The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Dog Island Company, is entitled to the grant of a default permit from the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, premised upon a violation on the part of the Respondent of the conditions of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, for the alleged failure on the part of the Respondent to respond to the application within the prescribed period of time in the above referenced section, thereby entitling the Petitioner to the grant of the requested permit without further justification on its part. Whether or not on the facts and evidence in this cause, the Petitioner, Dog Island Company, is entitled to the requested permit, which is the subject of this controversy.
Findings Of Fact This case concerns the application of Dog Island Company, Petitioner, to excavate a canal on Dog Island, a barrier island off the coast of Florida. This canal would be approximately 825 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 4 feet deep. At present the canal is partially completed. The initial application permit filed with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, was made on December 10, 1976, and the terms and conditions of that application may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. This application is by the "short-form" method; however, it was later determined that the application needed to be filed on the "long form," in view of the amount of material to be dredged and filled. Consequently, on June 6, 1977, the Petitioner filed its reapplication and that reapplication may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9 admitted into evidence. The Petitioner by its action raises two points. The first point considers the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent must issue a default permit to the Petitioner in view of the Respondent's alleged violation of the conditions of Section 120.60(2) Florida Statutes. More particularly, the Petitioner asserts that the Respondent violated the conditions of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, when it, the Respondent, stated to the Petitioner that the Petitioner must fulfill the requirements of Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, as a necessary prerequisite to the granting of an application for a dredge and fill permit. The second point of the petition is a prayer that the permit he granted on the merits of the request, if it is determined that the Petitioner is not entitled to a default permit. Turning to a consideration of the initial point raised by the petition, it may be further categorized as one, a general attack on the Respondent's treatment of the Petitioner's application and reapplication permit, in the context of the requirements of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes; and, two, the Respondent's alleged disallowance of the permit premised upon the belief that Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, would not allow the permit to be granted until the conditions of that portion of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, had been complied with. The questioned provision of Chapter 120, i.e., Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part: 120.60 Licensing.- * * * (2) When an application for a license is made as required by law, the agency shall conduct the proceedings required with reason- able dispatch and with due regard to the rights and privileges of all affected parties or aggrieved persons. Within 30 days after receipt of an application for a license, the agency shall examine the appli- cation, notify the applicant of any apparent errors or omissions, and request any addi- tional information the agency is permitted by law to require. Failure to correct an error or omission or to supply additional information shall not be grounds for denial of the license unless the agency timely notified the applicant within this 30-day period. The agency shall notify the applicant if the activity for which he seeks a license is exempt from the licensing requirement and return any tendered application fee within 30 days after receipt of the original appli- cation or within 10 days after receipt of the timely requested additional information or correction of errors or omissions. Every application for license shall be approved or denied within 90 days after receipt of the original application or receipt of the timely requested additional information or correction of errors or omissions. . . . By its argument herein, the Petitioner is convinced that the Respondent failed to notify the Petitioner within thirty (30) days after receipt of the initial application, of any apparent errors or omissions or to request any additional information the agency is permitted by law to require, again within the thirty (30) day period. This has a direct bearing in the mind of the Petitioner on the effective date of the license permit approval or denial, in relationship to the requirement that the license/permit be granted within ninety (90) days after the receipt of the original permit or receipt of the timely requested additional information or correction of errors or omissions. Factually, we have the initial application of the Petitioner which was filed on December 10, 1976, and received that same date. This was responded to by two items of correspondence. One, dated January 6, 1976, from the Panama City District Office of the Respondent, that being reflected in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence; and a second exhibit, which is a January 10, 1977, correspondence from the central office of the Respondent, this item being found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 notifies the Petitioner that his application is on the wrong form. The proper form should have been the "long form." (The initial application had been submitted on the "short form.") Therefore, on that basis alone, the ninety day requirement for issuance of the application was tolled. Subsequent to being informed by the Respondent that the application must be filed on the "long form," the Petitioner hired the firm of Barrett, Daffin and Figg, Architects, Engineers, Planners, Inc., to assist in the formulation of a reapplication. This document was filed June 6, 1977, and in the body of the document it is represented that this matter is a reapplication. A copy of this reapplication started the thirty-day clock for the Respondent to notify the applicant of apparent errors or omissions and request additional information permitted by the law, and it ran from June 6, 1977. The additional effect of the reapplication was to start a new ninety-day clock for approving or denying the permit and this clock was running from June 6, 1977, or from receipt of the timely requested additional information or correction of errors or omissions. On July 11, 1977, an employee of the Respondent filed what purports to be additional requests for information addressed to the Petitioner. The contents of this request may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 and Respondent's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. This request is clearly outside the thirty day limitation set forth in Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, pertaining to the right of an agency to request additional information founded upon any apparent errors or omissions on behalf of the Petitioner, or any additional information the Respondent is permitted by law to require. Nonetheless, the Petitioner met with the Respondent to address the questions raised by the July 11, 1977, correspondence. This meeting was held on July 21, 1977, and out of this meeting the Petitioner, through its agent, responded in writing to the completeness summary of July 11, 1977. This response was dated July 25, 1977, and may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14 admitted into evidence. These responses were acknowledged by the Respondent on a copy of its July 11, 1977, completeness summary, this being Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. These acknowledgments show the date, July 26, 1977, and create the requirement on the part of the Respondent that it approve or deny the application within ninety days of the date of July 26, 1977. Within ninety days of that date, specifically on October 14, 1977, the Respondent issued the letter of intent to deny the permit; a copy of this letter of intent to deny may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. By its actions of responding to the July 11, 1977, completeness summary, the Petitioner has acquiesced in the right of the Respondent to make such request, notwithstanding the fact that the request had been made thirty days after the June 6, 1977, reapplication had been filed. The October 14, 1977, letter of intent to deny the permit application was timely and no default permit should be issued under the terms and conditions of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner raises the additional point that Respondent was denying the permit application solely on the basis of the Respondent's contention that Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, had not been complied with. This impression on the part of the Petitioner came about after it had requested issuance of a default permit on November 17, 1977, under the belief that Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, required the permit to be issued. The Respondent, in the person of its secretary, issued a letter of November 29, 1977, in which document the secretary states that the permit cannot be granted because Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, has not been complied with in that proof of payment for state- owned dredge material is not reflected. Section 253.77, Florida Statutes, has the following language: 253.77 State lands; state agency authoriza- tion for use prohibited without consent of agency in which title vested.- No department, including any division, bureau, section, or other subdivision thereof, or any other agency of the state possessing regulatory powers involving the issuance of permits shall issue any permit, license, or other evidence of authority involving the use of sovereignty or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under chapter 253, until the applicant for such permit, license, or other evidence of permission shall have received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, ease- ment, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use and exhibited it to such agency or department or subdivision thereof having regulatory power to permit such use. This act shall not apply to any permit, license, or other form of consent to take the regulated action which gas issued and outstanding on June 23, 1976. It can be seen by an examination of that section that it does not require payment for state-owned dredge material. It simply requires that the applicant have permission of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, in the person of the Department of Natural Resources. Moreover, there are no regulations existing which require that proof of payment be a precondition to any issuance of a dredge and fill permit by the Respondent. Nevertheless, the October 14, 1977, letter of intent to deny was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, and obviated the necessity to Issue a dredge and fill permit on a default basis. The issue in this cause should therefore be considered on its merits, and if the Petitioner prevails on the merits, then the permit should be granted conditioned upon the necessary approval of the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, on the question of payment for the fill material. This opinion is held because an examination of all the testimony and other items of evidence in this case leads to the conclusion that the land waterward of the mean high water line, at the mouth of the proposed canal, belongs to the State of Florida. (The land above the mean high water line at the site of the proposed canal is land which is owned by the Petitioner.) What then is the determination to be reached on the merits? The initial question that should be addressed on the issue of the merits of the case, is the question of what class of waters is found in the St. George Sound, which is the body of water that is fronted by the mouth of the proposed canal. The argument between the parties is on the issue of whether the waters are Class II or Class III waters. The significance of the difference between the classification is the fact that Class II waters require a more careful consideration of the environmental issues, as stated in Rule 17-4.28(8), Florida Administrative Code. The parties offered certain maps for consideration on the question of whether the waters were in fact Class II or Class III. These maps may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 23, and Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 13 and 15 admitted into evidence. The real question, however, is whether or not the area in dispute meets the criteria for classification as a Class II body of water. That criteria pertains to the inquiry whether the site, either actually or potentially, has the capability of supporting recreational commercial shellfish propagation and harvesting. From the testimony offered in the course of the hearing, it is evident that the eventuality and potential does exist as outlined in Rule 17-3.08, Florida Administrative Code. It exists because of the existence of fish, oysters and shrimp in the immediate vicinity of the proposed canal. As a consequence, the Petitioner must have a plan of procedure which adequately protects the project area and areas in the vicinity of the project from significant damage of the site as a source of commercial or recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shellfish. This particular requirement for dealing with Class II waters only has importance because it creates a responsibility on the part of the applicant to adequately address the question of the marine life for the reasons stated above. In fact, the Petitioner has offered its explanation of how it intends to protect the marine life in these Class II waters at a time when the project is being constructed and subsequent to the construction. However, this effort at explanation of its protection of the shellfish and other related marine life found in the Class II waters is not convincing. If the canal is completed, certain forms of marsh grasses and attendant habitat will be removed, thus interfering with the function of the detrital food chain and associated food webs which are found near the proposed open end of the canal. This would result in the diminution of the marine resources. This can be seen by an examination of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 16, which is a series of photographs of the area and part of the Respondent's Exhibit No. 1, which contain further photographs of the area. Both of these sets of photographs have been admitted into evidence. Effectively, what exists at the site is a marsh area at the end of the canal nearest the sound, and a type of pond at the closed end of the canal. Furthermore, the removal of this marsh area will have no positive benefit to the public at large. This can be seen by a comparison of the proposed canal and an existing canal which is located in the immediate vicinity. There is a marked similarity between the length, width and depth of the proposed canal and the existing canal. In addition, the existing canal is a dead-end canal. In the existing canal, there is a substantial buildup of anaerobic muck at the closed end of the canal due to poor circulation and flushing by action of the tides. The water quality in the existing canal is also very poor in the measure of the dissolved oxygen count and this condition is not conducive to the survival of marine live. Although there is a worse condition, when speaking of anaerobic muck, that has built up in the proposed canal due to less circulation, there is no reason to believe that there will be any positive flushing effect to the proposed canal by completing the proposed canal and removing the marsh area. There is also a legitimate concern of possible salt water intrusion into the fresh water lens which serves as a potable water supply for residents of the island. Additionally, the experience in the existing canal has shown a development of shoaling at the open end of the existing canal and it is reasonable to expect the same type of effect in the proposed canal. This would further diminish the flushing of the waters in the canal and cause an unsatisfactory concentration of dissolved oxygen, bringing about problems such as the anaerobic muck and resulting difficulty for marine life. For the reasons stated above, the Respondent is justified in denying the reapplication for permit made by the Petitioner to excavate a dead-end canal of 825 feet long and 85 to 90 feet wide by 4 feet deep at the mean low water mark. The Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law submitted by the parties have been examined, and where appropriate have been incorporated in this order. Those that do not comport with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the undersigned are rejected.
