The Issue The issue is whether Bayou Arbors, Inc. (Arbors), is entitled to a dredge and fill permit to construct docks in DeBary Bayou, Volusia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On January 8, 1986, DER received an application from Arboretum, a predecessor in interest of Arbors, to construct 12,758 square feet of docks in DeBary Bayou to provide ninety eight (98) boat slips, and to dredge 2,509 cubic yards of shoreline material from DeBary Bayou in areas within DER's jurisdiction under the proposed boat docks, and to place approximately 800 linear feet of concrete riprap along the shoreline after it was dredged. Following the initial application review process, which included on- site evaluations by several DER biologists, on April 14, 1986, DER prepared a Biological and Water Quality Assessment in which DER's staff recommended that the project be modified to delete the dredging, allowing the littoral zone to remain intact. On April 24, 1986, DER forwarded its Biological and Water Quality Assessment to Mr. Charles Gray, the property owner. In response to DER's recommendations, the Applicant submitted, and on April 30, 1986, DER received, a revised Application which deleted the originally-proposed shoreline dredging of 2,509 cubic yards of material as well as the placing of 800 linear feet of concrete riprap. This Application was submitted by Mr. Duy Dao, a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Florida. This Application proposed constructing approximately 17,000 square feet of docking facilities, providing ninety-eight boat slips, along approximately 2,580 linear feet of shoreline adjacent to twenty-four acres of uplands owned by the Applicant. The original and the revised drawings omitted a vertical scale from the cross-section drawings of the project. This omission gave the impression that the shoreline bank of DeBary Bayou was steeper than it actually is and that the water depths in DeBary Bayou adjacent to the north shoreline are deeper than they actually are. However, DER's biologists were on-site four times between February 25, 1986, and May 19, 1986. They observed the existing slope of the DeBary Bayou shoreline and the existing depths in DeBary Bayou, and the on-site observations negated the effect of the omission in the drawings. The omission in the drawings did not affect DER's evaluation of the project. On May 23, 1986, DER issued its Intent to Issue and Draft Permit No. 64-114399-4 to Arboretum. The Intent to Issue and the Draft Permit include the following Specific Conditions: Further construction on the Applicant's property along the DeBary Bayou shall be limited to uplands; Issuance of this permit does not infer the issuance of a permit for dredging in the Bayou at a future date, should an application for dredging be submitted; A deed restriction shall be placed on the condominium limiting boats moored at the facility to seventeen feet or less. A copy of the deed restriction shall be submitted to the Department within sixty days of issuance of this permit; There shall be no "wet" (on-board) repair of boats or motors at this facility; All boats moored at the dock shall be for the use of residents of the condominium only. Public use of the dock or rental or sale of mooring slips to non-residents of the condominium is prohibited; Manatee warning signs shall be placed at 100 foot intervals along the length of the dock(s); Turbidity shall be controlled during construction (by the use of siltation barriers) to prevent violations of Rule 17-3.061(2)(r), Florida Administrative Code. On June 29, 1987, Volusia County, DER and Arboretum entered into a "Joint Stipulation for Settlement" wherein Arboretum agreed not to construct more than twenty-six docks accommodating more than fifty-two boat slips along Arboretum's DeBary Bayou frontage of 2,580 feet. Furthermore, Arboretum agreed that it would modify the configuration and the design of the boat slips and the location of the boat docks; that it would post Slow Speed, No Wake zone signs and manatee education signs along DeBary Bayou from the 1-4 bridge west to a point 100 feet west of the western boundary of Arboretum's boat docks; and that as mitigation for the removal of vegetation from the littoral zone where the boat slips would be constructed, Arboretum would plant wetland hardwood trees. In addition to the Joint Stipulation for Settlement, on June 14, 1987, the property owners, Charles Gray and Sandra Gray, as part of their agreement with Volusia County, executed a "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions" to which the Joint Stipulation for Settlement was attached as an exhibit. Said Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, reiterated the Joint Stipulation's limitation of construction of boat docks in DeBary Bayou and further provided that said boat docks would not be constructed at the Arboretum project site in DeBary Bayou unless and until certain maintenance dredging set forth in Article II of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions occurred. Furthermore, Article III of said Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions set forth certain prohibitions regarding constructing boat ramps on the Arboretum property and docking or storing boats along the DeBary Bayou shoreline except at the site of the proposed docks. In 1969, an artificial channel was excavated in DeBary Bayou adjacent to the north shoreline of DeBary Bayou by a dragline operating along the shoreline. At present, said channel has been partially filled by organic sediments originating in DeBary Bayou. There exists in Section 403.813(2)(f), Florida Statutes, an exemption from the DER's permitting requirements for the performance of maintenance dredging of existing man-made channels where the maintenance dredging complies with the statutory provisions and with the regulatory provisions found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-4.040(9)(d). The dragline excavation work performed in DeBary Bayou in 1969 created a structure which conforms to the definition of "channel" provided in Section 403.803(3), Florida Statutes. The maintenance dredging required by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions is to be performed by suction vacuuming of the silt sediment, from the 1969 channel and that dredged material is to be placed on Arbors' upland property at the project site. This maintenance dredging differs from the dredging originally proposed by the applicant in its application submitted in January 1986. The dredging originally proposed, which DER recommended against, was to be performed by back hoes and drag-lines which would have cut into the north shoreline of DeBary Bayou and would have affected the littoral zone along the project shoreline. The average water level in Lake Monroe and DeBary Bayou is approximately 1.8 feet above mean sea level. On April 18, 1987, transact studies in DeBary Bayou showed water levels at 3.2 feet above mean sea level and that water depths in DeBary Bayou to a hard sand/fragmented shell bottom ranged from approximately one foot along the south shoreline to approximately nine feet in deep areas in the former channel. The average depth of the channel is five feet below mean sea level. The water depth in DeBary Bayou ranges from approximately one to three feet. At times of average water levels, one to three feet of silt or unconsolidated sediment overburden covers the natural hard sand/shell bottom of DeBary Bayou. This silt and sediment overburden is composed of organic material and is easily disturbed. When it is disturbed, it raises levels of turbidity, although there was no evidence presented that the turbidity would violate state water quality standards. This silt and sediment overburden has been deposited at a faster rate than it would normally be deposited under natural conditions because of the Army Corps of Engineers' herbicidal spraying of floating plants in DeBary Bayou. As this silt and sediment overburden decomposes, it takes oxygen from the water. The presence of a strong odor of hydrogen sulfide indicates that the oxygen demand created by the sediment is greater than the available supply of oxygen at the sediment-water interface. This unconsolidated silt and sediment overburden does not appear to harbor either submerged vegetation or significant macroinvertebrate populations. The Shannon/Weaver diversity index of benthic macroinvertebrates at four locations in DeBary Bayou indicated lowest diversity at the project site and highest diversity at the 1-4 overpass, where a small patch of eel grass is growing. Removal of this silt and sediment overburden from the 1969 channel will enhance the system, enabling a hard bottom to be established, with a probability of subsequent establishment of a diversity of submerged macrophytes. Removal of the silt and sediment overburden from the 1969 channel will restore the natural hard sand/fragmented shell bottom in that area of DeBary Bayou. It is unlikely that boat traffic in the restored channel will cause turbidity which will violate state water quality standards. Removal of this silt and sediment overburden will improve water quality in DeBary Bayou by removing a source of oxygen demand. Removal of this silt and sediment overburden will create a better fish habitat by exposing some of the natural bottom of DeBary Bayou. Fish are unable to spawn in the unstable silt and sediment. Removal of this silt and sediment overburden will increase the depth of water in DeBary Bayou channel to between four to six feet. The maintenance dredging, required by the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, is limited by statute to the channel which was excavated in 1969. Therefore, a continuous channel will not be maintained from the project site eastward to Lake Monroe. At present, a sandbar exists at the confluence of DeBary Bayou and Lake Monroe. During low water, this sandbar restricts navigation into and out of DeBary Bayou to small craft. At present, boats can and do travel on DeBary Bayou for fishing and for other water-related recreational activities. However, due to water level fluctuations, boating on DeBary Bayou is easier during higher water periods. During lower water periods, navigation into and out of DeBary Bayou is still possible, but boaters must proceed using common sense and caution. