The Issue Whether Rules 40E-400.315(f) and 40E-4.301(f), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7(a)-(d), Basis of Review Handbook for Environmental Resource Permit Application, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Petitioner, Royal Palm Beach Colony, L.P. (Royal Palm), owns three lots in Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, located in northwest Palm Beach County, Florida. Intervenor 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., is a not-for- profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. By letter dated March 19, 1998, Royal Palm notified SFWMD that Royal Palm was entitled to No Notice General Permits for Activities in Uplands (NNGP) for three of the lots which it owns in Unit 11, Lots 61, 245, and 247. Royal Palm intends to build one single-family home on each of the lots. The proposed development of the lots would include individual septic tanks and stormwater retention ponds. By letter dated April 9, 1998, SFWMD informed Royal Palm that SFWMD staff had determined that the three lots do not qualify for no-notice general permits for single family home construction. As part of the basis for denial of the NNGPs, the April 9, 1998, letter stated: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is not part of a larger common plan of development. See Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm Beach Colony is the owner of approximately 170 lots within Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, and the three proposed lots appear to be merely part of this large common plan of development. As an additional basis for denial, the April 9 letter stated: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including, but not limited to, significant interference with the construction and operation of a regional stormwater system needed for adequate flood protection and stormwater treatment in the Unit 11 area. See Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm filed a Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of the above-cited rules, Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f) and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Also being challenged are those portions of SFWMD's "Basis of Review Handbook for Environmental Resource Permit Applications" (BOR), which discuss secondary impacts, Sections 4.1.1(f) and 4.2.7(a)-(d). SFWMD's Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program has four different types of permits: NNGPs, noticed general permits, standard general permits, and individual permits. The permits are grouped according to degree of potential impact and, correspondingly, according to degree of regulatory review. NNGPs are for very minor activities that have no potential to cause adverse impacts or harm to water resources provided that the criteria in the rule are met. A NNGP typically receives no review by SFWMD staff. An applicant reviews the criteria, and if the proposed project meets the criteria the project may be undertaken without notification to or approval by SFWMD. The degree of regulatory review for water management systems that do not qualify for NNGPs will vary. A system that qualifies for a noticed general permit pursuant to Rule 40E-400, Subpart C, Florida Administrative Code, will be reviewed within 30 days of receipt of notice, and if the criteria listed in the general permit rule are met it is presumed that the project meets all SFWMD's standards and is permittable. If the system does not fit within a noticed general permit and if the proposed system is less than 100 acres total size or has less than one acre of wetland impact, the project will be reviewed as a standard general permit pursuant to Rule 40E-40, Florida Administrative Code. Standard general permits are reviewed and issued by SFWMD staff, and unlike the noticed general permits, there are no presumptions that if certain limited criteria are met that all the SFWMD standards are met. The proposed project is reviewed to determine if reasonable assurances have been provided that all standards have been met. Finally, if a proposed water management system is greater than 100 acres or entails more than one acre of filled wetlands, an individual environmental resource permit is required. As with standard general permits, these applications are reviewed to determine if the applicant has provided reasonable assurance that all SFWMD standards are met. Individual environmental resource permits require permit authorization from SFWMD's governing board. Unlike the noticed general, the standard general, and the individual environmental resource permits, the NNGP does not require any regulatory review. An individual minor system fitting within the specific criteria for a NNGP can proceed with the activity without noticing SFWMD. Such a permit is very similar to an exemption from the permitting requirements. The use of a NNGP was not intended for approval of water management systems that contain shared or common water management facilities, such as a common drainage system for a housing development. Such systems require regulatory review to ensure that the system does not cause adverse water quality, water quantity, or environmental impacts. To allow a series of individual projects to have authorization to proceed under a NNGP, when together they are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, cumulatively would have a significant adverse impact to flood protection and environmental protection. Such master systems are to have regulatory review under one of the other three SFWMD permits. Thus, the requirement that a project permitted pursuant to a NNGP not be part of a larger common development or sale was placed in Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Without such a requirement, it would be possible to development a larger system without regulatory review by permitting individual systems within the larger system using a NNGP. The term "not part of a larger common plan of development or sale" contained in Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, originated in Section 403.813(2)(q), Florida Statutes, which contains exemptions from permitting under Chapter 373, Florida Statues. In developing Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), SFWMD did not further define the term because the plain meaning of the term was deemed adequate, as it was by the Florida Legislature when it did not define the same term in Section 403.813(2)(q). The plain meaning of the term is consistent with SFWMD's regulatory scheme for permitting water management systems. The most minimal permit authorization, the NNGP, should not authorize projects that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale because the larger projects are more likely to have larger water resource impacts. Interpretations of the term "part of a larger common plan of development" by staff from SFWMD are consistent. The interpretations indicate that the individual project and the larger master plan have shared or common water management systems. The focus is on whether common infrastructure would be needed to carry out the individual project. In its permitting program, SFWMD looks at all adverse impacts to water resources, whether direct, secondary, or cumulative. When evaluating secondary impacts, SFWMD looks for the same adverse impacts on water resources that it would for direct impacts, such as adverse impacts on the functions of wetlands or surface waters or adverse impacts on water quality. SFWMD interprets a secondary impact as some impact, other than a direct impact in the footprint of the proposed project, which is closely linked and causally tied to proposed activity to be permitted. Section 4.2.7, BOR sets guidelines for how SFWMD considers secondary impacts from water management systems. In developing Section 4.2.7, SFWMD applied existing case law concerning secondary impacts. Section 4.2.7(a), BOR, regulates construction, alteration, and reasonably expected uses of a proposed system so that the functions of wetlands to fish and wildlife and listed species are protected from adverse impacts caused by activities in adjacent uplands. Such secondary impacts may result, for example, from disturbance during adjacent upland construction or disturbance due to the close proximity of human habitation to a wetland where none previously existed. Section 4.2.7(a), BOR, gives examples of secondary impacts, and provides a mechanism in the form of a buffer that creates a presumption that provides reasonable assurance that secondary impacts to habitat functions of wetlands will not be adverse, assuming a wetland is not being used by a listed species for nesting, denning, or significant feeding habitat. Section 4.2.7(b), BOR, protects existing upland nesting or denning sites of listed aquatic or wetland dependent species and the adjacent uplands which are necessary to enable these nests or dens to be used successfully by such species. Section 4.2.7(c), BOR, looks at potential adverse secondary impacts to significant historical and archeological resources. The intent of the section is to allow consideration of secondary impacts of a project that may have a very minor impact from construction, but more serious implications once in operation. For example, a water control structure that may have a footprint of only a tenth of an acre may result in greater water velocities that would harm submerged archeological resources. Section 4.2.7(d), BOR, considers specific water resource impacts from future project phases and activities that will be very closely linked and causally related to the proposed system. This section seeks to prevent future impacts that may be necessitated by a proposed project design. As part of the analysis, SFWMD will consider the impacts of the intended or reasonably expected uses of future activities on water quality and wetland and other surface water functions.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the "District"), should issue Water Use Permit ("WUP") No. 20005687.003 to Dr. Thomas E. Kelly, pursuant to the terms of the proposed permit issued on April 11, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: PARTIES Petitioner Becky Ayech is a resident of Sarasota County and a citizen of the State of Florida. The District is a water management district in the State of Florida created pursuant to Section 373.069(1)(d) and (2)(d), Florida Statutes. The District is the governmental agency charged with the responsibility and authority to review and act upon water use permit applications, pursuant to Chapter 373, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 40D-1 and 40D-2, Florida Administrative Code. Dr. Thomas E. Kelly is the owner of the real property in Sarasota County on which Pop's Golf and Batting Center is located, and as such is recognized as the applicant for and holder of any WUP issued for the property. Pursuant to a 50- year lease with Dr. Kelly, Ralph Perna owns and operates Pop's Golf and Batting Center and is the person who would be responsible for day-to-day compliance with the terms of the WUP at issue. Neither Dr. Kelly nor Mr. Perna formally intervened in this proceeding. THE PROPOSED PERMIT The proposed permit is for irrigation and sanitary uses at a golf driving range and batting cage facility called Pop's Golf and Batting Center, on Fruitville Road in Sarasota County. The site leased by Mr. Perna comprises approximately 30 acres, of which the westward 15 acres is taken up by the Pop's facility. The eastern 15 acres is heavily wooded, overgrown with brush, and contains a five-acre lake. The majority of the 15 acres used by Pop's is taken up by the landing area for the driving range. Near the front of the facility are a tee box and putting green sown with Bermuda grass. This grassy area, about six-tenths of an acre, is the only part of the 30-acre property requiring irrigation, aside from some landscape plants in front of the business office. The landing area is not watered and is not even set up for irrigation. The Pop's facility is in a low-lying area historically prone to flooding. For this reason, the tee box, putting green, and business office are elevated about two and one-half feet higher than the landing area. This elevation also serves the esthetic purpose of allowing golfers to follow the flight of their drives and watch the balls land. The proposed WUP is a renewal of an existing permit. The existing permit is premised on the property's prior use for agriculture, and permits withdrawals of 34,000 gpd on an average annual basis and 99,000 gpd on a peak monthly basis. The renewal would authorize withdrawals of 1,700 gpd on an average annual basis and 4,400 gpd on a peak monthly basis, reductions of 95 percent and 96 percent, respectively. "Average annual" quantity is the total amount of water withdrawn over the course of one year. This quantity is divided by 365 to arrive at the allowable gallons per day. "Peak monthly" quantity is the amount of water allowed to be withdrawn during the driest month of the year. This quantity is divided by 30 to arrive at the allowable gallons per day. Pop's draws water from two wells on the property. A six-inch diameter well, designated District Identification No. 1 ("DID 1"), is used for irrigation of the tee box and putting green. A four-inch diameter well, designated District Identification No. 3 ("DID 3"), is used to supply water to the two restrooms at the facility. THE PERMIT CONDITIONS The proposed WUP includes the following basic information: the permittee's name and address; the permit number; the date the permit application was filed; the date the permit was issued; the expiration date of the proposed permit; the property location; the quantity of water to be permitted; the withdrawal locations; and the water use classification proposed pursuant to the District's permit application. The District's permit application provides the applicant with the following five choices regarding proposed water use: Public Supply; Industrial or Commercial; Recreation or Aesthetic; Mining or Dewatering; and Agriculture. The proposed permit in this case has been classified as Recreation or Aesthetic. The proposed WUP would allow the permittee to withdraw from DID 1 an average of 1,600 gpd, with a peak monthly withdrawal of 4,200 gpd, and to withdraw from DID 3 an average of 100 gpd, with a peak monthly withdrawal of 200 gpd. The proposed WUP contains four Special Conditions. Relevant to the issues raised in this proceeding, Special Condition No. 3 requires the permittee to incorporate best water management practices, to limit daytime irrigation to the greatest extent practicable, to implement a leak detection and repair program, to conduct a system-wide inspection of the irrigation system at least once per year, and to evaluate the feasibility of improving the efficiency of the current irrigation system. Special Condition No. 4 requires the permittee to submit a conservation plan no later than April 30, 2006. The plan must address potential on-site reuse of water and external sources of reuse water. The proposed WUP also contains 16 Standard Conditions. Standard Condition No. 2 reserves the District's right to modify or revoke the WUP following notice and a hearing, should the District determine that the permittee's use of the water is no longer reasonable and beneficial, consistent with the public interest, or if the water use interferes with an existing legal use of water. Standard Condition No. 3 provides that the permittee may not deviate from the terms of the WUP without the District's written approval. Standard Condition No. 4 provides that, if the District declares a water shortage pursuant to Chapter 40D-21, Florida Administrative Code, the District may alter, modify, or declare inactive all or any part of the proposed WUP as necessary to address the water shortage. Standard Condition No. 5 provides that the District will collect water samples from DIDs 1 and 3, or require the permittee to submit water samples to the District, if the District determines there is a potential for adverse impacts to water quality. Standard Condition No. 9 provides that the District may require the permittee to cease or reduce its withdrawals if water levels in aquifers fall below minimum levels established by the District. Standard Condition No. 11 provides that the District may establish special regulations for Water Use Caution Areas ("WUCAs"), and that the permit will be subject to such regulations upon notice and a reasonable period to come into compliance. Standard Condition No. 12 requires the permittee to install flow metering or other measuring devices to record withdrawal quantities, when the District deems it necessary to analyze impacts to the water resource or existing users. CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMIT Generally, the miniscule withdrawals proposed by Pop's would not fall within the District's permitting authority, which mostly confines itself to withdrawals of 100,000 gpd or more. However, Rule 40D-2.041(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, requires a permit for any withdrawal from a well having an outside diameter of six inches or more at the surface. DID 1 has an outside diameter of six inches. An applicant for a WUP must demonstrate that the proposed use of water is reasonable and beneficial, is in the public interest, and will not interfere with any existing legal use of water, by providing reasonable assurances on both an individual and a cumulative basis that the proposed use of water satisfies the 14 specific conditions set forth in Rule 40D-2.301(1)(a)-(n), Florida Administrative Code, identified in the subheadings below. Necessary to Fulfill a Certain Reasonable Demand Pop's is open for business twelve hours per day. During the summer months, it averages 100 customers per day. The tee box and putting green at Pop's are heavily used. When golfers hit balls from the tee box, they make small gouges, or divots, in the Bermuda grass. These divots are later filled with sand, and the grass naturally grows over them. Irrigation is essential to the health of the Bermuda grass, allowing the application of fertilizer and chemicals to treat for pests and fungus. The tee box and putting green are watered as little as possible, because over-watering can itself lead to fungus problems with the Bermuda grass. The District uses an irrigation allocation computer program called AGMOD to determine reasonable average annual and peak monthly quantities for irrigation in an objective and consistent manner. Data on the pump capacity, soil type, the area to be irrigated, and its geographic location are input, and AGMOD allocates a quantity of water sufficient to irrigate for the driest 20 percent of the time, based on 75 years of historic rainfall data. The AGMOD program allows quantities for irrigation of the fairways of a typical golf course; however, Pop's does not have fairways and thus the proposed permit does not authorize any water for such irrigation. The District's expert, David Brown, credibly testified that the amounts allocated under this permit are conservative because the area to be irrigated is a high traffic area, because the irrigation