Recommendation It is recommended that the application for permit to excavate a dead-end canal as set forth in the reapplication of the Petitioner be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel S. Dearing, Esquire 424 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Application No. 75-00196 is a request by the Standard Sand and Silica Company, for a consumptive water use permit. This application is for an existing use involving withdrawal from one well. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 1.6925 million gallons per day and a maximum daily withdrawal of 2.16 million gallons per day. The sought-for withdrawal will not exceed the water crop as defined by the district, with the withdrawal consumptively using only 35 percent of the water crop. The water will be used on site for the washing of sand. Mr. Clifton W. Golden is an adjacent landowner who testified that he was afraid of salt water intrusion and that a sink hole might develop because of the vast quantities of water taken from the aquifer by the applicant. He does not feel that the issuance of a permit would be consistent with the public interest. He presented no hydrological data showing that issuance of the permit would adversely affect his property. Mary Fausteen Thompson is a property owner adjacent to the site from which the water will be taken. She has had problems in the past with Standard Sand and Silica Company apparently discharging excess water on to her property. She thinks those problems may be occurring again, causing some of her property to be flooded. The sought-for consumptive use will not significantly induce salt water intrusion. Except as otherwise noted in the findings of fact, none of the conditions set forth in Subsection 16J-2.11(2), (3) or (4), F.A.C., will be violated. Several letters of objections have been received in addition to the objectors noted above. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of the subject permit in the amounts requested with the following conditions: That no off-site runoff be permitted by the applicant. That flowmeters be placed on the well and quarterly reports made to the district.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that Application No. 75-00196 be granted with the conditions set forth in paragraph 7 above. ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Eugene W. Harris Standard Sand and Silica Co. P.O. Box 35 Davenport, Florida 33837 Mrs. Mary Fausteen Thompson Box 82-C, Evans Road Polk City, Florida Mr. Clifton W. Golden 800 Oriole Drive Virginia Beach, Florida 23451 Mr. John C. Jones Executive Director Florida Wildlife Federation 4080 North Haverhill Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33407
Findings Of Fact The Dunes Golf and Country Club, Sanibel, is a partnership owned by John K. Kontinos and William R. Frizzell. They operate a nine hole golf course consisting of 65 acres of the eastern portion of Sanibel Island. The golf course is open to the public and, during the winter season, some 150 to 175 persons utilize the facility daily, but in the period May--November, it is utilized by only about 15 or 20 persons per day. The golf course is presently irrigated by water obtained from the lower Hawthorn and Suwannee aquifers through a well that is approximately 737 feet deep. On the days that water is pumped from the well, the pumping duration is from 8 to 12 hours per day, but the monthly hours during which pumping occurs averages approximately 155 hours per month. There is another existing well in another portion of the applicant's property which extends 896 feet into the Suwannee aquifer. The well presently in use (well number 1) has 546 feet of casing and the well that is not in use (well number 2) has 700 feet of casing. (Testimony of Kontinos, Exhibits 2, 4) On December 15, 1977, the Dunes Golf and Country Club submitted an application to the South Florida Water Management District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw 320 acre feet of groundwater per year to irrigate an area of approximately 109 acres. The intent of the application was to obtain a sufficient quantity of water to irrigate the golf course which the applicant intends to enlarge to consist of 18 holes. The additional 9 holes would cover some 44 acres and well number 2 is intended to be activated to provide additional water for this purpose. (Testimony of Kontinos, Keiling, Exhibits 1- 2) The South Florida Water Management District issued the required public notice of the application on March 30, 1978, and objections to the application were received by that agency from the City Council of Sanibel, the Island Water Association, Inc., and George R. Campbell. Public notice of hearing on the application was duly published on March 30, 1978. (Exhibits 5-7) The staff of the South Florida Water Management District reviewed the application and recommended continuation of the applicant's existing use from the lower Hawthorn Formation and use of additional irrigation water from the Suwannee aquifer in the total amount of 320 acre feet annually. It also recommended that the issuance of a permit should be conditioned in various respects to include semiannual submission of water quality data and pumpage records for each well, installation and maintenance of well controls, and repair or replacement of well casings, valves or controls that leak or become inoperative. The staff further recommended that maximum monthly withdrawals from the lower Hawthorn Formation be limited to 7.5 million gallons and 7.6 million gallons from the Suwannee Formation. At the hearing however, the South Florida Water Management District representative changed these recommendations to 8.9 MO and 6.1 MG respectively. Additionally, the initial recommendation of 320 acre feet annual withdrawal was reduced to 200 acre feet. This amount is considerably less that the average of 600 acre feet used on other comparably sized golf courses. Further the staff representative recommended at the hearing that a further condition be attached to the issuance of the permit; i.e., Condition 15, which requires the permittee to submit analyses of total dissolved concentrations in water samples from each well within 30 days of permit issuance and, if such concentration exceeds 4,000 MG/L, logging procedures as to the affected well will be required with necessary safeguards to be employed to eliminate any interaquifer leakage. (Testimony of Gleason, Exhibit 4) The objections of the City of Sanibel and the Island Water Association, Inc. involved concerns that further withdrawals from the lower Hawthorn aquifer will affect the availability of water which is treated by the water association for general island use. In addition, there is concern about possible contamination of the lower Hawthorn aquifer from interaquifer leakage. The Water Association is a member-owned cooperative that is not under the jurisdiction of the municipality. It is concerned about the draw down in the water table which will be occasioned by additional withdrawals by the applicant. It therefore believes that pumping tests should be conducted prior to the issuance of a permit to provide information concerning the capacity and safe yield of the wells. Although an Association expert testified that the proposed Dunes' withdrawal would create a cone of depression that would extend into and influence the existing Water Association wells, the evidence shows such influence to be minimal due to the fact that the Dunes wells are almost three miles away from the nearest Association well. Further, due to the limited time that the Dunes wells are pumped each day, the aquifer recovers to a certain extent during other hours. Although concerns are felt by the Water Association that water quality will be affected because of leakage from the Suwannee aquifer to the lower Hawthorn aquifer due to possible corrosion of steel casings in the Dunes wells, no evidence was presented that such casings are in fact defective and will contribute to degradation of water quality because of additional withdrawals. The additional special condition placed upon the issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District will require correction of any such leakage that is discovered in the future. Previous studies show that the lower Hawthorn aquifer is separated from the Suwannee aquifer by the Tampa Limestone Formation which would slow down any entry of poorer quality water into the Hawthorn aquifer. It is found that the lesser amounts of water recommended by the South Florida Water Management District at the hearing will further reduce the likelihood of water quality degradation or draw down in other Island wells. (Testimony of Butler, Holland, Nuzman, Gleason, Exhibits 6, 8-13) Ecological concerns were expressed at the hearing by a public witness as to the wastefulness of irrigating golf coup Yes and the requirement for fertilizer in sandy soil which causes leaching of nutrients after heavy water use. (Testimony of Webb)
Recommendation That a permit be issued to the applicant authorizing the consumptive use of the quantity of water recommended by the South Florida Water Management District staff, subject to the recommended conditions thereto. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Wheeler Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 James D. Decker, Esquire Post Office Box 200 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, my observation of the witnesses and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: On November 17, 1988, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to fill submerged areas waterward of the mean high water line abutting certain property Petitioner owns on Big Pine Key. Petitioner also proposed to place a riprap revetment over seagrass in the submerged area, and pilings for a stilted structure in the submerged areas. Petitioner purchased the lot in question on September 8, 1988. There is no habitable structure currently on the property and Petitioner wishes to build a cottage on the lot. The intended purpose of the filling is to enlarge the existing lot so that Petitioner will have adequate area to build a cottage upon, and to stop any erosion that might be occurring. The area to be filled is within the Florida Keys Special Waters, and is classified as Outstanding Florida Water by the Department of Environmental Regulation pursuant to Rule 17.3041(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The area is located within the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge. The area proposed to be filled is further classified as Class III Waters. Although Petitioner contends that he is simply trying to reclaim a portion of his lot which has eroded, the evidence of erosion was very slight and only found in a small area where the property adjoins the vertical seawall of the adjacent property. This particular section is very different from the rest of the shoreline. There is not much vegetation in this area. Aerial photography taken of the property in 1959 and 1972 demonstrates that there has been not been a significant change in the size of the lot in the last thirty years. This conclusion is supported by the physical evidence at the property site. Petitioner has not affirmatively demonstrated that vegetative stabilization would not prevent any erosion that might be occurring. Along the shoreline of the area to be filled are buttonwoods and sea daisy and mangrove seedlings. The submerged area proposed to be filled is very diverse and productive. It includes seagrasses, several types of algae, several macroinvertibrates, and forage fish. The area to be filled is currently very healthy and there are no signs of heavy boat usage in the area. The algae that exists in the area proposed to be filled serves as a food source for fish, and as a helpful filter of floating particles. The dense, constant growth of seagrass in this area provides food for fish, stabilizes sediments, absorbs pollutants from the water, and provides shelter to fish. Any filling of this area would result in the direct elimination of dense, healthy seagrass beds. The proposed filling will result in a drop in the diversity of organisms existing in the filled area. This will cause a violation of the DER's standards for biological integrity. The proposed construction and filling is expected to violate the DER's Class III standards for turbidity. By directly eliminating an area of productive habitat, this project would adversely affect fish and other aquatic wildlife. The loss of the algae and seagrass vegetation will lead to a decrease in fishery production and marine productivity. The filling proposal does not include any measures designed to mitigate for or offset these expected adverse impacts. The residential structure proposed to be built over the fill is expected to cause additional adverse environmental impacts due to nutrient input from the residence.