Recommendation The Hearing Officer having considered the law and the facts would recommend denial of the application. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Counsel for SWFWMD Willian J. Wiegand =================================================================
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should grant a dredge and fill permit which has been requested by the Respondent, William R. Cullen (Applicant). That proposed permit has been opposed by the Petitioners (who will be referred to collectively as Petitioners for convenience sake).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to issue permits pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, William R. Cullen, filed an application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a slip marina on June 4, 1985. The original request was subsequently amended to seek approval for a forty-two slip commercial marina. The project site for the Applicant's marina is located at Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The site is within Buttonwood Sound, Florida Bay. The property is owned by Mr. Cullen and his family. All of the proposed improvements will be constructed on submerged lands or uplands owned or controlled by the Cullen family. The project site is located within a commercial area of Key Largo and contains frontage on both the water, Buttonwood Sound, and the highway, U.S. Highway 1. The project site has a basin which was created by the excavation of materials used for road construction from the shoreline and the installation of an L-shaped rock jetty which runs roughly perpendicular and then parallel to the shoreline. This jetty was installed during the late 1960s. The water depths within the basin range from 3 feet to approximately 14 feet. The water within the basin is subject to the same tidal considerations as the waters within Buttonwood Sound. There is no interruption of the flow of water in and out of the basin from those waters of the Sound. The water within this basin is within an Outstanding Florida Water as defined in Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant's plan calls for the excavation of appproximately 30,170 square feet of upland area and the dredging of the existing basin for approximately 18,460 dredged square feet. During the construction phases, the Applicant proposes to install turbidity curtains to limit the adverse effects expected during that time. The improvements are intended to be a permanent alteration to the basin design and will permanently modify the marine life habitat within that basin. The Applicant proposes to remove portions of the existing jetty to allow additional water to flow through the basin unimpeded by the jetty walls. The removal of the jetty walls will expedite the dilution and flushing of potential pollutants from the basin on a tidal frequency. That flushing is purported to assure that the water quality within the basin will not be diminished. However, such pollutants will be flushed into Buttonwood Sound. Stormwater accumulating on the upland project is to flow toward a lower upland area and should not to be dumped into the basin. The proposed marina is to have fueling facilities and the Applicant has agreed to design that system to limit inadvertent spillage. Further, as a condition of the permit, the Applicant has agreed to abide by the Department of Natural Resources' spill contingency plan requirements. The proposed marina is designed to provide portable sewage pumpout facilities for each slip. A permanent pumpout facilities will also be available. The Applicant seeks to attract boats in the range of 30 to 50 feet in length at this facility. While there are a number of other marinas in other areas of Key Largo which might accomodate that size boat, the marinas in the immediate vicinity of this project site are designed for smaller craft. The area within the basin consists of unvegetated bottom, submerged rip-rap, sea grasses, and hardbottom/algae communities--the predominant classifications being the latter two. The deeper hardbottom areas are to be filled and portions of the sea grasses will be dredged in order to configure the proposed docks. Additionally, other sea grass areas will be shaded, and thereby disturbed, by the construction of the docks. There are no historical or archaeological features relevant to the proposed site. The area has not been designated as a critical manatee area, however, manatees do frequent the project vicinity and have been observed feeding immediately adjacent to the basin. The permit proposed for this project requires a water quality monitoring plan. In addition to sampling for coliform, diesel by-products, oils, greases, detergents, oxygen, copper, lead and zinc, the plan requires sampling for aluminum, cadmium, and chromium. The monitoring stations are to be located both within the basin (2 stations) and outside the basin (2 stations). Liveaboards or others continuously docked at the marina will create additional shading which will disrupt and adversely affect the sea grass system. In order to provide access to the marina, the Applicant intends to dredge a channel in an area containing sea grass which is undisputedly within the Outstanding Florida Waters. The Department deemed the subject application was complete on February 23, 1988. The Department did not apply the Keys Rule found in Rule 17-312.400, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. The Department also did not apply the Mitigation Rule found in Rule 17-312.300, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. Michael Dentzau has personally reviewed and processed 250-300 dredge and fill permits during his tenure with the Department. Of those projects he has reviewed, he has not recommended that dense sea grass beds of the type located within this project site be dredged in order to construct a commercial marina. Phillip Edwards was responsible for executing the Intent