The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's revocation of Respondent's modified permit, authorizing a cross- fence on Petitioner's fee owned right-of-way, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation in the State of Florida, 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 multi-purpose water management district. The District's principal office is West Palm Beach, Florida. In executing its multi-purpose, the District, as local sponsor for the US Army Corps of Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, acquired canal rights-of-way. The District's rights-of-way were acquired to enable the Corps of Engineers to construct the flood control project and to maintain the system after its construction. The District operates a proprietary-based right-of-way program to manage the various property interests of the canal rights-of-way. The purpose of the District's right-of-way program is, to the extent possible, to allow uses of the rights- of-way that do not conflict with the flood control project. The rights-of way are used by both public and private concerns, including adjacent property owners, governmental entities, and utility companies. Jesus G. Quevedo is a private individual. His address is 2615 North Federal Highway, Lake Worth, Florida. The property at this address was vacant when Mr. Quevedo purchased it, and he has owned the property for approximately ten (10) years. The District has fee simple title to a strip of land on the south side of the District's C-51 Canal, immediately west of the Federal Highway/Olive Avenue bridge (C-51 Right-of-Way). Mr. Quevedo's property is located at the side of and adjacent to the C-51 Right-of-Way. The C-51 Right-of-Way is also located within the boundaries of Spillway Park as established in the agreement between the District and the City of Lake Worth. Generally described, Spillway Park includes the District's fee simple owned right-of-way on the south side of the District's C-51 Canal, beginning at the west side of the Federal Highway/Olive Avenue bridge and continuing to the east side of the Dixie Highway bridge. Mr. Quevedo has no real property interest in the C-51 Right-of-Way. Prior to purchasing his property, Mr. Quevedo was aware that the District owned the C-51 Right-of-Way. Historically, portions of Spillway Park and the C-51 Right-of-Way, in particular, have been a unique and popular location for excellent snook fishing by the public. These areas continue to be considered as such. On February 11, 1993, Mr. Quevedo was issued SFWMD Permit No. 9801 (Permit), a right-of-way occupancy permit, by the District’s Governing Board. The Permit authorized him to make use of the District’s lands and works as follows: 20’ X 50’ BOAT DOCK WITH WALKWAY, BURIED WATER AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE, POP-UP SPRINKLERS, AND SODDING WITHIN THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-51 LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE OLIVE AVENUE/FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE. During the permit application process, but prior to the issuance of the Permit, Mr. Quevedo had discussed with the District's staff the erection of a cross-fence based on allegations of improper or criminal activities by members of the public. Subsequently, in November 1995, Mr. Quevedo again discussed with the District's staff erection of a cross-fence based on the same allegations but he also included a new allegation of public safety as to the C-51 seawall. Based on the concern for public safety, the District's staff recommended that Mr. Quevedo be granted a modification to the Permit for a cross-fence. On November 14, 1996, the District's Governing Board approved, as part of its consent agenda, and issued SFWMD Permit MOD No. 9801 (MOD Permit)3 authorizing the following: CHAIN LINK CROSS FENCE WITH 16’ VEHICULAR GATE ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-51 LOCATED AT 2615 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY. The MOD Permit, as did the Permit, provides in pertinent part on its face the following: The permittee, by acceptance of this permit, hereby agrees that he shall promptly comply with all orders of the District and shall alter, repair or remove his use solely at his expense in a timely fashion. . . . This permit is issued by the District as a license to use or occupy District works or lands. . . By acceptance of this permit, the permittee expressly acknowledges that the permittee bears all risk of loss as a result of revocation of this permit. The MOD Permit, as did the Permit, contained standard limiting conditions, as provided in Rule 40E-6.381, Florida Administrative Code, and special conditions. The limiting conditions provide in pertinent part as follows: Permittee agrees to abide by all of the terms and conditions of this permit, including any representations made on the permit application and related documents. . . . This permit does not create any vested rights, and except for governmental entities and public or private utilities, is revocable at will upon reasonable prior written notice. Permittee bears all risk of loss as to monies expended in furtherance of the permitted use. Upon revocation, the permittee shall promptly modify, relocate or remove the permitted use. In the event of failure to so comply within the specified time, the District may remove the permitted use and permittee shall be responsible for all removal costs. This permit does not convey any property rights nor any rights or privileges other than those specified herein. . . . Having been granted the MOD Permit, Mr. Quevedo erected the cross-fence within and onto the C-51 Right-of-Way. The C-51 Right-of-Way is located adjacent to Mr. Quevedo’s property, as indicated earlier, and continues westerly to the permitted cross-fence. The C-51 Right-of-Way is enclosed by the cross-fence, preventing access by the public, and is located easterly of the cross-fence. As the C-51 Right-of-Way is located within the boundaries of the Spillway Park, the cross- fence is also located within the boundaries of the Spillway Park. During the time that Mr. Quevedo has owned his home, including prior to and after erection of the cross-fence, he, his family members and/or guests have frequently fished from the C-51 seawall and used the C-51 Right-of-Way enclosed by the cross- fence. Prior to and after the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo and his family members have selectively controlled access by the public to the C-51 Right-of-Way at the C-51 seawall. Prior to the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo chased members of the public off the C-51 Right-of-Way. Mr. Quevedo and members of his family also called law enforcement officers to remove members of the public who were located on the C-51 Right-of-Way, even if the members of the public were fishing from the C-51 seawall. After the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo and his family members continued to engage in this conduct of selective access. Subsequent to the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo had a member of the public arrested for trespassing. The person allegedly jumped over or went around the cross-fence to fish from the C-51 seawall in the C-51 Right-of-Way. With the existence of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo has prevented the general public from using the C-51 Right-of-Way, including the C-51 seawall. As a result, he has acquired the exclusive, private use of the C-51 Right-of-Way at the C-51 seawall, which is publicly owned land, and has, almost doubled the size of his adjacent property without the obligations and expense of acquisition, assuming he could acquire the property through acquisition. The District's policy is that public land should be open to the public. Contrary to this policy, Mr. Quevedo's cross-fence precludes access to the District's right-of-way (C-51 Right-of-Way), including the seawall, for passive recreational use. Similar cross-fencing, although not within the boundaries of Spillway Park, have been erected behind residences on the northeast, northwest, and southeast sides of Federal Highway, along the District’s C-51 Canal bank. The cross-fencing prevents public use of the District’s C-51 Canal bank at these locations. The City of Lake Worth made improvements within the boundaries of Spillway Park; however, it made no improvements, and does not intend to make any improvements in the future, at the C-51 Right-of-Way where Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence is located or at the other private lots west of Mr. Quevedo's property. All of the improvements made at Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence at the C-51 Right-of-Way have been made by him even though the C-51 Right-of- Way is located within Spillway Park. The original public safety rationale for authorizing Mr. Quevedo to erect the cross-fence blocking public access was revisited by the District. Additional investigation by safety experts (Risk Management staff) revealed that no unreasonable danger existed by allowing public access to the C-51 seawall at the C-51 Right-of-Way. In the absence of the public safety basis for closure of the C-51 Right-of-Way, such closure was contrary to District policy. As a consequence, the District’s staff recommended to the District’s Governing Board that the MOD Permit, authorizing Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence, be revoked. After conducting two public meetings and receiving comments from Mr. Quevedo, members of the public, and the District’s staff as to the policy issue of pubic access to the C- 51 Right-of-Way, the District’s Governing Board determined that the C-51 Right-of-Way should be open to the public. Consequently, the Governing Board decided to revoke Mr. Quevedo's MOD Permit. Allegations of criminal activity within the general boundaries of Spillway Park and, specifically, in the C-51 Right- of-Way at the cross-fence area, were made by Mr. Quevedo as a basis to not revoke the MOD Permit and allow the cross-fence to remain. Such allegations have no bearing on the revocation of the MOD Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order revoking SFWMD Permit No. MOD 981 issued to Jesus G. Quevedo. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1999.