methodology employed by Pop's ensures that 75 percent of the water withdrawn from DID 1 will get to the grass, because of the fertilizers and chemicals necessary to maintain and repair the grass, and because of the elevation of the area to be watered. Mr. Brown testified that the AGMOD model uses native soil types, not the fill used to elevate the tee box and putting green, and therefore the soil for the elevated areas will likely require more water and drain more quickly than AGMOD indicated. The quantities allocated for withdrawals from DID 3 on an average annual and peak monthly basis are necessary to fulfill the demand associated with the use of the two restrooms by Pop's employees and customers. In summary, the amounts of water authorized for withdrawal under the proposed permit are no more than necessary to fulfill a certain reasonable demand. Quantity/Quality Changes Adversely Impacting Resources The evidence at the hearing established that the operation of DIDs 1 and 3 pursuant to the terms of the proposed WUP will cause no quality or quantity changes adversely impacting the water resources. The proposed withdrawal amounts constitute a decrease of 95 percent on an average annual basis and of 96 percent on a peak monthly basis from the existing permit. The District reasonably presumes that decreases in permitted withdrawal amounts will not cause quantity or quality changes that will adversely impact the water resources. Nonetheless, Mr. Brown performed groundwater modeling to confirm that the District's presumption was correct in this case. The first step in model development is to study the geology at the site being studied. Mr. Brown looked at detailed information from surrounding WUPs and geographic logs to arrive at a "vertical" view of the stratigraphic column in place at Pop's, giving him an idea of which zones below Pop's produce water and which zones confine water and impede its movement between the producing units. Mr. Brown then looked to site-specific aquifer test information from other permits to give him an idea of the "horizontal" continuity of the system across the area under study. The hydrogeologic profile at Pop's contains five different aquifer production zones separated by confining units of clay or dense limestone. Moving downward from the surface, the production zones are the surficial aquifer, zones called Production Zone 2 ("PZ-2") and Production Zone 3 ("PZ- 3") within the intermediate aquifer, and the Suwannee limestone and Avon Park limestone layers within the Upper Floridan aquifer system. DID 3 has approximately 96 feet of casing and a total depth of approximately 195 feet. It draws water from PZ-2, the upper production zone of the intermediate aquifer. DID 1 was built before the District assumed regulation of well construction and consumptive water use; therefore, the District does not possess specific information as to its construction. Mr. Brown reviewed historical documents, including a 1930s report by the United States Geological Survey ("U.S.G.S.") about irrigation wells drilled in the location now occupied by Pop's. Mr. Brown's review led him to a reasonable conclusion that DID 1 has approximately 75 to 100 feet of casing and is drilled to a total depth of 600 to 700 feet below land surface. The District's water level measurements confirmed Mr. Brown's judgment, indicating that the well penetrates only through the Suwannee limestone formation in the Upper Floridan aquifer. His hydrogeological findings in place, Mr. Brown proceeded to perform a number of analyses using a five-layer groundwater model based on the "Mod-Flow EM" program developed by the U.S.G.S. to determine whether the withdrawals authorized by the proposed WUP would have any adverse impacts on water resources. The model's five layers simulated the five aquifer zones found in the area of Pop's. Mr. Brown performed simulations to predict the effect of the combined pumping of DID 1 and DID 3 at 1,700 gpd on a steady state basis and at 4,400 gpd for a period of 90 days. A "steady state" model assumes continuous pumping at the stated quantity forever. The scenario for pumping 4,400 gpd for 90 days is called a "transient" model, and simulates the effect of continuous pumping at the peak month quantity, without replenishment of the water source, for the stated period. Both the steady state and transient models used by Mr. Brown were conservative, in that it is unlikely that their scenarios would actually occur at Pop's. The modeling predicted that Pop's withdrawals would have no effect on the surficial aquifer or on the deep Avon Park limestone formation. Because DID 1 is likely to open to the PZ-2, PZ-3, and Suwannee limestone production zones, Mr. Brown analyzed the steady state and transient conditions for each zone. The greatest effect predicted by any of the modeling runs was a drawdown in water levels of approximately two-hundredths of a foot in the PZ-3 and Suwannee limestone zones. This drawdown would extend no farther than the boundary of Pop's property. All of the predicted drawdowns were smaller than the natural fluctuations in water levels caused by changes in barometric pressure. Thus, any possible effects of withdrawals at the quantities proposed in the WUP would be lost in the background noise of the natural water level fluctuations that occur in all confined aquifers. The water level or pressure within subterranean production zones is referred to as the "head." For water to move from one zone to another, there must be a difference in head between the zones. The evidence established that groundwater quality declines with depth at the Pop's site, but that the heads in the PZ-2, PZ-3, and Suwannee limestone production zones are essentially the same in that area. The similarity in heads means that there is no driving force to move water between the zones and thus no potential for adverse water quality changes caused by DID 1's being open to multiple production zones. In summary, the amounts of water authorized for withdrawal under the proposed permit will not cause quantity or quality changes which adversely impact the water resources, including both surface and ground waters. Adverse Environmental Impacts to Wetlands, Lakes, Streams, Estuaries, Fish and Wildlife, or Other Natural Resources Mr. Brown's model indicated there would be no drawdown from the surficial aquifer, where there would be the potential for damage to water related environmental features and/or the fish and wildlife using those features as habitat. Petitioner offered no evidence indicating that the proposed water use will cause adverse environmental impacts. Deviation from Water Levels or Rates of Flow The District has not established minimum flows or levels for the area including Pop's. Therefore, Rule 40D- 2.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, is not applicable to this WUP. Utilization of Lowest Quality of Water Ninety percent of the water withdrawn from DID 1 will come from the Suwannee limestone formation and is highly mineralized and of lower quality than the water in PZ-2 or PZ- 3. DID 3 draws its water from PZ-2. As noted above, DID 3 provides water to the two restrooms on the premises of Pop's. Because its water is used in the public restrooms, DID 3 is considered a limited public supply well, the water from which must meet potable standards. Mr. Brown testified that, though PZ-2 provides water of higher quality than do the zones beneath it, that water only barely meets potable standards. Lower quality water than that obtained from PZ-2 would require extensive treatment to meet potable standards. Reuse or reclaimed water is unavailable to Pop's under any rational cost-benefit analysis. There is a reclaimed water transmission network in Sarasota County, but the nearest point of connection is more than one mile away from Pop's. The wetland lake on Pop's site is unsuitable because extensive land clearing, pipeline construction, and intensive filtration would be required to use its water. Such a project would not be technically or economically feasible for the small amount of water in question. The evidence establishes that Pop's will utilize the lowest quality water available. Saline Water Intrusion The evidence demonstrated that the proposed use will not significantly induce saline water intrusion. Saline water intrusion occurs in the Avon Park limestone formation. Withdrawals must cause a drawdown in the Avon Park formation to further induce saline water intrusion. DID 1 does not penetrate into the Avon Park formation. Mr. Brown's modeling indicated that the withdrawals allowed under the proposed WUP will not cause any drawdown in the Avon Park formation. Pollution of the Aquifer The proposed use will not cause pollution of the aquifer. As noted above, absent a difference in head or some driving force, there is no potential for water to be exchanged between the confined producing zones. Any small quantity that might be exchanged due to the pumping of the well would be removed by the same pumping. There is no potential for pollution of the aquifer by storm water moving through DID 1 or DID 3 because there is no head differential or driving force to move storm water down into the wells. The District's historic water level measurements indicated that during the rainy season, when the site is most likely to be inundated, water levels in the wells are 0.15 feet above land surface. The well structures extend at least one foot above ground level and are sealed with plates and gaskets. Adverse Impacts to Existing Off-site Land Uses The proposed use will not adversely impact off-site land uses. The District's reasonable practice, when authorizing renewal of the permit for an existing well, is to consider off-site impacts only where the applicant seeks to increase withdrawal amounts. In this case, the applicant is requesting a substantial decrease in the amount of withdrawals allowed under the renewed WUP. Adverse Impacts to Existing Legal Withdrawals The proposed use will not adversely affect any existing legal withdrawals of water. The District's reasonable practice, when authorizing renewal of the permit for an existing well, is to consider adverse impacts to existing legal withdrawals only where the applicant seeks to increase withdrawal amounts. In this case, the applicant is requesting a substantial decrease in the amount of withdrawals allowed under the renewed WUP. As noted above, Mr. Brown's modeling indicated that any drawdowns caused by these withdrawals are so small as to be lost within the natural fluctuations of water levels in the aquifer, even at the edge of Pop's 30-acre site. Petitioner's well is more than ten miles away from the wells at Pop's. Utilization of Local Resources to Greatest Extent Practicable The proposed use of water will use local resources to the greatest extent practicable, because the water withdrawn pursuant to the permit will be used on the property where the withdrawal occurs. Water Conservation Measures The proposed use of water incorporates water conservation measures. Pop's uses a commercial irrigation system with low volume misters, spray tips and sprinkler heads, and a rain gauge that automatically shuts down the system if one-eighth to one-quarter inch of rain falls. Mr. Perna testified that the automatic shutdown system rarely has the opportunity to work, because he manually shuts down the system if the weather forecast calls for rain. Mr. Perna testified that the typical golf range irrigates from 30 to 45 minutes per sprinkler head. Pop's irrigates roughly eight minutes per head. Overwatering can cause fungus on the Bermuda grass, giving Pop's a practical incentive to minimize irrigation. Pop's irrigates only the high traffic areas of the tee box and putting green, not the landing area. In its Basis of Review, the District has adopted a water conservation plan for golf courses located in the Eastern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area ("WUCA"). Basis of Review 7.2, subsection 3.2. Pop's is located in the Eastern Tampa Bay WUCA, and has implemented the items that golf courses are required to address in their conservation plans. Reuse Measures Given the small total irrigated area and the efficiency of the irrigation methods employed by Pop's, there is no realistic opportunity to capture and reuse water on the site. There is no reuse water realistically available from other sources. Thus, Pop's incorporates reuse measures to the greatest extent practicable. Waste Given the reduction in permitted quantities and the limited scope of the irrigation, the proposed use will not cause waste. Otherwise Harmful to District Resources No evidence was presented that the use of this water by Pop's will otherwise harm the water resources of the District. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE Petitioner testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of Ellen Richardson. Ms. Richardson testified that she had once seen a sprinkler running at Pop's during a rainfall, though she conceded that it had just begun to rain when she saw it. Ms. Richardson also testified that she had more than once seen sprinklers running at Pop's during daylight hours. However, Mr. Brown testified that some daytime irrigation is permissible under the District's watering restrictions, where heat stress and applications of fertilizers and chemicals make daytime watering necessary. These conditions applied to Pop's. Petitioner's chief concern was with her own well. Since the late 1980s, she has experienced intermittent water outages. The District has repeatedly worked with Petitioner on her well problems, and Petitioner feels frustrated at the District's inability to solve them. However, the District's evidence established that Petitioner's problems with water levels in her own well could not possibly be caused or exacerbated by the withdrawals at Pop's, ten miles away. To the extent that the renewal of this WUP will result in drastic decreases in permitted withdrawals, Petitioner's position would be improved even accepting her theory that these withdrawals have some impact on her well. In her petition, Petitioner alleged that there were disputed issues of material fact as to eight of the fourteen permitting criteria discussed above. While she engaged in spirited cross-examination of the District's witnesses, Petitioner offered no affirmative evidence showing that the any of the conditions for issuance of permits were not met. Petitioner's chief attack was that Rule 40D- 2.301(1), Florida Administrative Code, requires "reasonable assurances" that the permittee will fulfill the listed conditions, and that the applicant here could not supply "reasonable assurances" because of his long history of failure to comply with the conditions of prior permits. As evidence, Petitioner offered the District's historic record of this permit, which indeed was replete with correspondence from the District requesting records related to pumpage and water quality, and apparent silence from Dr. Kelly in reply. However, the record also explains that the failure to provide data was not the result of obduracy, but because farming had ceased on the property. When the less water intensive use of the driving range commenced approximately nine years ago, the owner ceased monitoring activities. The District, under the impression that farming was still taking place on the property, continued to request pumpage and water quality data for several years after the conversion. It appears from the record that Dr. Kelly, an absentee landlord, simply did not bother to respond. Dr. Kelly's past discourtesy does not rise to the level of calling into question the reasonable assurances provided in this permit renewal application, particularly where the lessee, Mr. Perna, has every reason to ensure that the conditions of the WUP are fulfilled. The evidence did not prove that Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose--i.e., primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of the permit renewal application. To the contrary, the evidence was that Petitioner participated in this proceeding in an attempt to raise justifiable issues as to why the permit renewal application should not be granted. In particular, Petitioner raised an important policy issue as to whether an applicant's history of failure to comply with permit conditions should be considered by the District in assessing the reasonableness of the applicant's assurances of future compliance. The District contended that the applicant's compliance history is irrelevant. While the District ultimately prevailed on the substantive issue, its procedural claim of irrelevance was rejected, and Petitioner was allowed to attempt to prove her contention as to Dr. Kelly's noncompliance. It is not found that Petitioner's litigation of this claim was frivolous.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order determining that Dr. Thomas E. Kelly has satisfied the requirements of Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, and Rule 40D-2.301, Florida Administrative Code, regarding conditions for issuance of water use permits, and that the District issue Water Use Permit No. 20005687.003 to Dr. Thomas E. Kelly. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 27th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Becky Ayech 421 Verna Road Sarasota, Florida 34240 Jack R. Pepper, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604 E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should approve applications to renew consumptive use permits filed on behalf of the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority), Pinellas County (County), and Freeman F. Polk (Polk), and if so, what conditions should be included in the permits. The District proposes to issue renewed permits to these applicants with specified conditions, but Polk seeks certain additional condition; to the permits sought by the Authority and the County, and similarly, the Authority and County seek the imposition of additional conditions on Polk's permit. The parties seek these additional conditions to insure that the permitted uses will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the applications, and will also not cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vegetation are adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased or controlled by the applicants.