFWMD's "Basis of Review Handbook for Environmental Resource Permit Applications" (BOR), which discuss secondary impacts, Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7(a)-(d). SFWMD's Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program has four different types of permits: NNGPs, noticed general permits, standard general permits, and individual permits. The permits are grouped according to degree of potential impact and, correspondingly, according to degree of regulatory review. NNGPs are for very minor activities that have no potential to cause adverse impacts or harm to water resources provided that the criteria in the rule are met. A NNGP typically receives no review by SFWMD staff. An applicant reviews the criteria, and if the proposed project meets the criteria the project may be undertaken without notification to or approval by SFWMD. The degree of regulatory review for water management systems that do not qualify for NNGPs will vary. A system that qualifies for a noticed general permit pursuant to Rule 40E-400, Subpart C, Florida Administrative Code, will be reviewed within 30 days of receipt of notice, and if the criteria listed in the general permit rule are met it is presumed that the project meets all SFWMD's standards and is permittable. If the system does not fit within a noticed general permit and if the proposed system is less than 100 acres total size or has less than one acre of wetland impact, the project will be reviewed as a standard general permit pursuant to Rule 40E-40, Florida Administrative Code. Standard general permits are reviewed and issued by SFWMD staff, and unlike the noticed general permits, there are no presumptions that if certain limited criteria are met that all the SFWMD standards are met. The proposed project is reviewed to determine if reasonable assurances have been provided that all standards have been met. Finally, if a proposed water management system is greater than 100 acres or entails more than one acre of filled wetlands, an individual environmental resource permit is required. As with standard general permits, these applications are reviewed to determine if the applicant has provided reasonable assurance that all SFWMD standards are met. Individual environmental resource permits require permit authorization from SFWMD's governing board. Unlike the noticed general, the standard general, and the individual environmental resource permits, the NNGP does not require any regulatory review. An individual minor system fitting within the specific criteria for a NNGP can proceed with the activity without noticing SFWMD. Such a permit is very similar to an exemption from the permitting requirements. The use of a NNGP was not intended for approval of water management systems that contain shared or common water management facilities, such as a common drainage system for a housing development. Such systems require regulatory review to ensure that the system does not cause adverse water quality, water quantity, or environmental impacts. To allow a series of individual projects to have authorization to proceed under a NNGP, when together they are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, cumulatively would have a significant adverse impact to flood protection and environmental protection. Such master systems are to have regulatory review under one of the other three SFWMD permits. Thus, the requirement that a project permitted pursuant to a NNGP not be part of a larger common development or sale was placed in Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Without such a requirement, it would be possible to development a larger system without regulatory review by permitting individual systems within the larger system using a NNGP. The term "not part of a larger common plan of development or sale" contained in Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, originated in Section 403.813(2)(q), Florida Statutes, which contains exemptions from permitting under Chapter 373, Florida Statues. In developing Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), SFWMD did not further define the term because the plain meaning of the term was deemed adequate, as it was by the Florida Legislature when it did not define the same term in Section 403.813(2)(q). The plain meaning of the term is consistent with SFWMD's regulatory scheme for permitting water management systems. The most minimal permit authorization, the NNGP, should not authorize projects that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale because the larger projects are more likely to have larger water resource impacts. Interpretations of the term "part of a larger common plan of development" by staff from SFWMD are consistent. The interpretations indicate that the individual project and the larger master plan have shared or common water management systems. The focus is on whether common infrastructure would be needed to carry out the individual project. In its permitting program, SFWMD looks at all adverse impacts to water resources, whether direct, secondary, or cumulative. When evaluating secondary impacts, SFWMD looks for the same adverse impacts on water resources that it would for direct impacts, such as adverse impacts on the functions of wetlands or surface waters or adverse impacts on water quality. SFWMD interprets a secondary impact as some impact, other than a direct impact in the footprint of the proposed project, which is closely linked and causally tied to proposed activity to be permitted. Section 4.2.7, BOR sets guidelines for how SFWMD considers secondary impacts from water management systems. In developing Section 4.2.7, SFWMD applied existing case law concerning secondary impacts. Section 4.2.7(a), BOR, regulates construction, alteration, and reasonably expected uses of a proposed system so that the functions of wetlands to fish and wildlife and listed species are protected from adverse impacts caused by activities in adjacent uplands. Such secondary impacts may result, for example, from disturbance during adjacent upland construction or disturbance due to the close proximity of human habitation to a wetland where none previously existed. Section 4.2.7(a), BOR, gives examples of secondary impacts, and provides a mechanism in the form of a buffer that creates a presumption that provides reasonable assurance that secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands will not be adverse, assuming a wetland is not being used by a listed species for nesting, denning, or significant feeding habitat. Section 4.2.7(b), BOR, protects existing upland nesting or denning sites of listed aquatic or wetland dependent species and the adjacent uplands which are necessary to enable these nests or dens to be used successfully by such species. Section 4.2.7(c), BOR, looks at potential adverse secondary impacts to significant historical and archeological resources. The intent of the section is to allow consideration of secondary impacts of a project that may have a very minor impact from construction, but more serious implications once in operation. For example, a water control structure that may have a footprint of only a tenth of an acre may result in greater water velocities that would harm submerged archeological resources. Section 4.2.7(d), BOR, considers specific water resource impacts from future project phases and activities that will be very closely linked and causally related to the proposed system. This section seeks to prevent future impacts that may be necessitated by a proposed project design. As part of the analysis, SFWMD will consider the impacts of the intended or reasonably expected uses of future activities on water quality and wetland and other surface water functions.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted wetlands for the construction of a single-family residence and associated structures, a 30' x 30' private dock with a 4' access walkway, and a 12' wide boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Oviedo, Florida (Property).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated, thereunder, in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the applicants for the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the Property. Petitioner Meier's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Project. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is concerned with the completeness of the application for the Project, the calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided, and that the Department's NOI ignores willful negligence and allows disparate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single-family residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to eliminate and reduce impacts detrimental to the environment. History of the Project and Application On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single-family home on the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24, 2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule Analysis for "As If In-Basin" for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the Department on September 19, and October 30, 2018. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a Consent Order (CO). The Department found, and Respondents Endres/Lima admitted, that approximately 0.80 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department; and was done with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.60 of forested Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland credits from the Lake X Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter. The Department issued an NOI on February 7, 2020, which was timely published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on February 13, 2020. Consent Order and Compliance A warning letter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on January 30, 2019, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control. The CO, executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondents Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or construction activities on the Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days, and pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department's costs and expenses. After the issuance of an ERP, Respondents Endres/Lima were also required to implement the restoration actions outlined in the CO. Respondents’ Endres/Lima’s application, dated August 19, 2020, was submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima paid the CO's penalties and costs, and had multiple meetings with the Department to complete the requirements of the CO. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert, Mr. Exner, testified that he began working on a restoration plan for the Property, which will be provided to the Department once an ERP is issued. Permitting Criteria The Department reviewed the complete application and determined that it satisfied the conditions for issuance under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, and the applicable sections of the ERP Applicant's Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I). The Department also considered the seven criteria in rule 62-330.302 and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project would not be contrary to the public interest. Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Respondents’ Endres/Lima's civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert, testified that according to the drainage design, the Property would have swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the residence. There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake. He stated that the elevation of the road at the front of the Property would be at 47.4 feet, and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be at 45 feet. This would allow a 2.4-foot vertical fall for the swales to convey water to the lake. The design would preserve pre-development surface water flow over the Property to Long Lake, which is the lowest elevation in the area, and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties. Mr. