The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue The issue is whether to approve the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) application for a 50-year Sovereign Submerged Lands Public Easement (easement) to replace an existing bridge over a channel that connects Little Lake Worth (Lake) and Lake Worth Lagoon (Lagoon) in Palm Beach County (County), Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background On February 24, 2010, DOT filed with the District applications for an ERP and a 50-year easement on approximately 0.54 acres of submerged lands. The purpose of these filings was to obtain regulatory and proprietary authority to replace the existing Little Lake Worth Bridge (bridge) due to structural deficiencies noted during inspections performed in 2006. Because of "serious deterioration of the concrete slab and reinforcing steel," the bridge is under weight restrictions until construction is completed. See DOT Exhibit 5. An easement is required for road and bridge crossings and rights-of-way which are located on or over submerged lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.005(1)(e)2. Because DOT did not have an easement for the existing bridge, it was required to obtain one for the replacement work. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-400.215(5). Under an operating agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the District has the responsibility of processing applications to use submerged lands for roadway projects. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-113.100. First constructed in 1965, the existing bridge has three spans, is 60 feet long, has two lanes (one in each direction), and crosses a channel (or canal) that connects the Lagoon to the south and the Lake to the north. The bridge is located in an unincorporated part of the County east of the City of Palm Beach Gardens and north of the Village of North Palm Beach. Highway A1A (also known as Jack Nicklaus Drive) is the roadway that crosses the bridge. Although the ERP application was challenged by Petitioners, their Petition was dismissed as being legally insufficient, and a Final Order approving the application was issued by the District on June 9, 2010. See Joint Ex. 1 and Respondents' Joint Ex. 1. No appeal of that action was taken. Petitioners did not contest the application for an easement at the District level. The District staff initially determined that it could process the application for an easement under the authority of rule 18-21.0051(2). However, on July 28, 2010, the District sent a memorandum to DEP's Office of Cabinet Affairs requesting a determination on whether the project was one of heightened public concern. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 2. After further review by the DEP's Deputy Secretary of Land and Recreation, the project was determined to be one of heightened public concern because of considerable public interest; therefore, the decision to issue an easement was made by the Board, rather than the District. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(4). On November 9, 2010, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting in their capacity as the Board, conducted a public hearing on the application for an easement. Notice of the meeting was provided to persons expressing an interest in the matter. Prior to the meeting, the District and Board staffs submitted a favorable recommendation on the application, together with supporting backup information, including a report from the FFWCC concerning impacts on manatees and a seagrass study conducted by an outside consulting firm. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 3, 6, and 7. At the meeting, a District representative, Anita R. Bain, described the purpose of the application, how the issues raised by Petitioners were addressed, and the bases for the staff's recommendation that the application be approved. See Joint Ex. 3, pp. 96-101. The DOT Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Operations also described the new bridge's design and technical aspects. Id. at pp. 102-106. The Board then heard oral comments from both proponents and opponents of the project. Id. at pp. 106-154. Petitioners and their counsel were among the speakers. No speaker was under oath or subject to cross-examination. At the conclusion of the brief hearing, the Board voted 3-1 to approve the easement. The decision is memorialized in a Notice of Board Action dated November 15, 2010. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 4. Consistent with long- standing practice, a written point of entry to contest, or notice of right to appeal, the decision was not given to any person. Throughout this proceeding, the Board and DOT have contended that the Board's decision on November 9, 2010, is proprietary in nature and not subject to a chapter 120 hearing. They assert that Petitioners' only administrative remedy, if any, and now expired, is an appeal of the Board's decision to the district court of appeal under section 120.68. Petitioners contend, however, that they are entitled to an administrative hearing to contest the decision. That issue is the subject of a pending motion to dismiss filed by the Board. However, Petitioners have obtained the remedy they were seeking from day one-- a chapter 120 hearing -- and they were afforded an opportunity to litigate all issues raised in their Amended Petition. All due process concerns have been satisfied and the issue is now moot.1 Except in one respect, Petitioners do not contest any aspect of the easement or the project and its related impacts; they only object to DOT increasing the navigational clearance of the bridge from 8.5 feet to 12.0 feet above Mean High Water (MHW). In short, the main objection driving this case is a fear that a greater number of boats, mainly larger vessels, will access the channel and Lake if the vertical clearance is raised, and disturb the peace and tranquility that has existed over the last 30 years. The Parties Mr. Thomas' property, which he purchased in 1972, is located on the east side of the channel that connects the Lake and Lagoon. The residence faces to the northwest and is around 200 feet north of the bridge and a short distance south of the entrance into the Lake. See Board Ex. 13. Mr. Thomas is not an upland owner adjacent to the project site. He has a dock, a 19 and 1/2-foot boat, and a seawall built around 25 years ago. Over the years, he has lost around two to two and one-half feet of sand on the side of the seawall facing the water due to erosion caused by wave action. He also has a small, but slowly increasing, gap between his dock and the seawall. Mr. Thomas does not fish, but he enjoys watching fish and wildlife in the area, water-skiing with his family on the Lake, and swimming in the channel. He noted that around 75 percent of boaters traversing the channel observe reasonable speed limits, but the other 25 percent operate their vessels at speeds up to 50 miles per hour. Mr. Thomas fears an increase in the clearance will result in more boat traffic (attributable in part to Lake residents who have a dock but no boat and would now purchase one), and larger boats for some Lake residents who now own smaller vessels. He asserts that this will result in more wave impact on his seawall, adversely affect the natural resources in the area, and impact his rights of fishing, swimming, water skiing, and view in the channel and Lake. Around 30 years ago, John A. Tory (now deceased) purchased waterfront property in Lost Tree Village, a residential development that surrounds part of the Lake. The residence lies around one-half the way up the eastern shore of the Lake. Thus, the property is not directly adjacent to the project. The property has a dock and concrete seawall, which has been repaired periodically due to erosion. Mr. Tory did not own a boat. His widow, who is not a party and jointly owned the home with her late husband, still occupies the residence during the winter months. John H. Tory, the son of John A. Tory, stated that he is involved in the case as a representative of his father's estate, rather than on his own behalf as a property owner on the Lake. He owns waterfront property in Lost Tree Village located on a small lagoon immediately north of the main body of water comprising the Lake, or around 2,000 feet north of the bridge. During the winter months, Mr. Tory has observed manatees in the small lagoon, but not the Lake. Mr. Tory acknowledged that the new bridge will not affect ingress or egress to his late father's home. However, he fears that if the bridge clearance is raised to 12 feet, it will result in more boat traffic on the Lake, larger boats, and the presence of live-aboards, who now anchor in the Lagoon. He asserts that these conditions will disturb the peace and tranquility on the Lake, cause the fish and wildlife to leave, and impact the safety of his children and grandchildren who occasionally swim in the Lake. The DOT is a state agency having the responsibility to build roads and bridges throughout the State. It applied for the easement that is the subject of this case. There is no dispute that DOT has sufficient upland interest necessary to obtain an easement. The Board is vested with title to all sovereignty submerged lands, including the submerged real property in the channel. The Project The new bridge will be 90 feet in length with a vertical clearance of 12 feet above MHW. It will be constructed in the footprint of the existing structure. The replacement bridge will continue to be two lanes and has a design service life of 75 years. The new bridge will expand the vehicle lane widths from 10 to 12 feet, expand the road shoulder from six to eight feet, and expand the sidewalks from four to six and one- half feet in width. Both the horizontal and vertical navigational clearances will be increased. It is undisputed that by increasing the horizontal clearance, navigational safety will be improved. Also, by increasing the vertical clearance, a boater's focus will be redirected from the low clearance to the water, the proximity of the pilings, approaching vessels, and other potential hazards. In conformance with DOT design requirements, the vertical navigational clearance will be raised from 8.5 feet to 12 feet above MHW. The DOT's Plans Preparation Manual and Structures Design Guidelines both provide that for concrete superstructures over highly corrosive waters due to chloride content, the minimum vertical clearance should be 12 feet above MHW. See DOT Ex. 7 and 8. This amount of clearance is necessary to ensure bridge longevity in aggressive saltwater marine environments. Therefore, a 12-foot clearance is appropriate. Also, the new height is calculated to give the bridge a 75-year lifespan; in contrast, a bridge with an eight- foot clearance would have a shorter lifespan. Except for bridges with unique limiting conditions, all bridges in the County are now being constructed at the 12-foot height. All work will be performed without the necessity for large cranes or barges to pile-drive from the water. Essentially all work will be done from the land adjacent to the bridge. However, small vessels will be needed to put construction workers on the water while the crane is being operated from land. A $3.3 million design-build contract was executed by DOT and The Murphy Construction Company in May 2009, and the contractor is awaiting the outcome of this proceeding before commencing work. Given the size and scope of work, the project is considered a "minor" bridge project. DOT is required to implement Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work during construction of the bridge. Pursuant to these conditions, DOT is required to train personnel who will be at the job site to identify manatees and log when they are seen in the area. Signage will be placed at the bridge construction site and on any equipment in the water warning about hazards to manatees. If a manatee is found in the vicinity, work must cease to allow the manatee to safely traverse the construction zone and not be trapped in the turbidity curtains. Best management practices for environmental impacts will be required during construction. No dredging or excavation of the channel is planned, and blasting will not be allowed during construction. Although there are 0.12 acres of mangroves within the boundaries of the submerged lands, the project was redesigned to completely avoid direct mangrove impacts. Except for one four-square-meter patch of seagrass (Turtle grass) located a little more than 200 feet southeast of the project site, no seagrasses are located in or adjacent to the project site. The new 12-foot height will accommodate a 100-year storm surge event at this location. The Lake and Lagoon The Lagoon stretches some 20 miles from the bridge southward to a point just north of the City of Boynton Beach. It averages around one-half mile in width. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) generally runs in a north-south direction through the middle of the Lagoon before turning to the northwest into Lake Worth Creek, around a mile south of the bridge. The Lagoon is divided into three segments: north, central, and south. The north segment is more commonly known as the North Lake Worth Lagoon. The Lake Worth Inlet, located around five miles south of the bridge, provides an outlet from the North Lake Worth Lagoon to the deeper waters in the Atlantic Ocean. The Riviera Beach Power Plant is located on the western side of the Lagoon just south of the Lake Worth Inlet and is a warm-water refuge area for manatees during the winter months. Peanut Island, a County-owned recreational site, lies in the ICW just north of the power plant. The northern boundary of the John D. MacArthur Beach State Park (State Park) is less than a mile south of the project area on the eastern side of the Lagoon. There are extensive seagrass beds in the Lagoon mainly along the shoreline around the State Park and Peanut Island. One survey conducted in 1990 indicated there are 2,100 acres of seagrass in the Lagoon. See Petitioners' Ex. 15. The same study concluded that around 69 percent of all seagrasses in the County are located in the northern segment of the Lagoon. Id. The Lake is designated as a Class III water body, is around 50 acres in size, and measures no more than a half-mile in length (running north to south) and a few hundred feet wide. Although the Lake is open to the public, boat access is only through the channel since there are no boat ramps on the Lake. Several residential developments, including Lost Tree Village and Hidden Key, are located north of the bridge and surround the Lake. The Lake has no natural shorelines since seawalls have been constructed around the entire water body. Aerial photographs reflect that many of the residences facing the Lake or channel have docks, but not every dock owner has a boat. Navigation under the bridge is somewhat tricky because the water current goes in one direction while the bridge points in another direction. Also, due to the accumulation of sand just south of the bridge, the channel is shallow which requires that an operator heading north "make sort of an S-turn to take the deepest water possible to go through." By widening the bridge pilings and raising the navigational clearance, as DOT proposes to do, the tidal flow will slow down and all boats will be able to enter and depart the Lake in a safer manner. Currently, except for one cigarette-style boat in the 30-foot range, the boats on the Lake are small boats (under 30 feet in length) with outboard motors. T-top boats (those with a stationery roof) with no radar or outriggers on top could "possibly" get under the bridge, but those with sonar