The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent Land Trust #97-12 (“Land Trust”) is entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) for its proposed project on Perico Island in Bradenton, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Joseph McClash is a resident of Bradenton, Florida, who uses the waters in the vicinity of the project for fishing, crabbing, boating, and wildlife observation. Petitioner Manasota-88, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation for more than 20 years. Manasota-88 has approximately 530 members, most of whom (approximately 300) reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of Manasota-88 includes the protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Petitioner FISH is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 1991. FISH owns real property in unincorporated Cortez in Manatee County and maintains a Manatee County mailing address. FISH has more than 190 members and more than 150 of them own property or reside in Manatee County. The mission and goal of FISH includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, including Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Suncoast Waterkeeper, Inc., is an active Florida nonprofit corporation in existence since 2012. The mission of Suncoast Waterkeeper is “to protect and restore the Suncoast’s waterways through enforcement, fieldwork, advocacy, and environmental education for the benefit of the communities that rely upon coastal resources.” Suncoast Waterkeeper provided the names and addresses of 25 members residing in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Suncoast Waterkeeper use the area and waters near the proposed activity for nature-based activities, including nature observation, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Intervenor Sierra Club, Inc., is a national organization that is a California corporation registered as a foreign nonprofit corporation in Florida. Sierra Club has been permitted to conduct business in Florida since 1982. The mission of Sierra Club includes protection of the natural resources of Manatee County, which include Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Sierra Club provided the names and addresses of 26 members who live in Manatee County. A substantial number of the members of Sierra Club use the area and waters near the proposed project for nature-based activities, including observing native flora and fauna, fishing, kayaking, wading, and boating along the natural shorelines of Anna Maria Sound and Perico Island. Respondent Land Trust is the applicant for the challenged ERP and owns the property on which the proposed project would be constructed. Respondent District is an independent special district of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the regulation of activities in surface waters. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the District. The Project Site The project site is 3.46 acres of a 40.36-acre parcel owned by Land Trust. The parcel includes uplands, wetlands, and submerged lands, on or seaward of Perico Island, next to Anna Maria Sound, which is part of Lower Tampa Bay. Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water. The project site is adjacent to a large multi-family residential development called Harbour Isles, which is currently under construction. Access to the Land Trust property is gained through this development. The Land Trust parcel contains approximately seven acres of high quality mangroves along the shoreline of Anna Maria Sound. They are mostly black and red mangroves, with some white mangroves. The mangroves on the project site amount to a total of 1.9 acres. Mangroves have high biological productivity and are important to estuarine food webs. Mangroves provide nesting, roosting, foraging, and nursery functions for many species of wildlife. Mangroves also provide a buffer from storm surge and help to stabilize shorelines. Wildlife species found on the project site include ibises, pelicans, egrets, spoonbills, mangrove cuckoos, bay scallops, fiddler crabs, mangrove tree crabs, horseshoe crabs, marsh rabbits, raccoons, mangrove bees, and a variety of fish. No endangered species have been observed on the project site, but mangroves are used by a number of listed species. The Proposed Project The proposed project is to construct a retaining wall, place fill behind the wall to create buildable lots for four single-family homes, construct an access driveway, and install a stormwater management facility. The stormwater management facility is a “Stormtech” system, which is an underground system usually used in situations where there is insufficient area to accommodate a stormwater pond. Riprap would be placed on the waterward side of the retaining wall. The retaining wall would be more than 35 feet landward of the mean high water line in most areas. Petitioners contend the proposed retaining wall is a vertical seawall, which is not allowed in an estuary pursuant to section 373.414(5). “Vertical seawall” is defined in section 2.0(a)(111), Volume I, of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook (“Applicants Handbook”) as a seawall which is steeper than 75 degrees to the horizontal. It further states, “A seawall with sloping riprap covering the waterward face to the mean high water line shall not be considered a vertical seawall.” The retaining wall is vertical, but it would have riprap covering its waterward face and installed at a slope of 70 degrees. The retaining wall is not a vertical seawall under the District’s definition. Stormwater Management Stormwater in excess of the Stormtech system’s design