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has no evidence that manatees presently use or have ever used DeBary Bayou. Adult manatees have an average girth of approximately three (3) feet. Without a continuous channel open to Lake Monroe, manatees are not likely to go up DeBary Bayou. Since the water at the sandbar at the mouth of DeBary Bayou at its confluence with Lake Monroe is generally less than three feet deep throughout the year, it is likely that these shallow waters will deter manatees from entering DeBary Bayou. DeBary Bayou is a spring-fed run from a spring a substantial distance upstream. The sheetflow of the spring water follows a circuitous route through marsh areas prior to reaching the area of this project. The proposed site is just west of the 1-4 overpass and Lake Monroe. The FWS's data show that the St. Johns River in Volusia County has an extremely low documented manatee mortality rate resulting from boat/barge collisions. Generally, boats greater than 23 feet long are more likely to kill manatees outright than smaller boats are. In marinas, manatees are very rarely killed by collisions with boats. Manatees and marinas are highly compatible. On August 1, 1986, the FWS issued a "no-jeopardy" opinion regarding Arbors' project. In this letter, the FWS stated that Arbors' project was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the manatee or to adversely modify the manatee's critical habitat. In the year since the FWS issued its no-jeopardy opinion, no manatee mortalities resulting from boat-barge collisions have been documented in the St. Johns River in Volusia County. The FWS recommended one boat slip per one hundred linear feet of waterfront, or twenty-six boat slips for the project. A single-family residence which would be entitled to one pier could berth an unlimited number of boats at that single pier. The FWS would have no control over the number of boats using that single pier. Arbors' project calls for twenty-six piers. The FWS's evaluation of Arbors' project is exactly the same as that agency's evaluation of any other marina project anywhere in areas designated as critical manatee habitat. All of the St. Johns River in Volusia County, Florida, is designated as critical manatee habitat. On July 16, 1986, after issuance of its Intent to Issue, DER received comments from the Florida Department of Natural Resources regarding Arbors' project and its potential impact on manatees. DER considered the possibility of boat/manatee collisions and had specifically considered this issue. DER did not agree with the broad and general concerns expressed by the Department of Natural Resources, and DER's rules have not adopted a specific requirement regarding a ratio between the length of a project's shoreline and the number of permittable boat slips. On July 16, 1986, the Department received a letter from the FWS concerning fisheries issues and navigation. This FWS letter was received after issuance of DER's Intent to Issue. Although DER considered these comments, DER disagreed with the FWS's recommendations regarding these issues. Water quality sampling and analysis showed that at present, there are no violations of DER's Class III water quality standard in DeBary Bayou, except for the dissolved oxygen criterion on some occasions during early-morning hours, and that result is to be expected. It is further not expected that there will be any water quality violations after the project is completed. If the work areas affected by driving piles to build floating docks and the work area around the maintenance dredging of the DeBary Bayou channel are contained within turbidity barriers, as required by general and specific conditions of the DER's proposed Draft Permit, it is anticipated that no violations of the Class III turbidity criterion will occur during construction of Arbors' project. By maintenance dredging the former DeBary Bayou channel, Arbors will remove the silt and sediment overburden from the channel and restore a deep (four to five feet below mean sea level) channel having a hard sand/fragmented shell bottom. Arbors' dock will be restricted to small boats whose operation in the deep channel will be unlikely to re-suspend silt and sediment and cause violations of the Class III turbidity criterion. Additionally, it is unlikely that any turbidity which is created by turbulence from boat propellers in a designated "No Wake, Slow Speed" zone will violate the Class III turbidity criterion. Although the entire project will be enhanced by the proposed maintenance dredging, such dredging is not a part of the permit application. From the evidence it appears that the project is permittable without the dredging. Although Arbors' project will result in the addition of some oils and greases associated with outboard motors to DeBary Bayou, the addition is not expected to result in violations of the Class III water quality standards. Additionally, release of heavy metals from anti-fouling paints should be minimal, and that release can be further controlled by specifically prohibiting over-water repair of boats and motors. Some addition of phosphorous to the waters of DeBary Bayou is anticipated due to use of phosphate-based detergents for washing boats. Additionally, minimal amounts of phosphorous may be added to DeBary Bayou from re-suspension of organic silts by turbulence from boat propellers. However, DER has no standards for phosphorous in fresh waters, and the minimal additional amounts of phosphorous expected from these sources are not anticipated to violate DER's general nutrient rule. Operation of boats at Arbors' proposed boat docks will cause no water quality problems which would not be caused by operation of boats at any other marina anywhere in Lake Monroe or anywhere else in the State of Florida. While WVC's expert, Robert Bullard, testified that Arbors' proposed boat docks could potentially cause violation of DER's Class III water quality criteria for turbidity, oils and greases, heavy metals and phosphorous, he was unable to testify that Arbors' project actually would cause such violation. His testimony in this regard was speculative and is not given great weight. No other WVC expert testified that Arbors' project was likely to cause violation of any criteria of DER's Class III water quality standards. It is anticipated that the shade cast by the boat docks will not have an adverse affect on water quality. Additionally, DeBary Bayou is a clear, spring-fed water body open to direct sunlight. The boat docks will cast shade which will enhance fish habitat. The proposed docks will not threaten any production of fish or invertebrate organisms. The mitigation plan proposed by the applicant and accepted by Volusia County and DER requires planting wetland hardwood tree species. These trees will certainly assist in stabilizing the bank of DeBary Bayou and minimizing erosion of the shoreline. Additionally, these trees will absorb nutrients from the water and will perpetuate the wooded wetland habitat along the DeBary Bayou shoreline. Arbors' own expert, Carla Palmer, also suggested the sprigging of eel grass in the dredged portion of DeBary Bayou. Such planting should be included as part of the mitigation plan. DER considered the cumulative impact of this docking facility. Four marinas are presently permitted on Lake Monroe and in the St. Johns River between Lake Monroe and Deland. DER considered these facilities' existence when it reviewed Arbors' application, and was satisfied that Arbors' boat dock facility would not have an adverse cumulative impact. There are no specific guidelines for a cumulative impact evaluation; accordingly, DER must apply its cumulative impact evaluation on a case-by-case basis. In the present case, there is no showing of adverse cumulative impacts from this project. Arbors' project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources recognized pursuant to applicable Florida or Federal Law. WVC was organized in March 1985, to oppose development in West Volusia County. WVC did not meet regularly and did not keep regular minutes of its meetings in the interim between organizing and filing the Petition in June 1986, for an administrative hearing on the Intent to Issue a permit for Arbors' project. When the Petition was filed, WVC did not have a membership roll, and was unsure how many members it had. Further, it is unclear as to how many members may have attended an "emergency" meeting to authorize filing said Petition. Approximately five months after said Petition was filed, WVC was incorporated and approximately nine months after the Petition was filed, WVC compiled a list of the people who were WVC members in June 1986. The emergency meeting WVC held in June 1986, to authorize filing said Petition was the first and the only such "emergency" meeting WVC ever held. The minutes of the emergency meeting have been lost. In June 1986, WVC may have had written rules authorizing emergency meetings and authorizing it to file suit, but its Chairman is unsure of this. Six of WVC's approximately 20 members may have lived within one mile of Arbors' project site in June 1986. Two of these members lived on waterfront property on Lake Monroe east of the 1-4 bridge. Some of these WVC members have never taken a boat west of 1-4 onto DeBary Bayou. WVC, as an organization, never sponsored outings or boat trips onto DeBary Bayou before filing the Petition. WVC's officers at the time of filing the Petition did not use DeBary Bayou for boating, fishing or swimming. No WVC members have ever seen manatees in DeBary Bayou. As with any other similar project on Lake Monroe, the boats which might be berthed at Arbors' project might add additional trash to the waters of Lake Monroe, might disturb the wildlife which WVC members might see on their property, and might cause wakes which might erode waterfront property. One of WVC's founders, who was an officer in June 1986, when WVC filed the Petition, stated that she would not be adversely affected in kind or degree any more than any other taxpayer in Florida. Friends timely intervened and its intervention was authorized by its membership at a regularly noticed meeting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order granting Permit Number 64-114399-4, subject to those specific conditions set forth in paragraph 6 hereof and as modified by the stipulation entered into between Arboretum, Volusia County, and Department of Environmental Regulation, as more particularly described in paragraphs 7 and 8 hereof, and to include within the mitigation plan the sprigging of eel grass in areas of the dredged portion of DeBary Bayou. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2463 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner and Intervenor, West Volusia Conservancy, Inc., and Friends of the St. Johns, Inc. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(3); 2(5); 8(24); 13(8); 46(57); and 47(57). 2. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 44, and 45 are rejected as being subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 39, and 41 are rejected as being unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. 4. Proposed findings of fact 6, 9, 18, 19, 21, 22, 37, and 38 are rejected as irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Bayou Arbors, Inc. 1. Each of proposed findings of fact 1-56 are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, in Findings of Fact 1-56. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-11(1-11); 13-28(12-27); 29-38(29-38); 39(38); and 40-48(39-47). Proposed finding of fact 12 is rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Richard S. Jackson, Esquire 1145 West Rich Ave. Deland, Florida 32720 Dennis Bayer, Esquire P. O. Box 1505 Flagler Beach, Florida 32036 Philip H. Trees, Esquire P. O. Box 3068 Orlando, Florida 32802 Vivian F. Garfein, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8241
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based on the uncontested facts alleged in Petitioner's Motion For Summary Recommended Order and from the Final Orders issued in Bayshore Homeowners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. On December 29, 1980 DER entered a Final Order on the application of Petitioner for a 90 slip marina in Biscayne Bay, Florida. The Order denied the permit because Grove Isle had not demonstrated that the project is "affirmatively in the public interest" and because the applicant had not demonstrated that it "can meet ambient water quality standards within the project area itself." In the Recommended Order on Remand the Hearing Officer had defined "existing ambient waters" to be the area in the cove between Grove Isle and the Miami mainland. The Final Order rejected that concept and held if any waters others than those contained within the immediate project site were to be considered as ambient, Petitioner must request a mixing zone as part of its application. See Section 17-4.242, (1)(a)2.b. and Section 17-4.244, Florida Administrative Code. By a letter received at the Department of Environmental Regulation on May 20, 1981, Grove Isle reapplied for the boat dock permit which was the subject of the foregoing proceedings. Petitioner's application, which was in the form of a letter from counsel, stated: May 18, 1981 Mr. Larry O'Donnell Department of Environmental Regulation Post Office Box 3858 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 RE: GROVE ISLE - Application for Boat Dock Dear Mr. O'Donnell: On behalf of Grove Isle, LTD, I am reapplying for the boat dock permit previously applied for by Grove Isle, LTD. Please consider this a short-form application. Your office designated a previous file number, DF 13-7956, to this matter. In conjunction with that application I am applying for a mixing zone, pursuant to Rule 17-4.244, for both the construction and operation of this marina. Please refer to your file on the previous application and incorporate said documents into this reapplication. I am submitting with this application: A scale drawing (one inch = 100') of the proposed facility. (which you have) A certified survey of the proposed mixing zone. (one inch = 100') An application fee of $20.00 A copy of the Final Order issued by Jacob D. Varn, former secretary of DER, on the previous application. A copy of the Notice of Intent previously issued for this project, dated 9/23/79. (which you have) As you will note from reading Mr. Varn's Final Order, he concluded that issuance of this permit was not appropriate inasmuch as the applicant had not applied for nor received a designated mixing zone. We do not necessarily agree with this order and have, in fact, appealed this decision to the First District Court of Appeal. However, in an attempt to keep this matter from becoming any more complicated, we have decided to reapply for the permit and to apply for a mixing zone. We do not concede that a mixing zone should be required for this project or that the facility will result in the release of any pollutants so as to significantly degrade ambient water quality. However, should this project, through its construction or operation, result in the release of any pollutants, I believe they would be limited to: Bottom sediments placed in suspension by the installation of the concrete piles used to support the docking facility during construction; Minimal amounts of oil and grease which may escape from the various vessels moored to the docks; The constituants of anti-fouling paint which may be applied to the hulls of the various vessels moored at the docks. Turbidity will be controlled by the use of curtains during construction. If lowered water quality occurs at all in this project it would only occur within the designated mixing zone, as per Rule 17-4.242 (2)(b) F.A.C. Please advise me should additional information be needed to process this re-application. Yours truly, /s/ KENNETH G. OERTEL On June 19, 1981, DER sent a "completeness summary letter" to Petitioner which requested the following information: Your project is in Outstanding Florida Waters. Please provide the following items demonstrating compliance with Section 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Please demonstrate that this project is clearly in the public interest and that this project will not result in the degradation of ambient water quality beyond the 30 day construction period. Petitioner responded by letter dated June 22, 1981 and which was received at DER on June 25, 1981. Petitioner said in pertinent part: Dear Mr. Duke: If you would check your previous file no. DF-13-7956, I believe you will find all the information you have requested has previously been provided to your office either in that permit file or through the administrative hearings held in pursuit of this application. I think it would be more fruitful if you would communicate with Al Clark, Attorney for DER, with regard to the status of this application. As I do not wish to speak on behalf of Mr. Clark, I believe you should confirm the status of this application with him, particularly in view of our attempt to comply with Secretary Varn's Final Order which suggests the application for this mixing zone. The record reflects no further correspondence between the parties until September 23, 1981 when the Department entered a Final Order Denying Application for Permit. The Order provided that: This project was reviewed previously (DF 13-7956) and was determined not to be clearly in the public interest pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. No further evidence upon resubmittal, has been provided to clearly demonstrate that this project is in the public interest. Furthermore, the requested mixing zone exceeds that allowable pursuant to Section 17-4.244, F.A.C. and can be applied only during the construction period, pursuant to Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. During the operation of this facility ambient water quality is expected to be degraded in violation of Section 17-4.242, F.A.C. This order was entered ninety-one days after DER received Petitioner's June 22, 1981 letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue the permit applied for by Petitioner, Grove Isle, Ltd. on May 20, 1981 subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent To Issue Permit dated October 23, 1979 which is a part of the record in Bayshore Homeowners Association et al., v. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and Grove Isle, Inc., Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324 and 79-2354. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 12th day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc., is entitled to an environmental resource permit to construct a 516- acre residential development in Miami-Dade County known as Lakes by the Bay South Commons Project and, if so, under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact On May 18, 2001, Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc. (Lennar Homes), filed an application with Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) for an environmental resource permit (ERP) for a 516-acre residential development in Miami- Dade County known as Lakes By The Bay (Project). On June 12, 2002, Lennar Homes filed a revised ERP application for the Project. The application, as revised, is for an ERP conceptually approving the construction of a surface water management system to serve the Project and authorizing the construction to clear the site, excavate the wet retention areas, and expand an existing lake. Providing 3300 single- family residences, the Project is the last phase of a master planned residential development, which presently contains over 1500 residences north and west of the Project. The Project is bordered by Southwest 97th Avenue to the west, Southwest 87th Avenue to the east, Southwest 216th Street to the north, and Southwest 232nd Street to the south. Immediately south of the Project are a regional wastewater treatment plant and county solid waste landfill. These facilities occupy opposing banks of the C-1 Canal, which runs a short distance from the southwest corner of the Project. The Project site is drained, cleared, and infested with Brazilian pepper and melaleuca. The Project will impact 135 acres of wetlands, but these wetlands