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an environmental resource permit for a surface water management system and the alteration of a wetland in connection with the construction of two warehouses, paved parking and loading areas, a detention pond, and enhancement of the remainder of the existing wetland. If not otherwise entitled to the permit, an additional issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to the permit through an exemption, waiver, or variance from the standard requirements for mitigation.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner Carlos M. Beruff, as Trustee under Florida Land Trust No. 22 dated March 30, 1989 (Petitioner), purchased 85 acres of land in Manatee County for $1.2 million in May 1989. (All acreages are approximate.) The east boundary of the 85-acre parcel consists of about 1700 feet of frontage along U.S. Route 301. One month after the purchase, Petitioner sold 70 of the 85 acres for $1.6 million. In the intervening month, Petitioner incurred no significant expenses for development or marketing, although the development and marketing expertise of Carlos Beruff facilitated the $1.6 million sale. The 70 acres that were sold included the frontage on U.S. Route 301. The 15 acres remaining after the sale comprise two tracts of 9 and 5.88 acres. In these cases, Petitioner seeks an environmental resource permit (ERP) for activities involving the 5.88-acre parcel (Site). The 9-acre parcel occupies the northwest corner of the 85-acre parcel. The Site, which was platted in 1911, is the only noncontiguous land constituting the 85-acre parcel; it is 450 feet south of the remainder of the 85-acre parcel. The sole parcel between the Site and the remainder of the 85- acre parcel was originally owned by Lowe's and is now owned by Cheetah Technologies (Cheetah Parcel). The 5.88-acre Site is subject to a road right-of-way of 0.32 acres in favor of the Cheetah Parcel. Of the remaining 5.56 acres, 4.66 acres are wetland and 0.9 acres are upland. The 0.9 acres of upland are subject to an access easement of 0.42 acres, also in favor of the Cheetah Parcel, so the net available upland acreage is only 0.48 acres. The Cheetah Parcel occupies the northwest corner of U.S. Route 301 and Saunders Road (also known as 63rd Avenue East). The Site is immediately west and south of the Cheetah Parcel and occupies the northeast corner of Saunders Road and 24th Street East (also known as Arlin Road). The Site is about 530 feet west of the intersection of U.S. Route 301 and Saunders Road. U.S. Route 301 is a major arterial, and Saunders Road is at least a major collector road. The Site contains about 600 feet of frontage along Saunders Road and 465 feet of frontage along 24th Street East. The Site is in unincorporated Manatee County roughly midway between downtown Bradenton and downtown Sarasota. Saunders Road crosses a north-south railroad line approximately one-half mile west of the Site and Bowlees Creek about 650 feet west of the railroad track. The 9-acre parcel still owned by Petitioner is about 350 feet north-south by 1250 feet east-west. The western boundary of the 9-acre parcel runs along the east side of the railroad line. Like the other parcels involved in this case, the 9-acre parcel drains into Bowlees Creek. The Site is in an area characterized by industrial land uses, including warehouses, a junkyard, an industrial center, and a bakery. A halfway house for persons recently released from prison is located one-quarter mile to the west of the Site. The Site is zoned HM (heavy manufacturing), which is a limited, and thus valuable, zoning category in Manatee County. Respondent has issued three relatively recent surface water management permits that are relevant to these cases: a 1986 permit for the development of the Cheetah Parcel (Cheetah Permit), a 1988 permit for the widening of Saunders Road from two to four lanes (Saunders Road Permit), and a 1989 permit for the construction of a commercial park north of the Site known as 301 Park of Commerce (301 Permit). Bowlees Creek runs from north to south, emptying into Sarasota Bay across from Longboat Key. Sarasota Bay is an Outstanding Florida Water. Bowlees Creek drains a nine square-mile basin, which is about 21-25 percent developed. The Bowlees Creek basin is an open drainage basin. Due to flooding problems, Manatee County has imposed special limitations upon development within the Bowlees Creek basin. Among these limitations is that the rate of post- development runoff must be less than the rate of pre- development runoff--up to 50 percent less, according to expert witnesses for both sides (Lawrence Weber, Tr. Vol. III, pp. 118-19; and Daryl Flatt, Tr. Vol. IV, p. 230). By stipulation, the Site is at the extreme eastern end of the Bowlees Creek basin. In fact, the Site may have historically drained into Bowlees Creek and will drain into Bowlees Creek after, as described below, the northwest window is added to the surface water management system. In 1993 or 1994, Petitioner began the process of developing the Site following the sale five years earlier of the larger 70-acre parcel. Mr. Beruff has been in the development business for 20 years. His career began in 1980 when Mr. Beruff became an employee for U.S. Homes and Modern Builders; he became self-employed in 1984. Mr. Beruff has developed seven commercial and ten residential developments. Application Process Deciding to pursue warehouse development for the Site, Petitioner initiated the development process by hiring an engineer and environmental consultant. With the assistance of these consultants, Petitioner prepared its application for an ERP. By application dated October 9, 1998, and filed November 13, 1998, Petitioner requested that Respondent issue an individual ERP for the construction on the Site of a surface water management system in connection with the construction of two warehouse buildings, paved parking and loading areas, and a detention pond, as well as the enhancement of the remainder of the existing wetland (Application). The Application states that the total building, parking, and loading areas would be 58,026 square feet and that wetlands constitute 3.37 acres of the 5.88-acre Site. The site plan attached to the Application shows a "wetland preservation & enhancement" area of 1.592 acres at the north end of the Site. To the south, toward Saunders Road, are two buildings with paved parking and loading areas. On the southwest corner is a "stormwater treatment & attenuation" area. After several discussions with Respondent's staff, Petitioner modified the proposed development. In its latest revision, the footprint of the proposed development would occupy 2.834 acres of wetland, leaving 1.826 acres of wetland. On November 13, 1998, Petitioner filed a Petition for Exemption, Waiver or Variance as to Mitigation Requirements, seeking an exemption, waiver, or variance from all laws requiring offsite mitigation or additional onsite mitigation for the portion of the wetland that would be destroyed by the proposed development. Drainage At present, the Site receives runoff from a total of 27 acres. The offsite contributors of runoff are the Cheetah Parcel and a segment of Saunders Road east of 21st Street East. These locations have drained into the Site for hundreds of years. In general, drainage raises two distinct issues: water quality and water quantity. For an open drainage basin, the issue of water quantity expresses itself primarily in runoff discharge rate, although historic basin storage is also an issue. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the Respondent's Basis of Review identifies different storm events to which applicants must design different components of surface water management systems. For water quantity, the system may release no more than the permitted discharge rate in the design storm, which is the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. At present, the design storm would produce about eight inches of rain, although the same design storm, due to a different model or modeling assumptions, produced 9.5 inches of rain at the time of the issuance of the permit for the Cheetah Parcel. (The practical effect of this change in the calculation of the design storm is that the quantitative capacity of the surface water management system of the Cheetah Parcel is nearly 20 percent greater than would be required today.) For water quality, the system must capture the first inch of runoff (sometimes only the first half-inch of runoff, depending on the type of system and receiving waterbody). In contrast to the relatively infrequent 25-year storm, approximately 90 percent of the storms in Respondent's jurisdiction produce no more than one inch of runoff. The underlying premise is that the first inch of runoff contains nearly all of the contaminants that will be flushed from impervious surfaces. The Cheetah surface water management system features a wetland and a retention pond along the north property line of the Site. The Cheetah pond and wetland attenuate runoff before allowing it to drain south onto the Site. The Cheetah surface water management system also includes a swale running north along 24th Street East to take runoff eventually to Bowlees Creek. The Saunders Road surface water management system discharging onto the Site consists largely of an underground, offline storage and attenuation system that stores excess runoff, as compared to pre-development rates, in lateral pipes off a weir. Nothing in the record suggests that the surface water management systems authorized by the Cheetah Permit or the Saunders Road Permit fail to provide reasonable assurance that the discharged runoff is of satisfactory water quality. Following their respective permits in 1986 and 1988, respectively, the rates of discharge of runoff from the Cheetah Parcel and Saunders Road were no greater post- development than they had been pre-development. The Cheetah Parcel post-development and pre-development discharge rates were both 10.