to Issue in this case. In determining that this project had provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated, Mr. Edwards weighed the public interests criteria set forth in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. Because he received letters purportedly from elected officials, Mr. Edwards presumed that the project was in the public interest. That assumption of fact has not been established by this record. According to Mr. Edwards, the adverse effects expected by this project could be adequately addressed by the permit conditions when weighed against the public interest in favor of the project. Since Mr. Edwards' assumptions as to the public interest in this project have not been established, his conclusion regarding the weight that interest should receive can be given little consideration. The project as proposed by the Applicant will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project as proposed by the Applicant will adversely affect fishing or marine productivity within the basin since it will permanently alter the basin biologically by destroying sea grass. The increased boat traffic within the Sound will also detract from the present recreational uses enjoyed by area residents. According to Mr. Edwards, it is very unusual for the Department to issue a permit when sea grasses will be adversely affected. In the 17 years in which he has reviewed permits, only two occasions merited approval when the destruction of sea grasses to the extent in this case would result. Neither of those cases were factually similar to the case at issue. In those cases, however, elected officials advised Mr. Edwards, as he presumed they had here, that there was a public need for the permit. Increased boat traffic will result in increased manatee mortality due to collisions. In order to assure water quality will not be degraded within a marina, the project should have a short flushing time comparable to healthy natural embayments. In this case, the flushing proposed by the Applicant is dependent, in part, on winds which may be inconsistent or relatively minimal during the summer months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by the Applicant. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-3779 et seq. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS: The first three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, it is accepted that the Department deemed the application complete on February 23, 1988; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that the habitat within the basin is the same as the habitat throughout Florida Bay and that the basin is not "enclosed" hydrologically; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as argument, conclusions of law, or comment. The paragraphs do not recite facts pertinent to this case. Paragraphs 13, 14, and the first two sentences of paragraph 15 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph IS is rejected as argument. The first two sentences of paragraph 16 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as argument. To the extent that paragraph 19 accurately describes Van de Kreeke's assessment of the report it is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record. The report upon which comment is directed was not offered in this cause to prove its truth/accuracy. Paragraphs 20 through 22 are rejected as comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record-- see comment to paragraph 19 above. Paragraphs 23 through 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as argument, comment, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as hearsay, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are accepted. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted but is comment. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraph 50 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. The first three sentences of paragraph 52 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The first sentence and that portion of the second sentence of paragraph 53 that ends with the word "authenticity" is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 54 and 55 are accepted. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. Paragraph 57 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 58 is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 59 through 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 69 and 70 are accepted. Paragraph 71 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 72 is rejected as argument. The first sentence of paragraph 73 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 74 is accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 77 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are accepted. Paragraph 80 is rejected as repetitive. With the inclusion of the words "and hardbottom and algae" paragraph 81 is accepted. Paragraph 82 is accepted. Paragraph 83 is accepted. Paragraph 84 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 5l. Paragraphs 85 through 89 are accepted. With the substitution of the word "not" for the word "ever" in the last sentence of paragraph 90, it is accepted. Paragraphs 91 through 94 are accepted. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 96 through 100 are accepted. Paragraph 101 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 102 through 106 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The waters within the basin are of the same origin as they were prior to the creation of the jetty; no artificial body of water was created. With regard to paragraph 3 it is accepted that the jetty was constructed in the late 1960s. Paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that that is the applicants proposal no conclusion as to the likelihood of that is reached. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Inevitably, however, spills will occur and must be considered as an adverse affect of the project. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by competent evidence or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is inadequate to offset the adverse affects to manatees. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is inadequate to limit the adverse affects to sea grass. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through the first sentence of paragraph 6 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 7 through Il are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13 through the first sentence of paragraph 17 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraphs 21 through 26 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 28 is accepted, the remainder rejected as speculative, comment, or unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 29 is accepted, the remainder rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted; however, sea grasses not disturbed by dredging will still suffer adverse affects from shading and silting. Paragraph 36 is accepted but see comment to paragraph 35 above. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 45 is accepted but it should be noted that is not the extent of the proposal. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Presnell Garvin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles Lee Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Robert Routa P.O. Box 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Linda McMullen McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The subject application requests a permit from the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District for the agricultural irrigation of 640 acres of grass-clover mixture, of which approximately 320 are planted annually to small grains and annual rye grass. The public notice of hearing appearing in The Orlando Sentinel Star, Orlando, Florida, and The Evening Herald, Sanford, Florida, which noticed the permit application submitted on behalf of Robert E. Lee, were received into evidence without objection. (A copy of The Orlando Sentinel Star exhibit, public notice of hearing, is attached to this report, because the original of the exhibit is contained with the report on docket no. 61, application 21423.) Mr. Lee and Mr. Wheeler on behalf of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District stipulated to the introduction of the application and the staff report of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, without objection. It was further stipulated that the matters as contained in the application and staff report could be utilized as a basis for findings of fact and recommended order, without the necessity of putting on testimony in behalf of the applicant or the staff. Pursuant to that stipulation, oral testimony was not presented by the parties. The amount of water requested by the application is 398.9 acre/feet per year. The staff report recommended approval of 398.9 acre/feet per year, as requested by the applicant, based on the applicant's supplemental water use request. Mr. Lee did not offer any further evidence beyond the application and staff report, in support of the request for permit. The recommendation as contained in the staff report prepared by Mr. Nagendra Khanal, Hydrology Division, Resource Planning Department, Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, was that the application #25642 for annual allocation of 398.9 acre/feet per year for purposes as applied for was acceptable. However, Mr. Khanal indicated that the permit should be subject to the following conditions: Recommendation of maximum monthly pumpage not to exceed 180.17 acre/feet or 4.70 inches/month. Pumpage in this amount is subject to availability of surplus water in the basin, consistent with and subject to specific basin rules including minimum flows and levels, all as determined by the District. Existing well and 10 inch deep well turbine pump with an installed capacity of 3,000 gpm be approved. This permit shall expire on October 15, 1978. The applicant shall install a measuring device on the well. Pumpage records shall be submitted to the District at the end of each irrigation season. There were no persons at the hearing who wished to act as intervenors in the capacity of proponents or opponents of the application, nor were there any members of the general public, not party to the proceedings, who wished to comment on the application.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00360 is for a new consumptive water use involving one well. The application seeks withdrawal of 1.29 million gallons per day average daily withdrawal and 2.59 million gallons per day maximum daily withdrawal. The water will be withdrawn from the Floridan Aquifer for the irrigation of tomatoes. The amount of water sought to be consumptively used will exceed the water crop as defined, by the district because approximately 25 percent of the water will be discharged off site. The land which is the subject of this application is being leased by the applicant for the purpose of growing tomatoes. Applicant's lease terminates in September, 1978 with an option to renew. Except as otherwise set forth above, the applied for consumptive use will not violate any of the conditions set forth in Subsections 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.A.C. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends granting of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: The applicant reduce runoff to 4.6 percent of the amount pumped by January 1, 1978. The district be allowed to install flowmeters and be allowed to go on the property to read these meters. The permit shall terminate on September 30, 1978, unless permitee seeks an extension. That the applicant give written notice of his intention to renew the lease if he so intends.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Application No. 76-00360 be granted subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 5 above. ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Ralph Williford Staff Attorney Glisson and Williford Farms, Inc. Southwest Florida Water Post Office Box 911 Management District Ruskin, Florida 33570 Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permits requested and the right-of-way permit be issued in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the Staff Report (attached hereto), as amended at the hearing of this cause, which amendments are discussed in the Findings of Fact herein. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Walker, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District P.O. Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Mr. John Moose General Manager of Ascot Groves, Inc. P.O. Box 576 Fort Pierce, Florida 33450