are severely degraded due to the construction of roads, berms, and canals. No evidence suggests that the site is presently used by any listed species. At present, drainage across the site is from west to east, where stormwater is intercepted by the L-31E levy and canal running along the west side of Southwest 87th Avenue. At its nearest point (the southeast corner), the Project is about one mile from the southern part of Biscayne Bay. Biscayne Bay is an Outstanding Florida Water. Much of its central and southern parts, including the area closest to the Project site, are within Biscayne National Park. In contrast to the northern part of Biscayne Bay, the central and southern parts contain significant mangrove-lined coastal wetlands. The bay bottom in southern Biscayne Bay hosts dense seagrass beds, and coral reefs within Biscayne National Park support a diverse community of marine life. The L-31E levy and canal redirect stormwater from the Project site south to the C-1 Canal, which runs, in this area, in a northwest-to-southeast direction before emptying into Biscayne Bay. The C-1 Canal drains an extensive area to the north and northwest of the Project. The landfill and water treatment plant are a short distance downstream of the Proposed Project. The parties have stipulated that the Project meets the following ERP criteria (with minor rephrasing from the stipulation): The Project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project is not located within an Outstanding Florida Water and will not result in the direct discharge of surface water into an Outstanding Florida Water. Lennar has proposed mitigation to offset the adverse impacts of the Project, and the mitigation is in the same drainage basin as the adverse impacts. Therefore, the Project will not generate unlawful cumulative impacts, in violation of Section 373.414(8)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. The Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(c), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(g), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(h), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will be conducted by an entity with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, as required by Rule 40E-4.301(j), Florida Administrative Code. No special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, Florida Administrative Code, are applicable to the Project. The Project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, as prohibited by Section 373.414(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes. The Project will be permanent, as addressed by Section 373.414(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes. The District issued its Staff Report on March 13, 2002. The Staff Report approves the proposed mitigation plan, which would enhance or create and preserve 135 acres of onsite wetlands by creating an upland buffer, emergent marsh and transitional herbaceous shrub areas, and tree island areas. Much of the proposed mitigation area will occupy the southern half of the perimeter of the Project site. As proposed in the mitigation plan, Lennar Homes will grant the District a conservation easement over the mitigation area and will be required to meet certain mitigation performance conditions. Shortly prior to the commencement of the final hearing in this case, the District decided to change the proposed permit regarding mitigation. The purpose of the change was to require Lennar Homes to allow the mitigation area to be used as a flowway between the C-1 Canal, upstream of the nutrient loads deposited by the landfill and water treatment plant, and an area to the east of the Project site. The receiving area consists of vestigial tidal creeks leading to presently remaining tidal creeks that empty into small embayments within Biscayne Bay. The general purpose of the change was to remediate the loss of freshwater flows into these tidal creeks, the embayments, and Biscayne Bay that resulted from the construction of drainage canals and levies, such as C-1 and L31-E. Accordingly, the District issued an Addendum to Staff Report on August 9, 2002. The Addendum adds an easement to the original mitigation plan by adding Special Condition #24, which states: No later than 30 days after permit issuance and prior to commencement of construction resulting in wetland impacts, the permittee shall submit two certified copies of the recorded flowage easement for the mitigation area and associated buffers and a GIS disk of the recorded easement area The recorded easement shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit 41. Any proposed modifications to the approved form must receive prior written consent from the District. The easement must be free of encumbrances or interests in the easement which the District determines are contrary to the intent of the easement. . . . Exhibit 41 (actually Exhibit 41A) is entitled, "Perpetual Flowage, Inundation, Construction, and Access Easement." Representing a grant from Lennar Homes to the District, the easement (Flowage Easement) is for any and all purposes deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, or incident to, or in connection with, the unrestricted right to regularly, or at any time, and for any length of time[,] overflow, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and through, store water on, and submerge the [encumbered property], together with the unrestricted right at any time to enter upon and access the [encumbered property], with any and all vehicles and equipment, including but not limited to the right to move, transport, store, operate, and stage equipment, materials and supplies, in order to construct, operate, and maintain any and all structures, improvements, equipment, pumps, ditches and berms upon the [encumbered property] deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, incident to or in connection with the implementation of the BBCW Project on the [encumbered property], or in connection with any project in the interest of flood control, water management, conservation, environmental restoration, water storage, or reclamation, and allied purposes, that may be conducted now or in the future by the [District], or to carry out the purposes and intent of the statutory authority of the [District], presently existing or that may be enacted in the future, together with all right, title, and interest in and to the [BBCW] Project Structures. * * * This Easement shall at no time be construed to alleviate or release [Lennar Home's] responsibilities and require [sic] under ERP Permit No. to construct and maintain an on-site mitigation area as described and authorized in the ERP Permit. Other provisions of the Flowage Easement impose all risk of loss in connection with the flowway upon Lennar Homes, which indemnifies the District from all losses, costs, damages, and liability in connection with the flowway. On September 5, 2002, after the hearing, but a few days before the taking of the post-hearing testimony, the District issued a Revised Addendum to Staff Report. The Revised Addendum restates Special Condition #24 with a few relatively minor changes and adds Special Conditions ##25 and 26. Special Condition #25 attempts to harmonize the Flowage Easement with the original mitigation plan contemplated by the Staff Report. Special Condition #25 provides that when the District exercises its rights under the Flowage Easement, other special conditions shall be deleted, so as, for example, to relieve Lennar Homes of its obligations to maintain the mitigation area (except for a 25-foot buffer) and post a mitigation-performance bond. Special Condition #26 changes the language in the conservation easement, which was contemplated by the original Staff Report and mitigation plan, to harmonize this easement with the Flowage Easement. Lennar Homes has submitted a version of the Revised Addendum to Staff Report that would satisfy its concerns. The Lennar Homes version would require the District, within 30 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes, to obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local environmental regulatory agency, although not the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which, under state law, would have to issue an ERP to the District before it could construct the flowway. The Lennar Homes version would also give the District only 90 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes within which to exercise its right to construct the flowway and would sequence events so that Lennar Homes would not spend the estimated $2 million on wetland enhancement and creation and then lose the investment due to the inundation of the mitigation site with water, as authorized by the Flowage Easement. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan plays a crucial role in this case. But for this plan, the District would not have attached the additional conditions contained in the Addendum to Staff Report and Revised Addendum to Staff Report--without which conditions, the District now contends that Lennar Homes is not entitled to the ERP. Congress initially authorized the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project in 1948. Objectives of the C&SF Project included flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, and protection of fish and wildlife. The C&SF Project attained these objectives, in part, through a primary system of 1000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water-control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Unintended consequences of the C&SF Project have included the irreversible loss of vast areas of wetlands, including half of the original Everglades; the alteration in the water storage, timing, and flow capacities of natural drainage systems; and the degradation of water quality and habitat due to over-drainage or extreme fluctuations in the timing and delivery of freshwater into the coastal wetlands and estuaries. In 1992, Congress authorized the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy). The objective of the Restudy was to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the South Florida ecosystem and provide for the other water-related needs of the region. Completed in April 1999, the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Restudy Report) notes that, among the unintended consequences of the C&SF Project, was "unsuitable freshwater flows to Florida and Biscayne bays and Lake Worth Lagoon [that] adversely impact salinity and physically alter fish and wildlife habitat." The Restudy Report states that, absent comprehensive, new restoration projects, the "overall health of the [South Florida] ecosystem will have substantially deteriorated" by 2050. The Restudy Report recommends a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Central and South Florida. This plan is known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Acknowledging the complex dynamics of the restoration goals identified in CERP, the Restudy Report establishes Project Implementation Reports to tie together CERP and the detailed design necessary for the construction of individual restoration projects and adaptive assessments to monitor the performance of individual components, incorporate new data, and refine future components. The Restudy Report is, among other things, a programmatic environmental impact statement. The Restudy Report states: "Due to the conceptual nature of [CERP] and the associated uncertainties, many subsequent site-specific environmental documents will be required for the individual separable project elements." In May 2002, the District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a draft of the Project Management Plan for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW PMP). Noting that a "major goal of [CERP] is to improve freshwater deliveries to Biscayne Bay," the BBCW PMP identifies the BBCW project as the means by which to restore some of the coastal wetlands and tributaries in south Dade County. The BBCW PMP states that the primary purpose of the BBCW project, which is one of sixty projects contained in CERP, is to "redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed into Biscayne Bay, away from the canal discharges that exist today and provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing and or improved coastal wetlands." The Cutler Wetlands subcomponent of the BBCW project encompasses the Project site. One of the objectives of the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent is to divert water from the C-1 Canal upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant to the east of the L-31E levy and canal. In connection with the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent and the possible role of the flowway identified in this case, the District retained Dr. John Meeder, a Biscayne Bay ecologist associated with the Southeast Environmental Resource Center at Florida International University, to perform an abbreviated study and issue a report concerning the conditions required for the restoration of the coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the coastal wetlands to the north of the C-1 canal and east of the Project site (Meeder Report). The Meeder Report studies two feasible freshwater delivery options and prefers a bypass flowway along Southwest 224th Street, across roughly the middle of the Project site and north of most of the proposed mitigation area, to the L-31E levy and canal. The distribution system resulting from the preferred route would use the natural grade of the land to divert the water to the coastal wetlands and tidal creeks to the east and south that are targeted for rehydration. The alternative flowway route would run along Southwest 232nd Street, in the approximate area of the Flowage Easement, but would require pumping to distribute the water north along the L-31E levy and canal for release to the targeted coastal wetlands and tidal creeks. Obviously, the District has chosen the less-preferred route to minimize the impact on the Project. The Meeder Report considers the amount of freshwater required for two rehydration options. In the first option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, which then empty into the embayments that lead to Biscayne Bay. In the second option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate the tidal creeks and the surrounding coastal wetlands. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate only the tidal creeks, the flowway would need to deliver 70 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 95 acre/feet per day in the wet season. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, the flowway would need to deliver 209 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 1139 acre/feet per day in the wet season. Several factors militate against an attempt to rehydrate the coastal wetlands surrounding the targeted tidal creeks. Potential errors in data and analysis increase in magnitude with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, and Dr. Meeder admitted that the largest value was very approximate. Potentially serious impacts upon salinity and associated vegetative communities increase in likelihood with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands. Also, the diversion of larger volumes of water from the C-1 Canal may have adverse impacts on downstream conditions. At the point of the C-1 Canal where it first enters the landfill and wastewater treatment plant (just downstream from the flowway), the average flow of the C-1 Canal is 350 acre/feet per day, but the median flow is only 160 acre/feet per day. (The average flow rate is skewed by occasional, very high daily flows of 4000 acre/feet during large storm events.) The larger volumes diverted to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands would, at times, withdraw a relatively large portion of the water from the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, the District justifiably elected to seek a flowway that would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, including the vestigial tidal creeks, but not the surrounding coastal wetlands. Petitioners and Lennar Homes have raised numerous other issues about the flowway that the District seeks to obtain. The District requires a 200-acre flowway to rehydrate adequately the vestigial tidal creeks, the presently remaining tidal creeks, the small embayment, and then the subject area of Biscayne Bay, but the mitigation area potentially available on the Project site is limited to about 135 acres, and some uncertainty exists as to whether the District can obtain control of the remaining land necessary to assemble a 200-acre flowway. Even the 200-acre flowway is probably insufficient to accommodate significant water treatment, so water quality issues remain outstanding, notwithstanding the better water quality upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant. Other issues arise from the requirement that the District obtain an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as well as one or more federal agencies, before it could construct the flowway. To the extent that this requirement delays and possibly precludes the construction of the flowway, this requirement militates against the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. To the extent that this requirement insures that the flowway will not cause flooding or adverse water quality in the tidal creeks, embayment, and ultimately Biscayne Bay, this requirement militates in favor of the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP; the absence of detailed specifications for the design and construction of the flowway precludes any assurance that the flowway would not flood or otherwise damage the upland portion of the Project site, so subsequent permit-review is essential to the present inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. It is impossible to credit the District's evidence that various transition-zone wetland species would survive inundation under unknown flow rates, of variable depths, and of unknown and possibly indefinite duration. Lennar Homes legitimately is concerned that its substantial investment in mitigation, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, would be wasted if the District constructs the flowway. As presently drafted, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions contemplate that Lennar Homes would construct the original mitigation, at a substantial cost, and the District would later construct and inundate the flowway through largely the same area. Marketing of parcels in close proximity to the flowway might be complicated by the uncertainty concerning what will occupy the area beyond a resident's backyard--a benign passive mitigation area or a flowway that may range from a intermittently wet slough or glade to a placid lake to a raging swollen river--and by the probability that the District would not construct the flowway until 2009. The District justifies the Flowage Easement and new special conditions on two grounds. First, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is harmful to the District's water resources. Second, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. The first argument misses the mark. A project that is otherwise permittable, except for the fact that it interferes with the establishment of a restoration project, does not harm the water resources of the District; such a Project interferes with the improvement of the water resources of the District. In this case, the parties have stipulated that the Project will not cause adverse impacts due to the original mitigation plan. If adverse impacts means anything, it means harm to the water resources of the District. The second argument requires the identification of the District's objectives. The Florida Legislature has declared at Section 373.1502(2)(a), Florida Statutes, that CERP implementation is "in the public interest and is necessary for restoring, preserving and protecting the South Florida ecosystem . . .." In May 2000, the Florida Legislature enacted the Everglades Restoration Investment Act, which commits Florida to contribute over $2 billion for the implementation of CERP-- Florida's share for the first ten years of implementation. The Florida Legislature has made the implementation of CERP an overall objective of the District. Several factors are important