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based upon relevant stipulations of the parties: The Authority is a special taxing district of the State of Florida encompassing Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, which was created by interlocal agreement on October 25, 1974. It is responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities in locations, and at times, necessary to insure that an adequate supply of water will be available to all persons residing within its boundaries. The District is an agency of the State of Florida which is charged with regulating consumptive uses of water in a sixteen county area, including Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. It has implemented a permitting program that requires all persons seeking to withdraw water in excess of an annual average daily rate of 100,000 gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 1,000,000 gallons, to obtain a consumptive use permit. The Cypress Creek Wellfield is located on a 4,895 acre site in central Pasco County, lying east of U.S. 41 between State Roads 52 and 54. The District owns 3,623 acres of this Wellfield, and the remaining 1,272 acres are owned by the City of St. Petersburg. Construction on the Cypress Creek Wellfield commenced in 1974, and it currently consists of thirteen production wells, numerous monitor wells, several thousand feet of transmission lines, two 5 gallon storage tanks, a pump station and several buildings. The City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas and Pasco Counties, and the District have transferred their rights and privileges in this Wellfield, as well as the Wellfield facilities, to the Authority by contracts entered into in November, 1973, and August 1974. Water produced at the Cypress Creek Wellfield is sold at cost by the Authority to users which include the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. The water produced at this Wellfield comprises 29% of the County's total water system demand (20 million gallons a day), and 25% of the City of St. Petersburg's total system demand (10 million gallons a day). These water systems serve approximately 470,000 and 330,000 persons, respectively. In March 1978, the District issued a six-year consumptive use permit to the Authority, the City of St. Petersburg, and the County authorizing an annual average and maximum daily withdrawal of 30 million gallons a day from the Cypress Creek Wellfield. The Authority also began a detailed ecological monitoring program in, and around, this Wellfield in 1978. A three-year permit was then issued to the Authority in December, 1982, authorizing withdrawals of 30 million gallons a day, annual average, and 40 million gallons a day, maximum daily, from the Wellfield. The District determined by Order No. 82-28, dated December 1, 1982, that an average annual daily rate of withdrawal of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of withdrawal of 40 million gallons from the Cypress Creek Wellfield was a reasonable-beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. An application for renewal of the Cypress Creek Wellfield consumptive use permit at the quantities permitted in 1982 was filed with the District on November 7, 1985, by the Authority, the County and the City of St. Petersburg. The continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons is needed in order to meet the water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas and Pasco Counties, is in the interest of residents of Pinellas County, and will not cause the rate of flow of a stream or other watercourse to be lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the District. The regulatory level of the potentiometric surface established by the District for the Cypress Creek Wellfield has never been exceeded by prior withdrawals of water at permitted rates. Continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons will not cause the potentiometric surface level to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory level established by the District, will not cause the surface level of water to be lowered below any minimum established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield is located on a 8,060 acre site in north central Pasco County, lying approximately one mile south of the Pasco-Hernando County line, and immediately east of U.S. 41. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield property has been owned by Pinellas County since 1976. Wellfield construction was completed in 1981. By agreement entered into on April 11, 1979, the Authority is obligated to sell the County water produced from the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield, but any excess not currently being used by the County may be sold to other members of the Authority. A significant amount of water produced at Cross Bar Ranch is pumped to the Cypress Creek Wellfield where it is combined with that Wellfield's water, and then distributed to Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, as well as the City of St. Petersburg, for further distribution. The water produced at these two Wellfields in combination accounts for about 60% of the County's total water system demand. Following pump tests performed from 1977 to 1979, as well as an ecological monitoring program, the District issued a modified consumptive use permit to the Authority by Order 80-9, dated February 6, 1980, for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. The District determined that withdrawals at an average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield was a reasonable beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. On November 7, 1985, the Authority and County jointly applied to the District for renewal of the consumptive use permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at the current permitted quantities of an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons. These withdrawal rates are needed in order to meet present and future water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, provide water for environmental mitigation, and make up water when one or more production facilities cannot pump at their permitted levels. The withdrawal of water from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at permitted rates will not cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory levels established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. Jumping Gully is the only stream or watercourse in the vicinity under the influence of this Wellfield, and the District has not established a minimum rate of flow for Jumping Gully. Hydrologic data collected from monitor wells located at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield show the potentiometric surface has been above mean sea level during the operation of this facility. The District has renewed consumptive use permits for a period of ten years for the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Lakeland Power Plant. The Authority owns, leases or otherwise controls the area within both the Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields. Polk owns, leases or otherwise controls the property identified in his amended permit application of July 26, 1988. Both the Authority's and Polk's permit applications were filed on the proper forms, and otherwise comply with the District's procedural requirements for consumptive use permits. Each party has standing to participate in this case. The proposed uses of water which are the subject of these proceedings are reasonable beneficial uses, and in the public interest. The only permit criteria that remain at issue in this case are set forth in Rules 40D-2.301(1)(c) and (2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented at the hearing: Polk was first issued a consumptive use permit for Ft. King Ranch in August, 1981, after both the Cypress Creek Wellfield and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield had each been permitted to withdraw 30 million gallons per day. Polk's permit authorized him to withdraw ground water at an average annual rate of 420,000 gallons per day, and a maximum rate of approximately 1.94 gallons per day for irrigation of pasture grass and citrus, and cattle drinking water. A temporary consumptive use permit issued to Polk in August, 1981, was signed by him and states on its face that these additional groundwater withdrawals were necessary because of drought conditions. A modified permit was issued to Polk by the District in July, 1982, authorizing him to increase his withdrawals to an average annual rate of approximately 1.94 gpd, and a maximum rate of 5.9 gpd. Polk's wells are not metered. Prior to August, 1981, Polk did not have man made surface or groundwater withdrawal on his property. As it relates to this proceeding, the property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk is known as the Ft. King Ranch, which is generally located between the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, and consists of approximately 6,000 acres. The Ft. King Ranch is comprised of five tracts which were separately acquired by Polk commencing in January, 1969, and ending in 1984. By 1978, Polk had acquired two of these five tracts. He leased a third tract beginning in 1971, before acquiring an ownership interest in 1981. These three tracts were designated parcels A, B, and C, and are located in the eastern and northern portion of the Ranch. These three parcels were the only tracts owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk at the time the first Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield permits were issued in 1978. The western tracts were acquired in 1982 and 1984, and were also referred to as the AL-BAR Ranch at hearing. Polk uses the Ft. King Ranch for a cow-calf operation, and also sod farming and seeding. From 1969 to approximately 1978, there was sufficient surface water on the Ft. King Ranch for these farming activities to be carried out without irrigation or wells. Water holes used by cattle were always wet, and lakes on the property were used for swimming and fishing. His pasture, hay, seed and sod grasses received moisture solely from rainfall. However, Polk did not establish the amounts of water used in his operations prior to the issuance of Wellfield permits. In 1976, parcels A, B, and C were used for these purposes, although Polk has frequently changed the specific size and location of acreages devoted to these land uses. In order to correct flooding that occurred on portions of the Ft. King Ranch during times of heavy rainfall, Polk sought the advice of the Soil Conservation Service in the mid-1970's. He was advised to construct a series of dikes and swales to control the flow of surface water on his property. During 1980 and 1981, Polk constructed a network of swales and ditches to divert and control the flow of surface water from portions of the Ranch needing less water to those requiring wetter conditions, such as his sod and seed operation. The swales interconnect lakes and ponds on his Ranch. He also constructed a levee on the property, and installed a lift pump. These activities have converted most of the eastern portion of his ranch to improved pasture and sod grasses, and virtually eliminated native vegetation. Polk had no professional help in the construction of his ditch-swale systems, or the levee. Beginning in approximately 1980, drier conditions were experienced at the Ranch. One of the ten driest years on record in this area occurred in 1980, and continued drought conditions in 1981 caused the District's Governing Board to declare a water shortage, and impose water conservation measures throughout the District. Some lakes and cypress swamps dried completely and failed to recharge to pre-1980 levels after rainfall. Due to reduced water availability since 1980, including drought conditions in 1985, Polk's calf weights have decreased, while the number of non-breeding cows has increased. Feed bills have increased due to reduced hay and grass production at the Ranch. Polk's bahia seed and sod crops have also declined since 1980 due to reduced surface water levels. Adequate and stable moisture is essential for seed production, and while such conditions did exist on the Ft. King Ranch prior to 1980, they have been absent since 1980. Due to the drier conditions which he noted in 1980 and 1981, Polk filed a formal complaint with the District in 1981. A site visit and pump test were conducted, and the District concluded that the Wellfields were causing less than a one foot drawdown in the Ft. King Ranch water table, and that dry conditions at his ranch were due primarily to drought. In 1985, Polk complained to the District again, and requested that it augment two lakes within the Ranch. After review of surrounding lake conditions, the District declined his request since Polk's lakes had not experienced water level declines atypical of lakes well beyond the influence of the Authority's Wellfields. Studies of water level elevations in the area indicate that the effect of Cypress Creek Wellfield pumpage is quite small when compared to natural changes in water levels due to variable rainfall and evapotransporation. Rainfall in this region is variable, and there has been a significant negative trend over time in surficial and potentiometric water levels that predates Wellfield pumpage. According to J. B. Butler, who was accepted as an expert in hydrology, the swales, dikes and levees constructed by Polk have not caused the water table or surface water level reductions experienced since late 1981. Rather, these are an attempt to divert and retain water on the property, and even in their absence, there would be no significant flow of surface water across Ft. King Ranch from an east to west direction. In addition, Butler testified that a fence line berm constructed along the northern border of the Ranch is an insignificant obstacle to the flow of surface water from the north to south across the Ranch when compared to topographic features, and has had no impact on the water tables of the Ranch. However, evidence introduced at hearing established that as early as 1981, the staff of the District concluded that the swales and elevated fence lines could be aggravating low water conditions by increasing evaporation and leakance, and by excluding surface water which would have entered the Ft. King Ranch from the north. The Authority offered competent substantial evidence to rebut the Butler testimony. Thomas Schanze, who was accepted as an expert in agricultural engineering, testified that Polk's elevated berm along his northern fence line has significantly restricted the flow of surface water onto Ft. King Ranch, and has contributed to the eastern portion of the Ft. King Ranch becoming a closed watershed. Between 1984 and 1986, approximately 700 million gallons of surface water have been excluded by Polk's water control and diversion activities. This exclusion has resulted in a diminished water table within the Ft. King Ranch of about one half foot compared with the water table on the northern side of the berm. Surface water cannot flow onto Polk's property until water levels immediately north reach flood stage. Aerial photographs of the Ft. King Ranch and surrounding properties show that the Polk property is significantly drier than surrounding properties, which include predominant wetlands. If the dry conditions experienced by Polk had been due to pumpage, the same dry conditions should be observed on surrounding properties and lands nearer the Wellfields. However, aerial photos show that lands closer to the Wellfields than Ft. King Ranch are less dry than the Ranch itself. This supports the position of the District and the Authority that Polk's own activities have had a significantly greater impact than pumpage on surface and groundwater levels. The reduction in productivity of Polk's farming activities is reasonably related to his northern berm which serves as a dike, preventing water from flowing onto Ft. King Ranch, as well as drought conditions existing in 1980, 1981 and 1985. The cumulative effect of water excluded from this property and dry weather conditions is significant, and accounts for decreased production. It was not established through competent substantial evidence that Polk's decreased production has resulted from any hydrologic impact of Wellfield pumpage. The District's expert in hydrology and ground water modeling, Robert G. Perry, concluded that significant water table declines on Ft. King Ranch due to pumping from Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields could not be confirmed. Through groundwater flow modeling and statistical analysis, he concluded that a one foot water table drawdown contour resulting from withdrawals at the rate of 30 mgd for 30 days without any recharge would not reach the Ft. King Ranch. Even in a worse case scenario of 120 days without recharge and pumpage at Cypress Creek of 30 mgd for 30 days, then 40 mgd for 30 days, and finally 30 mgd for 60 days, Perry concluded that the one foot water table drawdown contour would not reach Polk's Ranch. There is some evidence that under a worse case condition, pumpage at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield could result in the one foot water table drawdown contour intersecting a small portion of the western tract of the Ft. King Ranch, but this tract was not owned or leased by Polk in 1978, when the first Wellfield permits were issued. Conflicting evidence based upon steady state modeling by Craig Hutchinson of the United States Geological Survey was introduced on behalf of Polk to establish that the cumulative impact of the Wellfields could induce a significant drawdown in the water table in the area between the Wellfields, including the Ft. King Ranch. However, this evidence is rejected as less credible than the analysis conducted by Park and Phillip Davis, who was also accepted as an expert in hydrology and groundwater flow modeling. The steady state approach used by Hutchinson is inappropriate for analyzing the effects of wellfield withdrawals on the water table, because the water table is a dynamic system which is never at steady state. The transient groundwater simulation model used by the District is better suited for an analysis of impacts to the water table, although it does tend to overpredict such impacts, since it accounts for changes in rainfall. The Hutchinson analysis is also unreliable since it is based upon artificially derived antecedent water levels, rather than observed levels. Finally, he did not have required predevelopment water table data, and thus, could not verify water table predictions derived from his steady state model. A transient groundwater flow computer model used by Terry Bengtsson to estimate greater potentiometric surface and water table declines due to withdrawals from the Wellfields than predicted by Park or Davis was discredited, and shown to be unreasonable, by the results of a 28 day pump test in September and October, 1988. According to Rick Stebnisky, who was called on behalf of Polk and accepted as an expert in groundwater hydrology, the combined effect of pumping at the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields has resulted in a significant reduction in water table and potentiometric surface levels at Ft. King Ranch, with such reductions being greater in the southern areas than northern portions of Polk's property. He testified that drawdowns have been noted since pumping began at Cypress Creek in April, 1976, with greater drawdowns occurring closest to the Wellfields, and for this reason drawdowns appear to be related to pumping rather than drought conditions. However, Stebnisky's conclusions were drawn from an overly simplistic hydrographic analysis which ignored factors other than pumpage, such as reduced rainfall, regional trends, surface drainage and non-wellfield pumpage, according to Robert G. Perry, an expert in hydrology and groundwater modeling. Stebnisky was not accepted as an expert in