The Issue Whether Application #01109-L and Application #01109-J for a public water supply system to serve approximately 17,500 acres of land in Lee County, Florida, should be granted and a permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that a water use permit be issued to the applicant pursuant to Applications #01109-J and #01109-L for a total annual allocation of 1.64 BGY for ten (10) years subject to the thirty-one (31) limiting conditions attached to the "Florida Cities Water Company" report, which report is a part of the record of this case. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen A. Walker, Esquire South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Ross A. McVoy, Esquire 318 North Monroe Street Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Terry F. Lenick, Esquire Assistant County Attorney County of Lee Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Based on the Stipulation of counsel, the exhibits, and the pleadings filed herein, the following findings of fact are made: On December 11, 1998, Ms. Morro, who is the wife of Michael J. Morro, the developer of the property, filed her application with the District for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), which would authorize the construction of a surface water management system (including one wet-detention pond) to serve a 12-lot, single-family residential subdivision known as Tranquility on Lake Brantley in Seminole County, Florida. In more specific geographic terms, the project is located on the south side of Wekiva Springs Road, on Cutler Road, and on the north side of Lake Brantley near the City of Longwood. The application was assigned number 40-117-0567A-ERP. The exhibits filed herein suggest that Ms. Morro, and not Mr. Morro, owns the subject property. After determining that the Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities met the conditions for issuance of a permit and the system was consistent with its review criteria, on July 14, 1999, the District approved the application and issued Permit Number 40- 117-51722-1 (1999 Permit). However, the Permit did not authorize the construction of a retaining wall on Lot 10 of the Applicant's property. There is no record of any third party challenging the issuance of the 1999 Permit. On February 19, 2002, the Applicant submitted "as built drawings" to the District, as required by Condition 10 of the 1999 Permit, to enable the District to verify that the work was completed in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. These as-built drawings did not reflect a retaining wall on Lot 10. Mr. Adley resides and owns property at 880 Lake Brantley Drive, Longwood, Florida, which is "next to" the Morro property. It is fair to say that a less-than-harmonious relationship exists between the two neighbors. Indeed, the exhibits reflect that Mr. Adley, the Applicant, and the Applicant's surveyor "have been involved in several causes of action between them over details of development on this property," and that over the years Mr. Adley has filed numerous complaints with the District regarding alleged violations by the Applicant while she performed work under the 1999 Permit. Mr. Adley is familiar with ERPs and the process for obtaining one, having had ownership interests in businesses that have obtained ERPs from the District, and having participated in the activity undertaken to obtain the permits and then implement the activities authorized by the permits. On May 16, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a letter to Kirby A. Green, III, Executive Director of the District, citing seven issues regarding Ms. Morro's proposed subdivision and asking that he be notified, in writing, "of any modifications to the permit, request for modifications of the permit, notice of violations, change to the approved plan, changes to the Covenants and Articles of Incorporation, any other changes to the proposed construction activities and any public notices that would effect [sic] [his] right to file for an administrative hearing." Mr. Adley also indicated that he had scheduled a meeting with William E. Carlie, Jr., District Compliance Manager, to be held on May 19, 2003, "to discuss these issues with him in person." On May 29, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a letter to Duane Ottenstroer, then Chairman of the District's Governing Board, regarding "the subdivision being constructed next to [his] home." In his letter, he voiced concerns about the recorded conservation easement on the Morro property being significantly different from the easement approved by the 1999 Permit. He also complained that the Applicant had submitted false information with an application submitted to the District in 1991. Finally, he enclosed a copy of the letter previously sent to Mr. Green. On June 6, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a second letter to Mr. Carlie advising that the Applicant was violating the conditions in the 1999 Permit in five respects. The letter confirmed that Mr. Adley would again meet with District staff concerning this matter on June 11, 2003. After conducting an investigation regarding Mr. Adley's allegations of violations by the Applicant, on September 12, 2003, K. Wilford Causseaux, an engineer in the Department of Water Resources, sent a letter to the Applicant's surveyor, Michael W. Solitro (who Mr. Adley says is the former Seminole County Surveyor who loaned the Applicant money in April 1998 to develop the land and then purchased a discounted lot from the Applicant in return for "development services"), affirming the staff's finding that the "construction on [Morro's] residential property on Brantley Drive has encroached on the 100-year flood plain in the rear yard of Lot 11." Also, the letter identified the remedial steps that must be undertaken to correct three "issues associated with [the] residential construction." Finally, the letter noted that Mr. Morro had agreed to remove fill on Lot 7 that violated the "limits of construction" and return the rear-lot grading to its pre-development condition. On September 29, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a third letter to Mr. Carlie confirming that the District had not allowed the Applicant to construct a retaining wall in lieu of a swale on Lot 11 and that if the Applicant wished to construct a wall, she must apply for a modification to the 1999 Permit. The letter also noted that Mr. Carlie agreed to notify Mr. Adley "in writing of any modification to the permit," including "minor" modifications. Finally, Mr. Adley requested the status of the incorrect conservation easement recorded on the property. Apparently in response to that letter, by email dated October 10, 2003, Mr. Carlie notified District counsel that Mr. Adley "has submitted a written request for actual notice of any proposed modification of this permit, will likely object, and potentially will challenge any agency action in this regard to a 120 hearing." On October 24, 2003, Mr. Carlie responded to Mr. Adley's letter of September 29, 2005, and advised him that the staff had determined that "portions of the fill placed for development of [Lot 11] are waterward of the limits of construction" and that this action "is a violation of the permit subject to enforcement action." The letter confirmed that the District understood Mr. Adley's "request to be noticed of any modifications of the reference permit" and promised that "actual notice (mailed notice to your residence) of any action this agency undertakes in this regard" would be given. Mr. Carlie further explained that some modifications to a permit could be issued by letter, while other modifications required an application, fee, and formal agency action. He indicated that the remedial steps outlined in his letter dated September 12, 2003, to Mr. Solitro "may qualify for a permit modification by letter under the provisions of section 40C-4.331 F.A.C." Finally, Mr. Carlie stated that the "District continues to understand your concern about this project and request to be noticed of any modifications of the reference permit. You will be provided actual notice (mailed notice to your residence) of any action this agency undertakes in this regard." Also on October 23, 2003, Mr. Carlie sent a second letter to Mr. Adley outlining in detail the results of the District's investigation of Mr. Adley's concerns expressed in various letters and at least two meetings with staff. On May 3, 2004, Frank J. Meeker, the District's Ombudsman, sent Mr. Adley a letter regarding a Verified Complaint dated April 1, 2004, that Mr. Adley had filed with the Executive Director. (The Verified Complaint was not included in the exhibits which accompanied the Stipulation, but a copy is attached to the Motion.) The letter responded to "six specific objections" Mr. Adley had raised concerning work on the Morro property. It also instructed the District staff to prepare, within thirty days, a letter of modification to the 1999 Permit which addressed the conservation easement, monuments, and 100- year flood elevation issues, together with a recommendation for approval or denial, and to submit the modified conservation easement to the Executive Director for approval or denial. Finally, the letter noted that Mr. Adley would receive "written notice of these actions" and an opportunity to object to these modifications. The record is unclear whether Mr. Meeker's instructions to staff resulted in a letter of modification to the 1999 Permit without further action by the Applicant, or whether it triggered an application by the Applicant to modify her 1999 Permit based upon the staff recommendations. More than likely, the latter occurred. On May 26, 2004, Mr. Meeker provided a follow-up letter to Mr. Adley in which he confirmed that Mr. Adley had been given a copy of the project plans dated June 17, 1999, used by Ms. Morro in securing the 1999 Permit. He further advised that until he received a staff survey "to determine the size of the dock [for purposes of determining if a permit was required] and the location of the red wall and retaining wall," no disposition of those issues could be made. Finally, he