The Issue Whether Respondent's statements as set forth in the First Amended Petition to Determine Validity of Agency Statements Defined as Rules are rules as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, which have not been promulgated as required by Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner alleges that the following constitute agency statements defined as rules but not properly adopted as rules by the District: The District considers a particular parcel of property to be located within a "floodway" within the District's regulatory jurisdiction for Works of the District (WOD) permitting on the basis of the parcel being located within a floodway established pursuant to a currently-approved Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The District will not accept any alternative floodway boundaries that are inconsistent with those established in the FIS unless FEMA confirms that the alternative boundaries are more accurate than those obtained from the existing FIS, and FEMA approves the alternative boundaries through a formal approval process, such as a Letter of Map Revision that also requires local government concurrence. If the District determines the parcel to be within its regulatory floodway, it will require an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application for any development activities within the floodway, other than those entitled to a general permit under Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code. The District will require an ERP for the activities described in paragraph "c" notwithstanding the fact that the Department is evaluating those same activities as part of an ERP application that has been submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for the same activity in the same location under the terms of the Operating Agreement.1/ The District will evaluate an application to conduct development activities as described in paragraph "c" based upon the full range of ERP permitting criteria contained in the District's rules, even though the Department is processing an ERP application for the same activities pursuant to the Operating Agreement between the District and the Department. The District's policy is to deny or to object to the issuance of any permit application to conduct commercial mining operations in the WOD composed of the Alapaha River floodway. It is the policy of the District to consider any proposed development activity in a WOD, other than those eligible for a general permit under Rule 40B-4.3010, Florida Administrative Code, to have an adverse impact on the regulatory floodway, and thereby to be unpermittable by the District. The District's policies against allowing development activities in WODs apply even if a professional engineer certifies under Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code, that the activity will not violate the conditions of issuance set forth in the rule. The policies apply because the District will consider the development activities to violate ERP permitting rules applicable to all development activities, not just those within WODs. It is also the District's policy to ask the Department to deny ERP applications for development activities proposed in WODs that require ERPs even though the Department is processing the application pursuant to the Operating Agreement. The District's policy is to deny ERP applications to conduct commercial mining activities in WODs as determined by the FIS, and to recommend to the Department that ERP applications to the Department for such projects be denied, unless the applicant goes through the FEMA amendment process described in paragraph b to remove the area from the FEMA- determined floodway. Each party requests that it be granted costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes. Stipulated Facts Angelo's is a Florida Limited Partnership, whose address is 26400 Sherwood, Warren, Michigan 48091. Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida established under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, with its address at 9225 County Road 49, Live Oak, Florida 32060. Angelo's owns property in Hamilton County approximately four miles to the east of Interstate 75 and to the north of U.S. Highway 41, immediately to the east of the Alapaha River. Angelo's conducts commercial sand mining operations on a portion of its property pursuant to various agency authorizations, including an ERP issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department), Permit No. 158176-001, and a Special Permit issued by Hamilton County, SP 98-3. The ERP was issued by the Department pursuant to its authority under Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes. Angelo's mining operations constitute a "mining project" as that term is used in Section II.A.1.e of an Operating Agreement Concerning Regulation under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Aquaculture General Permits under Section 403.814, Florida Statutes, between Suwannee River Water Management District and Department of Environmental Protection (Operating Agreement). The Operating Agreement has been adopted as a District rule pursuant