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain pre-development water storage capacity. The imported fill that is currently on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation Respondents Endres/Lima provided the Department with design modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project. These included a 15-foot restoration buffer along the lake front's northern shoreline, an elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting the boat ramp width to a single-lane. In June 2015, an informal wetlands determination was conducted for the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entirety of the Property were wetlands. However, this was an informal determination and was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the Property being cleared or disturbed. Mr. Exner testified that, in his opinion, the Property was not all wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks, adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along with other indicators of upland habitat. This wetland delineation was part of the permit submittal, was shown on the plans, was accepted by the Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring. Mr. Exner's wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres, and a functional loss score of 0.364. Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation bank credits implement part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely affected. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Project's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet, of secondary impacts. These impacts would be fully offset by the mitigation proposed for the Project. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call out the location of the secondary impacts. However, Part III: Plans of Section B of the application, does not require that the site plan show the location of the secondary impacts. The application requirements for "plans" requires only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas, and the remaining untouched area. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to determine the secondary impact acreage. However, Mr. Mahnken read the information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0.002 acres, or 87 square feet, when the UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the secondary impact area is 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet. In addition, the Department's witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken's analysis, the result would have been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits. Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim that the Project would have adverse secondary impacts. Third, Mr. Mahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to fully offset the impacts of the Project. Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his opinion was open to debate, and that he had not conducted any rigorous hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order to demonstrate compliance with section 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding cumulative impacts. The BDA Report utilized peer-reviewed hydrologic data that was reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District, and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Mitigation Bank. The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located outside of the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, but the Project is located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area. The BDA report determined that: In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a regionally significant mitigation bank site that has direct hydrological and ecological connections to the SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size, biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additionally, the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in-basin” mitigation. The Lake X Mitigation Bank will protect and maintain the headwaters of two regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)], and will provide resource protection to both river systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to the SJRWMD basins located within the permitted MSA. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that the Project would be fully offset with the proposed mitigation. Thus, Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Water Quality Rule 62-330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with grass seed or sod, and a silt fence. Respondent Endres/Lima's experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner, testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project, part of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP-2. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone, which would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake. Mr. Exner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake, the restoration plan includes a dense planting plan with native species that have good nutrient uptake capability. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that, in his review of the Property, he did not identify any critical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat, gopher tortoises, or sand hill cranes. The Department's Ms. Warr testified that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed, and did not show any listed species in the area. Publication of Notice Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020, did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4). Despite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challenge the proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the address of the Project, only a link to the Department's permit file. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the application; or a name or number identifying the application and the office where the application can be inspected. In response to the published notice, the Department received approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petitions timely filed by Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners were not harmed by any information alleged to have been left out of the published notice. Ultimate Findings Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project complied with elimination and reduction of impacts, and proposed more than adequate mitigation. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species by wetlands, or other surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Respondents’ Endres/Lima's ERP application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2020. Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Neysa Borkert, Esquire Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman 111 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 398 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Tracy L. Kochmann 249 Carolyn Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Shelley M. Meier 208 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Brian Hacker 170 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (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 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy began on July 9, 1990, when petitioners, David and Victoria Page, filed an application with the district office of respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing certain construction activities (including the erection of a seawall) on their residential lot located at 3108 Gulfwinds Circle, Hernando Beach, Florida. The property faces west on the Gulf of Mexico, a water body designated as a Class III water in the State. The application was eventually deemed to be complete on October 24, 1990. After conducting a review of the application and an on-site inspection of the property, on January 18, 1991, DER issued its notice of permit denial. The notice identified the reasons for the denial as being petitioners' failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated and that the project would be in the public interest. Also, DER cited expected adverse cumulative impacts if the application was granted. The notice provided further that if petitioners agreed to locate their seawall landward of the jurisdictional line, the project would be approved. In July 1991, petitioners amended their application to propose that the seawall be constructed even further seaward of the jurisdictional line. When efforts to resolve the case were unsuccessful, petitioners requested a formal hearing on January 17, 1992, to contest the agency's decision. Petitioners purchased their property in 1989. It lies within Unit 2 of Gulf Coast Retreats, a residential subdivision in Hernando Beach, Florida. The property is identified as lot 20 on Gulfwinds Circle and fronts the Little Pine Island Bay (Bay), which is a part of the Gulf of Mexico. Access to the Gulf is provided by a channel (six feet in depth) in the Bay in front of lot 20 and which eventually runs into the Gulf several miles south of petitioners' lot. It is undisputed that in 1985 Hurricane Elena passed offshore causing erosion to lot 20 and other adjacent lots. Consequently, the upland portion of the lot is now smaller than before the hurricane. However, petitioners purchased their property in that state of condition. Lots 19 and 21 are on the south and north sides of petitioners' property and are owned by the Steins and Budricks, respectively. Both neighbors have constructed vertical concrete seawalls in front of their homes. Budrick was issued a permit to construct a seawall on December 28, 1989, while Stein constructed his without a permit. However, Stein has subsequently filed an after-the-fact permit application and was recently advised by DER that the application was complete. At hearing, a DER representative expressed the view that the Stein application will probably be approved since his wall is landward of the DER jurisdictional line. It is noted that the Stein and Budrick seawalls sit back from the original property lines because of the erosion suffered during the 1985 hurricane and correspond to the jurisdictional line established by DER on their property. Another application for a permit to construct a seawall was filed by the owner of lot 18 in March 1992. Like Stein and Budrick, that owner proposed to construct his wall on the landward side of the jurisdictional line. Petitioners, who live in Kansas, desire to construct a home on their lot. They have proposed to place one hundred cubic yards of fill (limerock) on 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands on the western end of their lot and construct a 110-foot vertical seawall up to thirty feet seaward of the jurisdictional line. Thus, there will be dredge and filling activities in the Gulf of Mexico, a class III water of the state, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of DER. By law, DER is required to establish a jurisdictional line to show the landward extent of waters of this state, including the Gulf of Mexico. Such extent is normally defined by species of plants or soils which are characteristic of those areas subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters of the state. As a general practice, using a prescribed plant or species indicator list, DER makes an on-site inspection of the property to determine what vegetation, if any, is found on the property and is subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters. In this case, the dominant vegetation found on lot 20 was paspalum distichum, a plant on the species list subject to regular and periodic inundation by the Gulf waters. Accordingly, DER observed where the vegetation ended and used that point for the placement of the jurisdictional line. As a cross check, DER also noted the rack line, which is indicative of the landward extent to which the high tides rise, and found it to correspond to the vegetation line. It should be noted that the jurisdictional line established on petitioners' property corresponds with the line drawn on lots 18, 