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Saunders Road post-development and pre-development discharge rates were both 32.4 cfs. In issuing the 301 Permit, Respondent authorized the construction of a drainage system that would take runoff north along 24th Street East and then west, eventually emptying into Bowlees Creek. Conforming to the previous drainage system, the new system replaced an open ditch with underground stormwater pipes. Of particular relevance to the Site, two prominent features of the system authorized by the 301 Permit were windows in the vicinity of the southwest and northwest corners of the Site (Southwest Window and Northwest Window). A window is an opening in the wall of a hardened structure whose purpose includes drainage. The opening is constructed at a certain elevation and a certain size to allow specified volumes or rates of water to pass into the structure and then offsite. The 301 Permit authorized the construction of a swale along the southwest corner of the Site to direct runoff discharging from the Saunders Road system into the Southwest Window. This swale has been construed. However, several problems have precluded the construction of the Southwest Window, probably permanently. The most serious problem, from an engineering perspective, is the failure to lay the stormwater pipe along 24th Street East at the proper depth. The stormwater pipe was erroneously installed at an elevation of 15.32 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), and the Southwest Window was to have been cut at a control elevation of 14.75 feet NGVD. The discharge elevation of the Saunders Road outlet precludes raising the control elevation of the Southwest Window sufficiently to allow gravity drainage into the stormwater pipe. Exacerbating the discrepancy among the as-built elevations of the three structures is what appears to be a design problem belatedly recognized by Respondent. Respondent is justifiably concerned that the Southwest Window, at a control elevation of 14.75 feet NGVD, would draw down the water elevation of the Site's wetland, which is at a wet season elevation of 16.5 feet NGVD (now actually 17 feet NGVD, possibly due to the absence of the Southwest Window). A third problem with the Southwest Window is that the southwest corner of the Site was not historically a point of discharge, so the Southwest Window would deprive the Site's wetland of runoff. Fortunately, neither the Southwest nor the Northwest Window is essential for the proper operation of the surface water management system of 301 Park of Commerce, which largely depends on a series of lakes for treatment and attenuation. The Northwest Window was to be at elevation 16.5 feet NGVD, and its construction would provide needed drainage for the Site. In general, the Northwest Window does not raise the same concerns as does the Southwest Window. The Northwest Window is in the vicinity of the historic point of discharge for the Site and replaces a ditch permitted for the Cheetah Parcel to take runoff north along 24th Street East. The Northwest Window would also alleviate a standing-water problem at the northwest corner of the Site. However, Manatee County, which controls the right- of-way on which the Northwest Window is located and is responsible for its construction and maintenance, has discovered that it lacks a sufficient property interest to access the Northwest Window. The County has since initiated the process by which it can obtain the necessary interest, and, once completed, the County will cut the Northwest Window into the existing structure. Due to the role of the Northwest Window in draining the runoff in the area, including the Site, the Application reincorporates the Northwest Window, as it should have been constructed pursuant to the 301 Permit. Although the Cheetah and Saunders Road permits resulted in greater runoff volume entering the Site, more importantly to area drainage, these permits did not result in greater runoff rates and or in a deterioration in runoff water quality. Likewise, the failure to construct the Southwest Window and Northwest Window is not especially relevant to area drainage, nor is the likely inability ever to construct the Southwest Window. Far more important to area drainage is the fact that Petitioner proposes that the Site, post-development, would produce a runoff rate of 10.6 cfs, as compared to a pre-development runoff rate of 7 cfs. A serious adverse impact to area drainage, the proposed activity increases the runoff rate by 50 percent in a floodprone, 80-percent builtout basin--a basin of such sensitivity that Manatee County is imposing a post-development requirement of substantially reduced runoff rates. The cumulative impacts of the proposed development, together with existing developments, would be to cause substantial flooding of the Bowlees Creek basin. Petitioner's expert attempted to show that the runoff from the Site, which is at the extreme eastern end of the Bowlees Creek basin, would be delayed sufficiently so as not to exacerbate flooding. Respondent's expert thoroughly discredited this testimony due, among other things, to its reliance upon obsolete data and an unrealistic limitation upon the assumption of the direction of travel of storms. Similarly, Petitioner failed to prove that the authorized discharge rate for the 301 Permit is 42 cfs. This assertion is most succinctly, though not exclusively, rebutted by the fact that the 42-inch pipe can only accommodate 18 cfs. Even if the 42-inch pipe could accommodate a substantially greater runoff rate, Petitioner's expert would have erroneously inferred a permitted discharge rate from this increased capacity without negating the possibility that other structures in the 301 surface water management system effectively reduced the rate or that oversized structures existed to accommodate higher runoff rates in storms greater than the design storm. In addition to increasing the runoff rate by 50 percent, Petitioner's proposal would also reduce the historic basin storage by over 40 percent. Displaced basin storage moves downstream, increasing flood levels from fixed storm events. At present, the Site provides 8.68 acre-feet of historic basin storage. The Application proposes to replace this storage with storage in the wetland and retention pond totaling only 4.9 acre-feet. The loss of 3.8 acre-feet of basin storage means that this additional volume of water would, post-development, travel down Bowlees Creek. A final drainage deficiency in Petitioner's proposal arises out of a berm's proposed outside of the Northwest Window. A one-foot bust in the survey of Petitioner's expert would have resulted in this berm preventing runoff from entering the Site from the Cheetah Parcel, as runoff presently does. Respondent's expert suggested several possible alternatives that might result in a permittable project with respect to post-development runoff rates (the record is silent as to the effect of these alternatives upon historic basin storage, although it would seem that they would add storage). Reducing the area of destroyed wetlands to one acre would probably reduce the excess of post-development runoff rate to 1-2 cfs. Petitioner could then obtain offsetting attenuation through a variety of means, such as by obtaining an easement to use the wetland on the Cheetah Parcel, constructing an attenuation pond on the 9-acre parcel, or constructing underground vaults in the filled area of the wetland on the Site. Wetlands Except for the road right-of-way, the Site is undeveloped and forested. The presence of 25-year-old red maples militates against attributing the transition from an herbaceous to a forested wetland to the failure to install the Northwest and Southwest windows. More likely, this transition to the sub-climax species of red maple and willow (in the absence of a cypress source) is due to the repression of fire on the Site. Experts for the opposing sides differed sharply in their biological assessments of the wetland. Petitioner's expert described a stressed wetland whose impenetrable thicket provided habitat only to a lone rat and swarm of mosquitoes. Respondent's expert described a robust wetland featuring a luxuriant overstory of red maple and Carolina willow; an rich understory of ferns, and diverse wildlife ranging from birds in the air (direct evidence); fish, snails, and tadpoles in a small pond (direct evidence); and squirrel and opossum (indirect evidence) scampering (indirect evidence) among the buttonbush, elderberry, and wax myrtle (direct evidence). Undoubtedly, the wetland has been stressed; approximately 30 percent of the wetland vegetation is Brazilian pepper, which is a nuisance exotic. However, the wetland is well hydrated. Issuance of the Cheetah Permit was predicated, in part, upon the rehydration of the wetland on the Site. With the issuance of the Cheetah Permit and especially the Saunders Road Permit, the quality of water entering the wetland has improved by a considerable amount. As already noted, added volumes of runoff are entering the wetland since the issuance of these two permits, although post-development runoff rates are the same as pre-development runoff rates. On balance, the wetland is functioning well in providing habitat and natural drainage functions. Giving due weight to the current condition of the wetland, the enhancement offered by Petitioner does not approach offsetting the loss of wetland area. In return for destroying 2.83 acres of the wetland, Petitioner proposed the enhancement of the remaining 1.83 acres by removing exotic species to no more than 10 percent of the total vegetation. The mitigation is plainly insufficient because of the level of functioning of the entire wetland at present. Additionally, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Brazilian pepper, which is the major nuisance exotic occupying the Site, is evenly distributed; to the contrary, it is present mostly outside the wetland, along a berm just outside of the wetland. The lack of seedlings and old specimens suggests that the Brazilian pepper population may not be stable and may itself be stressed. Petitioner's failure to show that the remaining wetland area has more than 10 percent infestation or is likely to suffer additional infestation further undermines the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation. Respondent has never issued an ERP for a proposed activity involving the alteration of wetlands when the enhancement mitigation ratio is as low as .65:1, as Petitioner proposes. In general, Respondent requires higher mitigation ratios when proposals involve wetlands enhancement, rather than wetlands creation, because the wetlands to be enhanced are already functioning--in these cases, at a relatively high level. Although Petitioner has been unwilling to consider such alternatives, numerous alternatives exist for offsite mitigation or mitigation banking, if insufficient area exists for adequate onsite mitigation. Lastly, Petitioner devoted considerable effort at hearing to portraying Respondent's handling of the Application as flawed and unfair. However, the evidence does not support these assertions. Most strikingly, Respondent's staff treated the drainage windows inconsistently, to the benefit of Petitioner. They treated the Northwest Window as installed for the purpose of calculating the pre-development runoff discharge rate to Bowlees Creek. Until the Northwest Window is installed, the actual rate is even lower. This approach is justifiable because the Northwest Window will be installed at some point. On the other hand, Respondent's staff ignored the higher wetland elevation on the Site, presumably resulting from the absence of the Southwest Window. However, this approach, which benefits Petitioner in calculating wetland drawdown effects, is unjustifiable because the Southwest Window probably will never be installed. Petitioner's specific complaints of unfair treatment are unfounded. For example, Petitioner suggested that Respondent credited Lowe's with wetland acreage for the littoral shelf of its wetland, but did not do so with the wetland on the Site. However, Petitioner produced no evidence of similar slopes between the two shelves, without which comparability of biological function is impossible. Additionally, Petitioner ignored the possibility that, in the intervening 14 years, Respondent may have refined its approach to wetland mitigation. Although occurring at hearing, rather than in the application-review process, Respondent's willingness to enter into the stipulation that the Site presently drains into Bowlees Creek, despite recent data stating otherwise, was eminently fair to Petitioner. Absent this stipulation, Respondent would have been left with the formidable prospect of providing reasonable assurance concerning drainage into the floodprone Bowlees Creek when the post-development rate was 10.6 cfs and the pre-development rate was 0 cfs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny Petitioner's application for an environmental resource permit and for an exemption, variance, or waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE 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 29th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: S. W. Moore Tracey B. Starrett Brigham. Moore, Gaylord, Schuster, Merlin & Tobin, LLP 100 Wallace Avenue, Suite 310 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6043 Mark F. Lapp Jack R. Pepper Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 E. D. "Sonny" Vergara Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Melvin J. Laney is the owner of Rodriguez Key which is located approximately one and one-half miles from Key Largo, Florida, in the Atlantic Ocean. The island consists of about 170 acres and is undeveloped. It is approximately 9/10 of a mile long and 3/10 of a mile wide. By application, dated July 31, 1978, Petitioner requested a permit from Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to conduct specified activities incident to the establishment of a primate breeding and research farm. The proposed activities included the construction of a floating pier, filling a sunken barge which is located 100 feet from the shoreline with coral rock and riprap, constructing two buildings on stilts on the east end of the island, clearing some 8.9 acres of black mangroves to provide trails for the placement and servicing of cages, installation of prepackaged waste treatment units, and temporary cages. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibits 1,8) DER's South Florida branch office personnel reviewed the application and issued an intent to deny the requested permit by letter of March 8, 1979, for the reason that Petitioner had failed to obtain local approval required pursuant to Section 253.124,. F.S., and that violations of State water quality standards could be expected by the proposed project. Further, the notice noted that the project would result in adverse effects to marine productivity and wildlife population contrary to the public interest under Chapter 253. Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing. (Petition, Exhibit 6,8) Petitioner plans to bring rhesus, squirrel, and other research primates into the State for the purpose of establishing a breeding and research farm on Rodriguez Key. The primates would be owned by sponsors who would pay Petitioner to provide housing, care and associated services. The project is designed to meet the needs of researchers for the testing of vaccines and other scientific purposes. There is currently a shortage of primates in this country due to a 1978 embargo on the export of such animals by the government of India who had previously been the primary supplier of research primates. (Testimony of Petitioner, Darrow, Exhibit l) Petitioner intends to fill a partly sunken barge near the northeast shoreline with boulders and riprap, cover it with a concrete floor, and construct a floating pier approximately 130 feet long between the shore and the barge for off-loading of supplies and equipment. The project contemplates the construction of an animal care house and a residence, both to be placed on stilts which will each contain a maximum of 10,000 square feet of space. No filling or dredging is planned for either structure. This is a modification from the original permit application which called for some 3,000 cubic yards of fill at the building site. At the western end of the island, Petitioner plans to install 16 rows of prefabricated cages with 64 cages per row, which represents a total area of approximately 12.48 acres. About 4.16 acres of that area will be cleared or otherwise disrupted to place and connect the cage rows. The cages will be secured and there is little likelihood that the animals will escape. Under a current permit from the Fresh Water Game and Fish Commission, the holding cages must be constructed to withstand hurricanes, surge and wind, and provide adequate protection for the animals during such storms. They must also meet or exceed minimum pen specifications established by the Commission. The permit submitted in evidence expired on June 30, 1981. The cages will be prefabricated and placed on metal pilings which are attached to underground rock. There will be troughs located underneath a grate floor for animal wastes which will be collected and pumped to a sewage disposal system. In order to take supplies, materials, and animals to and from the cage area, Petitioner intends to clear a 20-foot wide perimeter "trail" around the island which would be attached at both ends by lateral similar trails. The total distance of the trails is approximately 9,000 feet. The need for a perimeter trail is to deliver materials on one side of the island, service the animals, and then leave by a different route for the purpose of transporting employees, ill animals, or transporting of any animal that might affect the control area for testing and conducting vaccine research. The perimeter trails are designed to be no closer than 75 feet from a red mangrove fringe border around the island. For transportation purposes, it is proposed to use gasoline powered "all terrain" wheeled vehicles which will traverse the trails along two parallel two-inch diameter cables suspended horizontally 36 to 48 inches above the ground level. The cables will be attached to concrete anchors consisting of four inch by four inch steel tubes which are placed at 100 foot intervals along the trails. The tubes will be either hand-driven into subsurface rock several inches or driven by means of a portable pile driver. The tubes will additionally be supported by a concrete block "dead man" attached to a 5/8-inch cable on either side of the tubes and placed underground. Turning platforms would be placed at trail intersections on top of the cable road so that a vehicle could drive upon the platform and execute a turn to a connecting cable road. The low pressure tread vehicles used to traverse the roads will be equipped with shoes or flanges on the inside of the tire rims to securely ride on the pretensioned cables. They will also have low pressure pneumatic tires. The vehicles will also be used in interior areas where mangroves are not present. They will ride on the ground or upon metal plates. These areas are covered with about 9,000 square feet of batis (saltwort) cover which eventually will be killed by vehicle use. Batis is important for sediment stabilization and its removal can cause siltation problems in waters surrounding the island. The need for a 20-foot swath for the cable road is explained by the fact that transport of the 17-foot cages must be accomplished by placing them sideways on the transporting vehicles in order to install and periodically provide service, repair or replacement. A soil study made in representative areas of Rodriguez Key except the west end shows that coral rock exists at levels of approximately 11 to 15 feet below the ground surface, thus necessitating the use of pilings for support purposes rather than shallow footings. Although no soil borings were taken at the west end of the island, the soil expert is of the opinion that the borings reflect general rock characteristics of the entire island. Petitioner's civil engineer who designed the current cable road system prepared several alternative methods of construction, and is of the opinion that suspension of the cables at a height of 15 feet instead of three to four feet as currently planned would be feasible except for cage servicing purposes. A further alternative that was proposed by Petitioner's engineer expert is to place the cages at the east end of the island and utilize a boardwalk constructed of an eight-foot wide precast concrete slab walkway as a boardwalk for positioning of the cages. Six inch by six inch timber posts would be driven to the hardrock layer for a minimum of ten feet to anchor the Platform. The engineer testified that this alternative would be cost effective if used in lieu of the cable road. Respondent's Environmental Specialist testified that such a modification to concentrate the project on the east end of the island would be recommended because it would eliminate the cable road and its adverse environmental consequences Rodriguez Key is almost completely vegetated by mangroves with a red mangrove fringe around the perimeter and black mangroves on the higher interior areas. Some of the red mangroves are 100 to 150 feet in height and the black mangroves range from 20 to 40 feet high. In the east center of the island is an open area of batis, and red mangroves are located in the center and west end of the island. White mangroves are also present in the south side of the island. Throughout the island, there are watermarks on trunks and prop roots ranging from four inches to six inches, and an abundant growth of brown algae. Such algae requires regular submergence to exist. No significant forms of wildlife are present on the island. Batis is a submerged species which is important for sediment stabilization. In order to clear the 20-foot wide trails with cable suspensions as low as 36 inches above ground, it will be necessary to prune or cut back a large number of mangroves to that height. However, the prop roots of the red mangroves extend above six feet in some areas. If the trees and roots are cut to a three-foot height, it is unlikely that they would survive. Red mangroves produce leaf detritus which forms a part of the food chain for marine life. Such trees are island stabilizers which provide filtration and uptake of nutrients associated with runoff and intertidal waters. The waters surrounding the island are categorized as Class III waters under State regulations. The presence of brown algae on prop roots is evidence that the island is regularly inundated to some degree. Turtle grass, which is an indicator of regular tidal flushing, is in abundance on the flats waterward of the island but not found in the interior. During a visit to the Rodriguez Key in 1981, DER personnel observed standing water across the entire island to a depth of from one inch to one foot at high tide. (Testimony of Carroll, Key, Helbling, Exhibits 6, 8) Thirteen public witnesses testified at the hearing, including residents, landowners, and representatives of housing developments in the Key Largo area. They were uniformly opposed to the proposed project for a variety of reasons. Primarily, they fear that the presence of primates on the island a short distance away from Key Largo will produce excessive noise, odor, and water pollution in the adjacent waters which are used for recreation. Additionally, some are of the opinion that their property values will decrease as a result of the activity. A District Naturalist employed by the Department of Natural Resources at the nearby Coral Reef State Park testified that her agency opposes the proposed activity due to concern that it will cause degradation of water quality in the surrounding waters and that increased boat traffic could damage the shallow coral reef beds which lie near the State park. There is also general apprehension among the nearby residents that a hurricane could destroy any facilities on Rodriguez Key and cause damage to their property. A petition signed by a large number of Key Largo residents reflects their opposition to Petitioner's use of Rodriguez Key as a primate breeding and research facility. (Testimony of public witnesses (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2) Exhibits 9-10) There probably would be no odor problem connected with the presence of monkeys on Rodriguez Key if the cages are regularly cleaned and fecal waste is disposed of according to sanitary methods. Although primates are inclined to vocalize at feeding time or when strangers appear, they do not screech at great length and the presence of trees and other foliage would modify the sound. (Testimony of Darrow)