advised that no formal request for modification of the 1999 Permit had been filed, but if and when one was filed, he was "directing staff to supply you with a copy of such application." On July 6, 2004, Ms. Morro filed an application with the District seeking to modify her 1999 Permit. (The application noted that Mr. Morro would serve as Ms. Morro's authorized agent to secure the permit.) In the application, Ms. Morrow described the proposed activity as follows: "Alteration of permitted conservation easement[,] to remove easement from lot 11[,] and provide reserved rights for construction of 2 single family docks." This application was assigned number 10-117-51722-2. As noted above, the application did not include a provision for a retaining wall on Lot 10. However, sometime between the time the application was filed in July 2004 and January 21, 2005, the Applicant amended her application to add a request for a retaining wall. By email dated July 12, 2004, counsel for the District notified the reviewer of the application, Anthony Miller, that "I told Mr. Adley to call PDS [Permit Data Services]. Who should I contact there to see what notice was sent? Mr. Adley is going to challenge this so we need to make sure everything is done right." Mr. Miller emailed back the following response: "I have no idea. I assume it was noticed as usual through PDS to those listed to receive notices. Should we do anything more, like contacting Mr. Adley directly?" By letter dated July 15, 2004, Mr. Carlie forwarded a "complete copy" of Ms. Morro's application to Mr. Adley. The letter noted that Mr. Adley's receipt of the letter, attached materials, and notice of rights "shall serve [as] the notice you requested for the purposes of timeframes under Chapter 120, F.S." (A copy of Notice of Rights was enclosed; it set out in detail the process by which Mr. Adley could request a formal hearing.) The enclosed construction drawings did not indicate the inclusion of a retaining wall. During the staff's review process of the application, two Requests for Additional Information (RAI) were sent by the District to Mr. Morro on August 3, 2004, and January 21, 2005. Significantly, item 4 on page 2 of the RAI dated January 21, 2005, noted that "[t]he plans indicate that a retaining wall is proposed. Please provide detailed calculations, and a revised wall detail as necessary, to demonstrate that this portion of the surface water management system will function as intended." (Emphasis added) Copies of both RAIs were sent to Mr. Adley. On February 28, 2005, the Applicant filed a letter and attachments in response to the January 21, 2005 RAI, which included, among other things, plans and details prepared by a professional engineer for a retaining wall to be located landward of the 100-year floodplain, the limit of construction. The Stipulation and exhibits do not indicate whether these documents were ever provided to Mr. Adley at that time.1 However, on March 9, 2005, they were provided to his counsel for review. See Finding of Fact 21, infra. By letter dated January 21, 2005, Mr. Adley's former counsel (Timothy A. Smith, Esquire) made a public records request for inspection of "the district files relating to permit numbers 40-117-51722, 40-117-0567, and any other district permits or applications for such permits relating to the property owned by Frances and Michael Morro on Brantley Drive along the northern shore of Lake Brantley." (The letter indicates that Mr. Smith would meet District counsel in Palatka on January 25, 2005, to review this part of the records request.) The letter also requested that Mr. Smith be allowed to review all files of eleven District employees which related to the various iterations of the Morro project in 1990-1991, 1997-1998, and 1999 to present. The records pertaining to the second part of the request were apparently located in another office and were to be inspected at a later time. According to the Stipulation, in response to the public records request, on March 9, 2005, Mr. Smith reviewed all requested files in the District's main office in Palatka and the District's field office in Altamonte Springs. (As noted above, part of the records were inspected on January 25, 2005, in Palatka.) It is fair to infer that on March 9, 2005, Mr. Smith would have had the opportunity to review the Applicant's plans and details for a retaining wall filed with the District on February 28, 2005. By this time, then, Mr. Adley should have been on notice that the Applicant had modified her application and now sought to build a retaining wall. On March 30, 2005, the District, through its Altamonte Springs field office, approved Ms. Morro's application and issued Permit No. 40-117-51722-2 (2005 Permit). The 2005 Permit authorized the modification of the 1999 Permit "to include the construction of a retaining wall along the rear of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and the 'lot split' lot, and to amend the easement on Lots 9 and 10, to allow selective clearing and trimming of the conservation easement in accordance with a District approved landscape plan, and to exclude lands no longer under the applicant's control." On April 10, 2005, notice of the issuance of the 2005 Permit was published by Ms. Morro in the Sanford Herald, a newspaper of general circulation in Seminole County. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-1.1007(1). The Notice provided that "[p]etitions for administrative hearing on the above application must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of publication of this notice or within twenty-eight (28) days of the District depositing notice of this intent in the mail for those person to whom the District made actual notice. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right(s) such person(s) may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. concerning the subject permit." Therefore, if notice was received by publication, petitions objecting to the issuance of a permit were due no later than May 1, 2005, or if written notice was given, petitions were due no later than May 8, 2005. The District did not send Mr. Adley written notice of its intent to issue the 2005 Permit. There is no indication in the Stipulation, exhibits, or Motion as to why notice was not sent, particularly since Mr. Adley had made numerous requests for written notice of any District action on the property, and he had been promised such notices by various District personnel since at least October 2003. On April 25, 2005, Ms. Morro began construction of the retaining wall authorized by the 2005 Permit and construction continued over the next thirty calendar days. It is fair to assume that the wall was completed on or about May 25, 2005. Also on April 25, 2005, or the day construction began, at Mr. Adley's direction, Mr. Smith (his former counsel) telephoned Mr. Carlie to inform him that construction activity on Lot 10 was taking place. Therefore, it is clear that on that date, Mr. Adley had observed that construction on the Morro property had begun. In response to Mr. Smith's telephone call, Mr. Carlie then requested that two District employees, Mr. Casseaux and David Eunice, investigate what was occurring on the Morro property. On the same date that Mr. Smith telephoned Mr. Carlie, Casseaux and Eunice inspected the Morro property and observed that a retaining wall authorized by the 2005 Permit was under construction. It is fair to infer from the stipulated facts that Mr. Carlie reported these findings to Mr. Smith within a short period of time. On an undisclosed date, but presumably within a day or so, Mr. Smith reported to Mr. Adley that he had spoken with Mr. Carlie and was told the construction was in conformance with "the Permit" but that Mr. Carlie did not specifically refer to either the 1999 Permit or the 2005 Permit as authorizing the work. The Stipulation and exhibits do not indicate whether Mr. Carlie advised counsel that the 2005 Permit had been approved. However, given the history of this dispute, it would be highly unusual for counsel not to make inquiry about the disposition of the application, or for Mr. Carlie not to provide this information during the course of their telephone conversations, particularly since Mr. Carlie was well aware of Mr. Adley's long-standing interest in the Morro project. Mr. Adley could not tell from his view of the property whether the exact location of the construction was lakeward of the limits of construction, which was the 100-year floodplain, and therefore could only rely on the District staff. Mr. Adley asserts that he did not learn of the 2005 Permit modification until July 25, 2005, through a conversation with an unidentified neighbor. Whether Mr. Adley (or his counsel) then called the District to verify the accuracy of the neighbor's information is not of record. (The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing simply alleges that "petitioner received notice of the District's action on July 25, 2005, through a conversation with a neighbor.") On August 15, 2005, or twenty-one days later, through counsel, Mr. Adley filed his initial Petition for Administrative Hearing with the District challenging the issuance of the 2005 Permit. (The Amended Petition was later filed on October 12, 2005, as a result of the striking of certain allegations in the first filing.) The District's Motion was then filed on November 16, 2005. (Action on the Motion has been delayed because of substitution of Petitioner's counsel, and delays by the parties in taking discovery and preparing the Stipulation.)