in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. These factors require consideration of the purpose of the proposed restoration project; the extent of completion of the project's design, permitting, and construction; if the project has not yet been designed or permitted, the likelihood of construction; when the project would be constructed; the impact of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions upon the proposed restoration project; and the existence of feasible alternatives to accomplish the same objectives as those achieved by the proposed restoration project. These factors generally favor the issuance of the ERP, but only with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The flowway project would rehydrate a portion of the estuarine waters of southern Biscayne Bay that are sufficiently healthy to respond vigorously to the new freshwater infusions, so the project is important. The C-1 Canal appears to be the only readily available source of sufficient volumes of freshwater to achieve the rehydration of the tidal creeks, and the proposed path through the Lennar Homes mitigation area appears to be the only readily available means by which to divert the freshwater to the targeted tidal creeks. If the flowway project is limited to the tidal creeks and does not extend to the surrounding coastal wetlands, the likely environmental impacts appear to be positive on the receiving areas and the downstream portion of the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, even though the project is at an early conceptual stage and construction would not start for six years, it seems likely to be constructed. The apparent difficulty in securing the necessary additional 65 acres may yet be overcome through property acquisition, and, if not, the District may be able to increase the capacity of the flowway without jeopardizing the adjacent uplands. For the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law below, other factors in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP require consideration of the impact upon Lennar Homes in accommodating the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. With two exceptions, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions do not impose an inordinate burden upon Lennar Homes. The flowway would occupy the portion of the Project site that would have been subject to the conservation easement that was part of the original mitigation plan. Lennar Homes' responsibility for maintenance is considerably lessened if the District constructs the flowway, whose special maintenance needs can only be met by the District or its contractors. Although Lennar Homes may experience some sales resistance due to the uncertainty of the use of the mitigation area, the assurances gained from the subsequent permitting process, during which the District will seek an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the construction of the flowway, should allay reasonable concerns about flooding and other damage to the adjacent uplands. In three respects, though, the District has abused its discretion in preparing the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. First, the District abused its discretion in requiring Lennar Homes to perform mitigation work in the mitigation area, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, to the extent that the products of such work will likely be destroyed or substantially harmed by the construction and operation of the flowway. The value of mitigation rests largely in the functions that it can support through longterm viability. The construction and operation of the surface water management system, the posting of a sufficient bond to guarantee future performance under either mitigation scenario, the execution and delivery into escrow of deeds and other legal instruments sufficient to meet the requirements of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions (subject to the two matters discussed in this and the two following paragraphs), and the construction of the portion of the original mitigation that would not be impacted by the flowway sufficiently respond to the need for mitigation, until the District finally determines the need for it to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement. Second, the District abused its discretion by omitting any timeframe for the District to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The timeframe proposed by Lennar Homes for the District to make this final determination of whether to proceed with the flowway is unreasonable and ignores the substantial period of time required to design, fund, and permit the flowway. But a timeframe may be especially important if Lennar Homes encounters more marketing resistance than might be reasonably anticipated. Therefore, the new conditions should provide that if construction of the flowway is not substantially completed by 2011, then the Flowage Easement shall be released and returned to Lennar Homes, upon its commencement, without delay, of the construction of any of the original mitigation that it did not already complete. Third, the District also abused its discretion in the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the allocation of liability for the flowway, including apparently its construction, maintenance, and operation. The District would impose this liability upon Lennar Homes, which would have to indemnify the District for construction damage or any malfunctions in the operation of the flowway, such as damage to adjacent uplands by flooding, erosion, or contamination. The District has imposed this restoration project on Lennar Homes and has done so, not to avoid harm to the District's water resources, but to achieve the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. The District and its contractors, not Lennar Homes, will construct, maintain, and operate the flowway. The District, not Lennar Homes, has the expertise in the design, construction, and operation of water-control facilities of this type. This record does not disclose a single legitimate reason to impose upon Lennar Homes the liability for any aspect of the flowway that does not result from the acts or omissions of Lennar Homes or its assignees as owners of the adjacent uplands. Although, as stated in its proposed recommended order, the District does not object to the standing of Petitioners, Respondents did not stipulate to the standing of any Petitioners. Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., offered no witnesses concerning their standing, and no exhibits address the standing of these parties. The record thus fails to demonstrate that Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., are substantially affected by the proposed agency action. Petitioner National Parks Conservation Association, Inc., (National Parks) is a not-for-profit corporation registered in Florida as a foreign corporation. The corporate purpose of National Parks is to protect and enhance America's national parks, including Biscayne National Park, for present and future generations. National Parks seeks the protection and enhancement of the Biscayne National Park through the successful implementation of CERP. National Parks has 350,000 members, including 19,900 in Florida. Members of National Parks use Biscayne National Park for recreational boating, fishing, snorkeling, fish watching, scuba diving, and camping (on the barrier islands). Members of National Parks are actively monitoring the implementation of CERP. Petitioner Florida Audubon Society, Inc. (Florida Audubon), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that was originally incorporated in Florida in 1900. The corporate purpose of Florida Audubon is to protect, conserve, and restore Florida's heritage through the preservation of the state's natural resources. Florida Audubon has adopted as its highest priority the design and implementation of CERP. Florida Audubon has 32,000 members in Florida, including over 2100 members in Dade County. Numerous of these members engage in bird watching, recreation, and scientific research in Biscayne National Park. Florida Audubon organizes membership trips to Biscayne Bay, conducts its annual Bird-athon and Christmas Bird Count in the vicinity of Biscayne Bay, and conducts various environment educational programs in and concerning Biscayne Bay. The issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would substantially impact the ability of the District to restore this part of Biscayne Bay. Without such restoration, the functions of Biscayne Bay will slowly decline until eventually the overall health of the entire South Florida ecosystem will be substantially deteriorated. Thus, National Parks and Florida Audubon would be substantially affected by the issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District issue the environmental resource permit with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions, as modified in accordance with the matters presented in paragraphs 39-41. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, 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 10th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Richard Grosso Louise Caro, Certified Legal Intern Environmental & Land Use Law Center, Inc. Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Marcy I. LaHart Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 711 Talladaga Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Erin L. Deady Environmental Counsel 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850 Miami, Florida 33131 E. Thom Rumberger Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. 403 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Luna Ergas Phillips Douglas H. MacLaughlin Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Frank E. Matthews Gary V. Perko Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