capacity would discharge into Anna Maria Sound. Because Anna Maria Sound is an Outstanding Florida Water, District design criteria require that an additional 50 percent of treatment volume be provided. The Stormtech system meets the District’s design criteria for managing water quality and water quantity. Projects which meet the District’s design criteria are presumed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with state water quality standards. Petitioners’ evidence was not sufficient to rebut this presumption. Petitioners contend the District waiver of water quality certification for the proposed project means that Land Trust was not required to meet water quality standards. However, that was a misunderstanding of the certification process. All state water quality criteria are applicable. Petitioners contend water quality monitoring should be imposed for this project. However, section 4.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, provides that if the applicant meets the District’s design criteria, water quality monitoring is not required. Petitioners failed to prove the proposed stormwater management system cannot be constructed, operated, or maintained in compliance with applicable criteria. Wetland Impacts In order to create buildable lots, 1.05 acres of the 1.9 acres of mangroves on the project site would be removed and replaced with fill. A swath of mangroves approximately 40 feet wide would remain waterward of the retaining wall. The proposed direct and secondary impacts to the functions provided by wetlands were evaluated using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (“UMAM”) as required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345. UMAM is used to quantify the loss of functions performed by wetlands considering: current condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, fish and wildlife utilization, time lag, and mitigation risk. The District determined the filling of 1.05 acres of wetlands would result in a functional loss of 0.81 units and the secondary impacts resulting from installation of the retaining wall would result in a loss of 0.09 units for a total functional loss of 0.9 units. Petitioners contend the functional loss would be greater. Petitioners contend the wetland delineation performed by Land Trust and confirmed by the District did not extend as far landward as the hydric soils and, therefore, the total acreage of affected wetlands would be greater. However, Petitioners did not produce a wetland delineation for the project site, and their evidence was not sufficient to rebut Land Trust's prima facie evidence on this issue. Petitioners’ experts believe the secondary impacts caused by the proposed project would be greater than calculated, including fragmentation of the shoreline mangrove system, damage to the roots of mangroves near the retaining wall, and scouring effects caused by wave action associated with the retaining wall. Respondents assert that the analysis by Petitioners’ expert Jacqueline Cook relied on federal methodology and that “the science used in her analysis is not contained in the state or district rule criteria.” Reliance on science is always appropriate. However, Ms. Cook’s use of a federal impact assessment methodology creates doubt about whether her scoring is consistent with UMAM. Despite the unreliability of Ms. Cook’s UMAM score, it is found that Respondents’ UMAM score under-calculated secondary impacts due to scour and other effects of changed water movement that would be caused by the retaining wall. It was not explained how the loss of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions of wetlands are accounted for in the UMAM score. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts Section 10.2.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, states that in reviewing a project the District is to consider practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Section 10.2.1.1 explains: The term “modification” shall not be construed as including the alternative of not implementing the activity in some form, nor shall it be construed as requiring a project that is significantly different in type or function. A proposed modification that is not technically capable of being completed, is not economically viable, or that adversely affects public safety through the endangerment of lives or property is not considered “practicable.” A proposed modification need not remove all economic value of the property in order to be considered not “practicable.” Conversely, a modification need not provide the highest and best use of the property to be “practicable.” In determining whether a proposed modification is practicable, consideration shall also be given to cost of the modification compared to the environmental benefit it achieves. Land Trust originally proposed constructing a surface water retention pond. The Stormtech stormwater management system would cause less wetland impact than a retention pond. Land Trust contends the use of a retaining wall reduces wetland impacts because, otherwise, more mangroves would have to be removed to account for the slope of the waterward side of the fill area. However, this proposition assumes the appropriateness of the size of the fill area. Land Trust also contends wetland impacts are reduced by using the adjacent development to access the proposed project site, rather than creating a new road. However, the evidence did not establish that Land Trust had a practicable and preferred alternative for access. Unlike the Stormtech system, the retaining wall and access driveway were not shown to be project modifications. The proposed project would