groundwater flow modeling. It was also established that some of the basic assumptions used by Stebnisky in predicting drawdowns were inaccurate, and not based upon accepted hydrologic principles. Therefore, when weighed and considered against other expert testimony, including that of Perry and Dr. J. I. Garcia-Bengochea, Ph.D., an expert in hydrology and environmental engineering, the testimony of Stebnisky is found to lack credibility. While Dr. Garcia-Bengochea agreed with the testimony of Stebnisky that the potentiometric surface and water table levels on the Ft. King Ranch had been somewhat reduced due PAGE 18 MISSING individual well meters, regardless of whether on-site wetlands are being augmented, and is sufficiently accurate for use in evaluating the impact of withdrawals on the water table and Floridan Aquifer. As a condition for renewal of the Authority's permits, the District has required that flow measuring devices or methods be installed for each augmentation discharge point, although generally augmentation of lakes and wetlands within wellfields is not metered. The allowable drawdown levels of potentiometric surface for the Cypress Creek Wellfield established by the District have never been reached. The lowest levels occurred during severe drought conditions in 1981 and 1985. However, even during these times, the lowest potentiometric surface level was 8.53 feet above regulatory levels. Notwithstanding the testimony of Philip Waller, an expert in hydrology, pumping from Polk's irrigation Wellfields have not had a significant impact on the Cypress Creek Wellfield because Waller's model assumptions are extreme, according to Robert G. Perry, whose field of expertise includes groundwater modeling. These unrealistic assumptions included that Polk would operate his irrigation wells at maximum capacity for 120 days, and that there would be no recharge, even though irrigation, like rainfall, would be expected to result in some recharge. Even under these extreme assumptions, Waller's modeling only produced a one foot drawdown at Cypress Creek Wellfield, which would still be well within regulatory levels established by the District, based upon data for the drought years of 1981 and 1985. Since 1979, Cypress Creek Wellfield has averaged approximately 30 million gallons per day, with the maximum withdrawal occurring in May, 1983, when it averaged 34.2 mgd. From 1981 to 1985, the average withdrawals from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield remained stable at 13 mgd, but since 1986, the pumpage has increased to over 15 mgd due, in part, to the use of water from Cross Bar to compensate for contaminated wells shut down at the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield. For purposes of Rule 40D-2.301(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, the District does not consider the use of water that occurs naturally, without pumping or diversion, for use on crops or other agricultural purposes to be, an existing legal use of water, because it does not require a permit. The District does not apply Rule 40D-2.301(2)(e) to protect agricultural crops, but rather to protect naturally occurring vegetation. When an application to renew a consumptive use permit is reviewed by the District, and that renewal does not seek an increase in the quantity of water withdrawals, "legal users" are those present prior to the original permit. On May 17, 1988, a Final Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 88-0693R declaring the District's Rules 40D-2.301(3)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Administrative Code, which otherwise would apply in this proceeding, to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Authority's applications were declared complete by the District on June 18, 1987, and the District staff recommended issuance of these permits on August 14, 1987. Modifications to the draft permit were made by the District on December 28, 1988, and these modified draft permits are acceptable to the Authority. The latest draft permits contain stated conditions which include the requirement that the Authority directly measure the amount of water it uses to augment the water level of on-site wetlands. On February 22, 1989, the Authority and the District filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in Case Number 87- 4644 by which they settled their dispute as to the duration of consumptive use permit renewals for the Wellfields, and provided for a ten year permit for Cypress Creek, and a six year permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. Polk submitted his original permit application on April 13, 1987, and then amended his request on July 26, 1988. The District has proposed to issue a draft permit to Polk, with stated conditions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order approving the consumptive use permit applications of the West Coasts Regional Water Supply Authority and Pinellas County for the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, with conditions proposed by the District, and also approving the consumptive use permit application of Freeman F. Polk, with conditions proposed by the District. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4644, 87-4645, 87-4647, & 88-1169 Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings 6, 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 38. 8-11. Adopted in Finding 20. 12. Adopted in Finding 21. 13-14. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 25. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 25, 26. 20-22. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 23-48. Adopted in Findings 31 through 35. 49-60. Adopted in Findings 28 through 30. 61-64 Adopted in Finding 36. 65-68. Adopted in Finding 37. Rulings on the Authority's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 4, 10. Adopted in Finding 2. 4-6. Adopted in Finding 39. Adopted in Finding 18. Adopted in Findings 21, 22. Adopted in Finding 40. 10-11. Adopted in Finding 3. 12-14. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 6, 38. Adopted in Finding 5. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 6, 21. 20. Adopted in Findings 7, 16. 21-23. Adopted in Finding 41. 24-25. Adopted in Finding 9. 26-27. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 11, 38. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. 3132 Adopted in Findings 11, 21. 33. Adopted in Findings 12, 16. 34-36. Adopted in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Finding 24. 41-42. Adopted in Finding 22. 43-45. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 50-53. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Findings 20, 21. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 41. Rejected as unnecessary. 60-62. Adopted in Finding 35. 63. Adopted in Finding 36. 64-70. Adopted in Findings 34, 35. 71-76. Adopted in Findings 33 through 35. 77-78. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 79-80. Adopted in Finding 34. 81-87. Adopted in Finding 32. 88-91. Adopted in Findings 26 through 35. 92-96. Adopted in Findings 29, 30, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 28. Adopted in Finding 29. 99-100. Adopted in Finding 30. 101-102. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected in Finding 37. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 37 Ruling on Pinellas County's Proposed Finding of Fact: (The County also adopted the Authority's Proposed Findings.) 1. Rejected since the statement proposed by the County is not a finding of fact, but simply a statement on the evidence. Evidence which was not admitted at hearing has not been considered. Rulings on Polk's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Findings 9, 10. Adopted in Finding 21. Rejected in Findings 6, 11, 21. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 25 through 27. 7-8. Rejected in Findings 25 through 27. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 24. 11-13. Rejected in Findings 24, 29, 30. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as argument on the evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Douglas M. Wyckoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas E. Cone, Jr., Esquire 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire Chris Jayson, Esquire 4508 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Bram D. E. Canter, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34699-6899
Findings Of Fact On March 30, 1978, Lee County applied to the Department for permits pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, to improve the existing Daniels Road in Lee County, Florida, from a two lane unimproved facility to a two lane paved road. The project site is located in southeastern Lee County, Florida, and crosses Six Mile Cypress Swamp. The proposed improvement would require excavation of material from submerged lands of waters of the state to remove a part of the existing dirt roadbed, placing of fill material onto submerged lands of waters of the state to widen the existing roadbed, and construction of two concrete bridges and two variable crest weirs. After receipt of the application, the Department reviewed the application, and, after consultation with Lee County officials, recommended issuance of the requested permit subject to the following conditions: Elimination of a proposed bicycle path; Deletion of a proposed spreader ditch and the dredging necessary for that ditch; Formulation and submission to the Depart- ment by Lee County of an acceptable management plan and schedule for maintaining water levels and indigenous swamp communities within the swamp; Organization of a Melaleuca Control Committee, together with preparation and implementation of a program to eradicate melaleuca within the right- of-way; and Revegetation of willows in the construction area. In their Amended Petition, Petitioners contest the proposed issuance of the requested permit on grounds that the permit condition requiring development of an acceptable water management plan should be accomplished prior to issuance of the permit; that the long range environmental impact of the proposed project has not been assessed; that the application does not contain information sufficient to give reasonable assurances that it will no result in deterioration of water quality; that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the project will not have an adverse long-range impact on the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife, or other natural resources; that the aquifer recharge area adjacent to the proposed project will be substantially reduced; that sheet flow of overland water will be irretrievably altered; that land uses surrounding the Six Mile Cypress Swamp will contribute to deteriorating water quality; that elimination of the proposed bicycle path would deny Petitioners the right to utilize pedestrian, energy conserving and/or non-polluting transportation; and that the health and welfare of the Florida panther will be threatened by construction in the Six Mile Cypress Swamp which serves as habitat for this endangered species. Petitioners allege in their Amended Petition that their substantial interests would be affected ". . . in that Petitioner Joseph H. Burgess, a resident of Daniels Road, may suffer from downstream flooding as a result of issuing this permit." The Amended Petition alleged that Petitioner, Sierra Club - Calusa Group would be substantially affected by the proposed agency action in that they would ". . . be deprived of an area utilized for nature study . . .," in that the project would ". . . seriously impair the group's ability to study bird life and enjoy the natural scenic beauty of a presently relatively undisturbed area. . . ." The Amended Petition also alleged that Petitioners, Mary Ann Wallace and Joseph H. Burgess, would be substantially affected ". . . as nearby residents, who will be denied the right to enjoy a proposed regional park on the south side of Daniels Road in the Six Mile Cypress Swamp as a direct result of issuing this permit." Neither Joseph H. Burgess, Ellen Peterson, nor any representative testifying on behalf of Sierra Club - Calusa Group appeared or testified at the final hearing in this cause. The only named petitioners appearing and testifying at the final hearing were Mary Ann Wallace and Thomas Geary. Neither of these petitioners offered any testimony to establish that they owned property in Lee County, Florida, that they used any of the waters or other natural resources in the area of the Six Mile Cypress Swamp for nature study, recreation or other purpose, or that they would personally be injured or otherwise affected by issuance of the requested permit or the alleged environmental impacts arising therefrom. At the conclusion of Petitioners' case, the Department and Lee County moved to dismiss the Amended petition on grounds that Petitioners had failed to establish that their substantial interests would be affected by the proposed agency action as required by Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, which motions were granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, dismissing the Amended Petition in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Isaac Anderson, Esquire 2115 Main Street Suites A and B Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Ray Allen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Brondstetter, Esquire Assistant Lee County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ELLEN PETERSON, et al., Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 78-1467 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and LEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondents. /
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent owns real property located in Township 2 North, Range 7 East, Section 32, in Madison County, Florida, that has surface water flowing through it and is encompassed within what is defined as "wetlands." Respondent is in control and possession of the property in question and all work on the property that is material to this proceeding is under the control or direction of the Respondent. There were access roads on the property as early as 1973 as reflected by Respondent's exhibit 2, a 1973 aerial photograph, but the width of the roads or the existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Petitioner's exhibit 2, a 1981 aerial photograph, shows the roads still in existence in 1981 but the width of the roads or existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Sometime before the Respondent purchased the property and began construction to expand the roads, ditches and culverts were in place; however, there was no evidence as to when the ditches and culverts came to be in place. A 1976 survey of the property reflects 60 foot roads which were to provide access to platted but unrecorded lots. These roads had not been constructed when Respondent purchased the property or began construction to expand the roads. The newly constructed portions of the road indicates an attempt to build the roads in accordance with the 1976 survey. The previously existing roads attempted to follow the natural contour of the land and as a result were not always straight, and only had a negligible effect on the flow or storage of surface water in regard to the property. Sometime around October 1987, Respondent began to rebuild and construct roads on the property by straightening existing curves, removing fill material from adjacent wetlands to widen and heighten the existing roadbed or construct a new roadbed, and to increase the depth and width of existing ditches or dig new ditches. The initial portion of the existing road providing access to the property from the county graded road has been substantially rebuilt with portion of the roadbed being 40 to 43 feet wide. Ditches along this portion of the roadbed have had their width increased up to 14 feet and their depth increased up to 6 and 8 feet. Other portions of the road has been expanded beyond the previously existing roadbed by increasing the width and height of the roadbed. The increased size of the ditches and the expanded roadbed has increased the interception of surface water above that already being intercepted by the previous roadbed and ditches and, as a result, there is an increased amount of surface water impounded or obstructed. The effect is that surface water is removed from Respondent's property at a faster rate than before road construction began and, as a result, sheet flow of surface water is decreased which diminishes the storage of surface water on the property. Although new culverts were installed during road construction, there was insufficient evidence to show that these new culverts were in addition to the culverts already in place or if they replaced old culverts. There was insufficient evidence to show that the new culverts allowed water to flow in a different direction or be removed from the property at a faster rate than before or if they impounded or obstructed surface water more so than before. The previously existing roads had sufficiently served an earlier timber harvest on the property and, by Respondent's own testimony, were sufficient for his ongoing hog and goat operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case was neither necessary nor a customary practice for construction of farm access roads in this area. Respondent is engaged in the occupation of agriculture in that he has a bona fide hog and goat operation. However, Respondent's silviculture occupation is somewhat limited in that he is presently harvesting the timber but shows no indication of replanting or continuing the forestry operation upon completing the present harvesting operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case goes beyond what is necessary or is the customary practice in the area for a hog or goat operation or forestry operation such as Respondent's and is inconsistent with this type of agriculture or silviculture occupation. Respondent has never applied for nor received a surface water management permit from the Petitioner even though the Petitioner has informed Respondent that a permit was required for the work being done on his property. The present alteration of the topography of the land by Respondent has obstructed and impounded surface water in such a fashion that the interruption of the sheet flow of surface water has been increased, causing the storage of surface water on the property to be diminished. At the present time, Respondent has been enjoined by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, from any further activity on this project. However, should Respondent be allowed to complete this project, it is evident that the sole and predominant purpose would be to impound and obstruct the sheet flow of surface water and diminish the storage of surface water on the property in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Suwannee River Management District, enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Norman Leonard, to: (a) remove all unauthorized fill material placed within jurisdictional wetlands and return those areas to predevelopment grades and revegetate with naturally occurring local wetlands species to prevent erosion; (b) back fill excavated swale ditches, return road beds and excavated ditches to predevelopment condition and grades and seed disturbed non-wetland areas with a 50:50 mix of bahia and rye grass and; (c) refrain from any other development until and unless a required permit is obtained for such development. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1445 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4.-7. Are unnecessary findings for this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. 26.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 35.-38. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 39.-42. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. The first paragraph adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The balance is rejected as a conclusion of law. 2.-3. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Not a finding of fact but a statement of testimony. However, it is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The more credible evidence is contrary to this finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Norman Leonard, Pro Se Route 2, Box 172-D Live Oak, Florida 32060 Donald O. Morgan Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, Florida Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District) is a multipurpose water management agency of the State of Florida. Its duties include the operation and maintenance of a vast network of canals which provide flood control and other benefits to Palm Beach County. Pertinent to this proceeding, the District is the owner in fee of a 600' right of way which contains a canal known as C- The tidewater reach of C-18 extends east from a control structure (S-46) near State Road 706 downstream for a distance of 8,375' (1.6 miles) to the southwest fork of the Loxahatchee River. Of this distance, 7,322' lie upstream from a small bridge, which crosses the C-18 at Loxahatchee River Drive (the bridge) and 1,053' downstream. The canal is approximately 200' wide, with 200' of overbank right of way on its north and south sides. The River Trails Development Petitioner, River Trails, Ltd (River Trails) is the developer of a 28 acre condominium community in Palm Beach County known as River Walk. The River Walk development, comprised of 347 townhouse units, is contiguous to 2,500' of the south overbank right of way of the C-18, approximately midway between S-46 and the southwest fork of the Loxahatchee River. On December 9, 1983, River Trails filed an application with the District for a right of way occupancy permit to selectively clear and regrade the C-18 right of way and to construct a marina facility within the right of way consisting of a temporary parking area, boat ramp and 3 docking facilities with a combined capacity of 97 boats. The District approved River Trails' application and issued it a permit on January 12, 1984. That permit provided: WORK PROPOSED WILL BE COMPLETED ON OR BEFORE 1-31, 1985, otherwise, this permit is voided and all rights thereunder are automatically cancelled unless an extension to the construction period is applied for and granted. Upon receipt of the District's permit, River Trails began to selectively clear the bank of the canal of exotic vegetation, primarily Brazilian pepper, and to regrade the bank to a more gentle slope than its existing 12'-14' vertical drop on the west and 2'-3' vertical drop on the east. In the process, 28 mangrove trees were damaged or destroyed.1 To settle a dispute which arose between Palm Beach County and River Trails over the destruction of the mangroves, River Trails agreed to plant additional mangroves and spartina grass along the southeasterly shoreline of the C-18. To consummate that agreement, River Trails requested that the District modify its permit to allow the selective planting of mangroves and spartina grass along the shoreline and in a tidal slough, to alter the bank slope to provide a wider intertidal zone to accommodate the plantings, and to move the proposed docks further out from the bank of the canal. The District granted River Trails' requested modification on June 25, 1984 subject to the following special conditions: Construction of the boat dock facilities as originally permitted and modified hereunder is subject to the issuance of a permit from the DER. Prior to commencement of construction, the applicant shall submit a DER permit for the boat docking facilities. Any future modification of the boat docking facilities by the applicant must have the approval of the governing board prior to construction. Rule 40E 6.301(c), Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant to give reasonable assurances that the proposed use of the works of the district "does not degrade the quality of the receiving body and meets the standards of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for the receiving body. The board may waive the strict enforcement of this provision." Neither issuance of the original permit nor this modification shall be construed as a waiver of this provision as it applies to the per- mitting activity of the DER relative to this project. Department of Environmental Regulation Permitting On December 22, 1983, River Trails applied with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit and water quality certification to construct its boat ramp and 97 slip marina. During the processing of that application, River Trails requested two waivers of the 90 day time period prescribed by Sections 120.60(2) and 403.0876, Florida Statutes, (180 days total) in order to conduct a hydrographic survey of the area in order to respond to water quality concerns raised by DER. River Trails did not submit a hydrographic survey to DER, nor did it offer such a survey in this proceeding. On December 20, 1984, DER advised River Trails that its proposed boat ramp was exempt from permitting requirements. Thereafter, on December 21, 1984, DER issued its "intent to deny" the balance of River Trail's application predicated on its conclusion that the project was expected to have a long and short term adverse impact on the water quality and biological resources of the C-18 canal and the adjacent Outstanding Florida Waters of the Loxahatchee River. Specifically, DER found that degradation of water quality in the project's Class II waters and the adjacent Outstanding Florida Waters would likely occur due to: Shading from docks and walkways that would likely prohibit recolonization of shoreline vegetation. Marinas can be expected to lower water quality by the accumulation of marina source contaminants, including heavy metals, greases, oils, detergent ,and litter. Increased boat traffic (97+ boats), and their associated wakes will result in increased shoreline erosion. This additional erosion can prohibit the recolonization of shoreline vegetation beneficial to water quality. The cumulative impact of this project and other similar projects within the C-18 canal would be expected to degrade water quality. Prop wash from outboard motor boats in shallow littoral shelf areas will cause turbidity problems and adversely impact existing benthic communities. DER further found the proposed activity contrary to the public interest provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, since the proposed marina would substantially interfere with the conservation of the Florida Manatee and the destruction of natural marine habitat. River Trails declined to pursue its DER application for the 97 slip facility any further. Instead, it filed an application with DER for a docking facility of less than 1,000 square feet, accommodating 37 boats, to qualify for the exemption provided by Section 403.812(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Following a successful rule challenge in April 1985, River Trails received its statutory exemption. The District's emerging management policy. Shortly after the District approved River Trail's modification on June 25, 1984, it began to receive a great deal of negative comment from the public, DNR, DER, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. These comments, of which the District was not previously aware, included concerns for the Loxahatchee River, the Florida manatee, and negative biological and water quality assessments. Accordingly, the District's Governing Board requested that its staff investigate and evaluate various management options for the overall development of the 18 right of way. During the ensuing months the District's staff solicited input from DER, DNR, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; investigated the C-18; and formulated its recommendations for the future management of the canal. On January 10, 1985, the District's staff submitted its management plan to the Governing Board. The plan recommended that the intertidal zone be widened a minimum of 10 and planted in mangrove and spartina to combat erosion of the canal banks by boat wakes; that the canal banks be regraded to a minimum of one vertical on four horizontal slope and stabilized with a combination of grasses, native trees and shrubs; and that the overbank right of way be cleared of exotic species and replanted with native trees and shrubs. In keeping with the main goal of habitat improvement, staff recommended that the cumulative linear extent of areas provided for bankfishing and viewing be limited to 10 percent of the shoreline and that no structure be located waterward of the mean high water line. Subsequent to its January 10, 1985, meeting the District has pursued its management plan for the alteration of the shoreline and berms of C-18. Since that time two permits have been issued to large developers who agreed to reslope and revegetate, at their expense, the banks of the C-18 in accordance with the District's plan, and in exchange for the esthetic view accorded by C-18. No dockage, boat ramps, or other structures have been permitted. River Trails' permit expires Following DER's denial of its application for a permit to construct the 97 slip marina, River Trails requested that the District modify its permit to reflect a 37 slip facility and extend the permit for one year. River Trails subsequently withdrew its request to modify the permit. On January 10, 1985, the District entered an order denying River Trails' request for a one year extension of its permit. The District's denial was predicated on its perceived environmental sensitivity of the C-18 canal and the Loxahatchee River system, and its conclusion that the project was contrary to the restoration concept of the District's developing management plan for the C-18. River Trails filed a timely request for hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-2272. On July 16, 1985 River Trails reapplied to the District for approval of its modified proposal for a boat ramp and 37 slip marina. The District denied River Trail's request on September 12, 1985. Reasons for denial included adverse water quality impacts, endangerment of the manatee population, increased bank erosion and increased liability risks to the District associated with increased boat usage of the C-18. River Trails filed a timely request for hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85- 3678. Impacts of the River Trails Development Because of its location and physical characteristics, boating activity in the C-18 has not been extensive. The canal joins the Loxahatchee River on its western shore, opposite the popular boating areas in the intercoastal waterway and Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the River's eastern shore. Access to the canal is restricted by a bridge with a 6' clearance, and its western expanse is blocked by S-46. Accordingly, boating activity within this 1.6 mile stretch of 18 has been generally limited to fishing trips to S-46, sightseeing, and occasional water skiing. River Trails' facility will increase boating within the C-18 well beyond the 37 slip capacity of its dock facility. River Trails proposes to provide upland storage for the boats of a all condominium unit owners, and expects a majority of owners to utilize the slips or boat ramp. Accordingly, use of the facility will not be limited to 37 boats but, rather, will reach into the hundreds. The District's management plan for the C-18 is designed to restructure the canal's present configuration to provide natural habitat, reduced erosion and scenic beauty. As originally designed, the C-18 had 1 on 2 side slopes throughout its reach, however, erosion of the bank downstream from S-46 has resulted in nearly vertical, unstable side slopes above mean high water along 40 percent of its length. The overbank right of way is heavily vegetated with exotic species. With the exception of several areas near the downstream end of the canal, mangroves are not well established along the existing shoreline due to the shading effect of overhanging Brazilian pepper and a rather narrow unstable intertidal zone. Currently, little use of the overbank right of way is made by the public due to its dense vegetation, and any view of the canal is severely impeded. Under the District's management plan the intertidal zone would be expanded and planted in mangroves and spartina to combat erosion from boat wakes and to provide natural habitat; existing vertical banks would be recontoured to a more gentle slope and stabilized with grasses and native trees; and the overbanks would be cleared of exotics so that native trees could prosper. To date the District has been successful in carrying out its plan; however, the survival of the mangrove seedlings and spartina is dependent on minimal disturbance. The introduction of the boats from River Trails would increase erosion and prevent the recolonization of shoreline vegetation beneficial to water quality, marine habitat, and canal bank stabilization. Furthermore, existing and proposed development along the C-18 right of way can be reasonably expected to exacerbate the erosion problem if River Trails' permit is granted. River Trails' proposed marina also raises the specter of adverse impacts to water quality, wildlife and habitat. The C-18 is classified as a Class II surface water body, and supports a diversity of aquatic life. Commonly observed species include snook, mullet, mangrove snapper, pinfish, needlefish and filter feeding organisms such as oysters. The endangered Florida Manatee, Trichechus manatus, is also observed in the C-18 and downstream in the Loxahatchee River. The Loxahatchee River is classified as outstanding Florida waters (OFW) and critical habitat for the Florida manatee. The river, as well as C-18 up to the S-46 control structure, has also been included by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) within the Loxahatchee River Zone of the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act.3 Due to the restricted access from C-18 into the Loxahatchee River, boats located at River Trails' development will likely be approximately 23' in length and powered by outboard motors. Such watercraft, through their introduction of oils and greases, contribute to a degradation of water quality however, neither party addressed the potential impacts to water quality which would be occasioned by the total number of boats that would utilize the boat ramp and boat slips at the proposed facility. By failing to address this issue, and limiting its proof to the impacts from a maximum of 97 boats, River Trails has failed to give reasonable assurances that its proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of Class II water quality standards. The impact of River Trails' project upon the Florida manatee is less clear than its impact upon the C-18. Although designated part of the manatee sanctuary, C-18 presently offers little in the way of food source for the manatee with the exception of some plant materials near S-46. The grass Fla. within the Loxahatchee River and the intercoastal waterway are the manatee's primary food source and congregating areas; however, as the mangrove and spartina plantings along the intertidal zone of the canal mature, the manatee may more often. venture into the canal. Whatever their frequency within the narrow confines of the C-18, the numbers of boats that would be introduced by River Trails would drive the manatee from the area. These boats would not, however, pose a significant threat to the manatee or its habitat within the Loxahatchee River since its navigation channels are well marked to avoid grass flats. Indeed, there has been no boat related manatee mortality in the Loxahatchee River area since 1977. The District's concern regarding increased liability risk is unpersuasive. Pursuant to rule the District requires that an applicant for a permit to occupy right of way provide the District with insurance coverage satisfactory to the District, There is no suggestion that the insurance coverage tendered by River Trails, and accepted by the District, was inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory. The District's decision to deny River Trail's application was not inconsistent with its existing practice. While the District has permitted docks and boat ramps in other canals, there was no showing that those canals abutted a sanctuary or were under redevelopment to improve the works of the District.