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received including the parties pre- hearing stipulation, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent DOT filed a dredge and fill permit based on its application filed with Respondent DER and proposed to upgrade a 4.9 mile segment of State Road 80 from a 2-lane roadway to a rural 4-lane divided roadway which included construction of new north and south bound bridges over a canal (designated as L- 8) and constructing a triple box culvert to replace the existing bridge over Callery Judge Canal, located from 20 mile bend to 5.5 miles west of State Road 7, Palm Beach County, Florida. (Joint Composite Exhibit 1). Respondent DER published the required notice of its intent to issue the applied for permit by DOT in the April 14, 1986 edition of the Palm Beach Post Times, a newspaper of general circulation. Petitioner is the fee simple owner of the property located to the west of Callery Judge Canal. Petitioner's property includes a drainage easement which has been given to the Seminole Water Management District and includes submerged portions of the canal. Callery Judge Canal is a water control structure. Callery Judge Canal is connected to another canal designated as C-51, which is also a water control structure. The length of Callery Judge from the C-51 Canal extends approximately 400 feet. There are water control structures at the end of Callery Judge Canal and approximately 4 miles both east and west of the C-51 Canal. As such, there is limited navigability of the C-51 Canal by Petitioner. The C-51 Canal is used by Petitioner and unidentified public members for recreational navigation purposes. There is no commerce navigation on either the C-51 or Callery Judge Canal. Petitioner currently has navigational access to C-51 through Callery Judge. Petitioner owns two boats which he has from time to time used on the Callery Judge Canal to get to the C-51 Canal. Both C-51 and Callery Judge Canal are Class 3 water bodies. Respondent DER has dredge and fill jurisdiction over both canals as they connect to state waters. Respondent DOT, in addition to publishing notice in the Palm Beach Post Times, sent written notice to adjacent property owners advising them of DOT's application and only Petitioner protested based on his claim of impaired navigation from Callery Judge to C-51. Additionally, Petitioner objected on the basis that the project would adversely affect his riparian rights of access to C-51 and that the effect of issuing of the requested permits would amount to the taking of private property without first making payment of full compensation to him. The existing bridge which expands Callery Judge Canal does not meet state safety practices inasmuch as there is only the approximately 2 feet between the edge of the travel lane to the face of the railing. This space provides only a 2 foot recovery lane for disabled vehicles. With the triple box culverts as applied for by DOT, an adequate recovery lane of approximately 10 feet will be provided which meets state safety requirements for recovery lanes. (Testimony of Midgett). The triple box culverts will allow for DOT to complete its planned widening of the bridge on both ends and thereby eliminate adverse safety concerns relating to traffic "bottle necking." Fish, alligators, and other wildlife will be able to continue passing from Callery Judge to C-51 after installation of the triple box culverts as proposed by DOT and therefore there will be no adverse impacts on fish and wildlife conservation. The proposed culverts will allow drainage to continue and water flow will not be constricted. Following construction of the triple box culverts, Petitioner may continue to enjoy other riparian rights that he presently enjoys. Thus, Petitioner may continue to swim and bathe in Callery Judge Canal. Petitioner may also continue to navigate Callery Judge for fishing and other recreational purposes. There are no marinas, boat lifts, boat ramps or other facilities on C- 51 or Callery Judge Canals which would provide navigation access to the canals by the general public. The one boat facility in either canal is a boat ramp in C-51 maintained by the South Florida Water Management District. The Palm Beach County Health Department, a local approved DER program, (pursuant to Section 403.916, Florida Statutes), reviewed the subject application and determined that DOT's application, with modifications incorporated in Respondent DER's intent to issue, provided the reasonable assurances and was in the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's riparian rights to navigate Callery Judge Canal and access to C-51 would be impaired by the Respondent DOT's installation of the triple box culverts as applied for. However, when these adverse impacts are balanced against the other factors as required pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, Petitioner's adverse impacts are considered to be negligible. Respondent DOT has provided Respondent DER reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated based on the proposed project. Respondent DOT has provided Respondent DER reasonable assurances that by use of turbidity screens during construction of the culverts, turbidity values 50 feet down stream from the project site will not exceed 29 N.T.D.'s above background.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, grant Respondent, Department of Transportation, a dredge and fill permit as set forth with the conditions accompanied in its Notice of Intent to Issue, based on the determination herein that the proposed activities are not contrary to the public interest. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1846 Rulings on Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation's proposed Recommended Order. Paragraph 12, adopted as modified, paragraphs 12, 17 and 18, Recommended Order. Paragraph 13, adopted as modified, paragraphs 15 and 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 18, rejected as unnecessary for resolution of the issues. Paragraph 19, adopted as modified, paragraph 15, Recommended Order. Paragraph 21, first sentence adopted and remainder rejected as being speculative or conclusionary. Paragraph 24 the parties Stipulation and other statements respecting the parties positions were not incorporated in the Recommended Order as being unnecessary or was not the subject of testimony based on the stipulation. Rulings on Respondent, Department of Transportation's proposed Recommended Order. Paragraph 1 adopted as modified, paragraph 8, Recommended Order. Statutory and Code provisions are not recited in the Recommended as findings of fact. However, official notice was taken of the pertinent rules, regulations and statutory provisions. Paragraph 4 substantially adopted, paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, Recommended Order. Paragraph 12 rejected as being unnecessary to determine the issues posed herein and based on the ultimate determination that the project was in the public interest, paragraph 15, Recommended Order. Rulings on Petitioner's proposed Recommended Order. Paragraph 5, first sentence attributable to Respondent, Department of Transportation, rejected as no evidence was introduced to substantiate that Respondent DOT was unaware that Petitioner was owner and holder of a riparian property right of access. Paragraph 4, last sentence rejected as evidence adduced indicates that Petitioner's rights to gain access between his riparian lands and the C-51 canal was considered, paragraph 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 5, last sentence rejected as there was a determination that the proposed project was in the public interest and that any impairment of Petitioner's access was counter balanced against public considerations as required in Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Paragraph 16, Recommended Order. Paragraph 6, rejected as being contrary to other credited evidence which indicates that the proper balancing test was in fact made. See paragraphs 10-18, Recommended Order which deals with the consideration of the public interest criteria set forth in Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark S. Ulmer, Esquire 200 SE Sixth Street, Suite 404 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mel Wilson, Esquire Department of Transportation Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Twin Towers Office Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Hernando County's application for an environmental resource permit authorizing the construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Petitioners, Richard J. Silvani, Dick W. Thompson, James E. and Marilyn Bates, Joyce Menzie, James M. Gibson, Claudia C. Munsell, Mr. and Mrs. Phillip E. Durst, Donald R. Sosnoski, Mr. and Mrs. Robert L. Nelson, and Mr. and Mrs. Richard Ladow (Petitioners), are property owners in central Hernando County, Florida. Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Managment District (District), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of issuing Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondent, Hernando County (County), is a local government seeking the issuance of a permit for the purpose of alleviating drainage and flooding problems in a subdivision known as High Point Gardens in the central part of the County. On June 11, 1997, the County filed an application with the District seeking authorization to construct a low earthen berm to help control flooding in High Point Gardens, an eighty- five unit residential subdivision. On September 29, 1997, the District gave notice of its intention to issue ERP No. 449342.01 authorizing the "construction of a new surface water management system to serve a 7.85 acre drainage system improvement known as the Hernando County - High Point Gardens Drainage Improvements." The project is located off Sun Hill Lane, three miles southeast of Brooksville, Florida, in central Hernando County. On an undisclosed date, but in a timely fashion, Petitioners filed their Petition for Informal Hearing challenging the issuance of the permit. As grounds, Petitioners alleged that the permit application contained "possible miscalculations of design" which would "alter the natural water flow route"; "adversely affect several acres of natural wetlands by changing hydrology of surface area"; "adversely affect adjacent uplands by innundating forest areas never before flooded by heavy rainfall"; "not guarantee 100% flood protection to the few affected homes"; and "create flood problems to adjacent homes and property by diverting stormwater from natural flow (north) to area east of 'proposed' retention area." The petition further alleged that the "'proposed' area should not be normal recepient [sic] of excess water from Cedar Falls subdivision" and that "all affected properties are not owned or easements acquired by Hernando County for surface water storage." The filing