The Issue The issues to be decided in this case are whether Respondents are liable for the violations charged in the NOV, whether Respondents should pay the penalties assessed in the NOV, and whether Respondents should be required to take the corrective actions demanded in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency with powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands and surface waters, including filling in wetlands. Respondents are individuals who own real property on Bayshore Road in North Fort Myers, Florida. Some confusion exists in the record about the street number for the property. It is alternately described as 11590, 11620, 11650, and 11850. This is partly due to the fact that the property consists of at least two recorded parcels. The actual location of the filled area is not disputed, nor is it disputed that Respondents own the property where the fill was placed. The property is adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River. It contains freshwater marsh wetlands dominated by Leather Fern. The Department conducted a site inspection of Respondents’ property and determined that Respondents had filled 0.96 acres of wetlands. The Department produced evidence that it incurred costs of $1,824.50 in this case. The corrective actions ordered in the NOV, which are designed to restore the wetlands that were filled, are reasonable.
The Issue Whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“the Commission”) correctly determined that a sailboat owned by Jeffrey Sundwall was a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2017),1 and thus subject to sections 376.15(3)(a) and 705.103, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Commission is empowered to remove, or cause to be removed, derelict vessels from Florida’s public waters. §§ 376.15(3)(a) and 823.11(3), Fla. Stat. A vessel is considered to be “derelict” if it is left, stored, or abandoned “[i]n a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled condition upon any public waters of this state.” § 823.11(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat. Mr. Sundwall was the registered owner of a 28-foot sailboat named the Sea Joy. Facts Specific to the Instant Case Lieutenant Andy Cox of the Commission found the Sea Joy anchored off Wisteria Island in the Florida Keys on March 27, 2017. The Sea Joy had an expired registration decal, and a large amount of seaweed on the outboard motor, which probably rendered the motor inoperative. The Sea Joy had been left open and exposed to the elements, and Lieutenant Cox observed one-inch deep, green water inside the vessel. Lieutenant Cox also determined that the Sea Joy had no working bilge pumps or battery power. Lieutenant Cox initiated a derelict vessel investigation. While the Commission did not take custody of the Sea Joy at that time, Lieutenant Cox affixed a large, red sticker to the Sea Joy announcing that the vessel’s owner had 5 days before the Commission disposed of it pursuant to its authority under chapter 705. Lieutenant Cox met with Mr. Sundwall on approximately March 28, 2017, in a Florida Keys jail and served him with three infraction citations. Lieutenant Cox also provided Mr. Sundwall with a written notice indicating the Commission considered the Sea Joy to be a derelict vessel. On July 24, 2017, the County Court for Monroe County issued an Order requiring the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office and the Commission to preserve the Sea Joy as essential evidence in a criminal case against Mr. Sundwall. Thus, the Sea Joy could not be “destroyed, removed, altered, moved, or otherwise disposed of.” After Hurricane Irma struck Florida in September of 2017 and wrecked several hundred vessels, the Commission partnered with the Coast Guard in an effort to identify and remove derelict vessels. If an owner of a derelict vessel waived his or her ownership interest, then the State of Florida would not charge for a vessel’s removal and disposal.2 Wisteria Island is owned by the FEB Corporation. In November of 2017, the Commission found the Sea Joy hard aground on the shore of Wisteria Island, and the Sea Joy could not be moved without mechanical assistance. The Sea Joy had no mast or sail, and the vessel was still left open and exposed to the elements. In sum, the Sea Joy was nothing more than a hull at that point. Contemporaneous photographs and video of the Sea Joy indicate that it was resting on “wrack lines” left by the tide. Those wrack lines demonstrated that the Sea Joy was on public waters at high tide.3 In response to a request for reconsideration from the State of Florida, the Monroe County Court issued an Order on December 12, 2017, allowing the State to remove the Sea Joy from Wisteria Island. On December 17, 2017, the Commission transported the Sea Joy to a marina in Marathon, Florida. 2 The Commission’s attorney announced during the final hearing that the Commission would not seek to recover the costs of removing and disposing of the Sea Joy from Mr. Sundwall. Ordinarily, the owner of a derelict vessel is responsible for all costs associated with its removal and destruction. See §§ 376.15(3)(a), 705.103(4), and 823.11(3)(b), Fla. Stat. However, in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, the State of Florida assumed all of those costs. 3 This finding is based on the testimony of Major Robert Rowe of the Commission, and the undersigned found him to be a credible and persuasive witness. Officer David Bellville of the Commission met with Mr. Sundwall on January 4, 2018, at the Stock Island Detention Center in Key West. Officer Bellville served Mr. Sundwall with a notice stating that he had 30 days to take possession of the Sea Joy or it would be destroyed pursuant to the Commission’s authority under chapter 705. Officer Bellville also served Mr. Sundwall with an election of rights form stating he had 21 days to protest the Commission’s proposed action. Mr. Sundwall declined to waive his property interest in the Sea Joy and ultimately executed the election of rights form and a request for an administrative hearing on January 20, 2018. Mr. Sundwall’s hearing request was postmarked on January 23, 2018, and received by the Commission on January 29, 2018. Because Mr. Sundwall’s documents were received after the 21-day deadline, the Commission had the Sea Joy destroyed on February 21, 2018, and issued an Order on March 6, 2018, dismissing Mr. Sundwall’s hearing request with prejudice. Mr. Sundwall appealed the Commission’s Order to the First District Court of Appeal, and the appellate court issued an opinion in Sundwall v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, 271 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), on May 16, 2019, reversing and remanding the Commission’s dismissal: After Hurricane Irma struck Florida in 2017, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) identified Mr. Sundwall as the owner of a boat declared derelict upon the waters of Florida. See § 823.11, Fla. Stat. (2017) (defining derelict vessels and empowering FWC to deal with them). Mr. Sundwall was incarcerated at the time. FWC sent Mr. Sundwall notice of the declaration, an explanation of his rights, an Election of Rights form, and a form for a Petition for Administrative Proceeding. The notice stated that a failure to make any election within twenty-one days from receipt of the notice would constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing. Mr. Sundwall signed a receipt for these documents on January 4, 2018. The twenty-first day after that fell on January 25, 2018. He signed the Election of Rights form, requesting a hearing; and also completed the Petition for Administrative Proceeding, dating both of his signatures January 20, 2018. There was no certificate of service or institutional date stamp on any of the papers, nor any institutional mail log indicating when he gave the papers to prison officials. The envelope was postmarked January 23, 2018. FWC stamped it as received on January 29, 2018. FWC dismissed the petition with prejudice because FWC did not receive it within twenty-one days and Mr. Sundwall did not request an extension within that period. FWC's order of dismissal acknowledged that the envelope from Mr. Sundwall was postmarked January 23, 2018. However, FWC relied on Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.104(1), which defines filing as receipt by the agency clerk during normal business hours. In his pro-se brief, Mr. Sundwall relies on the January 20 date of his signatures and the January 23 postmark date, arguing that he is entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule under Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992). FWC does not dispute that argument, but argues that Mr. Sundwall provided no proof that he placed his papers in the hands of prison officials before expiration of the deadline; i.e., no institutional mail stamp or log and no certificate of service. The record does not reflect whether Mr. Sundwall’s institution utilizes dated mail stamps or logs, but one reason there were no certificates of service is because none of the forms that FWC supplied to him contained a certificate of service. In a literal sense, however, Mr. Sundwall "provided" FWC a postmarked envelope that evidences timeliness. He argues on appeal that FWC calculated the time erroneously, and he points out that the envelope was postmarked on January 23. The postmark date was before expiration of the twenty-one-day period for requesting a hearing, and therefore the petition necessarily was submitted to prison officials before the deadline. FWC acknowledged the postmark date in its order of dismissal, and the postmarked envelope is in the record. We therefore reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings on Mr. Sundwall's petition.