19 and 21, and if that line is used to construct the seawall on lot 20, the seawalls on all four lots would run in a straight line. Although petitioners objected to the jurisdictional line as established by DER, they offered no credible evidence to show that it was improper or should have been placed at a different location. On January 9 and 15, 1991, Richard W. Pugh, a DER field environmental specialist, conducted an on-site inspection of the property and adjacent waters. He also was responsible for establishing the jurisdictional line. Finding numerous adverse environmental effects that would occur if the permit was granted as proposed, Pugh recommended that the application be denied. This recommendation was accepted by the deputy assistant secretary for DER's Southwest District Office and a notice of permit denial was accordingly issued. The bases for the denial were that (a) reasonable assurances had not been given by petitioners that water quality standards would be satisfied; (b) a cumulative adverse impact on the area would occur if the permit was approved, and (c) petitioners had failed to give reasonable assurances that the project was in the public interest. In order to prove entitlement to a permit, petitioners must give reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is in the public interest. In this respect, they offered no evidence to provide these assurances. This in itself supports a finding that no entitlement to a permit has been shown. Even so, the agency elected to present evidence on these issues after petitioners' case-in-chief was concluded. Findings of fact drawn from that evidence are set forth below. On April 6, 1992, a DER marine biologist, Dr. George H. Farrell, visited the site and conducted a biological evaluation of the composition of the benthic community in the intertidal and subtidal wetlands which would be impacted by the project. Based on his tests and observations, Dr. Farrell concluded that the project as proposed would have an adverse impact on marine and wildlife resources in the area. This is because the area has very good water quality, contains a high species diversity, performs an integral part in the food web, and serves a valuable nursery function for estuarine dependent juvenile fish species and a corridor function for migrating estuarine dependent fish species. This testimony was not challenged by petitioners and is hereby accepted. 1/ In granting or denying a water resource permit, DER is also required to consider certain statutory criteria found in Subsection 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, to determine whether a project is in the public interest. Although petitioners did not address these criteria, and thus failed to give any assurances that the project is in the public interest as required by law, testimony adduced by DER established that under petitioners' proposal, there will be a permanent loss of 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands due to filling activities. These wetlands are now used by fish and wildlife habitat and will no longer be available for use. In addition, the same area is used as a nursery area by a variety of fish species. As such, the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats and will adversely affect the fishing values and marine productivity in the vicinity. Second, because petitioners' proposed seawall will jut out from their neighbors' walls by as much as thirty feet, and the corners of the seawall in that configuration will result in erosion or shoaling depending on whether the waters are moving north or south, the project will cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Third, because the wall is being constructed of concrete and steel and is not temporary, the project will be of a permanent nature and thus have a permanent adverse impact. Finally, the ecological functions being performed in the immediate vicinity of the project are extremely important and the elimination of this zone will significantly impair those functions. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the project is not in the public interest. DER has a policy of not granting a permit if adverse cumulative impacts may be expected as a result of granting that permit. This policy is derived from a statute (s. 403.919, F.S.) requiring such impacts to be considered in the permitting process. In the case at bar, DER reasonably predicts that if it granted petitioners' application and authorized them to construct a seawall which jutted out up to thirty feet beyond their neighbors' walls, it would be obligated to grant similar permits to property owners on adjacent lots. Because petitioners' application will have an adverse impact on the water quality and is contrary to the public interest, the granting of additional permits would exacerbate those impacts. When an applicant proposes to fill (destroy) wetlands, and the applicant is unable to meet the public interest criteria set forth in subsection 403.918(2), DER shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. In this case, no mitigative measures were proposed by petitioners. At hearing, petitioners' representative asserted that in June 1991, the Cabinet (presumably sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) implemented a new "policy" which allows property owners to "recover and bulkhead" land previously lost due to avulsion and erosion. He further represented that such requests were to be filed within five years after the event (hurricane). Although petitioners were not the property owners when the event occurred, and more than five years has elapsed, in July 1991 petitioners filed a request with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reclaim and bulkhead their property and that request remained pending as of the date of hearing. A copy of the policy itself (or rule, if any, implementing the policy) was not made a part of this record. Even so, there was no evidence to establish that the granting of that application would require DER to grant a water resource permit, and DER takes the position that the request has no bearing on the issue of whether a water resource permit should be issued to petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioners' application for a water resource permit. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether to approve the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) application for a 50-year Sovereign Submerged Lands Public Easement (easement) to replace an existing bridge over a channel that connects Little Lake Worth (Lake) and Lake Worth Lagoon (Lagoon) in Palm Beach County (County), Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background On February 24, 2010, DOT filed with the District applications for an ERP and a 50-year easement on approximately 0.54 acres of submerged lands. The purpose of these filings was to obtain regulatory and proprietary authority to replace the existing Little Lake Worth Bridge (bridge) due to structural deficiencies noted during inspections performed in 2006. Because of "serious deterioration of the concrete slab and reinforcing steel," the bridge is under weight restrictions until construction is completed. See DOT Exhibit 5. An easement is required for road and bridge crossings and rights-of-way which are located on or over submerged lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.005(1)(e)2. Because DOT did not have an easement for the existing bridge, it was required to obtain one for the replacement work. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-400.215(5). Under an operating agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the District has the responsibility of processing applications to use submerged lands for roadway projects. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-113.100. First constructed in 1965, the existing bridge has three spans, is 60 feet long, has two lanes (one in each direction), and crosses a channel (or canal) that connects the Lagoon to the south and the Lake to the north. The bridge is located in an unincorporated part of the County east of the City of Palm Beach Gardens and north of the Village of North Palm Beach. Highway A1A (also known as Jack Nicklaus Drive) is the roadway that crosses the bridge. Although the ERP application was challenged by Petitioners, their Petition was dismissed as being legally insufficient, and a Final Order approving the application was issued by the District on June 9, 2010. See Joint Ex. 1 and Respondents' Joint Ex. 1. No appeal of that action was taken. Petitioners did not contest the application for an easement at the District level. The District staff initially determined that it could process the application for an easement under the authority of rule 18-21.0051(2). However, on July 28, 2010, the District sent a memorandum to DEP's Office of Cabinet Affairs requesting a determination on whether the project was one of heightened public concern. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 2. After further review by the DEP's Deputy Secretary of Land and Recreation, the project was determined to be one of heightened public concern because of considerable public interest; therefore, the decision to issue an easement was made by the Board, rather than the District. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(4). On November 9, 2010, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting in their capacity as the Board, conducted a public hearing on the application for an easement. Notice of the meeting was provided to persons expressing an interest in the matter. Prior to the meeting, the District and Board staffs submitted a favorable recommendation on the application, together with supporting backup information, including a report from the FFWCC concerning impacts on manatees and a seagrass study conducted by an outside consulting firm. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 3, 6, and 7. At the meeting, a District representative, Anita R. Bain, described the purpose of the application, how the issues raised by Petitioners were addressed, and the bases for the staff's recommendation that the application be approved. See Joint Ex. 3, pp. 96-101. The DOT Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Operations also described the new bridge's design and technical aspects. Id. at pp. 102-106. The Board then heard oral comments from both proponents and opponents of the project. Id. at pp. 106-154. Petitioners and their counsel were among the speakers. No speaker was under oath or subject to cross-examination. At the conclusion of the brief hearing, the Board voted 3-1 to approve the easement. The decision is memorialized in a Notice of Board Action dated November 15, 2010. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 4. Consistent with long- standing practice, a written point of entry to contest, or notice of right to appeal, the decision was not given to any person. Throughout this proceeding, the Board and DOT have contended that the Board's decision on November 9, 2010, is proprietary in nature and not subject to a chapter 120 hearing. They assert that Petitioners' only administrative remedy, if any, and now expired, is an appeal of the Board's decision to the district court of appeal under section 120.68. Petitioners contend, however, that they are entitled to an administrative hearing to contest the decision. That issue is the subject of a pending motion to dismiss filed by the Board. However, Petitioners have obtained the remedy they were seeking from day one-- a chapter 120 hearing -- and they were afforded an opportunity to litigate all issues raised in their Amended Petition. All due process concerns have been satisfied and the issue is now moot.1 Except in one respect, Petitioners do not contest any aspect of the easement or the project and its related impacts; they only object to DOT increasing the navigational clearance of the bridge from 8.5 feet to 12.0 feet above Mean High Water (MHW). In short, the main objection driving this case is a fear that a greater number of boats, mainly larger vessels, will access the channel and Lake if the vertical clearance is raised, and disturb the peace and tranquility that has existed over the last 30 years. The Parties Mr. Thomas' property, which he purchased in 1972, is located on the east side of the channel that connects the Lake and Lagoon. The residence faces to the northwest and is around 200 feet north of the bridge and a short distance south of the entrance into the Lake. See Board Ex. 13. Mr. Thomas is not an upland owner adjacent to the project site. He has a dock, a 19 and 1/2-foot boat, and a seawall built around 25 years ago. Over the years, he has lost around two to two and one-half feet of sand on the side of the seawall facing the water due to erosion caused by wave action. He also has a small, but slowly increasing, gap between his dock and the seawall. Mr. Thomas does not fish, but he enjoys watching fish and wildlife in the area, water-skiing with his family on the Lake, and swimming in the channel. He noted that around 75 percent of boaters traversing the channel observe reasonable speed limits, but the other 25 percent operate their vessels at speeds up to 50 miles per hour. Mr. Thomas fears an increase in the clearance will result in more boat traffic (attributable in part to Lake residents who have a dock but no boat and would now purchase one), and larger boats for some Lake residents who now own smaller vessels. He asserts that this will result in more wave impact on his seawall, adversely affect the natural resources in the area, and impact his rights of fishing, swimming, water skiing, and view in the channel and Lake. Around 30 years ago, John A. Tory (now deceased) purchased waterfront property in Lost Tree Village, a residential development that surrounds part of the Lake. The residence lies around one-half the way up the eastern shore of the Lake. Thus, the property is not directly adjacent to the project. The property has a dock and concrete seawall, which has been repaired periodically due to erosion. Mr. Tory did not own a boat. His widow, who is not a party and jointly owned the home with her late husband, still occupies the residence during the winter months. John H. Tory, the son of John A. Tory, stated that he is involved in the case as a representative of his father's estate, rather than on his own behalf as a property owner on the Lake. He owns waterfront property in Lost Tree Village located on a small lagoon immediately north of the main body of water comprising the Lake, or around 2,000 feet north of the bridge. During the winter months, Mr. Tory has observed manatees in the small lagoon, but not the Lake. Mr. Tory acknowledged that the new bridge will not affect ingress or egress to his late father's home. However, he fears that if the bridge clearance is raised to 12 feet, it will result in more boat traffic on the Lake, larger boats, and the presence of live-aboards, who now anchor in the Lagoon. He asserts that these conditions will disturb the peace and tranquility on the Lake, cause the fish and wildlife to leave, and impact the safety of his children and grandchildren who occasionally swim in the Lake. The DOT is a state agency having the responsibility to build roads and bridges throughout the State. It applied for the easement that is the subject of this case. There is no dispute that DOT has sufficient upland interest necessary to obtain an easement. The Board is vested with title to all sovereignty submerged lands, including the submerged real property in the channel. The Project The new bridge will be 90 feet in length with a vertical clearance of 12 feet above MHW. It will be constructed in the footprint of the existing structure. The replacement bridge will continue to be two lanes and has a design service life of 75 years. The new bridge will expand the vehicle lane widths from 10 to 12 feet, expand the road shoulder from six to eight feet, and expand the sidewalks from four to six and one- half feet in width. Both the horizontal and vertical navigational clearances will be increased. It is undisputed that by increasing the horizontal clearance, navigational safety will be improved. Also, by increasing the vertical clearance, a boater's focus will be redirected from the low clearance to the water, the proximity of the pilings, approaching vessels, and other potential hazards. In conformance with DOT design requirements, the vertical navigational clearance will be raised from 8.5 feet to 12 feet above MHW. The DOT's Plans Preparation Manual and Structures Design Guidelines both provide that for concrete superstructures over highly corrosive waters due to chloride content, the minimum vertical clearance should be 12 feet above MHW. See DOT Ex. 7 and 8. This amount of clearance is necessary to ensure bridge longevity in aggressive saltwater marine environments. Therefore, a 12-foot clearance is appropriate. Also, the new height is calculated to give the bridge a 75-year lifespan; in contrast, a bridge with an eight- foot clearance would have a shorter lifespan. Except for bridges with unique limiting conditions, all bridges in the County are now being constructed at the 12-foot height. All work will be performed without the necessity for large cranes or barges to pile-drive from the water. Essentially all work will be done from the land adjacent to the bridge. However, small vessels will be needed to put construction workers on the water while the crane is being operated from land. A $3.3 million design-build contract was executed by DOT and The Murphy Construction Company in May 2009, and the contractor is awaiting the outcome of this proceeding before commencing work. Given the size and scope of work, the project is considered a "minor" bridge project. DOT is required to implement Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work during construction of the bridge. Pursuant to these conditions, DOT is required to train personnel who will be at the job site to identify manatees and log when they are seen in the area. Signage will be placed at the bridge construction site and on any equipment in the water warning about hazards to manatees. If a manatee is found in the vicinity, work must cease to allow the manatee to safely traverse the construction zone and not be trapped in the turbidity curtains. Best management practices for environmental impacts will be required during construction. No dredging or excavation of the channel is planned, and blasting will not be allowed during construction. Although there are 0.12 acres of mangroves within the boundaries of the submerged lands, the project was redesigned to completely avoid direct mangrove impacts. Except for one four-square-meter patch of seagrass (Turtle grass) located a little more than 200 feet southeast of the project site, no seagrasses are located in or adjacent to the project site. The new 12-foot height will accommodate a 100-year storm surge event at this location. The Lake and Lagoon The Lagoon stretches some 20 miles from the bridge southward to a point just north of the City of Boynton Beach. It averages around one-half mile in width. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) generally runs in a north-south direction through the middle of the Lagoon before turning to the northwest into Lake Worth Creek, around a mile south of the bridge. The Lagoon is divided into three segments: north, central, and south. The north segment is more commonly known as the North Lake Worth Lagoon. The Lake Worth Inlet, located around five miles south of the bridge, provides an outlet from the North Lake Worth Lagoon to the deeper waters in the Atlantic Ocean. The Riviera Beach Power Plant is located on the western side of the Lagoon just south of the Lake Worth Inlet and is a warm-water refuge area for manatees during the winter months. Peanut Island, a County-owned recreational site, lies in the ICW just north of the power plant. The northern boundary of the John D. MacArthur Beach State Park (State Park) is less than a mile south of the project area on the eastern side of the Lagoon. There are extensive seagrass beds in the Lagoon mainly along the shoreline around the State Park and Peanut Island. One survey conducted in 1990 indicated there are 2,100 acres of seagrass in the Lagoon. See Petitioners' Ex. 15. The same study concluded that around 69 percent of all seagrasses in the County are located in the northern segment of the Lagoon. Id. The Lake is designated as a Class III water body, is around 50 acres in size, and measures no more than a half-mile in length (running north to south) and a few hundred feet wide. Although the Lake is open to the public, boat access is only through the channel since there are no boat ramps on the Lake. Several residential developments, including Lost Tree Village and Hidden Key, are located north of the bridge and surround the Lake. The Lake has no natural shorelines since seawalls have been constructed around the entire water body. Aerial photographs reflect that many of the residences facing the Lake or channel have docks, but not every dock owner has a boat. Navigation under the bridge is somewhat tricky because the water current goes in one direction while the bridge points in another direction. Also, due to the accumulation of sand just south of the bridge, the channel is shallow which requires that an operator heading north "make sort of an S-turn to take the deepest water possible to go through." By widening the bridge pilings and raising the navigational clearance, as DOT proposes to do, the tidal flow will slow down and all boats will be able to enter and depart the Lake in a safer manner. Currently, except for one cigarette-style boat in the 30-foot range, the boats on the Lake are small boats (under 30 feet in length) with outboard motors. T-top boats (those with a stationery roof) with no radar or outriggers on top could "possibly" get under the bridge, but those with sonar cannot. Also, "most" boats with large outboards that have a draft of around 18 inches can now access the Lake. At high tide, smaller vessels with in-board motors that draw three and one-half to four feet could "probably" get under the bridge, but once inside the Lake, they would be "trapped" at low tide. If the navigational clearance is raised, Petitioners' boating expert, Captain Albritton, opined that the greatest impact will not come from the general public, but from residents on the Lake who have no boat but may now buy one, or residents who will buy larger vessels. However, he could not quantify this number. He further opined that boaters who do not live on the Lake would have no reason to go there because it has no attraction. He also opined that larger boats operated by non- residents in the Lagoon will continue to either exit the Lagoon to deeper waters through the Lake Worth Inlet or continue on the ICW, which turns off to the northwest around a mile south of the bridge. If several boats operate simultaneously on the Lake, significant wave action is created because the Lake is surrounded by a seawall with no beach or shoreline to absorb or reduce the wave impact. Due to the wave action and the Lake's small size, it is highly unlikely that more than four boats could ever use the Lake at the same time. Even then, Mr. Thomas described conditions as "pretty crowded" with "choppy" water and not a pleasant experience for boaters. Likewise, Captain Albritton agreed that with only a few vessels on the Lake, the water becomes "very rough," and "safety" considerations prevent or discourage other vessels from accessing or using the Lake. Captain Albritton also agreed that it would only be speculation to assume that there would be more boating in the area after the project is completed. Mainly during the winter months, a large number of vessels anchor in the North Lake Worth Lagoon. At least 95 percent, if not more, are sailboats with a fixed keel that prevents them from navigating beneath the bridge even with a 12-foot clearance. Also, the water depth