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for an environmental resource permit to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill canal system should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The proposed project On March 19, 1998, Petitioner Cahill submitted a permit application to the Department to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill Pines and Palms subdivision on Big Pine key. A backhoe would be used to dredge and lower the plugs to a depth of minus five feet mean low water (-5 ft. MLW) for the purpose of providing boating access to the properties now isolated from open water. The Cahill canal system is located within class III waters of the state which open into Pine Channel, a natural waterbody designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). In 1991 and 1995 Petitioner Cahill submitted permit applications to the Department to remove the same two canal plugs. Those applications were initially denied and the denials were litigated in formal administrative hearings. Those hearings resulted in Department final orders denying both applications.3 Background4 In July, 1991, the Department received a permit application requesting the removal of two canal plugs down to a depth of minus five-and-a-half feet NGVD. A formal administrative hearing was conducted on March 3 and 4, 1994, in Key West, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer (now Administrative Law Judge) of the Division of Administrative Hearings. That initial permit application denial was based upon water quality considerations and the project's failure to meet the public interest test. On May 17, 1995, Petitioner submitted a permit application to the Department which was denied. The basis for the permit denial was that the project was substantially similar to the previously litigated project. On April 23, 1996, a second formal administrative hearing was held in Key West, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Kirkland. Judge Kirkland found that the 1995 permit application did not address the issues raised by the Department in the first administrative hearing. Judge Kirkland also concluded that the 1995 application should be denied on the basis of res judicata. The Department entered a Final Order on September 12, 1996, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata applied to support the denial of Petitioner's 1995 application. New facts/changed conditions In all material aspects, the proposed dredging activity in the current permit application is identical to the previously proposed dredging activity. Petitioner Cahill seeks to lower the two canal plugs to allow boat access. The documents submitted in support of the current application do not propose any significant changes to what was proposed in the two prior applications. Petitioner Cahill provided copies of provisions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan and two Monroe County Ordinances, in support of the current permit application. This information does not constitute new facts or changed conditions sufficient to characterize the proposed project as substantially different from the previously denied applications. Petitioner Cahill provided a list of "enhancements" in the current permit application seeking to provide reasonable assurance for issuance of an environmental resource permit. These proposed "enhancements" are not binding on the Petitioner Cahill's members and do not constitute such new facts or changed conditions as to make the project substantially different from the previously denied applications. The differences between the current application and the two previously denied applications are primarily cosmetic differences. The substance of the matter is unchanged in any material detail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying Petitioner's pending application for an environmental resource permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of March, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a multi-county water management district which was created by Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and which operates pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The District is the local sponsor for the federally-authorized "Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control" and as such, operates and maintains various water control facilities and impoundments in South Florida, as authorized and constructed by the Federal Government. The jurisdiction of the District encompasses 16 counties in southern and central Florida, from Marion County in the north to Monroe County in the south. Water Conservation Area 2A is one of several water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction and is a part of the federally-authorized Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control. On April 13, June 2, August 10, September 26, October 19, and October 20, 1978, the Governing Board of the District held public hearings and workshop meetings to receive comments from the District staff and the general public concerning the proposed "draw down" or alteration of water levels in Water Conservation Area 2A. Notice of the September 26, 1978 public hearing was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume No. 4, No. 36, on September 8, 1978. By the terms of the notice, the purpose of the September 26th public hearing was: To provide interested citizens with an opportunity to express their opinions and hear testimony regarding the District's proposal to lower the water level in Conservation Area 2A, located in western Palm Beach and Broward counties. The purpose of the draw down is to con- solidate the bottom sediments so that a more flexible water schedule can be begun to preserve the natural Everglades ecology . . . . After considering information received from staff and the general public, the Governing Board entered its "Order" No. 78-12 dated October 20, 1978 containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. This "order" provided, in pertinent part: That the staff take appropriate measures to accomplish the following: A draw down from current high water levels will be initiated October 31, 1978, with the goal of reducing water levels in the central portion of the marsh to ground level by December 31 (about 11.2 feet msl). From this point, water levels shall be allowed to continue to recede to a minimum level of 9.5' by the end of May, 1979. Water levels will be allowed to rise to about 12.5' msl by October 31, 1979. That the staff take appropriate measures to regulate water levels in Conservation Area 2A between 12.5' and 9.5' msl as provided in Paragraph 1. until November of 1981. That the regulation of Conservation Area 2A be carried out in a flexible manner to insure maximum environmental benefits and that adjustments in water level fluctuations and stages may be made predicated upon the environmental response of the Conservation Area 2A ecosystem resulting from the previous year's hydroperiod. That the staff pursue such research and data collection as is necessary to fully document the conditions of the marsh throughout the three year duration of the project. No formal hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, were requested as a result of the aforementioned workshop, public hearings or agency action embodied in the "order" of October 20, 1978. It is undisputed that Respondent did not comply with the requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, relating to rule making in issuing its Order of October 20, 1978. Petitioner, Joe Burgess, is the owner of Hinckle's Bait and Tackle Shop on State Road 84 in Broward County, approximately 12 miles from Conservation Area 2A. Petitioner Burgess derives approximately 60 to 70 percent of his business from customers who use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. In addition, Petitioner Burgess personally uses Conservation Area 2A for hunting and fishing. Petitioner, Keith Finlayson, is an environmentalist who uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes, including fishing, bird watching, observing animals in their natural habitats and flora identification. Petitioner Finalyson uses Conservation Area 2A for recreational purposes approximately two to three times per week. Petitioner, Concerned Citizens for the Everglades, Inc., is a not-for- profit Florida corporation, some of whose members presently use Conservation Area 2A for hunting, fishing, and other recreational purposes. Other members of the organization derive their living from businesses supported by revenues obtained from the general public directly attributable to "use" of Conservation Area 2A. One of the effects of the "draw down" will be to make certain portions of Conservation Area 2A inaccessible by boat during some periods of the year, thereby curtailing recreational and other use of the those areas. Water Conservation Area 2A, and other such areas within the jurisdiction of Respondent, is surrounded by levies and various water control structures and is operated independently of other water conservation areas, which are also surrounded by levies and water control structures. All of the water conservation areas within Respondent's jurisdiction are subject to different and independent water regulation schedules. The evidence establishes that it is not feasible to apply the same regulation schedule to all water conservation areas due to differences in topography. In fact, it is anticipated that a different regulation schedule for Water Conservation Area 2A will be developed after the current three-year draw down period is concluded. Although originally scheduled to commence on November 1, 1978, the "draw down" of water levels in Conservation Area 2A was delayed as a result of legal actions taken in state courts. As a result, the District did not actually begin the "draw down" until August, 1980.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents constructed a dock and walkway on state lands in Collier County, Florida, without obtaining authorization, and if so, whether an administrative fine should be imposed for this action; and whether certain corrective action should be taken by Respondents, as described in Petitioner's First Amended Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Fine Assessment (First Amended NOV) filed on March 24, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Board is responsible for overseeing state-owned lands and ensuring that they are managed in trust for the citizens of the state. The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) performs all staff duties and functions related to the administration of state lands. See § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. Pursuant to that authority, the Department has prosecuted this action on behalf of the Board. Since December 1, 2005, Respondents, Margarita Quintero and Thomas Patas, as tenants in common, have owned property at 1899 Sheffield Avenue, Marco Island, Florida. See Bd. Ex. G. The property is more specifically identified as Parcel ID No. 57200400000, Section 16, Township 52 South, Range 26 East. A narrow wooden walkway extends in a south-southeasterly direction from Respondents' property to a small terminal platform in Barfield Bay, a waterbody that lies south of Respondents' lot. See Bd. Ex. C. The Board owns uplands located in Section 16, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, and those sovereign submerged lands of Barfield Bay lying adjacent to Section 16. Those lands are described as follows: Lots 22 and 23, Block 149 and Lot 10, Block 150, and that portion of Dogwood Drive lying between Lots 22 and 23 and Lot 10, of the subdivision of Marco Beach Unit Five recorded in Plat Book 6, Pages 39 through 46, Public Records of Collier County. See Bd. Ex. G-2. Most of the uplands were deeded to the state in 1985 pursuant to a settlement agreement with The Deltona Corporation, while a small sliver of land was deeded to the state in September 2013. Respondents' property is located adjacent to these state-owned lands. On March 28, 2012, the Department received a complaint from a third party that the walkway and dock had been constructed adjacent to Respondents' property. In a letter dated April 19, 2012, the Department warned Respondents of "possible violations of the law." See Bd. Ex. J. The letter stated that the Department believed Respondents were responsible for a dock being installed on state-owned lands and mangroves had been altered for the installation of the dock. The letter also noted that Respondents' property did not appear to be riparian. Respondents were requested to contact the Department within 15 days to arrange a meeting to discuss these issues. Respondents did not reply to the letter or meet with Department representatives. On June 14, 2012, the Department recorded a Notice of Unauthorized Structure (NOUS) in the public records of Collier County. See Bd. Ex. H. The NOUS was intended to serve as notice to prospective purchasers and other interested persons that certain unauthorized structures were located on state lands adjacent to Respondents' property. There is no evidence that Respondents responded in any manner to the NOUS. On December 10, 2012, a Department Environmental Specialist III conducted an inspection of the walkway and dock. He observed a two-foot wide access walkway extending 335 feet from Respondents' property, which terminated at a 63-square-foot terminal platform (dock) in Barfield Bay. The total dock size is 733 square feet, while the walkway encompasses around 670 square feet. See Bd. Ex. A. A follow-up inspection on January 12, 2015, revealed that the structure had not been removed. See Bd. Ex. K. Property records and a coastal engineering site survey confirm that the structure passes over state-owned uplands before crossing the Mean High Water Line and onto sovereign submerged lands in Barfield Bay. See Bd. Ex. C. There is no evidence that Respondents obtained authorization to construct the walkway and dock. To determine when the dock and walkway were constructed, the Department reviewed aerial images of the property taken in 2004, 2006, 2009, and 2012. See Bd. Ex. B. The walkway and dock did not appear until the 2012 image. This confirms that Respondents constructed the walkway and dock after they purchased their property in December 2005. The First Amended NOV seeks to impose an administrative fine on each Respondent in the amount of $2,500.00 for unauthorized use of sovereign submerged land. If the walkway and dock are removed within 20 days, no fine will be imposed. For every day after the 20 days that removal does not occur, the Board intends to impose a fine accruing at a rate of $10,000.00 per day. As corrective action, the Board proposes generally that Respondents remove the walkway and dock within 20 days from the date of a Final Order; that during such removal steps be taken to ensure that no further impacts to mangroves, wetlands, and bay bottom occur; that water quality be protected during this process; and that the material be disposed of in an appropriate upland location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund enter a final order sustaining the charges in the First Amended NOV. Within 20 days of the entry of a final order, each Respondent shall pay $2,500.00 to the Department. Payments shall be made by cashier's check or money order payable to the "Internal Improvement Trust Fund." All payments shall be sent to the Department of Environmental Protection, South District, SLERP Section, Post Office Box 2549, Fort Myers, Florida 33902-2549. If Respondents complete removal of the walkway structure and dock from Board property in accordance with the corrective action described in paragraph 19, Respondents do not have to pay the fines. If Respondents fail to complete removal of the dock and walkway structure in accordance with the corrective action, the fine will begin accruing at a rate of $10,000.00 per day. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands (Letter of Consent) should be issued to Respondent, Palm Beach County (County), authorizing it to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands for a restoration project in Lake Worth Lagoon.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are determined: The Parties Trump is the owner association for a two-towered residential and commercial condominium building located at 525 South Flagler Drive in downtown West Palm Beach, upland and west of the project site in the Lagoon. Each tower rises thirty floors and together they have of two hundred twenty units. The first five floors are common areas including a lobby on the first floor, while a pool and patio are located on the fifth floor of the north tower. The property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive, a four-lane divided road with landscaping and sidewalks which runs adjacent to, and on the western side of, the Lagoon. There is no dispute that Trump has standing to initiate this action. Flagler owns, manages, and leases two multi-story office buildings located at 501 Flagler Drive on the upland real property directly west of the project location. Like the Trump property, the Flagler property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive. There is no dispute that Flagler has standing to participate in this matter. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the applicant in this proceeding. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes,2 to issue to the County an ERP for the project, as well as authority as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to authorize activities on sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21. Background On October 29, 2007, the County submitted to the Department its Joint Application for an ERP and Letter of Consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in the Lagoon owned by the Board of Trustees. The application was assigned File No. 50- 0283929-00. After an extensive review process, including three requests for additional information, on August 12, 2008, the Department issued its Notice of Intent authorizing the County to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands in the Lagoon with approximately 172,931 cubic yards of sand and rock material to create the following: (a) approximately 1.75 acres of red mangrove habitat including 1.52 acres of mangrove islands and 0.23 acres of red mangrove planters; (b) approximately 0.22 acres of cordgrass habitat; (c) approximately 0.90 acres of oyster habitat; (d) approximately 3.44 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat; and (e) a 10-foot by 556-foot (5,560 square feet) public boardwalk with two 3-foot by 16-foot (48 square feet) educational kiosk areas and a 16-foot by 16-foot (256 square feet) observation deck for a total square footage of approximately 5,912 square feet. The Notice of Intent also included a number of general and specific conditions particular to this project. Trump (by timely Petition) and Flagler (by intervention) then challenged the Notice of Intent. They contend generally that the project unreasonably infringes upon or restricts their riparian rights and fails to meet the permitting and consent to use criteria set forth in Chapters 18-21 and 40E-4, as well as Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Section 253.141, Florida Statutes. Conflicting evidence on these issues was presented at the hearing. The conflicts have been resolved in favor of the County and the Department, who presented the more persuasive evidence. The Project The project area is a cove in the Lagoon, a Class III water body which extends within the County from North Palm Beach to Manalapan. The western side of the water body in the project area is lined with a vertical concrete seawall approximately 6.64 feet above the mean low water line. The waters immediately adjacent to the Trump and Flagler upland property are generally two to five feet deep along the seawall. To the east lies the island of Palm Beach, to the south is the Royal Park Bridge, which connects West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, while to the north is the Flagler Memorial drawbridge. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet from shore to shore. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) runs roughly through the middle of the Lagoon in a north-south direction. Currently, there is an artificial dredge hole in the project area around four hundred feet from the western seawall. The dredge hole, which descends to approximately twenty feet at its deepest location, is filled with muck, which can be re- suspended by wave energy into the water, blocking the sunlight necessary for the support of biotic life. The muck covers the natural hard bottom, consumes oxygen, and presents an unsuitable environment for benthic organisms. The dredge hole is too deep to support seagrasses. The project calls for filling the dredge hole to intertidal elevations, i.e., between the high and low tide elevations, for mangroves and elevations suitable for seagrass. In all, approximately 173,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed in and around the hole to build up three separate islands within the project footprint, on which the County will plant 10,000 red mangroves, which naturally grow between fifteen and twenty-five feet in height. (The County estimates that eighty to ninety percent of the mangroves will survive and grow to a height of at least fifteen feet.) The top of the islands, not including mangroves, will be just below the mean high water mark. The County also proposes locating planters along the seawall and oyster reefs along the southern end of the project. The planters are designed to extend out approximately twenty feet from the seawall and will be placed on sovereign submerged lands. The last five feet will consist of limestone rock. Mangrove, spartina, and seagrass habitats will provide a biodiverse source of food and habitat for other species, and occurs naturally within the Lagoon but has been lost over time. Oyster habitat is proposed for additional bio-diversity and to provide a natural water filtration function. From the County's perspective, the restoration project would be incomplete without all the habitats proposed. The planters will be at an intertidal elevation, planted with red mangroves and spartina, and faced with rock to reduce wave energy in the area. The oyster reefs are rock structures designed to rise one foot above mean high water line for visibility to boaters. The project also includes a boardwalk and attached educational kiosks on the south side of the project to bring the public in contact with the habitats. The County will maintain the boardwalk, empty the trash daily, and open/close the gates at sunrise/sunset. The County proposes a minimum ten-foot buffer between seagrass beds and the fill area. The project is part of the County's Lagoon Management Plan, which outlines the County's restoration goals within the Lagoon. The County has performed numerous other restoration projects within the Lagoon to re-introduce mangrove and seagrass habitat, such as Snook Island, which consisted of filling a 100- acre dredge hole, installing mangrove islands, seagrass flats, and oyster reefs. The Snook Island project restored mangrove habitat and recruited fish and bird species, including endangered and threatened species. Snook Island has remained stable, with no sediment deposition or erosion. The County intends to fill the dredge hole with native lagoon bottom sediment. A clam-shell machine will deposit the sediment below the water line to reduce turbidity. Sediment will be placed around the edges of the dredge hole, reducing the velocity of the fill as it settles to the bottom and encapsulates the muck, as required by Draft Permit Special Condition No. 19. The County will use turbidity curtains, monitor conditions hourly, and stop work if turbidity levels rise beyond acceptable standards. These precautions are included in Draft Permit Conditions 12, 13, and 14. The County will use construction barges with a four- foot draft to avoid propeller dredge or rutting and will place buoys along the project boundary to guide the construction barges, precautions integrated into the Draft Permit conditions. The County's vendor contracts require maintenance of construction equipment to prevent leakage. A similar condition is found in the Draft Permit. Both the intertidal and seagrass flats elevations at the top of the islands will be built at a 4:1 slope; elevations subject to wind and wave energy will be reinforced with a rock revetment constructed of filter cloth and rock boulders. Seagrass elevations will have no reinforcing rock because they are deep enough to avoid significant currents. Proposed drawings were signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The ERP Criteria To secure regulatory approval for an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in current Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. The latter rule requires that a public interest balancing test be made, and that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered. Also, the BOR, which implements the rule criteria, must be taken into account. a. Rule 40E-4.301 21. Paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(g), (1)(h), and (1)(k) and subsections (2) and (3) of the rule do not apply. Although Trump and Flagler have focused primarily on paragraphs (1)(d), (f), and (i) in their joint Proposed Recommended Order, all remaining criteria will be addressed. Paragraph (1)(d) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity "will not adversely affect the value of the functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." Based on the project design, the filling of the dredge hole and capping of muck, the restoration of seagrass habitat, and the creation of mangrove habitat, the project will have no adverse impacts but rather will be beneficial to the value of functions for fish and wildlife. Paragraph (1)(e) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The County will be required to manage turbidity that may be generated from the project. In part, the turbidity will be contained by the proposed construction method for filling the dredge hole. As noted earlier, the native sand will be deposited using a clamshell-type arm to dump the sand under the water around the periphery of the edge of the downward slope of the dredge hole. This will continue around the periphery of the hole, building up a lip and letting it slide down towards the bottom of the hole, squeezing the muck into the center of the hole and beginning to encapsulate it. Once there are several feet of native sand over the muck to encapsulate it, the County will resume the filling at the target rate. Subsection 4.2.4.1 of the BOR requires that the County address stabilizing newly created slopes of surfaces. To satisfy this requirement, the County will place the fill at a 4:1 slope. The outer edge of the mangrove islands slope back to a 4:1 slope and use rock rip-rap to stabilize that slope. Also, filter cloth, bedding stones, and boulders will be used. Because water currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de-stabilize. There will be turbidity curtains around the project area. Those are floating tops and weighted bottoms that reach to the bottom and are intended to contain any turbidity that may be generated by the project. Specific Conditions 12, 13, and 14 require extensive monitoring of turbidity. The County proposes to use a barge with a draft no greater than four feet. This aspect of the project will require a pre-construction meeting and extensive monitoring throughout the project. As a part of the application review, the County performed a hydrographic analysis which was coordinated with and reviewed by the Department staff. There are no expected debris or siltation concerns as a result of the project. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that over the long term, the project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By filling the dredge hole and providing habitat for seagrass, mangroves, and oysters, the project will provide net improvement to water quality. The requirements of the rule have been met. Paragraph (1)(f) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the activities will not "cause secondary impacts to the water resources." More detailed criteria for consideration are found in BOR Subsection 4.2.7. The County has provided reasonable assurance that through best management practices, it will control turbidity. Also, Specific Conditions in the proposed permit require that water quality monitoring be conducted throughout the process. There will be no impacts to upland habitat for aquatic or wetland dependent species. This is because a vertical seawall is located upland of the project site, and no surrounding uplands are available for nesting or denning by aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. A secondary impact evaluation also includes an evaluation of any related activities that might impact historical and archaeological resources. There are, however, no historical or archaeological resources in the area. If resources are uncovered during the project, Draft Permit conditions require notification to the Department of State. Finally, there are no anticipated future activities or future phases on the project to be considered. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project "will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Trump and Flagler contend that the project cannot be constructed and successfully operated as proposed. Trump's expert witness, Joseph Pike, testified that there were ambiguities and conflicts within the plan drawings that would require changes upon build-out; either fill will be placed outside of the fill area, or the mangrove islands will be smaller than depicted. Mr. Pike also voiced concerns that a 4:1 slope would not be stable and might cause fill to migrate to existing seagrass beds. He further stated that the Snook Island project included 18:1 slopes, and he thought providing rock revetment only at the intertidal zone was insufficient. Mr. Pike acknowledged that he had used 4:1 slopes in lake projects; however, in a tidal project involving fill placement, he opined that a 4:1 slope was likely to "relax." He did not do calculations about what slope might hold and admitted that prior experience using similar slopes with the same type of fill might change his opinion. Finally, Mr. Pike noted that a portion of the dredge hole would not be filled and concluded that the project would not fully cap the muck. Trump's biologist, James Goldasitch, speculated that the water flow changes would cause sediment deposition on existing seagrass beds, possibly causing the seagrasses to die. He admitted, however, that the County's plans called for the creation of 3.44 acres of seagrass and did not know the amount of habitat created compared to the amount of habitat he anticipated being affected. The Department's engineer, Jack Wu, approved the hydrologic aspects of the County's plan, but Mr. Goldasitch speculated that Mr. Wu was more focused on shoreline stability than on depositional forces. Mr. Goldasitch never actually spoke to Mr. Wu regarding his analysis, and Mr. Wu's memorandum refers not only to engineering and construction aspects of the proposal but also to the criteria in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Mr. Goldasitch believed the County's boardwalk will impact the seagrass beds by blocking sunlight, but acknowledged that the Draft Permit required the boardwalk to be elevated and portions to be grated. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department's expert witness concluded that the permit conditions for constructing the boardwalk, which are common, eliminated impacts to seagrass. Mr. Goldasitch further opined that the 4:1 slope might slump, but then deferred to the opinion of a registered engineer on this type of engineering matter. The County presented its professional engineer, Clint Thomas, who worked on the project design. Mr. Thomas explained that permit drawings are not intended to be construction-level in detail, but are merely intended to provide sufficient detail for the regulator to understand the project within the 8 and 1/2 by 11-inch paper format required by the Department. The County will ultimately prepare permit-level, construction-level, and as-built drawings. Permit conditions also require a pre-construction meeting. No fill will be placed outside the area designated for fill, and the 4:1 slope will start at the outer boundary of the designated fill area until it reaches the specified elevation. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the plan view drawings depict a mangrove island too close to the western project boundary, but stated that the mangrove island would simply be placed farther to the east during the construction-level plan process. Islands will become smaller islands, but will not be relocated, and in no event will the fill area expand; the fill boundary is a very strict limit. There is no evidence that the County has ever violated a fill boundary established in a permit. The 4:1 slope was based on the type of fill proposed for the project and to maximize project features. Mr. Thomas has successfully used 4:1 slopes with non-compacted fill in the Lagoon, both at Snook Island in its as-built state and at other projects. The islands at Snook Island are similar to those proposed. Other areas in the Lagoon have held slopes steeper than 4:1 with the same type of fill. Therefore, Mr. Thomas opined the 4:1 slope would hold. In rendering this opinion, he explained that the currents in the project vicinity are only around 1.2 knots. Because currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de- stabilize. Mr. Thomas addressed the contention that a change in water flow velocity would cause sediment to deposit on existing seagrass. The oyster reefs are rubble structures that allow the water to flow through. If any sediment flows through, it will deposit on the north side of the oyster bar, rather than on the seagrass beds. Given these considerations, the evidence supports a finding that the project will function as proposed. Finally, paragraph (1)(j) requires that the County provide reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that the County has complied with this requirement. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301. b. Rule 40E-4.302 In addition to the conditions of Rule 40E-4.301, the County must provide reasonable assurance that the construction of the proposed project will not be contrary to the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Trump first contends that the project will increase the mosquito population. The evidence shows, however, that the mangroves will be placed below the mean high water mark and therefore no increase in mosquitoes should occur. Also, the design of the project, coupled with the local mosquito control program, should ensure that there will be no increase in mosquito population or a risk to the public health. Trump also raised the issue of an increase in trash along the boardwalk area or in the newly-created mangrove islands. The County presented evidence that there will be appropriate trash receptacles in the area as well as regular garbage collection. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as a part of the project for safe boating by the public. The County consulted with the United States Coast Guard regarding navigation issues. Further, the project will not cause flooding on the property of others or cause an environmental impact on other property. Although a number of Trump residents expressed sincere and well-intended concerns about the project impacting the value of their condominiums (mainly due to a loss of view), BOR Subsection 4.2.3.1(d) provides that the "[Department] will not consider impacts to property values or taxes." Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)2. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Subparagraph 4. of the same rule requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The proposed activity is a restoration project for the creation of seagrass and mangrove habitats. As such, it is beneficial to the conservation of fish and wildlife and is expected to increase the biotic life in the project area. Besides providing additional habitat for fish and wildlife, the project will add to the marine productivity in the area. In terms of recreational opportunities, the project is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and birdwatching. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has also recommended issuance of the permit with the standard manatee condition for in-water work. This recommendation has been incorporated as Specific Conditions 23 through 25 Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)3. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect navigation and the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The nearest navigation channel is the ICW. The project is located outside of that area. Subsection 4.2.3.3 of the BOR provides additional guidance on the evaluation of impacts of this nature. Paragraph (a) of that subsection provides that, in evaluating a proposed activity, the Department "will consider the current navigational uses of the surface waters and will not speculate on uses which may occur in the future." Trump residents indicated that in the project area persons are now picked up off the seawall and then travel to the ICW. Access to the seawall is possible from the east and south, although existing shoals currently limit the approach from the south. Large boats do not use the area because of shoals. In general, "[t]here's not a whole lot of boating activity in the project area." The parties agree that if the project is constructed as designed, boats will not be able to travel directly out from the seawall in front on Trump or Flagler to the ICW, as they now do. However, navigation in the area will still be available, although not as convenient as before. As to water flow, shoaling, and erosion, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 4:1 slope will be stable and will not cause fill to migrate outside of the boundaries of the project into existing seagrass beds. The tidal flow will continue through the area after construction without sediment deposition into existing seagrass beds or destabilizing the 4:1 slope. There will be no shoaling or erosion. Finally, the project will be permanent and there are no significant historical and archaeological resources in the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)5. and 6. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County's proposal is neutral as to whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others; that the County's proposal is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the County's proposal is positive with respect to the conservation of fish and wildlife, recreational values and marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When these factors are weighed and balanced, the project is not contrary to the public interest and qualifies for an ERP. D. Proprietary Authorization Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. In making its review, the Department reviews the rule in its entirety; it also looks at the forms of authorization (e.g., letters of consent, leases, deeds, or easement) to determine the most appropriate form of authorization for an activity. Trump and Flagler have raised contentions regarding the proprietary authorization, including whether the application should have been treated as one of heightened public concern, whether the proper form of authorization has been used, and whether their riparian rights are unreasonably infringed upon by the project. Heightened Public Concern Rule 18-21.0051 provides for the delegation of review and decision-making authority to the Department for the use of sovereign submerged lands, with the following exception found in subsection (4) of the rule: (4) The delegations set forth in subsection (2) are not applicable to a specific application for a request to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253 or 258, F.S., where one or more members of the Board, the Department, or the appropriate water management district determines that such application is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern, because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. On March 13, 2008, the Department's West Palm Beach District Office sent a "heightened public concern [HPC]) memo" to the Department's review panel in Tallahassee,3 seeking guidance as to whether the project required review by the Board of Trustees under the above-cited rule. The Department emailed the County on March 14, 2008, stating that the project would be elevated to the Board of Trustees for review to approve the entire Lagoon Management Plan. The County asked for reconsideration, concerned over timing restraints on grant opportunities. This concern is based on the fact that the County will receive grant monies to assist in the construction of the project and must have regulatory approval by a date certain in order to secure those funds. A second HPC memorandum was sent to the review panel on April 22, 2008. Part of the interim decision to elevate the application to the Board of Trustees concerned the boardwalk connection to the City of West Palm Beach's existing seawall. The City of West Palm Beach is the upland owner of the seawall, sidewalk, and Flagler Drive. On June 9, 2008, the Mayor of West Palm Beach sent a letter to the Department stating that the City "fully supports" the proposed activity, and that the County and the City collaborated on the design of the project, held joint public meetings, and produced a project video. See Department Exhibit Trump and Flagler argue that under the City Charter, the Mayor cannot unilaterally bind the local government to allow structures to be built on City property. Assuming this is true, one of the remaining conditions for the County to initiate the project is to obtain a "letter of concurrence" from the City of West Palm Beach authorizing the County to connect the boardwalk to the seawall. Therefore, the review panel ultimately concluded that the application could be reviewed at the staff level and did not require Board of Trustees review. The evidence at hearing did not establish that the application was one of heightened public concern, given the limited size of the project, its location, and the net benefit to both environmental and natural resources. Compare Brown, et al. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., et al., DOAH Case No. 04-0476, 2004 Fla. ENV LEXIS 112 (DOAH Aug. 2, 2004, SFWMD Sept. 8, 2004). Therefore, review by the Board of Trustees was not required. Form of Authorization Trump and Flagler contend that an easement is required by the County, rather than a consent of use. The standard for obtaining an easement is more stringent than a consent of use, and an easement offers a greater interest in sovereign lands. Rule 18-21.005(1) provides the general policy direction for determining the appropriate form of authorization and reads in relevant part as follows: It is the intent of the Board that the form of authorization shall grant the least amount of interest in the sovereignty submerged lands necessary for the activity. For activities not specifically listed, the Board will consider the extent of interest needed and the nature of the proposed activity to determine which form of authorization is appropriate. This rule requires that the Department should apply the lowest and least restrictive form of authorization. Trump and Flagler argue that the County's project constitutes a spoil disposal site under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)8., a public water management project other than public channels under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)10., or a management activity which includes "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," as described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)11. Each of these activities requires an easement rather than a letter of consent in order to use sovereign submerged lands. The evidence shows that the County's project is not a spoil disposal site. Also, it is not primarily a public water management project as there is no evidence that the project relates in any way to flood control, water storage or supply, or conservation of water. Likewise, there is no evidence indicating that the activities will prevent access by the public by exclusion. Even though many of the features (structures) of the project will be permanent, the project is intended to generally increase public access to water resources, as well as the islands, boardwalk, and kiosks. Besides raising the issue of heightened public concern, the second HPC Memorandum dated April 22, 2008, sought guidance as to whether the project required a consent of use or an easement. The review panel concluded that the project qualified for a consent of use, rather than an easement under Rule 18- 21.005(1)(f), because the County's project most closely fits the definition in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. That rule provides that if the proposed activity involves "[h]abitat restoration, enhancement, or permitted mitigation activities without permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," an applicant may use sovereign submerged lands with a consent of use. Because the County's project increases public access not only to water resources in the Lagoon but also to the permanent structures being built, it more closely falls within the type of activity described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. Notably, all of the County's restoration projects in the Lagoon have been previously authorized through a consent of use. Finally, the review panel concluded that the project did not fall under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)16., which requires an easement for environmental management activities that include "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public" because of the rule's focus on the exclusion of the general public. Riparian Rights The parties have stipulated, for the purpose of this proceeding, that Trump and Flagler have riparian rights, including view, ingress/egress, fishing, boating, swimming, and the qualified right to apply for a dock, that should be considered. Trump and Flagler contend that their right to wharf out (build a dock) from the seawall, ingress/egress from navigable water, and view will be unreasonably infringed upon if the application is approved. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.004(3)(a)("[n]one of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law riparian rights, as defined in Section 253.141, F.S., of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands"). For the reasons given below, the greater weight of evidence establishes that none of these riparian rights will be unreasonably infringed upon. Currently, while access is possible from the east and the southern approaches, existing shoals limit the southern approach. The boardwalk will further limit boat traffic on the south end, and boats would not be able to cross over the islands. Boat traffic will still be able to access the cove from the north end, and the restoration project will create a boating destination. Trump witness Pike opined that the County's project would negatively affect navigation between the upland parcels and the ICW because the project would eliminate the eastern and southern approaches and leave only the northern approach, which could not be used by both parcels fully. The County's expert, Dr. Nicholas De Gennarro, testified that, during his site visits, he observed boat traffic waiting for the drawbridges using the east side of the ICW away from the project site. Dr. De Gennarro noted that several existing structures are closer to the ICW than the proposed County project, which lies 220 feet away from the ICW. Thus, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the project would not impact navigation in the ICW. With respect to ingress/egress, Dr. De Gennarro acknowledged that access to the Trump and Flagler properties would not be available from the southern and eastern approaches, but concluded that the restriction represented nothing more than an inconvenience. He noted that the southern approach was already a less preferable approach due to existing shoals. At present, there is very little boating in the area outside of special events. While the project would limit the use of boats directly over the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands, the project will provide a boating destination. Further, both the City docks to the north of the site and the temporary docks in front of Flagler's property –- both used for special events –- will still be available under the County's proposal. There is no swimming and very little fishing in the area because of the degraded conditions caused by the dredge hole. Accordingly, while the project will fill a small portion of water currently available, but not used, for swimming, it will greatly enhance swimming by providing a destination for swimmers. The mangroves planned for the intertidal islands are likely to reach a height of fifteen feet and will be interspersed with spartina. The seawall is located six feet above the water line, making a person's view at eye level already several feet above the water. Trump and Flagler's buildings are built at even higher elevations. Therefore, the mangroves will not substantially obscure the view from either property, even at street level where the view is already partially obscured by existing landscaping. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet across. From north to south around one hundred acres of water can now be viewed from the vicinity. Since the intertidal islands only comprise one and one-half acres, the overall impact to the view of the water body is very small. The mangroves in the planters extending out from the seawall will be trimmed to one foot above the seawall; the County requested the condition and committed at hearing to trimming the mangroves if the City of West Palm Beach does not. County photographs show Trump and Flagler's present view of the water body and demonstrate the comparatively small percentage of the view affected by the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands. See County Exhibits 133a-e and 134a-d. The photographs also demonstrated that sizeable palm trees are already part of the existing view. Additionally, the County photographs depicted the small impact that trimmed mangrove planters would have on the view. The area obstructed by the mangrove islands and seagrass is negligible compared to the expanse of the existing view. Trump and Flagler offered no evidence to contradict the County's analysis regarding the scope of the impact on the view. Trump residents Dale McNulty, Dean Goodman, and Charles Lemoine testified that they personally would not want to view mangrove islands regardless of tree size or the size of the islands. Understandably, after years of unfettered view and an open expanse of water, they are opposed to any type of project in this area of the Lagoon. However, Mr. Goodman acknowledged that he would still be able to see the Town of Palm Beach from his unit. The evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from both Trump and Flagler's property, the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights. Mr. Lemoine stated that he had a forty-foot trawler that he would like to dock in front of his property. He currently docks the boat at a marina twenty miles north of the Trump property. He prefers to bring his boat in stern first and enter slips oriented north to south. He indicated that he can drive his boat in five feet of water, but prefers six feet; however, he also testified that he has brought his boat directly up to the bulkhead in front of Trump, which is approximately a two- or three-foot depth. The witness has seen sailboats and other boats moored near the bulkhead over extended timeframes. Mr. Lemoine speculated that Trump might seek a dock, either alone or in conjunction with Flagler, but admitted that Trump has never applied for a dock permit. He stated that Trump has had discussions about the possibility of a dock over the last fifteen years and speculated that a dock plan might include anything from the purchase/lease of the City docks to a lease of Trump's riparian interests to a third party. By contrast, Trump resident and former Board member Dean Goodman indicated "the idea was to provide an amenity [for] a number of people that are in the building that are boaters." Mr. Goodman stated that he hoped to be able to have a boat in front of the building someday, but did not own a boat in Florida. Association president Dale McNulty explained that, while informal discussions have occurred regarding the possibility of a dock, no official action had been taken. Mr. McNulty characterized the dock plans as being "sort of in the land of wishful thinking." Mr. Pike, while acknowledging that both parcels would still be able to design a dock for their property, opined that the County's project unreasonably limited the size and configuration of the docks possible. Mr. Pike initially admitted that a safe navigation depth for a forty-foot boat, or even a sailboat, was four feet below mean low water (MLW), but stated that he would prefer to design a dock with an additional two-to- three feet of water below the four-foot draft to avoid propeller damage. However, Mr. Pike conceded that he has designed docks for boats in four feet below MLW and ultimately based his own calculations on an assumption of a four-foot draft and one-foot cushion, or five feet below MLW. Mr. Pike also opined that a north-south alignment for boat slips was a preferred slip orientation. Given the bathymetry in the area and the documented seagrasses, Mr. Pike estimated that twenty slips could be designed for the Flagler property, rather than the thirty-four slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. He thought that a design might accommodate thirty to thirty-two slips for Trump, rather than the forty-slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. Based on the limitation on number of slips and configurations, the witness opined that the County's project would unreasonably interfere with Trump and Flagler's ability to design a dock. He admitted, though, that the numbers derived from the County Manatee Protection Plan represent a maximum number, rather than a specified or guaranteed number. He further admitted that other agency limitations may further restrict Trump and Flagler's right to dockage. Without a permit application or plan from Trump or Flagler, County witness Robbins concluded that the most reasonable assumption was an owner-oriented facility designed for the building owners/tenants. The County introduced a graphic illustrating areas available for dock construction, with sufficient depth for 35- to 40-foot boats (-6 feet NGVD) and with no seagrasses present. Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2. limits ownership-oriented facilities generally to forty square feet for each foot of riparian shoreline, giving Trump the ability to apply for a dock that preempted a maximum of 16,000 square feet, and Flagler a maximum of 14,000 square feet. Under the County Manatee Protection Plan, Trump would be limited to forty slips; Flagler would have the potential for thirty-four slips. Mr. Robbins testified that, in his experience, a minus five MLW is a common depth for docks, but that elevations as shallow as a minus four MLW could be used depending on the type of boats and the dock configuration. Mr. Robbins explained that, even with the County's project in place and factoring in the other limitations, Trump would still have 61,842 square feet of potential space within which to design a dock. Flagler would still have 41,481 square feet of potential space, even considering the need to retain a path for ingress and egress from the Trump parcel. A more detailed analysis of the seagrasses might make more square footage available for dock construction. Dr. De Gennarro also evaluated whether a dock could be designed to serve Trump and Flagler's parcels. The vessel owner statistics for the County indicate that at least ninety-five percent of the boats registered in the County are thirty-nine feet or less; consequently, Dr. De Gennarro focused on boats forty feet or less. Dr. De Gennarro considered the water depths and the existence of subaquatic vegetations and concluded that the graphic presented by Mr. Robbins was conservative, but still provided adequate space for both Trump and Flagler to construct appropriate dockage, allowing thirty-eight boats for Trump and thirty-two for Flagler of varying size. However, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that a dock design of forty slips for each would also be possible, depending on the size of the boats. Dr. De Gennarro proposed that a single, double-loaded parallel dock design would be a good layout for a potential docking facility in front of both Trump and Flagler's property that would be protected by the County's proposed islands, provide sufficient water depths, and provide an attractive facility. He specified, however, that the single, double-loaded parallel dock design was simply one of "many" that might work in the given space. Dr. De Gennarro explained that the existing dredge hole would not be a preferable location for either a mooring field or a dock because the deep muck-bottom would drive up the costs for either type of facility. Accordingly, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the County's project would not foreclose or even substantially restrict the ability to locate a dock in front of Trump and Flagler’s property. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that neither the right of ingress/egress nor the right to boat in the vicinity is unreasonably infringed upon by the County's project. Trump and Flagler will continue to have reasonable access to navigation. The northerly approach preserved by the County's project will allow for boat traffic to safely navigate in the area. While the southerly and easterly approaches are eliminated by the County's plan, the evidence indicates that the two approaches were less preferable than the northerly approach because of the presence of shoals. Based on the above considerations, the County's project will not unreasonably infringe upon Trump or Flagler's qualified right to a dock. The fact that the project might preclude the design and permitting of a dock that would host very large vessels does not mean that Trump and Flagler's rights regarding docking have been unreasonably infringed. The evidence shows that substantial docking facilities of multiple configurations are still possible even if the County's project is approved. In summary, the County's application for proprietary authorization should be approved. Other Contentions All other contentions raised by Trump and Flagler have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the County's application for a consolidated ERP and consent to use sovereignty submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2009.