cause fewer impacts to wetlands if the fill area was reduced in size, which was not shown to be impracticable. Reducing the size of the fill area would not cause the project to be significantly different in type or function. Land Trust did not demonstrate that it implemented reasonable design modifications to eliminate or reduce impacts to wetland functions. Mitigation Land Trust proposes to purchase credits from the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank, which is 17 miles north of the proposed project site. The Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank is in the Tampa Bay Drainage Basin. The project site is in the South Coastal Drainage Basin. Pursuant to section 10.2.8 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I, if an applicant mitigates adverse impacts within the same drainage basin, the agency will consider the regulated activity to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. However, if the applicant proposes to mitigate impacts in another drainage basin, factors such as “connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality” will be considered to determine whether the impacts are fully offset. The parties disputed whether there was connectivity between the waters near the project site and the waters at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. The more persuasive evidence shows there is connectivity. There was also a dispute about the habitat range of affected species. The evidence establishes that the species found in the mangroves at the project site are also found at the mitigation bank. However, local fish and wildlife, and local biological productivity would be diminished by the proposed project. This diminution affects Petitioners’ substantial interests. The loss or reduction of storm buffering and erosion prevention functions performed by the mangroves at Perico Island cannot be mitigated for at the Tampa Bay Mitigation Bank. Cumulative impacts are unacceptable when the proposed activity, considered in conjunction with past, present, and future activities would result in a violation of state water quality standards, or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. See § 10.2.8.1, Applicant’s Handbook, Vol. I. Section 10.2.8(b) provides that, in considering the cumulative impacts associated with a project, the District is to consider other activities which reasonably may be expected to be located within wetlands or other surface waters in the same drainage basin, based upon the local government’s comprehensive plan. Land Trust did not make a prima facie showing on this point. Land Trust could propose a similar project on another part of its property on Perico Island. Anyone owning property in the area which is designated for residential use under the City of Bradenton’s comprehensive plan and bounded by wetlands could apply to enlarge the buildable portion of the property by removing the wetlands and filling behind a retaining wall. When considering future wetland impacts in the basin which are likely to result from similar future activities, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project would result in significant adverse impacts to wetland functions in the area. Public Interest For projects located in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to the public interest, or if such activities significantly degrade or are within an Outstanding Florida Water, are clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the criteria set forth in rule 62- 330.302(1)(a), and as set forth in sections 10.2.3 through of the Applicant’s Handbook. Rule 62-330.302, which is identical to section 373.414, Florida Statutes, lists the following seven public interest balancing factors to be considered: Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, F.S.; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. The Parties stipulated that the proposed project would not have an adverse impact on public health, navigation, historical resources, archeological resources, or social costs. Land Trust proposes to give $5,000 to the City of Palmetto for an informational kiosk at the City of Palmetto’s public boat ramp. A District employee testified that this contribution made the project clearly in the public interest. Reasonable assurances were not provided that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest because of the adverse cumulative effects on the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing and recreational values, and marine productivity of Anna Maria Sound, an Outstanding Florida Water.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District issue a final order that denies the Environmental Resource Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2015, 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 25th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Christian Thomas Van Hise, Esquire Abel Band, Chartered Post Office Box 49948 Sarasota, Florida 34230-6948 (eServed) Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637 (eServed) Douglas P. Manson, Esquire MansonBolves, P.A. 1101 West Swann Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 (eServed) Joseph McClash 711 89th Street Northwest Bradenton, Florida 34209 (eServed) Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Ralf Brookes Attorney 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (eServed) Justin Bloom, Esquire Post Office Box 1028 Sarasota, Florida 34230 (eServed) Robert Beltram, P.E., Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Stuart, the county seat of Martin Count , lies on a peninsula 3 to 4 miles wide, bounded on the east, north and west by forks of the