cannot. Also, "most" boats with large outboards that have a draft of around 18 inches can now access the Lake. At high tide, smaller vessels with in-board motors that draw three and one-half to four feet could "probably" get under the bridge, but once inside the Lake, they would be "trapped" at low tide. If the navigational clearance is raised, Petitioners' boating expert, Captain Albritton, opined that the greatest impact will not come from the general public, but from residents on the Lake who have no boat but may now buy one, or residents who will buy larger vessels. However, he could not quantify this number. He further opined that boaters who do not live on the Lake would have no reason to go there because it has no attraction. He also opined that larger boats operated by non- residents in the Lagoon will continue to either exit the Lagoon to deeper waters through the Lake Worth Inlet or continue on the ICW, which turns off to the northwest around a mile south of the bridge. If several boats operate simultaneously on the Lake, significant wave action is created because the Lake is surrounded by a seawall with no beach or shoreline to absorb or reduce the wave impact. Due to the wave action and the Lake's small size, it is highly unlikely that more than four boats could ever use the Lake at the same time. Even then, Mr. Thomas described conditions as "pretty crowded" with "choppy" water and not a pleasant experience for boaters. Likewise, Captain Albritton agreed that with only a few vessels on the Lake, the water becomes "very rough," and "safety" considerations prevent or discourage other vessels from accessing or using the Lake. Captain Albritton also agreed that it would only be speculation to assume that there would be more boating in the area after the project is completed. Mainly during the winter months, a large number of vessels anchor in the North Lake Worth Lagoon. At least 95 percent, if not more, are sailboats with a fixed keel that prevents them from navigating beneath the bridge even with a 12-foot clearance. Also, the water depth in the Lake is greater than the North Lake Worth Lagoon, and boaters prefer mooring in shallower waters. Admittedly, a few houseboats powered by outboard motors occasionally frequent North Lake Worth Lagoon, and if they tilt their motors up, it might be possible for them to navigate under the bridge with a 12-foot clearance. However, houseboats typically have a flybridge (an upper deck where the ship is steered and the captain stands) above the roof of the house and would not be able to navigate under the bridge even with a heightened clearance. There is no evidence that a houseboat or other live-aboard has ever entered the Lake. The Lake is included in the John D. MacArthur Beach State Park Greenline Overlay (Greenline Overlay), which is part of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County's Plan. The resources within the Lake are part of the Greenline Overlay, the purpose of which is to protect conservation areas, prevent degradation of water quality, control exotic species, and protect critical habitat for manatees and threatened and endangered species. See Petitioners' Ex. 10, FLUE Obj. 5.3, p. 94. Petitioners' Objections Only direct adverse impacts within the project site must be considered by the Board before approving the easement. This is because potential secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the project were already considered by the District in the regulatory process, when the ERP was issued. Direct impacts are those that may occur within 200 feet north and south of the centerline of the bridge. A 400-foot area is appropriate as the project is considered "minor" and simply replaces an existing structure. Because of public interest in the project, however, the Board (with advice from the District, DOT, other agencies, and outside consultants) again considered the secondary, cumulative, and even speculative impacts of the project. Having determined that there were no adverse impacts of any nature, the Board concluded that the easement should be granted. Petitioners agree that neither the construction work nor the bridge itself will cause any direct impacts within the project site. However, they contend that the secondary impacts of the project will be "significant." Secondary impacts are those that occur outside the footprint of the project, but which are closely linked and causally related to the activity. Petitioners did not present any credible evidence that cumulative adverse impacts are associated with the project. Petitioners argue the project will cause secondary impacts on seagrasses, manatees, seawalls (through erosion caused by wave-action), and recreational uses such as swimming, boating, nature viewing, canoeing, and fishing. They further argue that DOT has failed to take any steps to eliminate or reduce these impacts, which could be accomplished by keeping the navigational clearance at the same height. They also contend that the project will unreasonably infringe upon their riparian rights, and that the project is inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan and State Lands Management Plan.2 Finally, they assert that the project is contrary to the public interest. These allegations implicate the following provisions in rule 18- 21.004: (1)(a) and (b);(2)(a), (b), (d), and (i); and (3)(a) and (c).3 The parties have stipulated that all other requirements for an easement have been satisfied. The allegations are based primarily, if not wholly, on the premise that a higher vertical clearance on the bridge will allow larger vessels to access the Lake and channel and increase boat traffic in the area. Impact on Seagrasses Petitioners first contend that seagrasses will be secondarily impacted by the project. Seagrasses are completely submerged grass-like plants that occur in shallow (i.e., no more than six feet of water depth) marine and estuarine waters due to light penetration. There are seven species in the State; the rarest species is Johnson's seagrass (Halophilia johnsonii), a threatened species found mainly around inlets that begin south of the Sebastian Inlet in Brevard County and continue to the northern parts of Biscayne Bay in Dade County. Unlike some seagrass species, Johnson's seagrass actually increases in areas with a higher wave energy climate. Although there may be some isolated patches of seagrasses just beyond the 200-foot area southeast of the bridge, the first significant coverage of seagrass occurs along the shallow, eastern shoreline of the North Lake Worth Lagoon, in and around the State Park and Munyon Island, an island just southeast of the State Park; both are around one-half mile south of the proposed activity. Some of these species are Johnson's seagrass. Petitioners' expert agreed that during his site inspection, he found no seagrasses until he approached the State Park. Other significant coverage is located in and around Peanut Island, which lies around five miles south of the bridge. There are no seagrasses in the Lake. The seagrass beds along the shoreline in the North Lake Worth Lagoon are "relatively stable" and wax or wane depending mainly on the water-quality conditions in the system. During heavy rainfall events, the water in adjacent canals is released and can adversely affect the water quality. Although there are no canals discharging waters into North Lake Worth Lagoon north of where the ICW deviates into Lake Worth Creek, there are numerous impervious areas near the bridge (associated with other developments) that discharge stormwater into the Lagoon south of the project site. Also, there is a canal that delivers water from upland regions into the Lagoon just south of Munyon Island. Besides heavy rain, boats operating at higher speeds can create suspended sediments and cloudy water conditions that adversely affect the seagrass. However, these impacts have occurred for years, they will continue even if the bridge clearance is not raised, and they are wholly dependent on one's operation of the watercraft. There is no competent evidence, and only speculation, that raising the navigational clearance on the bridge will lead to a greater number of boats in the Lagoon and/or cause boats to operate recklessly in or near the seagrass beds. In fact, the evidence shows that a majority of the boat traffic operates in the ICW and deeper waters of the Lagoon, and not in the shallow waters along the shoreline. DOT has given reasonable assurance that the project will not cause secondary adverse impacts to seagrasses in the Lagoon. Impact on Manatees Petitioners also contend that there will be secondary adverse impacts on manatees, again due to increased boat traffic in the area. They point out that the overall mortality rate for manatees in the County has increased nearly every year since 1974; that 39 percent of all mortalities in the County are attributed to watercraft strikes; that the North Lake Worth Lagoon provides important habitat (seagrasses) for manatees; and that manatee abundance and watercraft-related strikes are highest in that area. Based upon an analysis conducted by the FFWCC, the more persuasive evidence on this issue supports a finding that the bridge, with a heightened clearance, will not significantly increase risks to manatees. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 6. A similar conclusion was reached by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 17. Even if larger boats can access the channel, the probability of a boat striking a manatee will not change. It is true that manatees sometimes travel into the Lake during the winter months. However, no reported watercraft- related strikes have occurred, and only one manatee carcass (a dependent calf) has ever been found in the Lake, and that was a perinatal death unrelated to boat activity. Aerial surveys of manatees reflect that the greatest amount of manatee presence and activity is far from the project site. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 12. This is also confirmed by the fact that the primary manatee gathering area in the County is around the Riviera Beach Power Plant, which lies five miles south of the bridge. Even the County's Manatee Protection Plan has designated the northern area of the Lagoon as a preferred area for marinas and docks because of the lower incidence of manatees in that area. Finally, the evidence shows that the majority of manatees traveling north through the Lagoon turn into Lake Worth Creek one mile south of the bridge and continue northward in the ICW, rather than into the channel or Lake. Reasonable assurances have been given that the project will not result in significant secondary adverse impacts on manatees. Erosion of Seawalls Mr. Thomas points out that wave action from existing boat traffic has been contributing to erosion of his seawall for many years. He argues that if the bridge height is raised, there will be increased boat traffic, which will cause further damage to existing seawalls on the Lake and channel. Wave action is caused not only by the operation of boats entering or departing the Lake, but also by water skiers and jet skiers on the Lake itself. These activities will continue, even if the clearance is not raised. This is because non-resident skiers can easily access the Lake with the existing 8.5-foot clearance, while residents on the Lake have access from their docks. The only real limitation on these activities is the Lake's size and unsafe conditions that occur when more than one or two boats are present, and not the bridge's vertical clearance. Whether boaters will observe no-wake speeds or operate at a higher speed in the channel and Lake is open to debate. As noted earlier, there is no competent evidence, but only speculation, to support Petitioners' claim that the behavior of boaters will change, or that boats will be operated more recklessly, simply because the clearance is raised. The evidence supports a finding that the project will not have a significant impact on seawalls due to increased traffic or other related usage in the Lake and channel. Riparian Rights The riparian boundary lines of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Tory are depicted on Board Exhibits 13 and 14, respectively, and are not in dispute. Petitioners contend that increased boat traffic will unreasonably infringe upon their riparian rights of view, fishing, boating, canoeing, and swimming. They also assert that with a higher clearance, the Lake will "be very popular for live-aboards, especially in the winter months, because of its secluded nature and easy access to amenities," and this will also impact their riparian rights. They do not contend that the project will affect their right of ingress or egress or their right to wharf out (build a dock) from their upland property. Rule 18-21.004(3)(c) provides that "[a]ll structures and other activities must be designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners." (Emphasis added). Traditional riparian rights are generally considered to be ingress, egress, the ability to wharf out, and view. See § 253.141(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(3)(a). In determining whether this rule is satisfied, the Board only considers adjacent upland riparian owners who are directly adjacent to and abut the bridge and whether the proposed activities will block their ingress/egress or unreasonably restrict their rights in any other way. In this case, adjacent upland owners are not affected. Although neither Petitioner is an "adjacent upland riparian owner" within the meaning of the rule, because of the interest shown by some nearby residents, the Board also considered potential impacts on property owners in the channel and Lake, including Petitioners, to determine whether their riparian rights were unreasonably affected. In doing so, it followed the long-established principle that riparian rights are not exclusionary rights, and the public has a concurrent right with a riparian owner to fish and swim in waters owned by the State, and a right to navigate. See, e.g., The Ferry Pass Inspectors' and Shippers' Ass'n v. Whites River Inspectors' and Shippers' Ass'n, 57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 643, 645 (Fla. 1909). The more persuasive evidence shows that the activities are designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland owners or other nearby property owners on the Lake and channel. Petitioners failed to establish that the proposed activity (or the use of the waters by members of the public) will prevent them from accessing navigable waters from their property or wharfing out. Likewise, they presented insufficient evidence to establish that the activities will adversely affect their view. A similar contention that their "recreational" rights of fishing, boating, swimming, and nature viewing will be secondarily impacted has been rejected. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(2)(a). A concern that once the project is completed, live- aboards (i.e., vessels used solely as a residence and not for navigation) will move from the Lagoon to the Lake and unreasonably infringe upon Petitioners' riparian rights is without merit. As noted above, virtually all of the live- aboards in the North Lake Worth Lagoon are sailboats, which cannot access the Lake even if the clearance is raised. Finally, the County has enacted an ordinance that prohibits live-aboards in the Lake and Loxahatchee River. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 18. Law enforcement agencies are charged with the responsibility of enforcing that ordinance. Comprehensive Plan and State Plan Although there is no specific requirement in chapter 18-21 to do so, pursuant to section 339.135 the proposed "work program" was reviewed for consistency with the County's Plan by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), now designated as a division in the new Department of Economic Opportunity. Unless a project is inconsistent with a plan requirement, the DCA does not provide written comments. In other words, no response is an indication that the project is consistent with all local plan requirements. After reviewing the project, the DCA did not respond. Therefore, the project was deemed to be consistent with the County Plan. This information was submitted to the Board prior to its decision. See Joint Ex. 2. Rule 18-21.004(1)(i) requires that the State Plan "shall be considered and utilized in developing recommendations for all activities on submerged lands." Petitioners contend that the new bridge will violate the following policies in the State Plan: that submerged grasses be protected; and that natural conditions be maintained to allow the propagation of fish and wildlife. However, the protection of submerged grasses and natural resources was considered by the District before submitting a recommendation to the Board. To the extent this rule may apply, if at all, to the pending application, its requirements have been met. Petitioners also contend that the project is inconsistent with FLUE objective 5.3, which requires the County to maintain the Greenline Overlay in order to protect natural resources in the area. They argue that the proposed activity is inconsistent with the requirement that the greenline buffer be protected from potentially incompatible future land uses; critical habitat for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species; and manatees. See Petitioners' Ex. 10, FLUE obj. 5.3, p. 94. Petitioners cite no authority for their contention that consistency with local comprehensive plans is a requirement for approving an application to use submerged lands. Assuming arguendo that it is, the easement is not inconsistent with the above objective, as the replacement of an existing structure is not an incompatible future land use, and it will not impact seagrasses or manatees. Public Interest Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) provides that "all activities on sovereignty lands must not be contrary to the public interest." Rule 18-21.003(51) defines "public interest" as "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." The same rule requires that in determining public interest, the Board "shall consider the ultimate project and purpose to be served by said use . . . of lands or materials." Although Petitioners agree that the project is for a public purpose, they contend that DOT failed to demonstrate that the project creates a net public benefit, and therefore it does not meet the public interest test. However, the so-called "net public benefit" standard relied upon by Petitioners appears to be derived from rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2.e., which applies to the use of submerged lands for private residential multi-family docks, and not public easements. In any event, the project has a number of positive attributes that militate against finding that it is contrary to the public interest. Until the project is completed, the bridge is structurally deficient and it presents a serious safety concern to the public. Although the bridge height will be increased, with the slopes being provided over a greater distance, the view of oncoming traffic across the bridge is better and safety will be improved for motorists. Increasing the bridge height will also improve navigation for boaters entering or departing the Lake. DOT is using a preferential engineering design, which will increase the lifespan of the bridge to 75 years. The new design will provide for a slower velocity of water flow through the channel, which means an easier and safer route for boaters traversing the channel. Currently, almost all vessels (except a few small ones transported on trailers) operated by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and the FFWCC are unable to access the Lake in the event of an emergency due to emergency lights, antenna, and sonar equipment mounted on the roofs of their vessels. This prevents them from responding to incidents that may occur on the Lake, including serious crimes, accidents, fires on board vessels, manatee rescues, and other related enforcement matters. Representatives of both agencies indicated that with a 12-foot clearance, their vessels will be able to access the Lake. Petitioners argue, however, that in the event of an emergency they would call a security officer for Lost Tree Village. But public comment by a security officer for that development indicated that security personnel only patrol three to five hours per day, they are not sworn law enforcement officers, they do not have arrest authority, and they could not undertake rescues if more than two persons were injured. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the proposed activities on sovereignty submerged lands are not contrary to the public interest. Mitigation and Avoidance Rule 18-21.004(2)(b) provides in part that if the activities will result in "significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources," the application should not be approved "unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate mitigation is proposed." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(7). Petitioners argue that in order to avoid significant adverse impacts, a reasonable alternative is to add a nonstructural horizontal member to the bridge in order to retain the existing clearance of 8.5 feet. There are no significant direct, secondary, or cumulative adverse impacts to the submerged lands or natural resources associated with the bridge or its construction. Therefore, the Board is not required to consider design modifications. Moreover, no bridges have ever been constructed in the manner suggested by Petitioners, and no design criteria currently exist for the implementation of such a nonstructural element on a bridge. A permanent member would cause the same concerns as having a lower bridge because it would be susceptible to the aggressive water environment that could impact the life of the Bridge. If a non-permanent member were attached to the Bridge, it would require periodic maintenance and evaluation. Either type of control would present engineering liability concerns, as well as a hazard to approaching boaters who might not be able to discern that the clearance is 8.5 feet when the bridge itself is 12.0 feet above MHW. DOT does not have any design guidelines, standards, or specifications for warnings, signage, or advanced notification to boaters regarding navigation restrictions. In short, such a restriction would be contrary to the public interest because of maintenance, safety, and liability issues that may arise. The elimination and reduction of impacts is not required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund issue a final order approving DOT's application for a 50-year easement to use Sovereign Submerged Lands to replace the Little Lake Worth Bridge in Palm Beach County. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2011.
Findings Of Fact The Applicant/Respondents, Melvin and Mary Thayer have applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a "dredge and fill permit" seeking authorization to remove an existing 32-foot wooden fence and install in its place a chain-link fence, which as originally applied for would not extend more than 32 feet waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake as marked by the waterward end of the existing wooden fence. The fence proposed would be five feet high and would possess a gate at its landward end which would permit pedestrian passage in both directions around the near-shore area of the lake. The project site is located approximately 400 feet south of U.S. 441-192 and adjacent to Alligator Lake, lying one mile west from Bay Lake within Section 10, Township 26 South, Range 31 East in Osceola County, Florida. As clarified and amended prior to hearing, the application now requests the permit to authorize, instead, a 26-foot fence extending that distance waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. The Department has permitting jurisdiction under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes as well as Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. There is no dispute that the Department has jurisdiction of the permitting of the subject fence inasmuch as the fence would be constructed waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation or the "high pool" level of Alligator Lake in Class III waters of the state. Additionally, the area of the project waterward of the 64- foot mean sea level elevation lies on sovereign lands of the State of Florida under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. That Department, as yet, has not issued a permit for use of sovereign land for the intended purpose as envisioned by Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. Ed Edmunson was tendered by both Respondents as an expert witness and was accepted as to his expertise in biological assessment of dredge and fill construction projects. It was thus established that the construction and installation of the fence and removal of the existing fence would cause no Class III water quality violations. Additionally, it was established that no navigational impediment would result from the fence as presently proposed which only involves a 26-foot fence extending from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation waterward in a perpendicular direction from the shore and near-shore of Alligator Lake. Parenthetically it should be noted that the original proposal involved extending the fence 32-feet waterward and then installing a right angle section parallel to the shoreline for an indeterminate distance. The right angle portion of the fence has been deleted from the permit application and the portion perpendicular to the shoreline has been amended from 32 feet down to 26 feet from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. In that connection, it was established by witness Walter, accepted as an expert in the field of engineering, that on January 7, 1985, the water line of Alligator Lake was at 62.4 feet mean sea level elevation and the end of the existing 32-foot wooden fence was 16 feet from the then existing waterline of the lake. If the water in the lake was at the 64 feet mean sea level elevation or "high pool" stage, which has occurred on the average of once every three years, the water at the end of the fence would still be only .9 feet in depth at the waterward extreme end of the proposed 26-foot fence. Indeed, it was established with- out contradiction by the Applicant, Melvin Thayer, that in the 17 or 18 years he has observed the project site, that only "seven or eight inches of water is the most depth he has seen at the end of the fence." Thus, the fence as proposed to be installed, will pose no impediment or hazard to the navigation of fishing boats, skiing boats or other craft, and, in that regard, a dock in close proximity to the site of the proposed fence extends approximately 90 feet waterward at the present time. In view of the Petitioner's other objection to the fence concerning their feared loss of access to walk around the near-shore area of the lake to visit friends and the like, the permit applicants have agreed to install a gate for public access anywhere specified by the Department along the extent of the proposed fence. The testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, including a representative of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, consists largely of objections to the precedent of permitting a private fence to be constructed in the waters of the state and on state water bodies, but no impediment to navigation has been established especially since the neighboring dock and numerous other docks around the shoreline of the lake extend waterward much farther than will the proposed fence. No degradation to water quality has been established to result from the proposed project. The fence has not been shown to be contrary to the public interest since it will not interfere with wildlife habitat or natural resources, nor impede navigation in any way, and was shown not to impede any public use of the lake or the near-shore area of the lake, in view of the access gate to be provided in the fence. In short, reasonable assurances have been provided that all permitting criteria within the Department's jurisdiction at issue in this proceeding will be complied with, although a permit from the Department of Natural Resources authorizing use of the state lands involved has not been issued as yet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Melvin and Mary Thayer for authority to remove an existing fence and to install a fence extending 26 feet waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake with an attendant public access gate installed therein be GRANTED upon satisfaction of the above-stated condition. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia M. Hoover, MSM Consultant 5366 East Space Coast Parkway St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Norman J. Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 B. J. Owens, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOA), by its duly designated administrative law judge, the Honorable Donald R. Alexander, held a formal administrative hearing in the above-styled case on October 20 and 21, and November 6, 1997, in Gainesville, Florida. A. APPEARANCES For Petitioners, GREENSPACE PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION, INC.; FRANK WARD; SAL LOCASCIO; FREDERICK P. PETERKIN; AND HAROLD M. STAHMER.:: Samuel A. Mutch, Esquire 2790 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 100, Meridien Centre Gainesville, Florida 32606 For Respondent, ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (District staff): Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire Mary Jane Angelo, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 For Respondent, CITY OF GAINESVILLE. (the City): Richard R. Whiddon, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, FL 32602-1110 On December 19, 1997, Judge Alexander submitted to the St. Johns River Water Management District, and all other parties to this proceeding, a Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." District staff filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. This matter then came before the Governing Board on January 14, 1996, for final agency action. B. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The issue in this case is whether the City’s applications for an individual stormwater permit and a noticed general environmental resource permit for Phase 1A of the proposed Hogtown Creek Greenway should be approved. C. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS RESPONDENT DISTRICT STAFF’S EXCEPTIONS 1. Exception 1 District staff take exception to conclusion of law 60 and assert that the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion the City provided reasonable assurances that its notice general permit application meets the requirements of Rule 40C-400.475(2), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), is not complete in that the Judge should have also cited Rule 40C400.475(1), F.A.C. The Governing Board may reject or modify conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative mules over which it has substantive jurisdiction. §120.57(1)G), Fla. Stat. (1997). Rule 40C-400.475(1), F.A.C., sets forth certain size thresholds which a project must be below to qualify for this noticed general environmental resource permit, A project must both be below these size thresholds and meet the conditidns of Rule 40C-400.475(2), F.A.C., to be authorized by this noticed general environmental resource permit. , In this case, the Administrative Law Judge found that the activity for which this noticed general environmental resource permit is sought involves piling supported structures. (Finding of Fact 39) The Administrative Law Judge found that the total area of the proposed bridge and boardwalk over surface waters or wetlands is approximately 481 square feet. (Finding of Fact 41). The Administrative Law Judge determined that the affected waters, Hogtown and Possum Creeks are designated Class HI waters. (Finding of Fact 41)” Since the City’s application for this noticed general environmental resource permit involves piling supported structures of less than 1,000 square feet over wetlands or other surface waters, which are not designated Outstanding Florida Waters, District staff's exception number one is accepted, and Conclusion of Law 60 is modified to read that the District’s requirements applicable to the City’s noticed general environmental resource permit application are found in Rule 40C-400.475(1) and (2), F.A.C., and that the City has provided reasonable assurances that the project meets these requirements. 2. Exception 2 In its exception 2, District staff takes exception to the Administrative Hearing Officer’s ultimate recommendation of approving the subject applications. District staff asserts that in his recommendation, the Administrative Hearing Officer did not set forth the relevant conditions which are to be a part of the recommended permits. District staff asserts that these conditions were implicitly accepted by the Administrative Law Judge in making his recommendation. "As to the application for the stormwater permit, we note that Rule 40C-42.032, F.A.C., provides that, unless waived or modified by the Board, certain limiting conditions are placed on every permit issued by the District under Chapter 40C-42, F.A.C. These conditions are set forth in Rule 40C-43.032(2)(a), F.A.C. These same conditions are set forth in District staff's Exhibit 3A which was admitted. (See Preliminary Statement portion of Recommended Order) The record does not indicate that any party objected to these conditions, or that the Administrative Law Judge otherwise thought they should be changed or waived. No party has objected to the District staff's exception on this point. Thus, District staff's Exception 2 is accepted as to the standard conditions in Rule 40C- 43.032(2)(a), F.A.C., and these standard conditions shall be a part of the City’s stormwater permit. District staff’s Exception 2 also asserts that Special ERP conditions 1, 7, 8, 9, and 28, and Other Conditions 1, 2, and 3, should be attached to the stormwater permit. Special ERP conditions 1, 7, 8, 9, and 28 were set forth in District staff's Exhibit 3B which was admitted. (See Preliminary Statement portion of Recommended Order). Other conditions 1 and 2 were set forth in the City’s Exhibit 19 (consisting of the District staff s technical staff report for the stormwater permit) which was admitted. Other condition 3 was set forth in District staff’s Exhibit 4 which was admitted. The record does not indicate that any party objected to any of these conditions. Moreover, the Administrative Law J udge’s findings of fact reflect the requirements of these conditions. For example, other condition number 3 is referred to in Finding of Fact 17, special condition 7 is referred to in Finding of Fact 24, and the monthly sinkhole monitoring requirements of special condition 8 is reflected in Finding of Fact 33. Thus, it appears the Administrative Law Judge assumed the application of these special conditions in determining that reasonable assurances were provided. Therefore, District staff's Exception 2 is accepted on this point, and these conditions shall be a part of the City’s stormwater permit. As to the application for the noticed general permit, Rule 40C-400.215, F.A.C., requires several standard conditions, set forth in that tule, to be applied to all noticed general environmental resource permits. This conditions were also set forth in the City’s Exhibit 20 which was admitted. There is nothing in the record or the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact that indicates that these conditions should not be applied to this noticed general environmental resource permit. Therefore, District staff's Exception 2 is accepted on this point, and the conditions of Rule 40C-400.215, F.A.C., shall be a part of the City’s noticed general environmental resource permit. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Recommended Order dated December 19, 1997, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is adopted in its entirety except as modified by the final action of the Governing Board of the St. Johns River Water Management District (rulings on District staff’s Exceptions 1 and 2). The City of Gainesvilles’ applications numbered 42-001-0789AIG-ERP and 400-001- 0309AIG-ERP for a stormwater environmental resource permit and noticed general environmental resource permit, respectively, are hereby granted under the terms and conditions provided herein. . DONE AND ORDERED this A ay of January 1998, in Palatka, Florida. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Sea DAN ROACH RENDERED this 79 day ‘leary CHAIRMAN Z. PATRICIA C. SCHUL DISTRICT CLERK copies to: DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building = 77" > > 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550; Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire Mary Jane Angelo St. Johns River Water management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Samuel A. Mutch, Esquire 2790 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 100, Meridien Centre Gainesville, Florida 32606 Richard R. Whiddon, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, FL 32602-1110
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent, E. Speer and Associates, Inc. (the "Applicant"), should be granted a permit for the construction of a permanent docking facility pursuant to Sections 403.91-403.929, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17.
Findings Of Fact Whether Quantified Hydrographic Studies Are Necessary For All Marina Applications To Provide Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion (stated as a finding of fact) that it is not possible to demonstrate adequate flushing without "quantifying flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data." (R.O. at 20, 22-24, 47, 49-50, 54, 57-58; F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38-39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66, and 69) It is clear from the tenor of the entire recommended order that the Hearing Officer believes that as a matter of law an expert's opinion is not sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that flushing will be adequate to prevent violations of water quality standards unless that opinion is based on quantified conclusions generated by objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data. (R.O. at 47, 49-50, 57-58) Thus, for example, the Hearing Officer opines that quantification of flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective measurements of appropriate hydrodynamic data is an essential element of the prima facie showing required to be made by the applicant. (R.O. at 47; C.O.L. No. 11) The Hearing Officer places great significance an the following excerpt from the opinion in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Reculation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990): 1800 Atlantic filed 34 exceptions to the recommended order, most of which were denied in the Department's final order . . . . The final order approved and adopted most of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order and denied the permit. The following stated rulings and reasons there for are significant to the issues on this appeal. (emphasis added) We must note at this point that there is no finding of fact in the hearing officer's recommended order that quantifies how productive the marine habitat may be in this case, and no record support for the suggestion that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of the marine habitat attributable to this project [footnote omitted]. (emphasis added) Exception 23 filed by 1800 Atlantic challenged the hearing officer's finding that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity . . . The Department rejected this exception based upon the hearing officer's general statements, without any quantification whatsoever, of adverse effects upon these matters . . . (emphasis added) 1800 Atlantic, 552 So.2d at 951-952. I do not concur that 1800 Atlantic stands for the proposition that quantified hydrographic measurement of flushing is in all cases an essential element of a prima facie showing that a marina project will not cause violations of water quality standards. Notwithstanding the above noted statement of the court in 1800 Atlantic that "there is no finding of fact . . . that quantifies 'how productive the marine habitat may be' . and no record support . . . that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of marine habitat attributable to [the] project," 552 So.2d 951, the court did not reject the finding that the project adversely affected the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreation values, and marine productivity. Indeed, had the court rejected the above finding due to lack of quantified findings the court would never have gone on to reach the issue of mitigation because in 1800 Atlantic mitigation could only become relevant if the applicant was unable to provide reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the public interest criteria of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. See Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. I do agree that in some cases quantified hydrographic studies of flushing may be required in order to provide reasonable assurances. Thus, in Rudloe v. Dickerson Bavshore, Inc., 10 FALR 3426 (DER Case No. 87-0816, June 9, 1988), my predecessor held that a dye tracer study was necessary to provide quantitative information about dilution rates and directions on dispersion of pollutants emanating from a proposed marina site which was in "close proximity" to Class II waters approved for shellfish harvesting. 10 FALR at 3447-48. However, the need for such quantified studies must be determined on a case by case basis and is not required as a matter of law for all marinas. 5/ Far me to determine as a matter of law that experts may establish a fact only by certain types of evidence would be an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the scientific domain of the expert. Thus, in Kralik v. Ponce Marine, Inc., 11 FALR 669, 671 (DER Final Order, Jan. 11, 1989), my predecessor held that expert testimony with regard to flushing does not lack credibility just because a hydrographic study had not been conducted. Of course, the finder of fact has the ultimate say on how much weight an expert opinion should be given if it is not based on a quantified study. Thus, whether an expert testifying on adequacy of flushing has conducted a quantifiable hydrographic study merely goes to the weight of the evidence. Kralik, 11 FALR at 671. I only conclude that a quantified hydrographic study for a proposed marina is not in all cases essential for a showing of reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Accordingly, to the extent that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact state that a quantified hydrographic study is required in all cases as a prima facie element of a showing of reasonable assurance that a project will not violate water quality standards, I reject such statement as a mislabled and incorrect conclusion of law. Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards I read Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part as taking exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study was needed in order to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards, and that because such a quantified hydrographic study had not been conducted, reasonable assurances had not been provided. (F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38- 39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66 and 69) As noted by the Hearing Officer, the applicant's expert testimony concerning the adequacy of the flushing consisted of general statements describing visual observations of river and tidal flows which, together with past experience and knowledge of the general area of the project, formed the basis for the experts' opinions that a quantified hydrographic study was not necessary for this project. (R.O. at 22-23) Thus, far example, Mr. Charles C. Isiminger, accepted as an expert in marina design and hydrographic engineering testified that based on his knowledge of the area, its riverine and tidal flows, a hydrographic documentation was not needed to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause water quality violations. Mr. Isiminger also testified that any pollutants entering the water from the marina would be flushed out of the area within one tidal cycle. (Tr. at 65-66, 70, 77- 79, 93, 110, 125, 128, 134) Mr. Thomas Franklin, an environmental supervisor from the Department testified that: the hydrographic survey was not really necessary due to the location of the project being in open waters and in close vicinity to the Inlet with a large volume of tidal waters moving in this area, plus the fact that it was further enhanced by flushing due to the St. Lucie River being -- basically coming around Hell Gate point [sic] and funneling out into this estuary. (emphasis added) TR at 437. Other experts also testified that the area was well flushed and that a quantified hydrographic study was not needed in this case. (Jacqueline Kelly, Tr. at 187; John Meyer, Tr. at 319, 322, 341; Gerald Ward, Tr. at 44749) 6/ Speer asserts that the Hearing Officer's finding that a quantified hydrographic study is required in this case cannot stand in light of the unrebutted expert testimony that the marina site will be well flushed and that the rate of flushing provides reasonable assurances the water quality standards will not be violated. I have found no competent substantial evidence in the record which would support a finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study is required. I did note that in Footnote 21 of the Recommended Order (R.O. at 20) the Hearing Officer states: Tidal range is only one of the types of data used to quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. See TR at 78. Other appropriate data include: overall flow rates, mid tide flow, flow amplitude (the magnitude of the flow without regard to direction, i.e., speed as opposed to velocity), horizontal current distribution, downstream plume characteristics, and field verification using a dye tracer. All of this data is needed to fully describe and quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. (citing testimony of Mr. Isiminger at Tr. 88-94) At first blush this may appear to be competent substantial evidence supporting a finding that a quantified hydrographic study is necessary in this case. However, when the testimony is read in its complete context, it is clear that Mr. Isiminger is testifying as to what is necessary to do a hydrographic study when one is needed, and is not testifying that such a study is needed in this case. (Tr. 88-94). I also note that the record contains a memo written by Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer employed