in the Lake is greater than the North Lake Worth Lagoon, and boaters prefer mooring in shallower waters. Admittedly, a few houseboats powered by outboard motors occasionally frequent North Lake Worth Lagoon, and if they tilt their motors up, it might be possible for them to navigate under the bridge with a 12-foot clearance. However, houseboats typically have a flybridge (an upper deck where the ship is steered and the captain stands) above the roof of the house and would not be able to navigate under the bridge even with a heightened clearance. There is no evidence that a houseboat or other live-aboard has ever entered the Lake. The Lake is included in the John D. MacArthur Beach State Park Greenline Overlay (Greenline Overlay), which is part of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County's Plan. The resources within the Lake are part of the Greenline Overlay, the purpose of which is to protect conservation areas, prevent degradation of water quality, control exotic species, and protect critical habitat for manatees and threatened and endangered species. See Petitioners' Ex. 10, FLUE Obj. 5.3, p. 94. Petitioners' Objections Only direct adverse impacts within the project site must be considered by the Board before approving the easement. This is because potential secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the project were already considered by the District in the regulatory process, when the ERP was issued. Direct impacts are those that may occur within 200 feet north and south of the centerline of the bridge. A 400-foot area is appropriate as the project is considered "minor" and simply replaces an existing structure. Because of public interest in the project, however, the Board (with advice from the District, DOT, other agencies, and outside consultants) again considered the secondary, cumulative, and even speculative impacts of the project. Having determined that there were no adverse impacts of any nature, the Board concluded that the easement should be granted. Petitioners agree that neither the construction work nor the bridge itself will cause any direct impacts within the project site. However, they contend that the secondary impacts of the project will be "significant." Secondary impacts are those that occur outside the footprint of the project, but which are closely linked and causally related to the activity. Petitioners did not present any credible evidence that cumulative adverse impacts are associated with the project. Petitioners argue the project will cause secondary impacts on seagrasses, manatees, seawalls (through erosion caused by wave-action), and recreational uses such as swimming, boating, nature viewing, canoeing, and fishing. They further argue that DOT has failed to take any steps to eliminate or reduce these impacts, which could be accomplished by keeping the navigational clearance at the same height. They also contend that the project will unreasonably infringe upon their riparian rights, and that the project is inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan and State Lands Management Plan.2 Finally, they assert that the project is contrary to the public interest. These allegations implicate the following provisions in rule 18- 21.004: (1)(a) and (b);(2)(a), (b), (d), and (i); and (3)(a) and (c).3 The parties have stipulated that all other requirements for an easement have been satisfied. The allegations are based primarily, if not wholly, on the premise that a higher vertical clearance on the bridge will allow larger vessels to access the Lake and channel and increase boat traffic in the area. Impact on Seagrasses Petitioners first contend that seagrasses will be secondarily impacted by the project. Seagrasses are completely submerged grass-like plants that occur in shallow (i.e., no more than six feet of water depth) marine and estuarine waters due to light penetration. There are seven species in the State; the rarest species is Johnson's seagrass (Halophilia johnsonii), a threatened species found mainly around inlets that begin south of the Sebastian Inlet in Brevard County and continue to the northern parts of Biscayne Bay in Dade County. Unlike some seagrass species, Johnson's seagrass actually increases in areas with a higher wave energy climate. Although there may be some isolated patches of seagrasses just beyond the 200-foot area southeast of the bridge, the first significant coverage of seagrass occurs along the shallow, eastern shoreline of the North Lake Worth Lagoon, in and around the State Park and Munyon Island, an island just southeast of the State Park; both are around one-half mile south of the proposed activity. Some of these species are Johnson's seagrass. Petitioners' expert agreed that during his site inspection, he found no seagrasses until he approached the State Park. Other significant coverage is located in and around Peanut Island, which lies around five miles south of the bridge. There are no seagrasses in the Lake. The seagrass beds along the shoreline in the North Lake Worth Lagoon are "relatively stable" and wax or wane depending mainly on the water-quality conditions in the system. During heavy rainfall events, the water in adjacent canals is released and can adversely affect the water quality. Although there are no canals discharging waters into North Lake Worth Lagoon north of where the ICW deviates into Lake Worth Creek, there are numerous impervious areas near the bridge (associated with other developments) that discharge stormwater into the Lagoon south of the project site. Also, there is a canal that delivers water from upland regions into the Lagoon just south of Munyon Island. Besides heavy rain, boats operating at higher speeds can create suspended sediments and cloudy water conditions that adversely affect the seagrass. However, these impacts have occurred for years, they will continue even if the bridge clearance is not raised, and they are wholly dependent on one's operation of the watercraft. There is no competent evidence, and only speculation, that raising the navigational clearance on the bridge will lead to a greater number of boats in the Lagoon and/or cause boats to operate recklessly in or near the seagrass beds. In fact, the evidence shows that a majority of the boat traffic operates in the ICW and deeper waters of the Lagoon, and not in the shallow waters along the shoreline. DOT has given reasonable assurance that the project will not cause secondary adverse impacts to seagrasses in the Lagoon. Impact on Manatees Petitioners also contend that there will be secondary adverse impacts on manatees, again due to increased boat traffic in the area. They point out that the overall mortality rate for manatees in the County has increased nearly every year since 1974; that 39 percent of all mortalities in the County are attributed to watercraft strikes; that the North Lake Worth Lagoon provides important habitat (seagrasses) for manatees; and that manatee abundance and watercraft-related strikes are highest in that area. Based upon an analysis conducted by the FFWCC, the more persuasive evidence on this issue supports a finding that the bridge, with a heightened clearance, will not significantly increase risks to manatees. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 6. A similar conclusion was reached by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 17. Even if larger boats can access the channel, the probability of a boat striking a manatee will not change. It is true that manatees sometimes travel into the Lake during the winter months. However, no reported watercraft- related strikes have occurred, and only one manatee carcass (a dependent calf) has ever been found in the Lake, and that was a perinatal death unrelated to boat activity. Aerial surveys of manatees reflect that the greatest amount of manatee presence and activity is far from the project site. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 12. This is also confirmed by the fact that the primary manatee gathering area in the County is around the Riviera Beach Power Plant, which lies five miles south of the bridge. Even the County's Manatee Protection Plan has designated the northern area of the Lagoon as a preferred area for marinas and docks because of the lower incidence of manatees in that area. Finally, the evidence shows that the majority of manatees traveling north through the Lagoon turn into Lake Worth Creek one mile south of the bridge and continue northward in the ICW, rather than into the channel or Lake. Reasonable assurances have been given that the project will not result in significant secondary adverse impacts on manatees. Erosion of Seawalls Mr. Thomas points out that wave action from existing boat traffic has been contributing to erosion of his seawall for many years. He argues that if the bridge height is raised, there will be increased boat traffic, which will cause further damage to existing seawalls on the Lake and channel. Wave action is caused not only by the operation of boats entering or departing the Lake, but also by water skiers and jet skiers on the Lake itself. These activities will continue, even if the clearance is not raised. This is because non-resident skiers can easily access the Lake with the existing 8.5-foot clearance, while residents on the Lake have access from their docks. The only real limitation on these activities is the Lake's size and unsafe conditions that occur when more than one or two boats are present, and not the bridge's vertical clearance. Whether boaters will observe no-wake speeds or operate at a higher speed in the channel and Lake is open to debate. As noted earlier, there is no competent evidence, but only speculation, to support Petitioners' claim that the behavior of boaters will change, or that boats will be operated more recklessly, simply because the clearance is raised. The evidence supports a finding that the project will not have a significant impact on seawalls due to increased traffic or other related usage in the Lake and channel. Riparian Rights The riparian boundary lines of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Tory are depicted on Board Exhibits 13 and 14, respectively, and are not in dispute. Petitioners contend that increased boat traffic will unreasonably infringe upon their riparian rights of view, fishing, boating, canoeing, and swimming. They also assert that with a higher clearance, the Lake will "be very popular for live-aboards, especially in the winter months, because of its secluded nature and easy access to amenities," and this will also impact their riparian rights. They do not contend that the project will affect their right of ingress or egress or their right to wharf out (build a dock) from their upland property. Rule 18-21.004(3)(c) provides that "[a]ll structures and other activities must be designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners." (Emphasis added). Traditional riparian rights are generally considered to be ingress, egress, the ability to wharf out, and view. See § 253.141(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(3)(a). In determining whether this rule is satisfied, the Board only considers adjacent upland riparian owners who are directly adjacent to and abut the bridge and whether the proposed activities will block their ingress/egress or unreasonably restrict their rights in any other way. In this case, adjacent upland owners are not affected. Although neither Petitioner is an "adjacent upland riparian owner" within the meaning of the rule, because of the interest shown by some nearby residents, the Board also considered potential impacts on property owners in the channel and Lake, including Petitioners, to determine whether their riparian rights were unreasonably affected. In doing so, it followed the long-established principle that riparian rights are not exclusionary rights, and the public has a concurrent right with a riparian owner to fish and swim in waters owned by the State, and a right to navigate. See, e.g., The Ferry Pass Inspectors' and Shippers' Ass'n v. Whites River Inspectors' and Shippers' Ass'n, 57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 643, 645 (Fla. 1909). The more persuasive evidence shows that the activities are designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland owners or other nearby property owners on the Lake and channel. Petitioners failed to establish that the proposed activity (or the use of the waters by members of the public) will prevent them from accessing navigable waters from their property or wharfing out. Likewise, they presented insufficient evidence to establish that the activities will adversely affect their view. A similar contention that their "recreational" rights of fishing, boating, swimming, and nature viewing will be secondarily impacted has been rejected. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(2)(a). A concern that once the project is completed, live- aboards (i.e., vessels used solely as a residence and not for navigation) will move from the Lagoon to the Lake and unreasonably infringe upon Petitioners' riparian rights is without merit. As noted above, virtually all of the live- aboards in the North Lake Worth Lagoon are sailboats, which cannot access the Lake even if the clearance is raised. Finally, the County has enacted an ordinance that prohibits live-aboards in the Lake and Loxahatchee River. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 18. Law enforcement agencies are charged with the responsibility of enforcing that ordinance. Comprehensive Plan and State Plan Although there is no specific requirement in chapter 18-21 to do so, pursuant to section 339.135 the proposed "work program" was reviewed for consistency with the County's Plan by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), now designated as a division in the new Department of Economic Opportunity. Unless a project is inconsistent with a plan requirement, the DCA does not provide written comments. In other words, no response is an indication that the project is consistent with all local plan requirements. After reviewing the project, the DCA did not respond. Therefore, the project was deemed to be consistent with the County Plan. This information was submitted to the Board prior to its decision. See Joint Ex. 2. Rule 18-21.004(1)(i) requires that the State Plan "shall be considered and utilized in developing recommendations for all activities on submerged lands." Petitioners contend that the new bridge will violate the following policies in the State Plan: that submerged grasses be protected; and that natural conditions be maintained to allow the propagation of fish and wildlife. However, the protection of submerged grasses and natural resources was considered by the District before submitting a recommendation to the Board. To the extent this rule may apply, if at all, to the pending application, its requirements have been met. Petitioners also contend that the project is inconsistent with FLUE objective 5.3, which requires the County to maintain the Greenline Overlay in order to protect natural resources in the area. They argue that the proposed activity is inconsistent with the requirement that the greenline buffer be protected from potentially incompatible future land uses; critical habitat for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species; and manatees. See Petitioners' Ex. 10, FLUE obj. 5.3, p. 94. Petitioners cite no authority for their contention that consistency with local comprehensive plans is a requirement for approving an application to use submerged lands. Assuming arguendo that it is, the easement is not inconsistent with the above objective, as the replacement of an existing structure is not an incompatible future land use, and it will not impact seagrasses or manatees. Public Interest Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) provides that "all activities on sovereignty lands must not be contrary to the public interest." Rule 18-21.003(51) defines "public interest" as "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." The same rule requires that in determining public interest, the Board "shall consider the ultimate project and purpose to be served by said use . . . of lands or materials." Although Petitioners agree that the project is for a public purpose, they contend that DOT failed to demonstrate that the project creates a net public benefit, and therefore it does not meet the public interest test. However, the so-called "net public benefit" standard relied upon by Petitioners appears to be derived from rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2.e., which applies to the use of submerged lands for private residential multi-family docks, and not public easements. In any event, the project has a number of positive attributes that militate against finding that it is contrary to the public interest. Until the project is completed, the bridge is structurally deficient and it presents a serious safety concern to the public. Although the bridge height will be increased, with the slopes being provided over a greater distance, the view of oncoming traffic across the bridge is better and safety will be improved for motorists. Increasing the bridge height will also improve navigation for boaters entering or departing the Lake. DOT is using a preferential engineering design, which will increase the lifespan of the bridge to 75 years. The new design will provide for a slower velocity of water flow through the channel, which means an easier and safer route for boaters traversing the channel. Currently, almost all vessels (except a few small ones transported on trailers) operated by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and the FFWCC are unable to access the Lake in the event of an emergency due to emergency lights, antenna, and sonar equipment mounted on the roofs of their vessels. This prevents them from responding to incidents that may occur on the Lake, including serious crimes, accidents, fires on board vessels, manatee rescues, and other related enforcement matters. Representatives of both agencies indicated that with a 12-foot clearance, their vessels will be able to access the Lake. Petitioners argue, however, that in the event of an emergency they would call a security officer for Lost Tree Village. But public comment by a security officer for that development indicated that security personnel only patrol three to five hours per day, they are not sworn law enforcement officers, they do not have arrest authority, and they could not undertake rescues if more than two persons were injured. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the proposed activities on sovereignty submerged lands are not contrary to the public interest. Mitigation and Avoidance Rule 18-21.004(2)(b) provides in part that if the activities will result in "significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources," the application should not be approved "unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate mitigation is proposed." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(7). Petitioners argue that in order to avoid significant adverse impacts, a reasonable alternative is to add a nonstructural horizontal member to the bridge in order to retain the existing clearance of 8.5 feet. There are no significant direct, secondary, or cumulative adverse impacts to the submerged lands or natural resources associated with the bridge or its construction. Therefore, the Board is not required to consider design modifications. Moreover, no bridges have ever been constructed in the manner suggested by Petitioners, and no design criteria currently exist for the implementation of such a nonstructural element on a bridge. A permanent member would cause the same concerns as having a lower bridge because it would be susceptible to the aggressive water environment that could impact the life of the Bridge. If a non-permanent member were attached to the Bridge, it would require periodic maintenance and evaluation. Either type of control would present engineering liability concerns, as well as a hazard to approaching boaters who might not be able to discern that the clearance is 8.5 feet when the bridge itself is 12.0 feet above MHW. DOT does not have any design guidelines, standards, or specifications for warnings, signage, or advanced notification to boaters regarding navigation restrictions. In short, such a restriction would be contrary to the public interest because of maintenance, safety, and liability issues that may arise. The elimination and reduction of impacts is not required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund issue a final order approving DOT's application for a 50-year easement to use Sovereign Submerged Lands to replace the Little Lake Worth Bridge in Palm Beach County. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Hammock Dunes is a parcel of land located on the east coast of Florida approximately half way between Daytona Beach and St. Augustine. With the exceptions of a few small parcels separated from the main area, the area in question in this case is that bounded by Malacompra Road to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and State Road A1A to the south and west. The property is cut at several places from the west boundary, State Road A1A to the east by 16th Road, Jungle Hut Road, and the approach road to the Sheraton Hotel. All of the property at issue in this hearing is owned by either Admiral or its parent company, ITT. The natural terrain is a series of ridges and swales which contain to the west, sea oats, salt palmetto, and coastal scrub in the drier areas. The lower interior ridges contain alternating growth of the above vegetation until one gets to the immediate area of State Road A1A where, because of the fill, oak and other upland vegetation is in evidence. Ditches exist on both sides of each of the cross roads mentioned above. In addition, ditches have been dug in a generally north - south direction following the ridge and swale run of the land and there is also evidence of spoil banks in the southern portion of the property resulting from the dredging of the Florida East Coast Canal. The north/south ditches in question were dug as a part of the mosquito control program carried out over several years starting in 1953 to remove the seasonal breeding ground of salt marsh mosquitoes. In addition to these north/south control ditches, there are other ditches leading away from them which form a part of that system, and there are some permanent waters on the property, primarily at the southern end near the Sheraton Hotel and at the coquina quarry. The dominant vegetation adjacent to the ditches includes a mixture of plants including weeds, disturbance plants, and persistent vegetation. Aerial photographs taken at various times over the period of the last 40 years reflect that the vegetation includes cat tails, bunch grass, wax myrtle, cabbage palms, and salt brush. Many of these ditches are encroached by the growth surrounding them. The existence of cabbage palms serves as a tool to define the swale areas because water conditions are not suitable for these plants in the swales. The swales in question, which basically were the areas in which the drainage ditches were dug, were natural and not man made. According to Dr. Durbin C. Tabb, a consultant in environmental assessment, whose work emphasizes the location, siting, and sensitivity of aquaculture projects, vegetation in areas such as this goes through a progression of species and this progression is used in relic analysis. Dr. Tabb performed a relic analysis on the area in question and based on this, as well as an analysis and examination of extensive aerial photography done of the area, he concluded that prior to the ditching activity, the plant community in the area could be described as a "wet prairie." This is an area of virtual treeless grasses and shrubs growing in an area periodically inundated by water. The zonation of the plants caused by this periodic inundation, as determined by