Recommendation That the application of Petitioner Melvin J. Laney, as modified in the above Conclusions of Law, be approved and that a permit authorizing the requested activities be issued pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S., together with water quality certification under PL-500, subject to standard conditions reasonably necessary for prevention of pollution. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross A. McVoy, Esquire Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Swedmark and Skelding Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ray Allen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondents, United States Sugar Corporation (“USSC”), Sugar Farms Co-op (“SFC”), and Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida (“SCGC”) (collectively “the Applicants”) are entitled to the Everglades Works of the District permits (“WOD Permits”), issued to them by the South Florida Water Management District (“District”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Audubon is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to restoring and conserving natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and their habitats. Audubon has a substantial interest in the protection of the Everglades and other ecosystems in the area. Audubon’s interest is affected by the proposed agency action because the WOD Permits authorize agricultural discharges that affect these ecosystems. The District is a Florida public corporation with the authority and duty to administer regulatory programs in chapter 373, and Florida Administrative Code Title 40E, including a program for regulating discharges from the Everglades Agricultural Area (“EAA”) into works of the District. The EAA is located south of Lake Okeechobee and comprises about 570,000 acres. The majority of EAA agriculture is sugarcane, with some row crops, such as radishes, leafy vegetables, and corn, and turf sod. During fallow periods, rice is also grown. The Applicants are owners and lessees of agricultural lands in the EAA. Background Some essential background for this case is set forth in rule 40E-63.011: The Everglades is a unique national resource. It has a high diversity of species, and provides habitat for large populations of wading birds and several threatened and endangered species, including wood storks, snail kites, bald eagles, Florida panthers, and American crocodiles. Large portions of the northern and eastern Everglades have been drained and converted to agricultural or urban land uses. Only 50% of the original Everglades ecosystem remains today. The remainder is the largest and most important freshwater sub-tropical peatland in North America. The remaining components of the historic Everglades are located in the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) and Everglades National Park (ENP). ENP and Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (WCA 1) are Outstanding Florida Waters, a designation which requires special protection for the resource. Large portions of the Everglades ecosystem have evolved in response to low ambient concentrations of nutrients and seasonal fluctuations of water levels. Prior to creation of the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), nitrogen and phosphorus were mainly supplied to large areas only in rainfall. Phosphorus is the primary limiting nutrient throughout the remaining Everglades. Sawgrass has lower phosphorus requirements than other species of Everglades vegetation. A substantial portion of EAA nutrients is transported to the remaining Everglades either in dissolved or in particulate form in surface waters. The introduction of phosphorus from EAA drainage water has resulted in ecological changes in substantial areas of Everglades marsh. These changes are cultural eutrophication, which is an increase in the supply of nutrients available in the marsh. The increased supply of phosphorus in Everglades marshes has resulted in documented impacts in several trophic levels, including microbial, periphyton, and macrophyte. The areal extent of these impacts is increasing. In 1988, the United States sued the District and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, now the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”), in federal court, alleging that the agencies failed to enforce Florida’s water quality standard for nutrients in waters of Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge and Everglades National Park. The principal pollutant of concern was phosphorus. Audubon, USSC, and certain members of SCGC and SFC intervened in the federal case. In February 1992, the parties resolved their dispute through a settlement agreement approved by the federal court (“the Consent Decree”). The Consent Decree required the District and DEP to take action to meet water quality standards by December 31, 2002. At that time, the nutrient water quality standard was a narrative standard, prohibiting the discharge of nutrients so as to cause “an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna.” The Consent Decree directed the District to construct 34,700 acres of stormwater treatment areas (“STAs”) so that nutrient-laden surface water discharged from the EAA could be treated before discharge to the Everglades Protection Area (“EvPA”), which includes Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge, Everglades National Park, and the Water Conservation Areas. STAs are large freshwater wetlands which remove phosphorus from the water column through physical, chemical, and biological processes such as sedimentation, precipitation, plant growth, and microbial activity. The first STAs were constructed and in operation in 1993. The Applicants operate in the S-5A Basin within the EAA. Their surface water is conveyed to STA-1W for treatment before being discharged to the EvPA. The Consent Decree required the District to initiate a regulatory program by 1992 to require permits for discharges from internal drainage systems (farms) in the EAA. The regulatory program was to be based on agricultural best management practices (“BMPs”). The goal of the program, as stated in the Consent Decree, was to reduce phosphorus loads from the EAA by 25 percent over the base period (1979-1988). In 1992, the District promulgated rule chapter 40E-63, which required EAA farmers to obtain WOD permits and to implement agricultural BMP plans. The BMP plans address fertilizer use and water management. Permittees must also implement a water quality monitoring plan. The rules require reduction of the total phosphorus loads discharged from the EAA Basin, as a whole, by 25 percent from historic levels. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-63.101. If the EAA, as a whole, is in compliance, individual permittees are not required to make changes to their operations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-63.145(3)(d). If the 25 percent reduction requirement is not met, the rule contemplates that individual permittees in the EAA would have to reduce nutrient loads in their discharges. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-63.145(3)(e).1/ The Consent Decree also required the District to obtain permits from the Department for discharges from the STAs to the EvPA and to conduct research and adopt rules to “numerically interpret” the narrative standard. In 1994, the Florida Legislature enacted the Everglades Forever Act (“the Act”), chapter 94-115, Laws of Florida, which is codified in section 373.4592. The Legislature authorized the district to proceed expeditiously with implementation of the Everglades Program. See § 373.4592(1)(b), Fla. Stat. The “Everglades Program” means the program of projects, regulations, and research described in the Act, including the Everglades Construction Project. The Everglades Construction Project involved the construction of 40,452 acres of STAs, which is 5,350 acres more than was required by the federal Consent Decree. The Act acknowledged the BMP regulatory program for the EAA that the District had established in rule chapter 40E-63, and stated: Prior to the expiration of existing permits, and during each 5-year term of subsequent permits as provided for in this section, those rules shall be amended to implement a comprehensive program of research, testing, and implementation of BMPs that will address all water quality standards within the EAA and Everglades protection Area. See § 373.4592(4)(f)2., Fla. Stat. The Act required DEP to issue permits to the District to construct, operate, and maintain the STAs. See § 373.4592(9)(e), Fla. Stat. The Act required development of a numeric water quality phosphorus standard for the EvPA by 2003. See § 373.4592(4)(e), Fla. Stat. The Act set the goal of achieving the phosphorus standard in all parts of the EvPA by December 31, 2006. In June 1995, modifications were made to the Consent Decree. The deadline for achieving water quality standards in the EvPA was changed from December 31, 2002, to December 31, 2006. The STAs were increased from 34,700 acres to 40,452 acres. The chronological developments outlined above indicate the intent of the Legislature and the parties to the Consent Decree to conform state law and the Consent Decree to each other. In 2001, DEP initiated rulemaking that lead to its adoption of the Phosphorus Rule, rule 62-302.540, in 2003. The rule set a numeric phosphorus criterion for the EvPA of 10 parts per billion (“ppb”), applied through a four-part test in which attainment is determined separately for “unimpacted” and “impacted areas” of the EvPA. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62- 302.540(4). In conjunction with this rulemaking, the DEP and District developed the Everglades Protection Area Tributary Basins Long Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals (“Long- Term Plan”) in March 2003. The Long-Term Plan provided remedial measures and strategies divided into pre-2006 projects and post- 2006 projects. The pre-2006 projects included structural and operational modifications to the existing STAs, implementation of agricultural and urban BMPs in areas outside the EAA or C-139 basins, and construction of several restoration projects congressionally mandated by the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Modeling of treatment capabilities of the STAs after implementation of the pre-2006 projects predicted that the 10 ppb standard for phosphorus could be achieved, but not consistently. Therefore, the Long-Term Plan required the District to identify and evaluate methods to improve phosphorus reductions, and if the phosphorus criterion was not achieved by December 31, 2006, to implement post-2006 modifications and improvements. The post- 2006 strategies include projects to expand and improve the STAs. They do not include changes to the BMP program. In 2003, the Legislature substantially amended the Act. It incorporated the Long-Term Plan into the Act, finding that it “provides the best available phosphorus reduction technology based on a combination of the BMPs and STAs.” § 373.4592(3)(b), Fla. Stat. The Long-Term Plan contemplates maintenance of the BMP program in the EAA, with refinements derived from BMP research. Recent Conditions and Events As previously stated, chapter 40E-63 requires the total phosphorus load from the EAA to be reduced by not less than 25 percent from historic levels. Since full implementation of the BMP regulatory program, annual phosphorus loads have been reduced by approximately 50 percent. Despite the efforts and projects undertaken, the phosphorus standard was not being achieved as of December 31, 2006, in all parts of the EvPA. In 2007, the DEP issued a permit to the District for discharges from the STAs to the EvPA (referred to as the “Everglades Forever Act” or “EFA permit”). The permit required the District to design and construct several regional water management projects, including structural enhancements to STA-1W, and the construction of 6,800 acres