[4] Ultimate Findings There is no dispute that the Sea Joy was a “vessel” within the meaning of section 327.02(46), Florida Statutes. When it was beached on Wisteria Island, the Sea Joy was a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1. It was left or abandoned in a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled condition upon the public waters of this state. While the Sea Joy no longer exists, the photographic evidence and the witness testimony conclusively demonstrate that it was wrecked or substantially dismantled by the time it ran aground on Wisteria Island. The photographic evidence also demonstrated that the Sea Joy was upon the State of Florida’s public waters at high tide. Mr. Sundwall made several factual arguments during the final hearing. For instance, section 823.11(1)(b)3. defines a “derelict vessel” as one that is “[d]ocked, grounded, or beached upon the property of another without the consent of the owner of the property.” Mr. Sundwall testified that he had permission for the Sea Joy to be on Wisteria Island. Mr. Sundwall’s argument is not persuasive because the Commission determined the Sea Joy to be a 4 To whatever extent that Mr. Sundwall is seeking damages from the Commission for the Sea Joy’s destruction, he must pursue that claim before a different tribunal. DOAH’s role in this matter is limited to making findings as to whether the Sea Joy was a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1. and thus subject to sections 376.15(3)(a) and 705.103. derelict vessel pursuant to section 823.11(1)(b)1., not section 823.11(1)(b)3. However, even if the Commission had deemed the Sea Joy to be derelict pursuant to section 823.11(1)(b)3., Mr. Sundwall’s testimony that he had permission to keep the Sea Joy on the shore of Wisteria Island was uncorroborated and unpersuasive. In preparation to take control of the Sea Joy, Mr. Sundwall asserted that a friend of his had attempted to inspect the Sea Joy while it was beached on Wisteria Island. He claimed that the Commission forced Mr. Sundwall’s friend away from the wrecked vessel. Because the Commission was dealing with several hundred displaced vessels in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, it is very unlikely that the Commission would have been in a position (or to have been inclined) to prevent any willing person from removing the derelict Sea Joy from Wisteria Island or inspecting it. Moreover, the undersigned generally found Mr. Sundwall’s testimony on this point to be unpersuasive and self-serving. Mr. Sundwall’s witnesses did not present any persuasive testimony to corroborate his assertions. Mr. Sundwall also argued that the instant case is part of the Commission’s ongoing effort to retaliate against him for undermining a criminal investigation. Even if that were the case, there is no evidence that the Commission left the Sea Joy anchored off Wisteria Island or caused it to become a derelict vessel. Mr. Sundwall asserts that he has been denied due process. However, the facts refute that assertion because: (a) he was given notice of the Commission’s proposed action to dispose of the Sea Joy; (b) he had an opportunity to request a hearing; (c) his case was referred to DOAH; and (d) a formal administrative hearing was conducted on February 7, 2020, at which he fully participated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission issue a Final Order deeming the Sea Joy to have been a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1. and that the Commission was authorized under section 376.15(3)(a) to relocate or remove the Sea Joy. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 1st day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Brandy Elaine Elliott, Esquire Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jeffrey Ray Sundwall, 829113 Jackson Correctional Institution 5563 10th Street Malone, Florida 32445 Eric Sutton, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Emily Norton, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The proposed addition to the existing commercial docking facilities in the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve would consist of approximately 5,000 square feet of additional overwater structure. The effects of such a facility on the marine ecosystem were described in expert testimony. The structure would cut off penetration of light to the bottom and the organisms living below. The resultant change in the biota under the dock would reduce the number of sedentary species, that is to say those species that remain essentially stationary in a given area, and would increase the number of errant species, that is to say those species which move from place to place. This change in the existing ecosystem directly affects the food chain and ultimately adversely affects commercial and sports fishing. Other negative impacts on the area due to the proposed construction would be increased boat traffic, sewage, introduction of petroleum products into the waters and an increase in the number and size of boats docking in the area thereby expanding the shaded area beyond that of the dock itself. Though the actual amount of damage to the preserve from both the shading effect and usage as a whole cannot be quantified without appropriate natural asset inventroy and study, some amount of damage would occur to the biological integrity of the area. The proliferation of docks within the Aquatic Preserve along with the cumulative impact of such construction must be considered as a potential threat to the Preserve. The cumulative impact and extent of damage which might occur as a result of the proposed construction must be determined through the conduct of a study developing a management plan for the Preserve, balancing present and future needs and values. Each individual Petitioner owns waterfront property within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. Because of the potential negative impact of the proposed project and its cumulative impact with other projects on waterfront property, each Petitioner would be materially affected by the granting of this lease. No use or management criteria, ultimate or incipient, for the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve have been adopted. However, since December, 1975, DNR has been engaged in the process of adopting such rules for the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Once adopted, these rules will serve as a model for rules to be promulgated for the other aquatic preserves including Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. No studies have been conducted by DNR of Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. There is no inventory of available commercial docks, boat traffic, ingress or egress within the Preserve. The proposed rules for the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve are not presently being applied to aquatic preserve leases.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Studebaker's Restaurant (Respondent), owns a 50's theme bar in Clearwater which offers entertainment and dancing and serves alcoholic beverages and food. Studebaker's has a nationwide policy, also followed at the Clearwater establishment, of restricting admittance to persons aged 23 and older. In the same building housing the Clearwater Studebaker's, Respondent also owns and operates a theme bar called the Palm Beach Club which is under common management and which is operated like Studebaker's except that the theme and music is contemporary and anyone who has attained the legal drinking age is allowed admittance. Petitioner, Ronald M. McElrath, is the coordinator for the Community Relations Board established under Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code. He is approximately 38 years of age. In May or June 1985, McElrath witnessed an employee of the Clearwater Studebaker's refusing admission to a female on the basis that she was not at least 23 years of age. Investigating further, McElrath verified through the manager of the Clearwater Studebaker's that Respondent did have a policy restricting admission to the Clearwater Studebaker's to persons at least 23 years of age. Based on McElrath's knowledge and information, McElrath and the Community Relations Board attempted to conciliate with Respondent the alleged conflict between Respondent's age policy at the Clearwater Studebaker's and Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code. By November 13, 1985, McElrath and the Community Relations Board concluded that their attempts at conciliation would not be successful, and the Community Relations Board filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent. That charge of discrimination was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 85-3513. On or about February 11, 1986, Case No. 85-3513 was dismissed and the file closed based upon the Community Relations Board's report that it was withdrawing its petition in the case and that an individual other than the Community Relations Board would file a separate petition as Charging Party. Actually, on or about January 9, 1986, McElrath, in his capacity as coordinator for the Community Relations Board, had filed a Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination against Respondent on the same alleged facts that formed the basis of Case No. 85-3513. McElrath's Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about February 4, 1986, resulting in this case. McElrath has never attempted to file any other complaint under Chapter 99 of the City of Clearwater Code in his capacity as coordinator for the Community Relations Board. Because no further investigation was necessary and no further attempts to conciliate were reasonably likely to succeed, McElrath made no further investigation and made no further attempts to conciliate with Respondent after filing the Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination. Before filing of the Supplemental Charge Of Discrimination in this case, McElrath did not make a formal probable cause determination and did not serve notice of determination of probable cause on the Respondent. Respondent and its management has a commendable and appropriately implemented policy of being a responsible seller of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. However, contrary to Respondent's assertions in this case, the policy of allowing only persons 23 years of age and older in the Clearwater Studebaker's is not significantly motivated by a desire to reduce alcohol-related traffic accidents. The primary motivation for the age limit is to establish and maintain an economically successful theme bar. Any contribution towards reducing alcohol related traffic accidents is an after thought rationalization. This was proven by Respondent's willingness to divert patrons younger than 23 next door to its Palm Beach Club where Respondent willingly serves them alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises.