to Rule 40B-400.091, Florida Administrative Code. Angelo's has filed with the Department an application to modify its ERP to expand its sand mining operations into an area of its property immediately to the west of its current operations (the "proposed expanded area"). Angelo's application is being processed by the Department at this time. Angelo's ERP modification application is being processed by the Department under the Operating Agreement. The District has asserted permitting jurisdiction over the proposed expanded area because the proposed sand mining activities would occur in what the District asserts to be the floodway of the Alapaha. The District asserts that an ERP would be required from the District so that the District can address the WOD impacts. It is the District's position that the District's review of any ERP application to undertake development activities in a WOD would be based upon all of the ERP criteria, and not just those criteria relating to floodway conveyance referenced in Rule 40B-4.3030, Florida Administrative Code. On or about November 30, 2001, the District published in the Florida Administrative Weekly a notice of its intent to adopt the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) to delineate floodways for the purpose of its works of the district regulatory program. Facts Based on Evidence of Record Background/Events leading up to this dispute The total amount of the subject property owned by Petitioner is approximately 560 acres. The property is generally a rolling terrain. A significant feature is a man-made berm which was placed around the perimeter of the property by a former owner, presumably to keep water off of the land during floods of the Alapaha River. Dennis Price is a self-employed registered professional geologist. At one time, he was employed by the District and at another time, he was employed by Petitioner. For purposes of this proceeding, he was hired by Petitioner as a consultant for certain permitting projects including the project that gave rise to this dispute. Mr. Price met with and corresponded with the District as well as staff from the Department over a period of two years regarding this mining project. In June of 1999, the Department wrote to Mr. Price in response to a meeting. The letter noted that Petitioner intended to expand mining operations. In addition to informing Mr. Price of the Department's permit requirements, the letter referenced the District's permitting requirements: Mr. Still provided us with an aerial photograph showing the SRWMD's regulated floodway in the area of your mine. A copy is enclosed with the floodway line highlighted in orange. A substantial portion of your proposed expansion area will be within this floodway. The SRWMD has adopted the Alapaha River and its floodway as a works of the district. The Department adopted the SRWMD's regulations pertaining to the environmental resource permit; however, this did not include the regulations pertaining to projects within works of the district. If your permit application only includes areas outside of the floodway, a single application will have to be provided to this bureau. If you intend to expand within the floodway, a separate application will also have to be provided to the SRWMD for a works of the district permit. In either situation, the Department's Jacksonville office will review any modifications to your industrial wastewater permit. (emphasis supplied)2/ In response, Mr. Price wrote to the Department in July of 1999 and stated in pertinent part: Dear Mr. Neel, this letter is in response to your June 22, 1999 letter "RE: Permits for Mining Operation". Angelo's currently has a Sand and Limestone General Permit from DEP - General Permit Number FLA011635. That permit is based on a 5 year mining plan that was presented to the DEP on January 11, 1999. The permit, my letter and the 5 year mining plan presented to DEP are enclosed. Another attachment is an aerial photo of the property showing the Regulatory Floodway line and the location of the areas to be mined under that 5 year mining plan. The aerial photograph has superimposed upon it the location of the floodway of the Alapaha River, as determined by FEMA maps. Please note that the 5 year mining plan and the associated storage and processing areas are outside the regulatory floodway. Therefore, no works of the district permit will be needed at this time. See FAC Rule 40B-4.300(1)(a) [sic]. Future mining beyond the five year mine plan will not occur without first applying for and obtaining permits from the appropriate regulatory agency. At the present time we will only mine areas within the 5 year mine plan. We will have an engineer field locate the floodway line on the property to ensure that no mining or associated storage and process activities occur within the floodway. We are requesting that the ERP permitting process remain within the DEP bureau of Mine Reclamation since the DEP has already issued a general permit for this activity and the DEP normally handles ERP's for mining operations. We have determined that the mining area will be less than 100 acres, and based on Rule 40B-4.2020(2)(B) FAC a general permit may be applied for. We will notify you when we have a draft application prepared and would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience after that to discuss the permit application. (emphasis supplied) In response to information which Mr. Price provided to the Department, the Department wrote to Mr. Price in December of 1999 and again addressed concerns about the area of the project in relation to the floodway line: Specific Item: FLOODWAY Information submitted in response to the request for additional information (RAI) dated August 12, 1999, indicates that Angelo's proposed project boundary and activities extend up to and coincide with the Floodway Line. There appears to be no set-back or buffer from the Floodway (or any other) Line. Chapter 