Dr. Tabb, is consistent with wet prairie and that condition, prior to the ditching for mosquito control purposes, was consistent with mosquito breeding. In his analysis, Dr. Tabb found that numerous plants, such as cat tails, maiden cane, pickerel weed, saw grass, spike rush, soft rush, switch grass, button bush, and coastal plain willow, all of which need a moist environment, were extant in the area. Dr. Tabb also concluded that the water in the swales was primarily fresh water. In dry periods, however, in the lower areas, some salt could be sucked up from below ground by capillary action. Another survey of the area was conducted by Jeremy Tyler, the supervisor of the dredge and fill section of the Northeast District of DER, who has performed more than 3,000 jurisdictional determinations over the past 10 years, and who performed the jurisdictional determination for the property in question here. In making his determination, Mr. Tyler looked at various maps, aerial photographs, and information supplied by Admiral Corporation and conducted at least three recent on-sight visits to the property in addition to others conducted in the past. Based on all of this information available to him, Mr. Tyler concluded that certain portions of the Hammock Dunes area were exempt from DER dredge and fill permitting requirements. His conclusions were that the canal running to the intra-coastal waterway and the waterway itself were jurisdictional. Mr. Tyler determined that at least two ditches went through the uplands portion of the area as a part of the mosquito control operation. These ditches were the one at the west side of Malacompra Road which entered into the intra-coastal waterway; another was the westernmost ditch running south into the barge canal at the southeast corner of the property. Both were exempt. The third ditch in the area, that on the most eastern side, was not cut in the mosquito control operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for exemption. On the basis of this, he concluded that DER's jurisdiction extended to the sides of the jurisdictional ditch up about half way northward on the lake in the southeast corner of the property. North of that point, the ditch was cut through a non-jurisdictional uplands area. Mr. Tyler indicated that he would normally follow each ditch up-stream, but, having been made aware of the extent of the mosquito control operation, and the relationship of that operation to the ditches, he concluded that the majority of the ditches in the area were dug during the mosquito control operation and met the criteria for exemption, and, as a result, he did not have to follow them to their source. If he had not been satisfied that the mosquito control district exemption applied, he would have gone up each and every ditch to see where jurisdiction stopped. Prior to publishing an opinion as to jurisdictional limitations, ordinarily the agency will request a legal review of the proposed determination. This was done in the instant case by agency counsel Richard Lee. However, Mr. Tyler made the ultimate determination that the exemption applied in this case. He did not examine the question of whether the ditches constituted a series of lakes connected, so as to support jurisdiction, because since he was satisfied they were dug in mosquito control operations, the exemption applied which obviated any other jurisdictional issue. Robin D. Pyne, a consulting engineer in water resources, has studied the Hammock Dunes property since 1977 when his company was hired to do a water use plan for a neighboring community. Since 1979, he has had substantial opportunity to study the water situation there. Over the years, he has specifically tried to determine if standing water existed between the swales prior to the beginning of the digging of the mosquito control ditches in 1953. In doing his analysis, he relied on historical data, site topography data collections, reports of other agencies, and the work done by other experts. Considering all this, Mr. Pyne found that the soil in the Hammock Dunes area was basically well drained beach sand. Any rainfall on this area would seep in quickly and not run off, as the sand is very porous. During periods of sustained rainfall, the water table rises into the low part of some of the swales. Once the rains stop, however, the water drains off quickly through the ditches, and before they were in place, through the underground drainage which went west to east to the ocean as well as through evaporation. Extrapolation of this theory and its application to known data revealed that prior to the beginning of the mosquito control ditch program in 1953, wet soils were found in the swale bottoms only periodically and the swale bottom water level was determined by the level of the water table in the area. Generally, the swale bottoms would not be wet under average or dry weather prior to the digging of the ditches. The several mathematical calculations made by Mr. Pyne for the period prior to the ditches revealed that generally the average water table was below the bottom of the swale and there is no standing water in the bottom of a majority of the swales. Mr. Pyne concluded that the digging of the ditches may have lowered the water table by approximately one foot overall, but this would not affect his thesis. It is accepted here over that of Mr. Frazee who testified for Petitioner, and whose testimony is discussed in Para 24, infra. Other analysis was conducted by Mr. James H. Humphrey, an aerial cartographer who analyzed photographs of the area in question taken in 1943, 1952 and 1983. The use of a stereo plotter in these analyses delineated swales, ditches, roadways and other features important to the project. Based on the technical tools and procedures available to and used by him in his analysis, Mr. Humphrey is convinced the swales he identified are accurate and using his plotter, the textures of grasses, the tones of grey on the picture, and other like considerations, he was able to determine this outline. Dr. Thomas H. Patton, a geologist with a specialty in geomorphlogy, a study of why land looks as it does, and the relationship of soils to geomorphology, performed studies on the property in question to determine if the swales contained soils indicative of inundated conditions. To determine this, he looked for certain characteristics of the soils in the area to determine if the soils had been inundated for a period of time. In doing so, he first used aerial photographs to get the lay of the land from an overview standpoint defining general trends and the general outline of the land, roads, and other impacts by man. He then took soil samples from the major, the intermediate, and the minor swales and tried to get samples from between the swales to see if there was any interconnection between them. He took samples from soil across the entire width of each swale studied. Soil samples contain and maintain within themselves indications of sustained emergence or saturation. Studying these indicia can show how long the soil was dry (above the water table or below it). If the soils were inundated for a long period, they would show a preservation of a surface decomposed organic layer reflected by a dark grey to black color. This is the primary indication. There are others such as a blue-grey/green coloring of the subsurface and a mottling or sign of reduced condition. This test has been adopted by the Department of Natural Resources and the United States Corps of Engineers. Certain horizons have been defined and identified by letter. These are: O - the top, made up of leaf litter A - the elevated layer - transfer level B - just at or above the water table (normal dark brown color), and BH - the water table level - no clay or organics According to Dr. Patton, it takes a long time for the BH level to accumulate. The process is quicker in a porous soil than a dry soil and the Hammock Dunes area has porous soil. One would not find a BH horizon, however, in a saturated or inundated soil. If the soil is saturated, even a large part of the year, there would be no BH horizon. At the Hammock Dunes site, the emergent soil has a diffused, darker upper surface. Below that comes a much cleaner, greyer sand and beneath that, the zone of accumulation. Dr. Patton's survey revealed to him that soils in the swales were not inundated throughout the year. They were inundated during periods of high rainfall, but because of the porosity of the soil, would drain quickly. On the entire property, he saw only four isolated areas that could be considered wetlands. In the majority of the area, the soils appeared to be emergent soils. Most met the typical horizon picture including a BH zone. Using a specific site as an example, Dr. Patton traced to the BH horizon starting at approximately 42 inches down. The soil started lighter on top and proceeded to get darker as one went down to the zone of accumulation. That indicated that the water table was at or near 42 inches sufficiently during the year to achieve accumulation. Had the water table been nearer the surface more of the year, that would not occur. In Dr. Patton's opinion, this situation, including the water table level, stayed just about at that point all the time for at least a couple of hundred years if not for 1,000 years. This is not to say that the water table will not move during periods of drought and over rain. It will, but those periods are relatively short and the general level of water table where the BH horizon is is just about normally at 42 inches throughout the Hammock Dunes property. In preparing his analysis, Dr. Patton compared the swales work described above with the soils found in what he considered a wetlands area just north of 16th Road to see what a real wetlands soil in this area looked like. He found the latter to be black and mucky and typically wetland. He also took samples from Bonne Terre farms, which is a drained historical wetland. In this wetland, the soil was quite organic at the surface which showed sustained inundation of the surface. He also took samples at a place where Varn Lake comes close to State Road A1A and at that point, it was determined that there had been submergence, saturation, or inundation long enough to constitute a wetlands. The organic material was at a depth which indicated there that originally the area was wetlands but he cannot say when. In general, then, if the interdunal swales had been inundated prior to the dredging operation of the mosquito control ditches, there would have been organic materials still in the bottom of these swales. The time necessary to leach it out would have been several hundred years. Since the BH horizon, with its level of organic material, was located at 42 inches, this indicated that, for the most part, the Hammock Dunes areas with their swales included were not historic wetlands. Dr. Patton agreed with Mr. Pyne that the digging of the mosquito control ditches did not materially lower the water table nor does he believe that except in the worse conditions, in the rainiest of rainy seasons, that the water table in one swale was ever connected to the water table in another. In contrast to the above, Petitioner introduced testimony by various experts and residents which contradicted that referenced above. James M. Frazee, an employee of the St. Johns River Water Management District became familiar with the Hammock Dunes area in connection with a salt water intrusion problem he was working on while employed with the U.S. Geological Survey in 1978 to 1980. During that period, he entered the site at least once a month. Based on his visits at the time, he found the area in question to be a combination of relic dunes with an interdunal lake system which holds water during periods of average to high water levels. His measurements of the water depth between the ridges showed it to be anywhere from 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 feet down. This was during a period when the water table was between 5 1/2 to 6 feet above mean