by the Department. (Tr. at 67-70) This memo was admitted without objection. (Tr. at 23) The memo states in part that "without . . . hydrographic documentation, reasonable assurance cannot be given that the project will not cause problems." (Tr. at 70; Pet. Exh. No. 10) 7/ Dr. Echternacht was not called as a witness at the hearing and the letter was not offered as evidence of the opinion of Dr. Echternacht or the Department at the time of the de novo hearing. To the contrary, the above noted testimony of Mr. Franklin and the testimony of Jacqueline D. Kelly, an environmental specialist of the Department accepted as an expert in evaluating impacts of environmental dredge and fill projects (Tr. at 187, 195; R.O. at 3), clearly establish that at the time of the de novo hearing the Department was of the opinion that further hydrographic documentation was not needed. The Hearing Officer noted that Mr. Meyer testified that the flushing is a "very, very complicated dynamic situation." (Tr. at 320). The testimony was as follows: Q. So you don't know for sure whether the currents here impact this at all or stay offshore from it? A. Oh, the currents definitelv affect it, and you do have interchange -- as I mentioned before, a very high rate of interchange on a daily basis on every tide. Q. Are you saying that the current that flows through here every day flows right through the site? A. We're dealing with two different things here. We're dealing with your currents, your general migration of waters from the estuary from the inland areas down. You're also dealing with tidal effects coming in and out, and it's a very, very complicated dynamic situation. For me to try to tell you exactly how these things work would be impossible without having a very, very long drawn-out expensive study done on the entire area, and I have not reviewed any studies like that. Tr. at 319-20 (emphasis added) When taken in its context it is clear that Mr. Meyer is testifying that there is a very high rate of exchange on a daily basis on every tide. The fact that he viewed the exact details of the flushing as very complicated in no way retracted his statement that there was a very high rate of exchange on every tide. My review of the record leads me to concur with Speer that no testimony, either on direct, cross-examination, or examination by the Hearing Officer, nor any other evidence was introduced to rebut the expert testimony presented by Speer and the Department that flushing on the site was adequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. 8/ As a general rule, the trier of fact may not arbitrarily reject uncontroverted evidence as proof of a contested fact. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. G. & J. Investments, 506 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. den., 515 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1987); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel, 352 So.2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); In Re: Estate of Hannon, 447 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). This does not mean that a mere scintilla of unrebutted evidence is sufficient to establish a contested fact in an administrative hearing. At least in the context of administrative proceedings, the unrebutted evidence still must be competent substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. 9/ There is no suggestion that the Hearing Officer rejected the unrebutted testimony of the experts of Speer and the Department as not being competent substantial evidence. In fact, in the light of the testimony of Mr. Isiminger (Tr. at 65- 66), Mr. Ward ( Tr. at 447-449), Mr. Meyer (Tr. at 238- 239), and Mr. Franklin (Tr. at 345-350), it is beyond peradventure that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause violations of water quality standards. It is clear from the context of the Recommended Order that the Hearing Officer believed that reasonable assurance had not been provided only because he believed that a quantified hydrographic study was required as a matter of law. Although I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion that a quantified hydrographic study must be conducted as a matter of law for all marina applications, I must still determine whether a quantified hydrographic analysis is required under the facts of this case. In Rudloe v. Dickerson Bayshore, 10 FALR 3426 (DER Final Order, June 9, 1988) it was held that a hydrographic study was not adequate because it did not include a quantified dye tracer study. Id., 10 FALR at 3448. In Rudloe, as in this case, the marina was located in Class III waters, but near Class II waters. However, in Rudloe, the marina site was much closer to the Class II waters (approximately 1,700 feet in Rudloe (10 FAIR at 3430) as compared to approximately 8,000 feet in this case). (R.O. at 16, F.O.F. No. 26) Also, the Rudloe case is significantly different from this case in that competent substantial expert opinion was presented in Rudloe that the marina would adversely impact the Class II shellfish harvesting area. See Rudloe, 10 FALR at 3433-35, 3437-38 (testimony of DNR expert that operation of marina would result in closure of waters to the harvest of shellfish; testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston that the hydrographic drogue studies conducted were inadequate.) In this case, neither expert nor lay testimony was offered by Barringer to show that operation of the marina would result in violation of water quality standards or have any adverse impact on the Class II shellfish waters. 10/ I conclude that the facts of this case as found by the Hearing Officer are not sufficiently similar to the facts of Rudloe so as to justify holding as a matter of law a quantified hydrographic study is necessary to establish the required reasonable assurances. Since the record contains competent substantial evidence that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause water quality violations, and since there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's contrary finding, I must accept the exception of Speer and reject the Hearing Officer's findings of fact to the contrary. In this case I note that I am not so much rejecting findings of fact as rejecting a conclusion of law. As I noted, the Hearing Officer's finding is really based on a conclusion of law which I reject. This leaves only unrebutted competent substantial evidence that there will be adequate flushing to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. There is no rational basis to reject this unrebutted competent substantial evidence. Therefore, I must accept as proven that the applicant has provided the reasonable assurances that operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; Estate of Hannon; supra, Effect On Class II Waters Speer's Exceptions Nos. 7 and 8 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina would not have a "negative effect" an the Class II waters of the St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (F.O.F. No. 43) Rule 17-312.080(6)(b), Fla. Admin. Code provides: The Department also shall deny a permit for dredging and filling in any class of waters where the location of the project is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the dredging or filling will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. In this case expert testimony was presented by Speer and the Department that due to the distance of the marina site from the Class II waters (8,000 feet) the marina site was not in close proximity to the Class II waters, and due to the rapid flushing of the area, the construction and operation of the marina would neither have a negative effect nor would result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters of St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (Isiminger, Tr. at 96, 126-27; Meyer, Tr. at 254-55) I find that the record contains no competent substantial evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by Speer and the Department that the marina will have no negative effect on Class II waters and will not result in violation of water quality standards in Class II waters. Accordingly, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In Re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Reasonable Assurance That Operation Of The Marina Will Not Result In Prop Dredging Or Violations Of The State Water Quality Criterion For Turbidity Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 9-12, and 16 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat traffic from operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. (F.O.F. Nos. 33-34, 45, 48, 52-53, 64, and 67) 11/ On one hand, there was testimony that the depths of the marina, in combination with the size of boats allowed in the various slips, would allow for a one foot clearance from the bottom of the boats to the bottom of the marina, and that this clearance, in combination with speed limits in the marina, would provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not result in prop dredging or turbidity violations. (Isiminger, Tr. at 104-107, 118; Meyer Tr. at 263-65, 299, 304- 305; Kelly, Tr. at 189-190; Ward, Tr. at 460) On the other hand, Bruce Graham, admitted as an expert in marine biology testified that: "A large boat, three feet from the bottom, I think would resuspend sediment." (Graham, Tr. at 378). The Hearing Officer, noting that when asked if one foot clearance is sufficient to prevent prop dredging and resultant turbidity violations, a Department witness, testified: I would have to say that we simply don't have enough documentation to know this for a fact. We know that a foot gives us a degree of comfort that there will not be prop wash. In certain instances -- a tug boat, for instance, you know, with huge engines, you're going to have prop wash over a much -- over a large area and with probably much more than a foot of clearance. But for the normal, typical marina a foot, as I say, gives us a degree of comfort that we have settled on. Neyer, Tr. at 264. The Hearing Officer concluded that the witnesses of Speer and the Department could not explain the reasons or efficacy of the "one foot policy" except to say that in their experience the one foot policy was adequate to prevent prop dredging and turbidity violations. (R.O. at 28 n.35)0 The Hearing Officer thus found that Speer and the Department failed to "prove up" the one foot policy -- i.e., failed to elucidate and explicate the reason for the policy. 12/ Clearly the Hearing Officer placed more weight on the testimony of Mr. Bruce Graham than that of Isiminger, Meyer, Kelly and Ward. Since I cannot say that the testimony of Graham was not competent substantial evidence, I am not at liberty to reweigh the evidence or reject the Hearing Officer's finding of fact. See, Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sections 120.57(1)(b)10., and 120.68(10), Florida Statutes. Speer contends that Barringer presented no evidence that prop dredging will cause sufficient turbidity to violate the state water quality turbidity criterion of 29 NTUs. 13/ That contention misses the point. The burden is on Speer to establish by the preponderance of evidence that reasonable assurance has been provided that operation of the marina will not result in violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Hearing Officer, as the finder of fact, concluded that Speer failed to do so. Accordingly, I reject the exception of Speer and accept the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the state water quality criterion for turbidity. Manatee Impacts and the Public Interest Test Speer's Exceptions Nos. 13 and 17 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to do a quantified study of impacts to manatees and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat. (F.O.F. Nos. 61, 64 and 68) The Hearing Officer reasoned as follows: Instead of a traffic study, the Applicant and DER presented evidence in the form of general statements that manatees need not migrate north and south through the approach channel. According to the Applicant and DER, manatees can migrate across the project site by one of two alternative routes. They can migrate in one or two feet of water under moored boats and then under wave breaks on the north and east piers, or they can migrate in the shallow water landward of the west boundary of the project. That evidence was not persuasive and was controverted by competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence that manatees would be deterred from migrating under the project footprint by substantial obstacles in their path. Manatees migrating under the project footprint would be exposed to 86 or more moving boats with powerful engines and drafts of four to five feet in waters covering approximately 20,800 square feet. It could be argued, or course, that 86 or more boats would not be moving in and out of the marina at one time. However, it is impossible to estimate occupancy rates, length of stay, and frequency of boat trips without a traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) As Speer's exception notes, there was testimony that because of the width of the river and boat speed restrictions in the project area, there would be no adverse impacts an the manatee from the marina. (Kelly, Tr. at 162; Meyer, Tr. at 255-56, 331- 32; Isiminger, Tr. at 130) The St. Lucie/Jupiter/Hobe Sound waterways are a major travel corridor for manatees. (DER Exh. No. 4) Between 1974 and December 1990, there were ten water craft related manatee fatalities within the boating sphere of influence of the project. (DER Exh. No. 4) In order to reduce impacts on the manatees, the proposed permit contains the following specific conditions: S.C. No. 13: The permittee agrees to install and maintain a minimum of one manatee education/display on the main access pier during and after construction. S.C. No. 15: The permittee agrees that any collision with a manatee shall be reported immediately [to DNR and U.S. Fish and wildlife Service]. S.C. No. 18: The permittee shall post four (4) manatee area/slow speed signs, two of which would be spaced along the perimeter pier and two of which would be located on the outside of the marina for all boating traffic to observe within the marina facility. (DER Exh. No. 3) 14/ There was testimony that the piers, once constructed, would not impair the passage of manatees. (Isiminger, Tr. at 114- 115) On the other hand, there was some testimony that manatees may have to go around the project rather than through it. (Meyer, Tr. at 311) The existing boat traffic past the site of the project to the Inlet was "rough1y estimated" at 50 to 100 boats a day. (Meyer, Tr. at 337) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that "while [the project] may negatively affect, it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian Manatee." (Tr. at 120-21) The Hearing Officer concluded that reasonable assurance as to adverse impacts on manatees could not be provided absent a quantified traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) In Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FAIR 1359 (DER Final Order March 9, 1990), the Department held that the information needed to determine a marina's impact on manatees and the necessary actions to mitigate such impacts must be decided an a case by case basis. For example, in Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 11 FALR 4710 (DER Final Order, Aug. 24, 1989), 15/ a marina sought to expand by adding 113 new wet slips. The marina was required to develop a manatee protection plan far the surrounding portions of the Caloosahatchee River, all new slips were limited to sail boats until the manatee protection plan was implemented and enforced, and power boat occupancy was limited to 75% of the total 174 wetslips in any event. The marina also made available a wet slip for use by the Florida Marine Patrol. In this case there is evidence of significant boat related manatee fatalities in the boating sphere of influence of the proposed marina. There is also evidence of existing traffic of 50-100 boats per day past the project site. In view of the fact that this project would add 86 slips and a public fueling facility, it seems likely that that the project will significantly increase both boat traffic and the threat of manatee collisions. Accordingly, I concur with the Hearing Officer that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that further studies are needed to determine what, if any, additional manatee protection conditions are needed to provide reasonable assurance that manatees will not be adversely affected. I conclude that the applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat, and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore, I reject the exception of Speer. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Speer's Exception No. 15 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse cumulative pacts created either by the cumulative effects of the object and existing similar projects, or by secondary pacts of the project itself. (F.O.F. No. 66) 16/ Cumulative impact analysis takes into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, supra; Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Secondary impact analysis considers the impact of the project itself and of any other relevant activities that are very closely linked or causally related to the permitted project. Conservancy, 580 So.2d at 778; J.T. McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 FALR 960, 980. 17/ Thus, in Conservancy the secondary impact analysis was required to consider the environmental impacts of development of 75 estate homes on an island where the development would be reasonably expected as a result of the permitted laying of a subaqueous sewer line. Similarly, in del Campo v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 452 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the Department was required to consider the environmental impacts of the foreseeable development of an island facilitated by the permitted building of a bridge to the island. In this case there is competent substantial evidence that there are other marinas located 1,750 feet downstream in Willoughby Creek, and 5,000 feet downstream in Manatee Pocket. (R.O. F.O.F. 31; Isiminger, Tr. at 112; Meyer, Tr. at 261) The record contains competent substantial evidence that the cumulative impact of the project and the existing marinas in Willoughby Creek and Manatee Pocket will not result in violations of state water policy. (Isiminger, Tr. at 125; Kelly, Tr. at 167) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly on cumulative impacts is not competent, substantial evidence. In light of the fact that there is no competent substantial evidence to indicate that cumulative impacts would result in water quality violations, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersbur; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. As to secondary impacts, the Hearing Officer pointed out that Speer did not introduce any evidence as to whether there would be secondary impacts to water quality as the result of further development or increased utilization of the uplands facilities. (See F.O.F. 66, n.59, R.O. at 39) Such further development or increased utilization of upland facilities is reasonably foreseeable and would be very closely linked or causally related to the building of an 86 slip marina with public fuel services. As noted above, the applicant has the burden of providing reasonable assurances as to cumulative and secondary impacts. Brown v. DER, supra; Conservancy, supra. However, neither the pleadings nor the pre-hearing stipulation raised the issue of the adequacy of the secondary impact analysis. In a case such as this where the Department's notice of intent to issue a permit has been challenged by a third party, the applicant's prima facie case need only include the application and the accompanying documentation and information relied on by the Department as the basis of its intent to issue. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., 396 So.2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The petitioner challenging the permit must identify the areas of controversy and allege a factual basis for its contentions that the applicant did not provide the necessary reasonable assurances. J.W.C., 396 So.2d at 789. See also Woodholly Assoc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 451 So.2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since Barringer did not identify this issue and did not allege any factual basis for a contention that the secondary impact analysis was inadequate or incorrect, I may not rule on the issue in this order. Miscellaneous Exceptions To Findings of Fact Speer's Exception No. 14 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project will have no adverse impact on (1) the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the project, including seagrasses, shell fish, and fin-fish, and (2) recreational and commercial values in the vicinity. (F.O.F. No. 64) Speer contends that this finding is not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebutted testimony of Ms. Kelly and Mr. Isiminger. (Kelly, Tr. at 159, 161-62, 165-67; Isiminger, Tr. at 73) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly is not competent, substantial evidence, and I find no evidence in the record to rebut the testimony of Kelly and Isiminger. Therefore, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Speer's Exception No. 3 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide a current water quality analysis. (F.O.F. No. 35) A water quality analysis was submitted in April of 1990, shortly after the permit application was filed. (R.O. at 2, 19; F.O.F. No. 34) I find no competent substantial evidence in the record to suggest any reason for believing that the water quality has changed since April of 1990. I agree with Speer that, absent some specific reason for believing that the water quality has changed since the date of a study conducted contemporaneously with the permit application, there is no requirement to provide an updated water quality analysis. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Need For Quantified Hydrographic Study Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 7 and 9, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that a quantified hydrographic study was needed to provide reasonable assurances that the operation of the marina would not result in violations of water quality standards and would would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. For the reasons stated in Parts III(1), (2) and (3) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Introduction Of Issues Not Set Forth In Pleadings Or Pre-Hearing Stipulations Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's consideration of issues of (1) the need for a quantified hydrographic study, (2) the proximity of the site to Class II waters, (3) turbidity and prop dredging, (4) cumulative impacts, and (5) the need for a quantified study on manatee impacts. For the reasons set forth in Part 111(6) above, I agree that, absent waiver, a petitioner challenging an intent to issue a permit may not raise issues at the hearing which were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations. However, in this case the issue of manatee impacts was raised in the pleadings, and Speer was on notice that it had the burden of proof on that issue. As to the other issues, even if I accepted far the sake of argument that they were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations, Speer failed to timely object to the raising of these issues at the hearing and therefore waived any objection. See Sarasota County and Midnight Pass Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 13 FAIR 1727 (DER Final Order, April 4, 1991). Therefore, I reject the above exceptions. Proximity To Class II Waters Speer's Exception No. 2 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer was required to submit a plan which demonstrated that the marina would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. (C.O.L. Nos. 12 and 13) I do not agree that where a proposed marina site is 8,000 feet from Class II waters and where the site is rapidly flushed as noted in Parts 111(1), (2) and (3) above, that the site is in close proximity with the Class II waters within the meaning of Rule 17-312.080(6), Fla. Admin. Code. Accordingly, I accept this exception and reject the above note conclusion of law. Public Interest Test Speer's Exception No. 4 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project was not contrary to the public interest. (C.O.L. Nos. 17 and 20) For the reasons set forth in Parts III(4) and (5) above, I reject this exception. Cumulative Impacts Speer's Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurances that cumulative impacts would not result in water quality violations, and that such assurances could only be provided by a quantified study. For the reasons set forth in Parts III (1), (2), (3) and (6) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Modification Of Permit Conditions Speer's Exception No. 6 takes Exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law Nos. 24-34. These conclusions of law concern questions of the authority of the Hearing Officer and me to modify the conditions of the permit. I agree with Speer that since none of the parties have requested any modifications, these conclusions of law are irrelevant. 18/ Therefore I accept the exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law as irrelevant. Miscellaneous Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that Speer and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurance as to prop dredging and turbidity violations because neither Speer nor the Department sufficiently proved the basis for the one-foot clearance policy. For the reasons set forth in Part III(4) above, I reject this exception. Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the question of whether mitigation is adequate is a question of law. I agree with the Hearing Officer and reject this exception. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, enter a Final Order denying the application for a permit to construct the proposed project and denying the request for determination of improper purposes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1550 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Respondent David Halfen applied for a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation authorizing construction of a footbridge across Little Red Fish Lake in Section 7, Township 3 South, Range 19 West in Walton County, Florida. The footbridge would be 490 feet long and four feet wide with a raised area five feet high in the middle permitting small boat traffic underneath. The bridge would be constructed from treated pilings, timbers and planks and the pilings would be jetted down into the sub-strate or bottom of Little Red Fish Lake. Mr. Cliff Rohlke was accepted as an expert witness in water quality. He is employed by the Department as an Environmental Specialist with the specific duties of dredge and fill inspector. In this capacity he conducts field appraisals, reviews and makes reports of biological impacts of dredge and fill projects in conjunction with applications filed with the Department for dredge and fill permits. In this regard, Mr. Rohlke went to the site of the project and made an assessment of both the long and short-term impacts of the project on water quality in Little Red Fish Lake. Mr. Rohlke made a biological appraisal of the subject project in evidence in this proceeding as Exhibit 1. It was thus established that the short-term impacts of the project would be limited to minor turbidity and sub-strate disturbance related to the placement of the pilings. Long-term impacts will be insignificant. Based upon his long experience as a dredge and fill inspector and biologist, Mr. Rohlke established that no significant problems or impairment of water quality are associated with the construction of such a pier or footbridge by using treated pilings and timbers. Mr. Richard Fancher was accepted as an expert witness in water quality. He is the Environmental Supervisor of the Department's northwest district, supervising the Department's permitting and enforcement program in the area of dredge and fill permitting. In his years of experience with the Department, he has reviewed some 3,000 dredge and fill applications. He evaluated Mr. Halfen's application for the proposed footbridge. His review of the proposed project was conducted with a view toward whether it complied with the standards of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes and Chapter 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. He established that the water quality standards that the Department is charged with enforcing by these legal provisions would be complied with, with construction of the proposed project, in that the pilings for the pier or footbridge would be jetted into the sub-strate of the lake and turbidity curtains would be used to minimize the short-term deleterious effects of turbidity or sediment disturbance on the lake as a whole by confining such turbidity to the immediate area of the project. The project will not significantly affect fish and wildlife in the water body involved, nor impair water flow so as to be contrary to the public interest. Neither will any significant loss of fish or wildlife or fish or wildlife habitat be occasioned by installation of the subject bridge. Mr. Fancher was of the opinion that the bridge would impede and interfere with navigation to some extent, but not, in his opinion, so as to be contrary to public interest. Mr. Fancher, however, has not visited the site himself and has no direct knowledge as to how the lake is used in terms of navigation, fishing, water skiing and the like. Mr. Rohlke opined that navigation in terms of "normal boat traffic" would not be interfered with since on his brief inspection he saw no boats using the lake, and the bridge would have a single span raised to a five-foot elevation over the lake's surface for the purpose of permitting boats to pass under the bridge. Mr. Rohlke, however, spent only a period of less than an hour visiting the lake site and did not confer with any adjacent landowners to ascertain what uses they made of the lake. He did not measure the lake bottom depth but did acknowledge that it was of sufficient size to be used for both sailing and water skiing. He admitted that a portion of the lake would be cut off by the bridge, consisting of approximately two acres on the western side. The Petitioners, the Bannermans, as well as witnesses Klep and Hughes own property and homes on the western side of the lake and their access to the remainder of the approximately 50-acres of the lake would be partially cut off by the bridge. They would be denied some use and enjoyment of the majority of the lake. Mr. and Mrs. Bannerman have a home which fronts on the western edge of the lake. Mr. Bannerman has measured the lake and established that it is five to seven feet deep near the water's edge and approximately 12 to 15 feel deep in the center of the lake. He has a dock and a small boat on the lake and uses the boat for fishing and navigation of the lake. Fishermen frequently utilize the lake from a public access point. The lake is large enough