of the petition prompted the initiation of this proceeding. The Permit The High Point Gardens subdivision, which lies within the Bystre Lake Basin, is a "relatively old subdivision," having been built around the 1970's. There is a low area in the middle of the subdivision, and it has "[s]everal sinks with a natural drainage within the area." Because the thirty-square-mile basin is a closed drainage basin, with no natural outflows, "significant" flooding problems have been present throughout the basin since at least the 1980's. In an effort to resolve flooding problems within the basin, the County and District jointly sanctioned a study by a consulting firm, Dames and Moore, to provide suggested alternative actions to correct the problem. The firm's first interim report was rendered on August 5, 1988, and a final report known as the Bystre Lake Stormwater Management Master Plan was rendered in August 1989. Among other things, the consultant's report recommended that a berm be constructed to relieve the flooding in the High Point Gardens' area. Acting on the report, the County obtained a construction permit from the District in August 1991 in accordance with the consultant's recommendation, but construction on the project was not commenced prior to the permit expiring in 1994. Although the consultant's report was the genesis for the first permit, the plans and specifications for the new berm have been modified by engineers after further study and review. It is noted that the total land area of the project will be less than 100 acres. The High Point Gardens subdivision lies within sub-basin 304 of the basin. Under the new proposal, water which now comes into sub-basins 304 and 406 from sub-basins 305 and 306 will be stored in those latter sub-basins. The requested permit would authorize the County to construct a low earthen berm along the western side of sub-basin 406 and the southern boundary of sub- basin 304 to help control flooding in the subdivision. The proposed berm will range from one to five feet in height and extend some 3,250 feet, or approximately six-tenths of a mile. It will range from eight to ten feet in width with a side slope of 4 to 1. The berm will impound water upstream of the berm to an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which is 1.5 feet higher than the water would rise in the area under natural conditions. The water will be stored in two natural ponds which are now located in the project area. Once the water reaches an elevation of 90.5 NGVD, which will occur only during an event exceeding a 25-year storm event, three overflow structures will become operative and are designed to mimic the natural water flows of the area. After the berm is constructed, all basins "downstream" of the berm, including sub-basins 304, 405, and 406, will have "significantly lower flood elevations than the 10, 25 and 100- year storm event." That is to say, existing flooding to the north and east of the proposed berm will be lessened. To the extent that additional impoundment of water behind the berm will occur, or flooding beyond the berm may occur during a 100-year storm event, the County will acquire easements from local property owners to store the additional water. Until the aquisition of land occurs, construction cannot begin. There is one already disturbed wetland area near the proposed construction area. No mitigation is required, however, since the impact will be temporary and the area is expected to naturally revegetate itself. There will be no adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, or adjacent wetlands. Neither will the project create any other environmental concerns. While there will be some impact to upland trees caused by the impounded water, under existing District rules, that impact cannot be used as a basis to deny the permit. Based on generally accepted engineering principles, the project is capable of being effectively performed and can function as proposed. Also, the project can be effectively operated and maintained. The County has the resources to undertake the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurances that all applicable criteria for the issuance of a permit have been met. Petitioners' Objections At hearing, Petitioners contended that the overflow structures for the berm would alter the natural flow of water, and increase the flow of water to the east of the proposed project, where several Petitioners reside. As previously noted, however, the more credible evidence shows that the project will not increase the natural flow of water to the east of the berm. More specifically, expert testimony demonstrated that the regular flow through each weir in the post-development condition will not be adversely greater than what occurred during the pre- development condition. Petitioners also contended that the wetlands will be negatively impacted by the project. Contrary expert testimony by witness Defoe established, however, that there will be no permanent adverse impacts to wetlands, fish, or wildlife if the permit is approved. Petitioners next contended that the process was flawed because very few on-site inspections of the project area were made by District and County personnel, especially during the rainy season, before the application was preliminarily approved. There were, however, on-site inspections by District and County staff and consultants, and it was not shown that the lack of additional inspections affected the validity of their studies. A further contention was made at hearing that the information supporting the application was insufficient and that more study, including soil boring tests, should have been made. As to additional soil boring tests, the evidence shows that it is not a common engineering practice to perform soil testing throughout the entire area that will be submerged. Therefore, the existing tests were adequate to support the engineering assumptions. Further, even if there were some infirmities in the data and assumptions used and made in the 1989 Dames and Moore report, as alleged by Petitioners, the errors or omissions were minor, they were subject to later refinement by professional engineers, and they did not materially affect the overall validity of the current application. Finally, the application file contains uncontradicted technical information supporting the issuance of the permit. Petitioners' other concerns, while sincere and well- intended, are not relevant to the permitting process. For example, a concern that the construction of a berm will decrease nearby property values, even if true, is not a consideration in the permitting process. Similarly, Petitioners' valid concern that some nearby upland trees will be damaged if water levels rise for a prolonged period of time is not a basis under existing District rules to deny the permit. At the same time, whether the project is cost-effective and the best alternative for alleviating flooding conditions in the area are political decisions for the County, and thus they are not in issue in this proceeding. Finally, Petitioners have pointed out that the County has not completed acquisition of the necessary easements for the project, and that until this is done, a permit should not issue. However, the District has specifically provided as a condition precedent to any construction work that the County finalize ownership or control for all property where water levels will be raised by the project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order granting Hernando County's application for Standard General Environmental Resource Permit No. 449342.01. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Chester Bradshaw 18520 Bradshaw Road Dade City, Florida 33523 Richard L. Silvani 24419 Lanark Road Brooksville, Florida 34601 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Robert Bruce Snow, Esquire 20 North Main Street, Room 462 Brooksville, Florida 34601
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The subject application requests a water use permit from the Central and South Florida Flood Control District (FCD) for use as a public water supply for an area consisting of 12,000 acres. Received into evidence without objection were the notice of public hearing appearing in The Palm Beach Post, West Palm Beach, Florida; Supplementary Report - Water Treatment Plant and Raw Water and Transfer Mains - September, 1970; Water and Sewer Rate Study, July, 1971; Water and Sewer Rate Study, January, 1972; Summary Report, Water and Wastewater Program, October, 1972; Comprehensive Report, Water Works Improvements, January, 1965; pages 20, 21 and 24 of Addendum to supplementary report filed with application; letter to J.B. Jackson from James C. Williams dated July 17, 1975; letter to Abe Krietman from John H. Klinch, dated July 31, 1975; letter to J.B. Jackson from J. Eldon Mariott dated July 22, 1975; and the Staff Report of the FCD. The application was a part of the hearing officer's file. The application requested a diversion (by way of 18 existing and 4 proposed new wells) of 12,293.2 million gallons of ground water a year and a maximum daily diversion of 33.68 million gallons for a fifty year period. The Staff Report, which is attached hereto, recommends the issuance of a five year permit for an annual allocation of 4,668 million gallons, a maximum daily diversion of 25.45 million gallons and a maximum installed field capacity of 20,000 gallons per minute, with certain conditions attached thereto. Mr. John Klinch, a consulting engineer, testified as to the contents of the application, as revised, which he prepared. It was explained that the projected number of proposed new wells did not include the possibility of failure of some of the existing wells, which do show indications of deterioration at this time. He further compared the water consumption projections for 1976 with the actual demand of the first half of 1975. Said comparison indicates that the projection was underestimated. Projected for 1976 were 9,000 meters. For the first six months of 1975, there were 8,342 meters. The projected average daily use for 1976 was million gallons. As of June of 1975, it has exceeded that at million gallons. The average per capita daily consumption in Delray Beach is approximately 240 