sea level, and was a period of above normal rainfall. During the period 1965 to 1980 there was a period of less than normal rainfall during which the water table fell from the high above to approximately 6 inches above mean sea level. Mr. Frazee contends that the interdunal swales are lakes and ditches dug by the mosquito control district have drained the area. In his opinion, were it not for these ditches, the ground in the swales would be much wetter, but Mr. Frazee cannot indicate by how much. His testimony, contradicted by that of Dr. Patton and Mr. Pyne, is not considered to be consistent with the weight of the evidence. John Labie, an employee of DER specializing in water quality assurance, is familiar with the Hammock Dunes area and examined it as to ditching by a review of numerous aerial photographs and surveys. In his study, he tried to determine what the area looked like originally. In addition to the documentation he reviewed, he also walked a great portion of the area, personally examining the property in question. On the basis of his inquiry, he concluded that the area was previously a wetlands which was dried out by the mosquito control ditches. He admits that his depictions of historical wetlands, on the maps utilized for demonstrative purposes at the hearing, was not based on the same degree of accuracy and sophistication as was the basis for Respondent, Admiral's expert testimony. Another evaluation was conducted by botanist Sydney T. Brinson, an employee of DER, whose job includes the preparation of jurisdictional determinations based on botanical studies. She visited the site herself and determined there are at least three connections to waters of the state and from these connections into the interior of the Hammock Dunes property. She contends then, that if there were not mosquito control exemption, at least some of the ditches would, at least partway up, be jurisdictional. It is her opinion that before the ditches were put in, based on old documentation, the area was a series of coastal dunal lakes and the lakes, as they existed, did not have much plantlife in them. Relying on the U.S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey maps, which refer to much of the areas as "open water," she contends that the area was a system of coastal lakes rather than marshes. Marshes contain vegetation. Lakes generally do not. It is her further opinion that the interdunal waters, as interdunal lakes, total approximately 270 acres. Not all of these are connected at the surface. She feels that all of the individual systems north of the Florida East Coast Canal are more than 10 acres in area and would have to be over 2 inches in depth because of the fact that they are reflected as open water on the USGS maps. Based on her research, she concluded that prior to the digging of the mosquito control ditches, the area was a historic wetland. This opinion is not supported by the weight of the evidence, however. Another expert in soils science, Dar Guam Cheng, visited the site on May 9, 1985, and, in addition, reviewed a 1918 soils map of the area. Back then the area consisted of hydric soils which is a wetlands soils. All types of soils found in the area in 1918 are considered hydric (wetlands) soils. Mr. Cheng, however, took no samples himself on the Hammock Dunes property. His evaluation was based solely on the 1918 map, and is not considered to be of substantial value to the determination of this issue. Burrell Miller, a 76 year old resident of Hammock Dunes since 1979, but who either lived or visited in the area since 1917, indicated that his family homesteaded the area around Malacompra Road in 1920. During the period 1917 through 1943, he recalled, there was always water storage in the Hammock Dunes area. There was, however, not always high water except in the 1926 hurricane. There is, however, fresh water generally there every time it rains and the water generally stays level with the sea level. Mr. Miller recalls that from time to time in years past, boats were needed to cross the savannah to the beach. On other occasions one could wade in water up to one's waist. As he recalls, some of the soil was wet all of the time and never dried out. Mr. Miller's testimony, however, was fragmented and capable of numerous interpretations. It is not given the same weight as the scientific evidence presented by other parties. Nonetheless, another resident, Petitioner, Gerald Schatz, started coming to the area in 1953 and settled there in 1954. Over the years, he has gone into the Hammock Dunes area quite frequently and it is his recollection that along Malacompra Road, there always seemed to be some water, at times, up to the floor board of his pickup truck. He can recall when the mosquito control ditches were started in 1953. Even before he came to the area, Mr. Schatz' father-in- law lived there and always considered it wet. He recalls hearing others also describing the area as being wetlands. During the 1926 hurricane, it was flooded and again in 1957. Before the ditches were installed, there was, to his recollection, substantial standing water. Mr. James J. Miller, state archaeologist for Florida and very familiar with the history of the area, is familiar with the Hammock Dunes area from the work he did on a Development of Regional Impact for the area. Having reviewed records and historical documents relating to this specific area, going back as far as 1605, he concluded that there was no natural waterway extending across the Hammock Dunes area. His study, however, dealt with the issues of navigability of waters not its hydrographics and his study did not deal with the issue of wetlands. Nonetheless, it is clear from the above, that the area was neither open water or a water course at any time in recorded history. The overwhelming weight of the evidence clearly indicated that the Hammock Dunes property was not a historical wetlands within the framework and the intent of the statute or the rule. Admittedly, the area was inundated from time to time, especially after such periods of high rainfall as hurricanes, tropical storms, or above average rainy seasons. During those periods, the standing water which remained for a relatively short period of time was often of such magnitude as to come to the floor board of a pickup truck, or require the use of a skiff or other surface transport over the water to cross it. This clearly accounts for the memory of Mr. Miller as to him using boats to get to the beach and for the recollection of Mr. Schatz who remembered water coming to the floor boards of his truck On the whole, however the scientific evidence presented by Admiral Corporation, including such expert testimony as that of Dr. Patton, Dr. Tabb, Mr. Pyne, and other highly qualified scientists who visited the site and conducted reliable scientific evaluations of the area, all clearly lead to the inescapable conclusion that the area was for the most part and over the long run not a submerged wetland. There can be little question that the majority of the "swales" on Hammock Dunes were either the result of or enhanced by mosquito control ditching operations of the East Flagler Mosquito Control District over the period from 1953 through completion. Though these ditches ultimately connect with the intercoastal waterway or the Florida East Coast Canal, both of which are waters of the state, these connections, with the exception of the ditch west of Varn Lake which is admittedly not exempt, are obviously due to mosquito control activities of EFMCD. According to the best evidence available, the land in question was not a surface water body nor was it connected to a water of the state prior to the construction of the mosquito control ditch system. For the most part, the interdunal swales, which constantly hold water, are less than 10 acres in size and have an average depth of less than 2 feet of water in them throughout the year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that DER take final agency action adopting the preliminary determinations made by its Northeastern District of DER's permitting jurisdiction for the discharge of dredge and fill materials on Hammock Dunes as outlined in the DER Northeast District letter of August 9, 1984 to Admiral Corporation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 23rd day of December, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 23rd day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3604 In the preparation of this Recommended order, the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner and Respondent were thoroughly considered and evaluated. As listed below, the individual proposed findings were accepted or rejected by the undersigned as indicated: For the Petitioner: 1) accepted and incorporated in para 30 (a)-(e) accepted but not dispositive of any issue - 6) accepted except for the last sentence of para 6 which is argument rejected as contra the weight of the evidence accepted accepted but immaterial 10 - 12) accepted but not dispositive irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant accepted rejected as irrelevant (a) - (d) accepted - 23) accepted but not controlling 24 - 25) rejected as argument, finding of fact 26 (a) (1) - (4) accepted but not conclusive or definitive 26 (5) rejected as a summary of documentation and not a mapped Findings of Fact 26 (b) - (d) rejected as a summary of testimony and not a finding of fact rejected as a summary of testimony and not a finding of fact rejected 29 (a) - (d) rejected as argument summarization of testimony rather than Findings of Fact rejected as a summary of testimony rather than Finding of Fact accepted 32 - 36) accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence rejected as summary of testimony and not Finding of Fact rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence and argument rather than Finding of Fact rejected as summary of testimony and not Finding of Fact 1st and 2nd paras accepted, but 3rd paragraph rejected as not the better evidence rejected as argument and not Finding of Fact 43 - 44) accepted accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence accepted as to the severance of Varn Lake from the major canal but rejected as to contra to the weight of the evidence as to the historical connection rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence accepted accepted that Mr. Labie made such a "finding" but the finding is rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence 51 - 52) rejected as recitations of testimony and not Findings of Fact 53) rejected as far as categorization of the periodic wet areas as "lake systems" 54) accepted as a statement of Mr. Schatz's recollection accepted as a statement of the contents of a writing not dispositive of the issue 57 - 59) accepted 60) rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence For the Respondent: accepted accepted accepted except for the term "swales" which is used merely descriptively and not binding as to definition accepted accepted 5 (a) - (c) rejected as recitations of testimony rather than Findings of Fact 5 (d) - (8) accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's witnesses' testimony was, in general, in disagreement with that of Respondent's witnesses. However, as stated in the Recommended Order, the weight and quality of Respondent's evidence prevailed. (o) - (q) accepted not as fact but as a recitation of the evidence presented by each witness (a) - (c) accepted - 11) accepted 12) accepted COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Ross Burnaman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Lehrman & Denker Law Offices 103 North Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1736 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Timothy Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 Carlos Alvarez, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 420 First Florida Bank Bldg. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 =================================================================