to be used for normal recreational pursuits such as water skiing, sailing, and fishing. Mr. John Klep owns property bordering on the western edge of the lake. Access to the lake was an important consideration in his purchase of the property, and in his continuing use of it. The lake is in excess of six feet deep at his property and physically navigable. He does not wish his access to the entire lake to be restricted. Mr. Lyle Hughes has legal access to the lake conveyed to him by deed although his own property does not actually border the lake. Sailing has been his lifetime recreational pursuit and he desires to use the lake for sailing for himself and members of his family, especially the children in his family. The small sailboats for which the lake is suited generally have a mast of approximately 14 feet in height. Such a boat could not pass under the bridge if constructed as proposed, since the five-foot raised center span would only barely permit small power boats and their occupants to safely pass under it. In short, the subject bridge, while it permits small fishing and pleasure boats to pass under with their occupants, would preclude the adjacent landowners in the western end of the lake cut off by the bridge, from sailing beneath the bridge or water skiing on the lake, since their point of access for water skiing and other purposes is at their own property and it would be impossible to water ski in the lake since the bridge would not be navigable for water skiing boats and skiers. The only way sail boats could navigate under the bridge would be to use a motor, oars or paddles until the sailboat negotiates the bridge span, with attendant stepping and unstepping of the mast every time the boat passes under the bridge. This arrangement is totally impractical for those adjacent landowners to do in order to use the lake for sailing. Water skiers could not pass under a five-foot span for obvious reasons of safety. In short, it has been established that the proposed project comports with Department permitting requirements in terms of water quality impacts and impacts on fish and wildlife and fish and wildlife habitats. The project, however, has not been established to be in the public interest and not contrary to the public interest in terms of its impact on the rights of adjacent landowners to navigate the entire 52-acre lake which they presently have access to for the above-mentioned reasons. Any approval of the permit applied for must be in conjunction with a condition that the bridge be so constructed that sailboats can pass through without having to unstep their masts and water ski boats and skiers can pass through it, possibly through use of a movable span. An additional and more basic problem exists in approving this project as proposed. Department's Rule 17-1.203, Florida Administrative Code requires that a permit applicant execute and submit, with his application, an affidavit of ownership of the property involved in a dredge and fill project. The affidavit and rule requires that a permittee be either the record owner, lessee, record easement holder or an applicant to the record owner of the property for an easement to the property described in the application, and in the affidavit. Mr. Halfen submitted this affidavit with his application certifying that he was the record owner, lessee, or record easement holder of the property upon which the bridge was to be constructed and of the property landward of the construction site, and either had or would have the permission of all other persons with a legal interest in the property prior to undertaking the project. It is the policy of the Department to require the applicant to be the record owner of the submerged land, his lessee or easement holder and to submit the necessary affidavit of ownership or control. The rationale for this policy is so that the Department "will not knowingly issue a permit for dredging and filling or other activities which would constitute a trespass." 1/ The property involved at the project site is subject to an active title dispute being litigated in the Circuit Court. In dispute is the question of whether the title to the lake bottom is held by the Petitioners, the Bannermans or FDIC, Mr. Halfen or the State of Florida. The property was initially conveyed into private ownership by the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, in 1918 as shown by stipulated Exhibit 2 in evidence. The federal government thus conveyed the pertinent property, Lots 1 and 2 of Section 7 in Township 3 South of Range 19 West together with other unrelated land to one Carl Froholm. That conveyance transferred all of the land in Lots 1 and 2 without making reference to Little Red Fish Lake. It does not indicate any reservations of public rights in and to the waters located on that property. It does not indicate any reservation of title to the bottom of the lake to be held by the State or Federal governments. Thus, the legitimate title question now being litigated in the court, is whether the Petitioners, Mr. Halfen or the State of Florida own the lake bottom upon which the bridge will be constructed and not simply whether DNR approval for its use has been obtained. Resolution of that quiet title action is still pending and argument and legal authority has been extensively briefed and provided to the Hearing Officer in the form of the various parties' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and memoranda. 2/
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application by David Halfen for a dredge and fill permit, as described above, be granted, provided the plans and construction of the proposed bridge are sufficiently altered so as to permit water skiers and sailboats to safely and simply navigate and pass under or through the area of the proposed bridge and provided that Mr. Halfen, at the conclusion of the pending quiet title action, can establish that he has ownership or other right of control of the property on which the project will be built. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1985.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are: 1) whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over a certain body of water known as Lake Blake in Okaloosa County, Florida; 2) if DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction is established, whether Respondents qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction; and 3) if not otherwise exempt from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction, whether Respondents are guilty of the violations alleged in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action issued by the Director of District Management for the Office of the DEP Northwest District on May 13, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Parties The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the power and duty to enforce the provisions of Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. DEP is the only agency involved in these proceedings. Respondent, Santa Rosa Three, Inc. (the Corporation), is the fee simple title holder of certain property in unincorporated Okaloosa County, Florida, located between Lewis Street and Clifford Street in Sections 2 and 3, Township 2 South, Range West. The property includes the subject water body, Lake Blake. Santa Rosa II, Inc., is a corporate predecessor in interest to the Corporation. Respondent, Lee Maddan (Maddan), is a long-time resident of Okaloosa County. Maddan is the Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 03-1499. Maddan has personally observed activities occurring at the Lake Blake property for more than 38 years, including the excavation of the lake. Maddan holds equitable title to the Lake Blake property and is in the process of purchasing the fee simple title to the property from the Corporation. Maddan is and was at all material times hereto authorized by the Corporation to enter upon the Lake Blake property, to proceed to develop the land, to obtain permits in his name, and to do other acts to prepare the property for Maddan's purchase. History of Lake Blake Lake Blake is an artificially-created water body in unincorporated Okaloosa County, having a water surface area slightly less than six acres. There is a small island in the center of the lake. The property surrounding Lake Blake presently consists of both uplands and wetlands. No other water body is visible from Lake Blake. For DEP jurisdictional determination purposes, Lake Blake is located in the Northwest District of Florida. The oldest records of the Lake Blake property dating to 1826, indicate that the property was flat land with natural vegetation dominated by palmetto and galberry. The property historically had no flowing streams. In the 1950's, the then owner of the property began excavating a borrow pit on the property. The excavations continued until approximately 1979. As the borrow pit excavations continued, a lake formed due to the intrusion of underground water as well as collected rainfall. During the excavation period, and until approximately 1976, the land around the borrow pit was primarily pasture land with no trees or other vegetation. Up to 1976, there was no wetland vegetation growing on the property. Prior to 1960, the natural stormwater flow from the property was to the southwest toward Cinco Bayou, a defined water of the State of Florida which on a direct line is located approximately one-quarter mile from the property. Cinco Bayou is the nearest surface waters of the State of Florida. During the 1960's, a road known as Lewis Street (also known as Mayflower Avenue) was constructed along the southern boundary of the property. At the time of the construction of Lewis Street, the borrow pit was separated into two parts, an eastern and western section. A concrete culvert divided the sections of the borrow pit. At the time of the Lewis Street construction, a stormwater discharge pipe was installed by Okaloosa County and excess water flowed out of the borrow pit only at certain times in direct response to rainfall. The installation of the stormwater discharge pipe on Lewis Street was intended to drain excess rainfall from the borrow pit. Okaloosa County never acquired ownership of the borrow pit for use as a stormwater retention pond. The water body that formed in the borrow pit would come to be called Lewis Street Pond, or Blake Lake, and eventually Lake Blake. The natural flow of the stormwater from the property was further altered in the 1970's when a public elementary school was constructed by Okaloosa County on Lewis Street. The public school is located between the property and Cinco Bayou. Borrow pit operations formally ceased in September of 1980 when DEP's predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), entered an order requiring the cessation of mining operations. The physical operations had actually ceased a few years before the DER order. Lake Blake resulted from collected rainfall, as well as underground water intrusion in the original borrow pit. At the present time, additional diverted stormwater runoff collects in the lake as a result of Okaloosa County's stormwater drainage system. Lake Blake today is an artificial body of water owned entirely by one person. Residential housing is located on property surrounding Lake Blake. The lake is occasionally utilized for recreational purposes, including fishing. The property surrounding the lake is not open to the general public, and the entrances to the property are fenced. For purposes of this proceeding, there are no threatened or endangered plants on the property. Okaloosa County Stormwater Drainage System Okaloosa County has constructed a stormwater drainage system that runs through the Lake Blake drainage area. As part of this stormwater drainage system, Lake Blake collects diverted stormwater discharge from surrounding areas which have been previously developed. Residential neighborhoods are close to the area, specifically the Berkshire Woods Subdivision. Indeed, as a condition for the development of the Berkshire Woods Subdivision in 1976, the Okaloosa County Planning Commission required that former owner, Ron Blake, excavate the lake and make it ready for stormwater drainage from the proposed development of the Berkshire Woods Subdivision. In addition to the residential areas and the public school to the south, there is a private school to the north across the road on Clifford Street which also diverts water to the lake from its campus and parking lots. Okaloosa County has installed at least seven pipes which carry stormwater from the surrounding developed areas into Lake Blake. The only drainage out of Lake Blake is via the stormwater discharge pipe located at the southern boundary of the property on Lewis Street which was installed by Okaloosa County in the 1960's. Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system serving Lake Blake is integrated into a series of interconnecting underground stormwater pipes which route the flow of the water for approximately one-half mile before ultimately discharging water into Cinco Bayou. Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system which ultimately connects Lake Blake with Cinco Bayou is composed of buried pipes. DEP considers buried pipes or culverts which convey stormwater as excavated water bodies. The installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge system required the excavation of land. Under DEP's interpretation of its rules, specifically Rule 62-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, the underground installation of stormwater pipes is sufficient to establish a series of excavated water bodies which connect Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. Prior to the installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge pipe on Lewis Street in the 1960's, there was no dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction which applied to the property containing Lake Blake. The stormwater discharge pipe has continuously existed on the southern boundary of the property since its installation in the 1960's to the present. Lake Blake was not originally designed, constructed nor permitted as a stormwater treatment or retention pond. Lake Blake incidentally resulted from the borrow pit excavations. Okaloosa County, however, has at least since 1976, utilized Lake Blake as part of its stormwater drainage system. Okaloosa County never acquired title to Lake Blake for use as part of its existing stormwater drainage system. In 1981, the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners (who were not the owners of the property) applied for, and were issued by DER, a Construction Permit (No. RC-46-80-2031, dated May 27, 1981, which expired November 27, 1981) for "Blake Lake Modifications" which permit stated it was "to modify an existing stormwater drainage system." This permit allowed for, among other items, construction of "two earthen berms in Blake Lake" and "the diversion of lake flow from the western lake to the eastern lake." Although attempts were made to construct the two earthen berms, due to the white clay composition of the soil the berms were not successfully established. In 1984, DER issued another Construction Permit (No. 460853421 dated August 20, 1984, which expired August 15, 1987) to the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners (who again were not the owners of the property) for the purpose constructing "two drainage channels . . . from a berm separating East and West Blake Lake." The drainage channels were thereafter completed and the east and west portions of the lake were eventually connected. On August 14, 1984, Okaloosa County also filed a Notice of New Stormwater Discharge with DER which proposed a re-routing