40B-4, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), contains the rules for the Suwannee River Water Management Area which were adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection. Section 40B-4.2010(2)(b)(3)(b) provides that a General Permit may be issued for construction, operation, and maintenance of a surfacewater management system servicing a total project area less than 120 acres provided the system will not be located in, cross or connect to a work of the district. Information submitted with this (November 12, 1999) submittal indicates that the proposed activities within the proposed project coincides with, or is so closely located to, the Floodway Line so as to indicate that the proposed activities would be considered to be connected to a work of the district. This is based upon examination of the plan views and [sic] well as cross section information that has been provided. Please provide a discussion, and drawings as may be needed, that addresses all activities along the established Floodway Line. This information should address all aspects of all operations along this line through the completion of reclamation activities. Be sure to address best management practices, and any proposed setbacks in the response to this request. (emphasis in original)3/ Mr. Price described the proposed project as part of the permit application which was submitted to the Department: Describe in general terms the proposed project, system, or activity. Angelo's Aggregate Materials, Ltd. (AAM) owns approximately 341 acres of land. The current mining site, known as the Jasper Pit, is located on a 160 acre parcel of land. Of the 160 acres, only 82.45 acres are available for mining since the remainder of the property falls within the floodway boundary of the Alapaha River. The 160 acre parcel has an existing berm around the entire perimeter of the property constructed in the 1950's by the previous owner. The Alapaha flood study conducted for FEMA did not take into account this berm. AAM is proposing to construct a 20' wide access road between NW 8th Boulevard and the Jasper Pit, encompassing approximately 7.22 acres. This roadway will be constructed within the limits of property owned by AAM. The stormwater management system for the roadway will consist entirely of grassed swales as covered under FDEP's swale exemption. The Jasper Pit is a sand and limestone mining operation. (emphasis supplied) On August 28, 2001, David Still, the District's Director of Resource Management, wrote a letter to the Department in response to a request received by e-mail from the Department for technical assistance. Mr. Still responds to requests for technical assistance from other agencies as a matter of routine and as contemplated by the operating agreement between the Department and the District. The letter reads as follows: The floodway along the Alapaha River was identified and mapped as part of a Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) flood study performed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, subsequently approved by FEMA and adopted as part of the local government (Hamilton County) ordinance. Based on the above, Suwannee River Water Management District (SRWMD) then adopted the floodway as a Work of the District (WOD). There is only one floodway. SRWMD recognizes and accepts the FEMA flood study performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and local government (Hamilton County) floodway boundary as the best available information to identify the floodway boundary. There is a formal process whereby change can be made to the FEMA boundary with additional or improved information. If FEMA and Hamilton County approve a revised floodway delineation and boundary, so be it, SRWMD will recognize it, however, SRWMD will not unilaterally change a boundary resulting from a detailed federal flood insurance study. We have informed Mr. Thompson and his client of this. We consider the kind of work contemplated by the applicant (at least based on our earliest discussions with them) will cause an adverse impact to the WOD (the floodway) which of course is in conflict with the requirements of 40B-400.103(1)(h) and SRWMD 40B-4, Part III, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The District will object to the issuance of any permit in direct conflict with District rules. We feel the rule is clear and any conflict with 40B-400.103(1)(h), F.A.C. which the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has adopted by reference requires denial of the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) application. Any work of this nature within a WOD is subject to the additional permitting requirements of 40B-4, Part III, F.A.C., even if the District needs to implement such requirements with a separate WOD permit. Mr. Still's reference to "the applicant" in the August 28, 2001, letter is to Petitioner. While Mr. Still is not the agency head, his August 28, 2001, letter clearly communicates the District's policy. Given his position in the agency and the manner in which he discussed this issue, the letter describes and communicates the District's policy on what constitutes a floodway and its boundary. Mr. Still does not have final authority to make decisions on permitting within the District, as that authority rests with the governing board. In a letter written on October 10, 2001, in response to a letter from Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Still stated that District staff would recommend to their governing board that Petitioner's proposed activity is an activity within a floodway that is regulated under Chapter 40B-4, Part III, Florida Administrative Code, and that the proposed activity would adversely impact the floodway: "Therefore, as staff, we would recommend our governing board consider this activity adverse to our rules." This letter is case specific to Petitioner. Within a few days of Mr. Still's October 10, 