of additional STAs. The permit and its compliance schedules provided interim relief through 2016 from the water quality based effluent limitation (WQBEL) necessary to achieve the 10 ppb phosphorus standard. The 2007 EFA permit was not challenged by Audubon or any other entity. The District, DEP, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency began working together in 2010 to develop new strategies for achieving compliance with the phosphorus standard in the EvPA. The agencies determined that compliance could be achieved by expanding the STAs by 7,300 acres (6,500 acres would be added to STA-1W) and constructing flow equalization basins to store up to 110,000 acre feet of stormwater runoff. These basins are designed to attenuate peak flows into the STAs in order to improve the processes that remove phosphorus. In September 2012, DEP issued the District a new EFA permit, which authorized continued operation of the District’s S-5A pump station, STA-1W, and the related conveyance systems by which stormwater runoff from the S-5A Basin is ultimately discharged to the EvPA. The permit was issued with a Consent Order, requiring the District to expand STA-1W by 6,500 acres of effective treatment area in accordance with a timeline and the District’s Restoration Strategies. The 2012 EFA Permit and Consent Order were not challenged by Audubon or any other entity. In 2013, the Legislature amended the Act again. The Act’s reference to the Long-Term Plan was revised to include the District’s Restoration Strategies Regional Water Quality Plan, which called for expanding the STAs and constructing flow equalization basins. See § 373.4592(2)(j), Fla. Stat. The Legislature added a finding that “implementation of BMPs, funded by the owners and users of land in the EAA, effectively reduces nutrients in waters flowing into the Everglades Protection Area.” See § 373.4592(1)(g), Fla. Stat. The 2013 amendments indicated the Legislature’s intent to codify into law the strategies developed by the District and other regulatory agencies to achieve water quality standards in the EvPA. Those strategies do not materially change the BMP program in the EAA. The Act and the rules of the District create programs for achieving restoration of the EvPA that rely heavily on the STAs. Over the years, the STAs have repeatedly been enlarged and enhanced. In contrast, the requirement for farmers in the EAA to reduce their phosphorus loading by 25 percent has not changed in 21 years. It is beyond the scope of this proceeding to question the wisdom of the programs that have been established by statute and rule. Whether Additional Water Quality Measures Are Required A principal dispute in this case is whether the WOD Permits must include additional water quality measures to be implemented by the Applicants. Section 373.4592(4)(f)4. provides that, as of December 31, 2006, all EAA permits shall include “additional water quality measures, taking into account the water quality treatment actually provided by the STAs and the effectiveness of the BMPs.” Audubon asserts that the requirement for additional water quality measures has been triggered. The District does not interpret the statute as requiring additional water quality measures under current circumstances. The interpretation of the statute is primarily a disputed issue of law and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law. There, it is concluded that additional water quality measures are not required. Whether the BMP Plans are Adequate Audubon contends that the WOD Permits should be denied because the Applicant’s existing BMP plans are not “tailored” to particular soils, crops, and other conditions. This contention is based on section 373.4592(4)(f)2.c., which states in relevant part: BMPs as required for varying crops and soil types shall be included in permit conditions in the 5-year permits issued pursuant to this section. Audubon showed that the Applicants have similar BMP plans for the thousands of acres covered in the three WOD Permits, and contends that this similarity proves that BMPs are not being tailored to specific farm conditions. However, soils and crops are similar throughout the EAA. The soils of the EAA are almost entirely muck soils and the primary crop is sugarcane with some corn or other vegetable rotated in. The Applicants use many of the same BMPs because they have similar soils and grow similar crops. There are three main categories of BMPs implemented in the EAA: nutrient and sediment control BMPs, particulate matter and sediment control BMPs, and water management BMPs. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-63.136, Appendix A2. The BMPs proposed by the Applicants are based on research in the EAA and recommendations specifically for EAA soils and the crops grown there. The Applications do not identify the specific BMPs that will be implemented, but only the number of BMPs that will be selected from each of the BMP categories (i.e., sediment control). The Applicants must use BMPs on the District’s list of approved BMPs unless an alternative BMP is requested and approved. The lack of greater detail was explained as necessitated by the need for flexibility during the life of the permit to adapt BMPs to varied crops and conditions. Audubon does not believe the BMP plans are tailored enough, but there is no rule criterion for determining how tailored BMP plans must be, except they must achieve the overall goal of reducing phosphorus loading in discharges from the EAA by at least 25 percent. This goal is being achieved.2/ Audubon did not show that any particular BMP being used by an Applicant was the wrong BMP for a particular soil and crop, or identify the BMP that Audubon believes should be used. Audubon failed to prove that the Applicants’ BMP plans do not meet applicable requirements. Whether the Applications Are Complete Audubon contends that the WOD Permits must be denied because the Applications are incomplete. Many of Audubon’s completeness issues deal with minor discrepancies of a type that are more appropriately resolved between the District and applicants, not violations of criteria that are likely to affect a third party’s interest in environmental protection. Rule 40E-63.130 lists the requirements for a permit application for activities in the EAA Basin. An Application Guidebook is incorporated into chapter 40E-63, which contains instructions for completing the application. For applications to renew a permit, the practice of the District is to not require the resubmittal of information that was previously submitted to the District and which has not changed. The Application Guidebook explains this practice. The Applicants supplemented their applications at the final hearing to provide information that Audubon claimed was omitted from the Applications.3/ Audubon contends that the Applications are incomplete because some application forms are not dated and other forms are not signed by appropriate entities. The District explained its rule interpretation and practices associated with the forms. Additional signatures and dates were submitted at the final hearing. Audubon failed to demonstrate that the Applications are incomplete based on the identity of the persons who signed application forms or the lack of dates. Audubon contends the Applications are incomplete because copies of contracts or agreements are not included as required by rule 40E-63.132(3). Audubon failed to prove that contracts and agreements exist that were not included. Audubon contends the Applications are incomplete because they do not contain a completed Form 0779, entitled “Application For A Works Of The District Permit,” as required by rule 40E-63.132(5). In some cases, the information for Form 0779 had been previously submitted and was unchanged, so the District did not require it to be resubmitted for the permit renewal. Additional information was provided at the final hearing. Audubon failed to prove that the Applications are incomplete based on missing information on Form 0779. Audubon contends that the Applications are incomplete because documentation regarding leased parcels was missing. Pursuant to rule 40E-63.130(1)(a), individual permit applications must be submitted by the owner of the land on which a structure is located and any entity responsible for operating the structure, and the permit application must include the owners of all parcels which discharge water tributary to the structure. Applications may be submitted by a lessee if the lessee has the legal and financial capability of implementing the BMP Plan and other permit conditions. The District explained that when applications are submitted by a lessee who will be the permittee or co-permittee, the District requires the lessee to be a responsible party for the entire term of the permit, which is five years. If the lessee is a not a co-permittee, the District does not require information about the lease and does not require the lessee’s signature. If the lessee is a co-permittee, but the lease expires during the term of the permit, the District requires the applicant to modify the permit when the lease expires. Audubon failed to prove that the Applications are incomplete based on lease information Audubon contends that the Applications are incomplete because they fail to show that the Applicants participated in an education and training program as required by rule 40E- 63.136(1)(g). The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Applicants participated in education and training programs. Audubon failed to prove that the Applications are incomplete for any of the reasons raised in its petition for hearing or advanced at the final hearing. Water Quality Standards in the EAA Audubon presented some evidence of algal accumulations in ditches and canals, but the evidence was insufficient to prove the Applicants are violating water quality standards applicable in the EAA. Summary Audubon failed to carry its burden to prove that the Applicants are not entitled to the WOD Permits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that South Florida Water Management District issue Permit Nos. 50-00031-E, 50-00018-E, and 50-00047-E. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 10th day of February, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the Hearing Officer's view of the project site, the following relevant facts re found: Respondent Sunset Realty Corporation initially applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation on March 2, 1979, for a permit to place 54,600 cubic yards of fill adjacent to Three Sisters Island and waterward of the mean high water line in Charlotte Harbor in order to construct a causeway and a sixty-foot bridge from Boca Grande Isles to Three Sisters Island. The applicant Sunset was notified on May 3, 1979, that adverse comments on the project had been received due to its impact upon biological resources. DER suggested that the application be modified by bridging the entire submerged area to alleviate biological and hydrographic concerns. On June 21, 1979, the respondent Sunset filed a revised application which reduced the volume of fill from 54,600 cubic yards to 25,000 cubic yards and extended the bridge from sixty feet to ninety feet long. The Department of Environmental Regulation forwarded to Lee County a summary of the Department's biological and hydrographic report. Additional information was not requested by the County. On October 31, 1979, the Lee County Commission considered the information made available to them from the Department and passed a resolution giving their approval to the first revision of the project by respondent Sunset. Finding that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurance that immediate and long-term impacts of the project would not result in violation of state water quality standards for Class II waters, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued its Intent to Deny Sunset's permit application on March 24, 1980. After a biological and hydrographic study of the project area, Sunset filed a second revision to its project on June 30, 1980. This revised application requested a permit for 10,000 cubic yards of fill and a 120-foot long bridge. In addition, this revision contained plans to install groins at the south end of Three Sisters Island and on Boca Grande Isles, to place riprap along the face of the fill, to remove and relocate existing oyster bars, to maintain turbidity barriers around the project during construction, and to direct stormwater run-off from the concrete bridge to an upland retention area on Three Sisters Island. It was also stipulated by respondent Sunset at the hearing that it would agree, as a condition of the permit, to replant mangrove vegetation along the shoreline of Three Sisters Island. On July 18, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a Letter of Intent to Issue the applicant a permit for the revised project. The Department of Environmental Regulation did not seek reapproval of the revised project from the Lee County Commission because the scope and impact of the revised project were substantially reduced. It is not the policy of DER to request a new local approval for reduced projects. All property within the project boundary including submerged lands to be filled is held in fee simple by respondent Sunset. The waters affected by the proposed project are Class II waters, but are unclassified by the Department of Natural Resources as to shellfish harvesting. The nearest Class II waters which thus far have been approved for commercial shellfish harvesting are located approximately one and a half miles north of the project site. The proposed project would involve the destruction and elimination of approximately one acre of productive marine bottoms. The area has an abundance of grass beds and organisms that constitute a viable marine nursery and habitat. The area is not considered a spawning ground for any significant commercial or sport fish species. While the project will eliminate one acre of shallow water and productive bottom resources, the project should have no permanent effect upon the quality of the remaining surrounding waters. Three different species of mangroves vegetate the shoreline and the project would entail the removal of approximately 2/10 acre of mangroves. As indicated above, the applicant has agreed to insert a condition in the permit to revegetate mangroves around the site. The project will also entail the removal of one or two oyster bars. Live oysters can be removed and relocated by the use of floating cages. Relocation of the oysters to the riprapping and bridge pilings should increase their productivity. While the proposed fill will eliminate a wading bird habitat, birds will not otherwise be affected except during the construction of the project. The area around Three Sisters Island is an excellent fishing ground for line and net fishing for trout, red fish, mullet and sheepshead. Concern was expressed by commercial fishermen at the hearing that the bridge would obstruct net fishing, that the construction of the bridge would drive the fish away temporarily and that the fish, being creatures of habit, would not come back. The 120-foot bridge itself would have a minor effect of approximately 2% upon the restriction of flow in the area. A flow resistance is presently caused by the channel itself, a sharp bend in the channel that occurs at a constriction or spit, and the spit itself. The spit severely restricts flow and the channel needs to be enlarged. The remedial measure proposed is to place groins on the spit and on Boca Grande Isles across the spit. This will gradually enlarge the opening and reduce constriction. The placement of groins could provide a 40% increase in flow through the channel, and the increased circulation will improve the overall system. The two groins proposed are 40 feet and 80 feet in length. The groins will intercept the transport of sand and the pass will thereby be enlarged. The groins will be visible to boaters in shallow water and will not be a significant hazard to navigation. Three Sisters Island is a fifteen acre island to be utilized by Sunset Realty Corp. for residential development. Employees of DER who testified at the hearing were not aware of DER ever permitting filling in Class II waters for the purpose of aiding a private development or use. Other regulatory agencies providing comments on the proposed project after its first revision recommended that all fill be deleted from the project plans and that the bridge be constructed so as to span the entire submerged lands and shoreline wetlands. These agencies included the United States Department of the Interior, the Department of the Army, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the United States Department of Commerce and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. With the exception of Durbin Tabb and Richard Lotspeich, both of whom felt that the destruction of one acre of bottom resources would not be significant to the total system, all other experts in marine biology who testified at the hearing felt that spanning the entire area with a bridge and eliminating the fill would provide a viable alternative to the permanent elimination of wetlands and shorelands. The petitioner Gasparilla Island Conservation and Improvement Association, Inc. is a non-profit, tax exempt corporation which was incorporated in 1971. The qualification for membership is the ownership of real property on Gasparilla Island. Approximately 700 property owners on Gasparilla Island are eligible to be members of GICIA. The actual membership is approximately 446. Twenty-two members own property on Boca Grande Isles, the subdivision closest to Three Sisters Island. Among the purposes of the GICIA are the promotion of Land, water and wildlife conservation uses and purposes in the Gasparilla Island area in Lee County and Charlotte County, Florida, including the preservation of ecology of the area, the protection of fish and shellfish breeding areas, the preservation of wildlife, and the promotion of anti-pollution measures. Members of the association use the proposed project area for recreational boating, commercial fishing, shellfish gathering, swimming, fishing and enjoyment of the natural flora, fauna and wildlife. Association members will be adversely affected by the destruction of grasslands, mangroves and oyster beds. The Organized Fishermen of Florida, Inc. (O.F.F.) is a non-profit corporation with chapters throughout the State of Florida. Its purposes include the protection of the fishing industry of Florida and the promotion and sponsorship of conservation. Some members of O.F.F. regularly fish in the Three Sisters Island area that would be impacted by the proposed project. No evidence was presented at the hearing that the State Board of Directors of O.F.F. officially sanctioned witnesses to appear on behalf of the incorporated Organized Fishermen of Florida. No evidence was presented at the hearing as to the standing or substantial interest of the Florida Division of the Izaak Walton League or Eugene C. Enlow, both listed as Petitioners in the "Amendment of Petition for Formal Hearing." Petitioner Freemen Boynton is the owner of a residence located on Lot No. 98 on Boca Grande Isles. The proposed access bridge and groins are to be constructed on Lots No. 99 and 100 which are contiguous to Mr. Boynton's lot. The groin on Lot No. 99 could cause sand and other debris to accumulate upon Mr. Boynton's riparian property. Petitioner Boynton uses his home on Boca Grande Isles about two and one-half months per year and fishes along the shore, collects oysters, conch and shells and engages in bird watching. He is a member of the Gasparilla Island Conservation and Improvement Association, Inc., and he feels that the proposed project would remove some of the recreational aspects of his property and Three Sisters Island. Petitioner Ralph Cole is 71 years old and has been a commercial fisherman in the Charlotte Harbor area since the age of 12. He fishes the Three Sisters Island area every week. He feels that the area is an excellent fishing ground and that the proposed bridge would be in the way of striking a net.
Recommendation Based upon the findings and fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Sunset Realty Corporation for a permit be DENIED insofar as it includes the deposition of 10,000 cubic yards of fill in Class II waters. Respectfully submitted and entered this 24th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 24th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Landers, Jr. Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers and Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles G. Batsel Wotitzky, Wotitzky, Johnson, Mandell and Batsel 201 W. Marion Drive Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Robert M. Rhodes and Terry E. Lewis Messer, Rhodes, Vickers and Hart Post Office Box 1976 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lester E. Durst Farr, Farr, Haymans, Moseley and Emrick Post Office Box 635 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Ray Allen Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water requested in the application should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application 7500137 seeks an average daily withdrawal of 2.4 million gallons of water with maximum daily withdrawal not more than 2.88 million gallons from an existing well in order to process phosphate and reclaim land. This is an existing use for mining operations located southwest of Lakeland, Florida, on land consisting of 1531 acres. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to wit: The Lakeland Ledger, on November 11 & 18, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. The application and affidavit of publication were admitted into evidence without objection as Composite Exhibit 1, together with correspondence from James R. Brown, Vice President, Dagus Engineers, Inc., dated November 19, 1975 to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. No objections were received by the Water Management District as to the application. Mr. George Szell, hydrologist of the Water Management District testified that the application met the conditions for a consumptive use permit as set forth in Chapter 16J-2.11, Florida Administrative Code, except that the quantity of water requested to be withdrawn is 41.06 per cent over the maximum average daily withdrawal permitted under the water crop theory as set forth in Section 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C. However, the Water Management District witness recommended waiver of that provision since the mining operations will be concluded in several years and thereafter the water table and hydrologic conditions will return to normal. The Water District staff recommended approval of the application with the condition that a meter be installed on the well and that the applicant be required to take monthly readings thereof and submit quarterly reports of the readings to the District. The applicant's representative agreed to these conditions at the hearing.
Recommendation It is recommended that Application No. 7500137 submitted by Poseidon Mines, Inc., for a consumptive water use permit be granted on the condition that a meter be installed on the applicant's well and that monthly readings be taken and submitted quarterly by the applicant to the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It is further recommended that the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, pursuant to Rule 16J-2.11(5), for good cause, grant an exception to the provisions of Rule 16J-2.11(3), as being consistent with the public interest. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: J.T. Ahern, Staff Attorney Southwest Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Poseidon Mines, Inc. P.O. Box 5172 Bartow, Florida