of an existing stormwater drainage system which then diverted stormwater from the Candlewood Subdivision and Navy Street into Lake Blake. The stated purpose of the re-routing of the stormwater drainage system away from Lake Blake was to address flooding problems in the Candlewood Subdivision. By letter dated August 21, 1984, DER informed Okaloosa County that "the stormwater discharge is exempt from stormwater permitting requirements of the Department pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-25.03(2)(c)." DER came to this conclusion in 1984 because the proposed project was "the modification of an existing County stormwater management system not serving a new development or increasing pollution loading." Although Lake Blake was utilized by Okaloosa County as part of the existing Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system, which in 1984 qualified for a DER stormwater permitting exemption, nothing pertaining to this stormwater permitting exemption supports a finding that Lake Blake was originally constructed, permitted or designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment so as to qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction under Rule 62-312.050(4), Florida Administrative Code. Dredge and Fill Permitting Jurisdiction Prior to the installation of Okaloosa County's stormwater discharge pipes on the property in the 1960's, there was no dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction which applied to the property and Lake Blake. Under current law, the Northwest District of Florida is governed by separate jurisdictional determination provisions. In order to initially establish DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over wetlands and surface waters in the Northwest District, DEP must demonstrate that the wetlands and surface waters are connected to the surface waters of the State. Since 1995, isolated wetlands in all of the rest of the State of Florida are regulated by DEP without regard to any connection to the surface waters of the State. In the Northwest District under Rule 62-312.030(2), Florida Administrative Code, "surface waters of the state are those waters listed below and excavated water bodies, except for those exempted by Section 62-312.050(4), F.A.C., which connect directly or via an excavated water body or series of excavated water bodies . . ." to waters of the State. Under Rule 62- 312.045, Florida Administrative Code, however, "[i]solated wetlands that infrequently flow or otherwise exchange water with a described water body are not intended to be included within the dredge and fill jurisdiction of the Department." By letter dated April 24, 2001, DEP advised Santa Rosa II, Inc., that the Lake Blake property was not subject to DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction. The letter was sent in response to an application seeking to fill 2.5 acres of the southeastern portion of the lake for the construction of an apartment complex. The letter was issued by DEP's Northwest District, and signed by Martin Gawronski on behalf of Larry O'Donnell, the Environmental Manager for Permitting Section of the Northwest District. The letter was issued after a visit to the property by one or more DEP employees, and based on an informal determination that Lake Blake was not connected to the waters of the State. In May of 2001, the United States Army Corps of Engineers determined that the Lake Blake property was not within its jurisdiction. Subsequent to the issuance of the April 24, 2001, non- jurisdictional letter, certain employees of Okaloosa County (not specifically named in these proceedings) contacted DEP seeking reconsideration of DEP's decision. These Okaloosa County employees thereafter met with DEP employees at the property and communicated by telephone with DEP employees while DEP considered a re-determination of its non-jurisdictional decision. The property owners were then notified that DEP was in the process of re-evaluating its non-jurisdictional decision. By letter dated October 24, 2001, DEP advised Santa Rosa II, Inc., that DEP had made a "correction" to the letter of April 24, 2001, and had determined that the property was in fact subject to DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction, because the "pond" was "connected to jurisdictional waters" of the State. The October 24, 2001, letter, like the previous letter, was issued from DEP's Northwest District and signed by Martin Gawronski on behalf of Larry O'Donnell. Between April 24, 2001, and October 24, 2001, there were no man-made alterations made to the Lake Blake property. Between March and April 2002, Maddan filled in a portion of the property and the lacustrine wetland. Maddan also built two pedestrian footbridges over the lake to the small island in the middle of the lake. DEP asserted its dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction based upon the existence of a series of underground pipes installed by Okaloosa County as part of its stormwater drainage system that conveys excess stormwater from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. Installation of the underground pipes required excavation. Neither the April 24, 2001, letter, nor the subsequent October 24, 2001 letter issued by the Northwest District, is binding determination of DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over the wetlands and surface waters of Lake Blake. The authority to make a binding DEP dredge and fill permitting jurisdictional determination is vested in Dr. John Tobe, Environmental Administrator of the Wetland Evaluation and Delineation Section and his staff. DEP's Site Inspections/Jurisdictional Determination In April of 2002, Stacy Owens, DEP Environmental Specialist, received a telephone call from Chuck Bonta with the Okaloosa County Code Enforcement Department, and an unnamed homeowner, complaining that Lee Maddan had built two unpermitted pedestrian footbridges at Lake Blake and was also filling in part of Lake Blake. Ms. Owens initially investigated whether DEP had issued any permits for the placement of fill in Lake Blake or the surrounding wetlands, and determined that no permits had been issued. Ms. Owens further discovered that a prior Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action had been issued by DER in 1980 against the Okaloosa County Board of Commissioners and Lloyd D. Junger (a lessor conducting mining operations). The 1980 case pertained to the discharge of turbidities from the Lewis Street Pond into Cinco Bayou. A final order in that case was entered on January 5, 1981, requiring Okaloosa County to make payment to DER and take corrective action. On April 23, 2002, Ms. Owens followed up on these complaints by performing a site visit to Lake Blake. At this time Ms. Owens observed two unpermitted pedestrian footbridges, unpermitted fill in a finger of Lake Blake, and unpermitted fill within a 20-foot by 25-foot lacustrine wetland area. On April 25, 2002, Maddan came to Ms. Owens' office to discuss whether permits were necessary for the placement of fill at Lake Blake. At that time, Maddan showed Ms. Owens the previous letters of April 24, 2001, and October 24, 2001, which had been sent from the Northwest District of DEP. Maddan stated that in his opinion no dredge and fill permit was needed because Lake Blake was not within the jurisdiction of DEP. Ms. Owens was then informed by employees of Okaloosa County that there were underground pipes connecting Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. She obtained from Gary Bogan of Okaloosa County, an aerial map of the drainage area for Lake Blake which identified the location of the culvert on Lewis Street which conveys excess flow from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou. On April 30, 2002, Ms. Owens performed another site inspection at Lake Blake. During this site inspection, she tracked the connection from Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou by personal observation. After her second site inspection, Ms. Owens e-mailed her findings to Dr. Tobe, and inquired whether the underground pipes satisfied the DEP requirements for connection to a water body of the State for the purpose of establishing DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction. Dr. Tobe replied to Ms. Owens that an underground pipe connection would satisfy DEP's dredge and fill jurisdictional requirements. On June 25, 2002, Dr. Tobe, Ms. Owens, and a DEP wetland delineation team visited the Lake Blake property for the purpose of making a jurisdictional determination. Maddan also accompanied Dr. Tobe and his team on the day of the site inspection. As a result of this inspection, Dr. Tobe completed and filed a Field Report for Lake Blake, Okaloosa County, dated June 25, 2002. As indicated in his Field Report, Dr. Tobe and his wetland delineation team determined that for jurisdictional purposes, Lake Blake was connected to the waters of the State by reason of the culvert on Lewis Street that ultimately discharges into Cinco Bayou. At the time of his inspection on June 22, 2002, Dr. Tobe did not observe water flowing from Lake Blake into the Lewis Street culvert. Dr. Tobe attributed this to an abnormal drought conditions the area was then experiencing. Maddan, who has observed this area for many years, testified that the lake was near or only slightly less than its normal water level on that date. Dr. Tobe conducted a further examination of the area to determine the ordinary high water line, and concluded that Lake Blake would at ordinary high water level flow into the Lewis Street culvert on a sufficiently regular frequency into Cinco Bayou, a water body of the State, for purposes of establishing DEP's dredge and fill jurisdiction. In determining whether water exchange frequency is sufficient to establish jurisdiction, there is a DEP Interoffice Memorandum of October 31, 1988, setting out 25-year, 24-hour criteria which is used as guidance, but the criteria set in this Memorandum have not been adopted as a rule, and are not singularly determinative of DEP's jurisdiction. At this time, Dr. Tobe and his team also performed a wetland boundary delineation. Dr. Tobe found hydric soils and wetland plants dominating the area. The wetland delineation boundary was determined by the continual interpretation of vegetation, soils, and hydrologic indicators. As a result of his inspection and wetland boundary delineation, Dr. Tobe concluded that unpermitted fill had been placed within the surface waters of the State and in lacustrine wetland. Thereafter on July 18, 2002, DEP sent Maddan a Warning Letter (DF-SO-46-022) requesting that Maddan cease dredging, filling or construction activities at Lake Blake without obtaining a permit. Subsequent to DEP's sending Maddan the Warning Letter of July 18, 2002, Stacy Owens visited the Lake Blake site on numerous occasions beginning in October of 2002, and continuing through July of 2003. On most of these site visits, Ms. Owens observed water flowing from Lake Blake through the Lewis Street culvert. Ms. Owens documented water flowing from Lake Blake through the Lewis Street culvert on October 29, 2002, November 5, 2002, May 20, 2003, June 20, 2003, June 23, 2003, June 27, 2003, and July 8, 2003. The area was not experiencing abnormally excessive rainfall events at the times that Ms. Owens documented the water flowing from Lake Blake into the Lewis Street culvert. Maddan testified that in his personal observation over many years, Lake Blake generally discharges excess stormwater into the Lewis Street culvert only as a result from a significant rainfall event. Lake Blake discharges water into the Lewis Street culvert at regular intervals. Such discharged water from Lake Blake ultimately is conveyed through the Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system and released into the surface waters of Cinco Bayou, a water body of the State of Florida. The Okaloosa County stormwater drainage system connecting Lake Blake to Cinco Bayou is a series of excavated water bodies. Lake Blake is connected to the surface waters of Cinco Bayou and regularly exchanges water with Cinco Bayou. Exemptions from DEP's Jurisdiction To assert dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction over this property, not only must Lake Blake be connected to the waters of the State, but the property must not be otherwise exempt from dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction under either statute or rule. On August 29, 2002, under the authority of the Corporation, Maddan filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP requesting an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction under Rule Chapter 17- 312, re-codified as Rule Chapter 62-312. Rule 62-312.050, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the recognized exemptions to DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction. Respondents primarily rely on Rule 62-312.050(4), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[n]o permit under this chapter shall be required for dredging or filling in waters which are contained in those artificially constructed stormwater treatment and conveyance systems designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment and that are regulated by the Department or the water management district." Lake Blake, however, is the result of excavations in a borrow pit. Because of surrounding development, Lake Blake receives stormwater runoff; however, the lake was not "designed solely for the purpose of stormwater treatment," and cannot therefore qualify for this exemption. Respondents also cite Rule 62-312.050(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, which provides an exemption for the "construction of seawalls or riprap, including only that backfilling needed to level land behind the seawalls or riprap, in artificially created waterways where such construction will not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation or adversely affect flood control." Even assuming that the filling of the finger of Lake Blake meets the test of construction of a seawall, there is no evidence that such filling of Lake Blake was ever subjected to appropriate water quality tests, much less meeting such water quality tests as well as the other requirements of this exemption. In addition to the exemptions established by Rule 62- 312.050, Respondents cite statutory exemptions. The definition of "waters" which are regulated under Chapter 403, as set forth in Section 403.031(13), provides in pertinent part that "[w]aters owned entirely by one person other than the state are included only in regard to possible discharge on other property or water." Although Lake Blake is owned entirely by one person, this provision does not exempt Lake Blake because of not only its "possible discharge" but because of its actual discharge on the surface waters of Cinco Bayou. Respondents also cite Section 403.812, which provides that "[t]he department shall not require dredge and fill permits for stormwater management systems where such systems are located landward of the point of connection to waters of the state and are designed, constructed operated and maintained for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation, or irrigation." Although Lake Blake at least since 1976 has been utilized as part of Okaloosa County's stormwater drainage system, which is located landward of Cinco Bayou, it was not designed or constructed for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation or irrigation, and it is not being operated or maintained for stormwater treatment, flood attenuation or irrigation. Lake Blake does not qualify for an exemption from DEP's dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction.