2001, letter, Petitioner filed its Petition to Determine Validity of Agency Statements Defined as Rules. Other facts established by the evidence of record The District uses FEMA FIRM maps as evidence of the location of the floodways in the works of the district. The District communicated this policy in Mr. Still's letter dated August 28, 2001. The District will not unilaterally change the floodway delineation and boundary established by FEMA. In order for an applicant to persuade the District that a proposed activity within the FEMA floodway line is not within the District's floodway, an applicant must apply to FEMA for a map amendment or revision. The District will acknowledge that a proposed activity is not within the floodway of a work of the district only if the applicant is successful in obtaining a map amendment or revision showing that the proposed activity indeed is not within the floodway. The District has applied this policy to another company which applied for a permit. That is, the District required the permit applicant to apply to FEMA for a map revision or amendment as a condition of issuance of a permit because its proposed activity was within the FEMA floodway as established by the FEMA maps. Petitioner has not filed a permit application with the District regarding the proposed mining project. It is Petitioner's position that to do so would be futile.
The Issue Did Respondent, William D. Going, willfully and intentionally violate Florida Statutes and Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) rules regulating well construction? If he did, what corrective action is appropriate?
Findings Of Fact William Going is a licensed water well contractor. He has held License Number 1564 since 2007. Mr. Going is a managing member of Going Irrigation, Inc., and conducts business under that name. Mr. Going constructed four sand point irrigation wells at a residential property in St. Petersburg, Florida. He did not have and had not applied for a Well Construction Permit (WCP). 1 All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification unless noted otherwise. 2 The findings are based upon the evidence admitted at the hearing and the stipulations of the parties. Mr. Going did not call or otherwise contact the District to request a WCP. The District operates an online permitting system called the Water Management Information System (WMIS). The District will issue a WCP based upon a telephone call, an application on its website, a faxed application, a mailed application, or a hand-delivered application. The District routinely issues permits within two hours of receiving an application, often within ten minutes to half an hour. The District's application system operates from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. It is infrequently offline for a few hours. While quick, the process reviews significant information. It verifies that the well location is sufficiently distant from septic systems, verifies construction methods and materials, and verifies, if the well is for drinking water, that the well is not too close to a contamination site. Mr. Going is a registered and experienced user of WMIS. The District learned of the unpermitted wells on April 28, 2020, when it received an anonymous complaint. On May 5, 2020, approximately ten days after he constructed the wells, Mr. Going submitted WCP Application 889173 for construction of the four already completed sand point irrigation wells. He did not disclose that they were already completed. He falsely represented them as proposed. The District approved the application on May 6, 2020, and issued WCP 889173 to Mr. Going. On June 11, 2020, Mr. Going submitted four Well Completion Reports for the wells, falsely representing that each was completed on May 7, 2020. This was more than 30 days after Mr. Going completed the wells. Mr. Going claimed at the hearing that he tried to apply for a WCP for four or five days before constructing the wells but was locked out of the WMIS. Mr. Going said that his son usually obtained permits online for the company. He also claimed that he tried to apply online on April 24 and 25, 2019. His claims are not persuasive. There is no question that Mr. Going knew the requirements for obtaining a permit and reporting completion. In 2009, in Order No. SWF 09- 017, the District imposed a $500.00 fine and assessed five points against his license for an almost identical offense. In that case, Mr. Going also constructed a well without a permit from the District or applying for a permit. In that case, like this one, he sought to excuse failure to apply for a permit by claiming difficulties with the website. In that case he blamed his wife's unfamiliarity with computers, rather than his own, for failure to apply. In that case, like this one, he applied for and obtained a permit after constructing the well. Mr. Going knowingly and willfully constructed four unpermitted wells, filed a WCP application more than thirty days after he completed the wells, and misrepresented the dates of completion in the WCP completion reports that he filed with the District. Mr. Going tries to characterize his after-the-fact misrepresentations as mitigation. But they were not. Mitigation would have been contacting the District to advise it of the wells' unpermitted construction and the asserted justification for it. Furthermore, his misrepresentations deprived the District of the chance to prevent construction of the wells using improper materials or near a septic tank or contaminated location.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit requested be issued in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the staff report (attached thereto). Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Arthur Hastings 708 Lincoln Avenue Leesburg, Florida John Wheeler, Esquire Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Granada Properties, Ltd. 341 North Mills Orlando, Florida