gallons. The water consumption projection for the year 1980 is estimated at approximately 25 million gallons per day. Mr. Klinch testified that there had been no problems with salt water or chloride levels in the existing wells. The next witness called by the applicant was Louis Martin, Director of Public Utilities for the City of Delray Beach. He has never, since October of 1973, had to restrict water use, a fact which he attributes to good water management. In December of 1972 the City Council adopted a bond resolution authorizing the validation of issuance of water and sewer revenue bonds in the amount of $5,000,000.00 to expand the water treatment plant to 24 million gallons per day and to construct four new wells. The bonds were approved by the citizens of Delray Beach. Other long range plans include the engineering for the enlargement of the sewage treatment plant from 12 to 24 million gallons a day. This, together with the addition of 4 extra wells, is part of a plan whereby the City of Delray Beach would become a regional water center. Mr. Gerry Winter, a hydrogeologist with the FCD, testified that he evaluated the subject application and prepared the Staff Report in this case, and testified as to its contents. As criteria in evaluating the application, Mr. Winter looked at whether the use was a reasonable and beneficial one and whether the use would present damage to resources or other users. The limiting factor in this particular application was the danger of salt water intrusion. It was recommended that the applicant be required to replace monitoring wells, so that the FCD could obtain valid salt water interface data. It was determined by Mr. Winter that the diversion requested by the applicant would not be a reasonable use of the water with regard to the resource since the current estimate of recharge will equal discharge by the year 1980. Therefore, it was recommended that a five year permit be issued for a maximum annual diversion of 4,668 billion gallons (such amount being equal to the estimated 1980 demand - an average day demand of 12.79 million gallons - times 365); a maximum daily diversion of 25.45 million gallons; and a total maximum installed field capacity of 20,000 gallons per minute, with certain conditions attached thereto pertaining to reports to the FCD and salinity monitoring wells. Finally, Mr. Winter testified that, although his report was prepared prior to receipt of the letter from the Palm Beach County Health Department (Exhibit No. 7), the letter was reviewed by the FCD staff and it was considered insignificant to the impact of this application. Mr. Saberson expressed agreement with the Staff Report.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit requested be granted in accordance with the recommendations and conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Respectfully submitted this 8th 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 Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida Roger Saberson, Esquire City Attorney City of Delray Beach 100 North West 1st Avenue Delray Beach, Florida 33444 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District's (District's) proposed construction of a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting to the southwest side of Lake Hancock in Polk County, Florida, is exempt from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This proceeding involves a request by the District for authorization to construct a temporary floating weed barrier across the mouth of the canal exiting the southwest side of the Lake in Polk County, Florida (County). After reviewing the request, and based on its determination that the project would "have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the State," on September 27, 2002, the Department concluded that the project qualified for an exemption from regulatory review under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. The Department also authorized the District to use state-owned submerged lands, if applicable, for the construction of the project, and it found that the project was in compliance with the SPGP program and thus required no further permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers). Even if the Department had not considered the project to be exempt, it concluded that it had sufficient information and assurances from the District to grant a Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) authorizing the requested activity. On December 2, 2002, Petitioner, Bruce Lahey, who has resided and owned property on the southwest side of the Lake for 15 years and regularly uses the Lake for fishing and recreational purposes, filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing (Petition) challenging the proposed agency action. In his Petition, as later clarified and narrowed in the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Mr. Lahey contends that a weed barrier is no longer necessary since there has not been a weed problem in the Lake since late 2002; that the placement of a weed barrier will make access to and from the Lake more difficult and create a safety hazard; and that in the event a problem arises again, the more desirable options for removing the weeds are "a 'cookie-cutter,' mechanical harvester, or the spraying of [the] tussocks," rather than erecting a barrier. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that as a matter of law, Section 369.20, Florida Statutes, bars the construction of a barrier. He has not challenged the Department's authorization for the District to use state-owned submerged lands or its determination that the project complies with the SPGP program, and therefore those aspects of the proposed agency action are not in issue. Respondents do not dispute that Mr. Lahey has standing to bring this action. The Lake and Control Structure The Lake is an approximately 4,500-acre Class III waterbody located east of Highway 98 and Highland City, southeast of Lakeland, and just northeast of the City of Bartow (Bartow). It receives drainage from a significant portion of the County, including three streams and runoff from a surrounding 131-square mile watershed. Waters discharge from the Lake to Saddle Creek (the canal), which exits at the southwest end of the Lake and runs in a southerly direction for around a mile and a half until it merges with the Peace Creek, where the two then become the Peace River. At the confluence of the canal and Peace Creek, the waters flow through a broad, flat floodplain. Water moves slowly through this area, which can affect the ability of the Lake to discharge, especially during flood conditions. Like the Lake and canal, the Peace Creek also has a significant contributing basin. The canal contains a District-owned and operated water control structure known as Water Control Structure P-11 (the control structure) consisting of two twenty-foot radial arm gates that are raised when necessary to manage the water levels on the Lake and prevent the flooding of lakefront property. The control structure is approximately 3,000 feet or so south of the Lake and is the only control structure regulating water levels for the Lake. The gates are designed to discharge at a flow level of 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs). The invert elevation of the control structure is 91.7 feet and the crest elevation is 98.7 feet. Flows from the Lake will exceed 1,100 cfs when the water levels are higher than the crest elevation of the structure. At this point, water flows over the structure’s weirs and flood control is no longer provided. The maximum desirable water elevation level for the Lake is 98.5 feet above mean sea level (msl). Typically, the District begins to operate, or open, the control structure when the Lake's water elevation reaches 98.25 feet msl. A water level of 99.0 feet msl is considered minimum flood level (or high guidance level). The low management water elevation (low guidance level) is 96.0 feet msl. These established water levels have been maintained at the Lake since approximately 1981. The District seeks to hold the water level of the Lake close to the maximum desirable level, and typically tries to hold the water level at 98.25 feet msl, which is slightly below the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl, to allow storage of water and some response time. The control structure is intended primarily to be a water conservation structure that regulates the Lake's water levels to benefit the water resources, to include the Lake and the Peace River. In managing the Lake's levels, the District balances conservation of the water resource and public safety/flooding concerns. The Lake's water level elevations are monitored through the District’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA), which measures the water level and transmits hourly data to the District offices via satellite. SCADA monitors are located immediately upstream and downstream of the control structure. Since the tussock blockage events in the summer and fall of 2002, described more fully below, the District has installed an additional SCADA monitor on the north end of the Lake so that water levels in the Lake and canal can be compared. The Lake does not have direct public access or a public boat ramp and is not easily accessible. In addition, in the canal, there is only one unimproved location upstream from the control structure where boats can be placed in the water and gain access to the Lake. That portion of the canal which lies between the Lake and the control structure has not always been open to boat access. In the 1980’s, a floating weed barrier extended across the canal approximately 1,000 feet upstream from the current control structure, which blocked the canal and boat access. This floating weed barrier was installed primarily to address problems with water hyacinths that would float down the canal and interfere with the control structure. This floating barrier gave way sometime in the 1990’s. An earlier control structure also used to exist in this area, which blocked canal access. Navigation of the canal is limited due to the existence of the control structure and a number of other blockages further downstream, including a low bridge where old Highway 17 crosses the canal. Thus, boats coming from the Lake cannot navigate down the canal any further than the control structure, or slightly more than one-half mile, without taking the boat out of the water. Between 1999 and 2001, the District experienced one of the most severe droughts on record. During this time, the Lake went dry except for some isolated pools of water. Because of these conditions, a significant amount of wetland or aquatic vegetation began to grow on the exposed bottom of the Lake. The Lake historically did not support much plant growth, due to its eutrophic condition, poor water quality, and gelatinous mucky lake bottom. The types of vegetation currently existing in the Lake include cattails, pickerelweed, duck potato, and primrose willow. Following the return of summer rains and El Nino conditions in 2002, the Lake rebounded to within normal water levels. Because of the return of water in the Lake, the buoyant pressure of the water combined with the flaccid nature of the mucky lake bottom caused significant portions of vegetation to become uprooted, which formed an extensive amount of tussocks. Tussocks are floating mats of uprooted aquatic vegetation. They contain plant and organic material accumulated around the plant roots, can range from a few feet across to one hundred feet across or larger, and can reach a height of more than four feet. Once tussocks form, they move about the Lake by wind and water currents. The amount of vegetation currently existing in the Lake exceeds historic levels. At the present time, the District estimates that approximately 2,000 acres of the Lake are covered with tussocks, and that due to the flaccid nature of the lake bottom, the tussocks are susceptible to becoming uprooted through fluctuating water levels, wind, and wave action. Therefore, there is a strong potential that much of the currently rooted vegetation will form tussocks. Tussocks first impacted the District’s ability to operate the control structure in July 2002. During this event, the canal became partially filled with tussocks. Because the blockage occurred during the rainy and hurricane seasons, the District undertook efforts to clear the canal of tussocks. District staff used mechanical equipment commonly called a cookie cutter to break up the tussocks and flush them downstream through the control structure. During this tussock event, the Lake's water levels rose briefly above the maximum desirable level of 98.5 feet msl and then fell back to within normal elevations. In late August 2002, approximately three weeks after the first tussock blockage event, a number of homeowners on the Lake, including Petitioner's wife, contacted District staff to advise that the water level of the Lake was rising and flooding their yards. A rise in water levels did not register on the District’s water level monitoring SCADA system. Visual observation of the Lake did reveal, however, that there was a significant difference between the water levels being experienced on the Lake and the water levels reported at the control structure via the SCADA system. During this tussock event, masses of tussocks had completely filled the 3,000-foot length of the canal all the way to the control structure and were jamming against the control structure gates. Tussocks had also formed a vegetation dam approximately 900 to 1,400 feet north of the control structure where they compacted and became lodged on the bottom of the canal, significantly impeding the flow of water. During this event, flows out of the Lake were significantly diminished to a fraction of what they should have been. The tussock dam caused the Lake's level to rise above the minimum flood elevation of 99.0 feet and flood Petitioner's yard. There was an approximately one to one and one-half foot difference in the water levels in the Lake and in the canal. In response to this disparity, the District installed a third water level elevation monitor at the northern end of the Lake, so that it can monitor any differences in water elevations between the Lake and the canal and be alerted in the event that a blockage occurs in the canal. To eliminate the tussock blockage and restore flow through the control structure, the District had to employ mechanical means to break up and remove the tussocks. At the control structure, a trac-hoe was initially used in an attempt to force tussocks through the control structure, as tussocks would not flow through the structure unassisted. A cookie cutter was also employed, but it became sucked into the control structure and was damaged and had to be removed with a crane and repaired. The cookie cutter proved ineffectual in addressing the tussock blockage problem. If the canal were to again become clogged with tussocks, any resulting blockage of flow from the Lake would cause water levels to rise, which would endanger public safety and welfare. Prior to the tussock blockages experienced in the summer and fall of 2002, problems with tussocks had never been experienced at the Lake. The magnitude of the tussock formation on the Lake is unique and has not been experienced elsewhere in the District. In 2002, the Department expended over $46,000.00 in contracting for mechanical equipment and for spraying herbicide on tussocks to respond to the tussock buildup on the Lake. Since their formation after the summer of 2002, tussocks have blocked Petitioner's access to his dock on several occasions, thereby preventing him from being able to take his boat out into the Lake or to return to the dock once out on the Lake. The potential for similar blockages to occur remains, regardless of whether a floating weed barrier is erected as proposed. The direction of the winds is a major factor in determining where and how many tussocks will stack up in front of anyone’s property along the Lake. Access to the canal could become blocked with tussocks at any time, depending upon how the wind blows. Breaking up tussock blockages and flushing tussocks through the control structure does not eliminate water resource problems for the District. Tussocks that are pushed through the control structure cause downstream problems requiring the District to expend resources to push the tussocks through and under low downstream bridges crossing the canal, as well as break up tussock blockages that form in downstream waters. In January 2003, tussocks again accumulated at the control structure in such volume as to require assistance in flushing through the control structure. As a result of the large volume of tussocks pushed through the control structure, a tussock blockage occurred at a downstream bridge crossing, for which the District had to use mechanical equipment to restore flow. During March 2003, tussocks flushed through the control structure created a jam downstream on the Peace River. The tussocks were jammed up in a bend in the river and were blocking navigational access to the river. An El Nino weather cycle is currently being experienced. Water levels, including the Lake's water level, are already at their maximum and the ground is saturated. Localized flooding events have occurred. A very active summer rainy season is anticipated, which will mean significant flood control operations for the District. As the summer season approaches, the District must keep the control structure open and operational, which requires that the canal be kept open and flowing. A floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal would keep tussocks from clogging the canal and prevent problems affecting operation of the control structure, downstream tussock blockages, and possible flooding. The Project To address the problem of tussocks entering the canal and causing blockages or possible flooding, on September 11, 2002, the District applied to the Department for a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, to authorize the construction of a floating weed barrier at the entrance to the canal. On September 27, 2002, the Department issued its notice of intent to authorize the requested activity. The proposed barrier will be constructed in two sections arranged at approximately 90-degree angles to each other, with a twenty-foot opening between the sections to allow boat access to the canal. A schematic drawing of the barriers is found in District Exhibit 5 received in evidence. As originally proposed, the barrier would consist of a total of sixteen nine-inch diameter pilings driven twenty-one feet apart, with twenty-foot sections of floating foam-filled polyvinyl chloride pipe (pvc) connected to the pilings. Pilings will be marked with reflective tape and five of the pilings will have three-foot diamond-shaped reflective danger signs reading "DANGER PILE/FLOAT BARRIER" placed on their upstream and downstream sides. The pilings are twenty-five feet in length and will extend above the Lake's water level approximately twelve to fourteen feet. Since the District's submittal of the application and the Department's authorization notice, the District has located commercially manufactured floating booms, called "Tuffbooms," that, if authorized, will be installed in lieu of the foam-filled pvc pipes. Use of these booms reduces the number of pilings needed from sixteen to eight, and their bright orange color is more visible than pvc piping. All other aspects of the proposed activity remain the same. The change in material to be used in the construction of the proposed floating barrier does not present any water quality issues, nor does it affect the Department's determination that the proposed activity will have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources. The staggered layout of the proposed floating weed barrier is intended to keep tussocks in the Lake, where they can remain subject to the winds, while providing boat access to the canal in such a manner that is more difficult for tussocks to enter the canal. The Department's Exemption Process The Department's Tampa District Office routinely approves around 800 projects each year under various exemptions authorized by statute or rule. One type of exemption is found in Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, referred to as the de minimus exemption, which allows the Department to exempt from regulation those activities that are determined will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. The Department is authorized to make this determination on a case-by-case basis. In determining whether an activity qualifies for a de minimus exemption from permitting, the Department looks for parallels to other specific statutory or rule exemptions and analyzes the proposed activity similarly in terms of its scope, construction methods, potential to create water quality impacts or impediments to navigation, and other factors, because these recognized exemptions are also deemed to have minimal or insignificant impacts to the water resources. There is no specific exemption for a floating weed barrier as proposed by the District, but the Department considers this type of project to be similar in scope and potential impacts to other specific activities that have been determined to have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts to the water resources, such as docks and other piling-supported structures, navigational aids, and buoy systems. In assessing whether a project is appropriate for the de minimus exemption, the Department also looks to the criteria for Noticed General ERPs for guidance in determining whether a proposed project will have minimal or insignificant adverse individual or cumulative impacts upon the water resources. Under Section 373.406(5), Florida Statutes, the Department may by rule establish general permits for activities that have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. Chapter 62-341, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the Noticed General ERPs established by the Department. Department Rule 62-341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code (as does District Rule 40D-400.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code), allows noticed general permits for piling supported structures of less than 1,000 square feet over wetlands or other surface waters, which are not designated Outstanding Florida Waters. To qualify for a noticed general permit for such activity, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed structure: Does not significantly impede navigation and does not entail the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat when navigational access to the structure does not currently exist; Does not cause a violation of state water quality standards; Does not impede the conveyance of a stream, river or other watercourse in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; Does not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; Does not cause the drainage of wetlands; and Is not located in, on or over a coral community, macro-marine algae or submerged grassbed community. Will the Project Impact Water Resources? The District’s proposed floating weed barrier will involve less than 7.1 square feet of impact to the water resources, which is significantly less impact in square footage to the water resources than is allowed by Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, or occurs with other specified exempt projects. Best management practices will be used in the erection of the pilings and in the construction of the barriers. Pilings will be jetted into the lake bottom without need for any dredging or lake bottom removal. Installation of a floating weed barrier will not result in any significant detriment to existing conditions in the Lake or the canal. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will benefit the public interest and the water resources by allowing unimpeded operation of the control structure without risk of tussocks causing blockages and flooding. Installation of the proposed floating weed barrier will not have significant adverse impacts on fishing, boating, or recreational use of the Lake or canal. A blockage of the canal entrance by tussocks, or a tussock jam anywhere on the Lake, could occur under present conditions, and similar blockages have already occurred. The potential for tussocks to block the opening between the sections of the floating weed barrier is considered remote and of temporary duration, due to the potential for shifting winds. The District’s proposed floating weed barrier is a reasonable means of addressing the continuing potential for tussocks to interfere with operation of the control structure. Use of mechanical equipment such as a cookie cutter or harvester would not be an effective or economical means of addressing tussock blockages in the canal or preventing their occurrence and possible interference with operation of the control structure. Pushing tussocks through the control structure would not be an effective means of addressing the potential for tussocks to cause blockages and possible flooding. Merely pushing the material through the control structure moves the potential blockage problem downstream and does not alleviate the potential for tussocks to cause adverse impacts to the water resources of the District. Spraying tussocks with herbicides would not be an effective means of addressing tussock blockages due to the fact that, once treated, tussocks can take weeks to die and fall to the lake bottom. Floating tussocks are and will continue to be treated with herbicide sprays when found in the Lake to reduce the amount of tussocks. However, once tussocks enter the canal, spraying serves little benefit in preventing tussocks from causing blockages or other problems. Tussocks originate in the Lake and not in the canal. Tussocks in the Lake have had and likely will continue to have an impact on boating and recreational use of the Lake and canal, as evidenced by tussock blockages to Petitioner's dock. By confining the tussocks to the Lake, the potential for tussocks to impact boating and recreational use of the Lake will remain the same as current conditions, but the potential for tussocks to affect operation of the control structure and contribute to Lake flooding will be eliminated. Petitioner contends that the proposed floating weed barrier will impede navigation, either by itself or as a result of tussocks piling up in front of the barrier. The proposed barrier will be marked and visible through reflective tape and signage. The barrier does not create a navigational hazard and is not a significant impediment to access to the canal. Constructed in two sections, the barrier provides an opening that allows boat access to the canal. As noted above, the likelihood of tussocks piling up at the barrier and blocking the opening between the barrier sections is considered remote and temporary. Based upon the information provided by the District, the proposed floating weed barrier will not significantly impede navigation; will not cause a violation of state water quality standards; will not impede the conveyance of a stream, river, or other water course in a manner that would increase off-site flooding; will not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species; and will not cause the drainage of wetlands. There is no evidence that the proposed activity is located in, on, or over a coral community, macro-marine algae, or submerged grassbed community or that it entails the construction of a structure for the launching or mooring of a boat for which navigational access does not currently exist. The proposed activity would have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the District. As an activity that has minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on the water resources of the District, either individually or cumulatively, the District’s project qualifies for an exemption pursuant to Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes, as well as a Noticed General ERP under Rule 62- 341.475(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Department's exemption determination authorized the District’s floating weed barrier for one year, presumably so that the effectiveness of the barriers can be evaluated during that period of time. If they are effective, an extension or renewal of the authorization will be sought. If the tussocks problem becomes less acute, or the barriers do not achieve the desired purpose, they will be taken down. In contrast, Noticed General ERPs authorize a particular activity for five years. Other Contentions by Petitioner Petitioner has also contended that the proposed activity may violate a condition of the District's Corps of Engineers general permit by interfering with general navigation. As found earlier, however, the more credible evidence indicates otherwise. Moreover, it is presumed that this issue was considered by the Corps of Engineers prior to its approval of the project. In any event, that matter should be raised with the Corps of Engineers, and not with the Department. Finally, Mr. Lahey contends that since at least late 2002, the Lake has been free of a tussocks problem and therefore barriers are no longer needed. As noted above, however, blockages have occurred at the control structure and in the Peace River as recently as January and March 2003, and such blockages were the direct result of tussocks which originated in the Lake. Given the likelihood of a very active summer rainy season, it is essential that the canal be kept open so that the District can properly manage and control the water resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final order determining that the Southwest Florida Water Management District's proposed project qualifies for an exemption under Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes; that authorization to use state-owned lands be given; and that the project is in compliance with the State Programmatic General Permit program. DONE AND ENTERED this _____ day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this _____ day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Bruce Lahey 5280 Waterwood Drive Bartow, Florida 33830-9766 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Doreen Jane Irwin, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
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 allotments and conditions set forth in the Staff Report and the Addendum to Staff Report attached hereto. 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 Mr. Robert H. Fowler, P.E. 110 Lakeview Building North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