St. Lucie River, shortly before the river flows into the Atlantic Ocean. Because of the proximity of the Ocean, there is salt water in the river and in the tidal creeks which drain the peninsula. East of Stuart another, smaller peninsula juts down from the mainland, bounded by water on the east, south, and west. On this peninsula is the town of Sewall's Point. Still further east, Hutchinson Island is the last land body between Stuart and the Atlantic Ocean. Stuart's municipally-owned water system furnishes water to residents of Stuart, and also furnishes water, under contract, to Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc., for distribution to consumers in Sewall's Point and on Hutchinson Island. One third to one half of Stuart's production goes to Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc.; eight years remain on the contract between Stuart and Southern Gulf Utilities, Inc., a copy of which was admitted in evidence as petitioner's exhibit No. 2. In the last eight years, the population of Stuart has grown from 3,200 to 8,400, and the population elsewhere in Martin County has increased at a similar rate. Two aquifers underlie Martin County. The deeper, called the Floridan aquifer, does not yield potable water, although water from the Floridan aquifer could be rendered potable by reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis costs five or ten times as much as pumping potable water from the ground, however. The shallow aquifer, which is separated from the Floridan aquifer by relatively impermeable clays called the Hawthorne formation, is the source of Stuart's public water supply. Existing wells draw potable water from this shallow aquifer, the floor of which is 150 feet deep. Precipitation seeping down through the topsoil replaces some of the water pumped out of the shallow aquifer. Average annual precipitation is 13.5 inches, but more water is being taken out than is being replaced. In order to calculate the shallow aquifer's safe yield, the District multiplied rainfall by land area. This is an application of the water crop theory, which holds that the amount of water available, without "mining" the well field, is the product of land area and net recharge. The District's calculations gave 3.3 mgd as the estimated long-term sustained yield of the effective service area which includes Stuart's well field. Not included in the effective service area for purposes of the District's calculations are Hutchinson Island and Sewall's Point, because the ground water in those areas is separated from Stuart's well field by bodies of salt water and cannot help recharge Stuart's well field for that reason. The only two other specified users in the effective service area consume approximately .1 mgd, or 36.3 million gallons a year. Subtracting these other uses from the total leaves 3.2 mgd, the amount of water Stuart seeks to have a located. This 3.2 mgd figure does not take into account the existence of non-permitted wells, however, and does not take into account the fact that some rainwater drains off into the St. Lucie River, rather than seeping underground. Empirical data demonstrate, moreover, that even at present rates of pumping, Stuart's well field is being "mined," i.e., more water is being removed from the well field than is being replaced: At one point near the existing well field, the ground water table on July 6, 1955, was 12 feet above sea level. At the same point today, the ground water table is one foot below sea level. Over the same period, the ground water table in the western part of Martin County, where there has been no significant pumping of the ground water, has not fallen significantly. In short, Stuart is depleting the ground water reservoir in the shallow aquifer under its existing well field. Depletion of fresh groundwater creates the danger of salt water intrusion into the shallow aquifer, because the peninsula on which Stuart sits is surrounded by salt water on three sides. The three experts who addressed the matter agreed that the Ghyben-Herzberg principle or relation is applicable in Stuart and wherever salt water "acts on" fresh water. According to this principle, for every foot of fresh ground water above mean sea level, there should be forty feet of fresh ground water below sea level In theory, where there is fresh ground water in proximity to salt water, and the groundwater table is 10 feet above sea level, for example, fresh water should extend to a depth of 400 feet below sea level, underneath which any ground water would be saline. In fact, the groundwater table underneath Stuart's existing well field dips below mean sea level at points, yet no salt water has been detected in the well field at depths of 80 feet and more, oven though in September, October, and November of 1973, low tides in the area averaged from 0 to 1.5 feet above mean sea level. No expert could explain this divergence between observed reality and a theory to which they all subscribed, although it was suggested that some of the clay in the region might be sealing off the fresh water and retarding salt water intrusion. If the experts are correct, however, it is only a matter of time until Stuart's well field is contaminated by salt water, assuming pumping from the field continues at the present rate. Stuart's well field is completely free of contamination by salt water at this time. At present, Stuart pumps water from its well field at a rate of between 2.7 mgd and 2.8 mgd. Monitoring wells, which have been dug at various points between the well field and the salt water indicate that salt water intrusion has not begun.. Water drawn from these wells is regularly analyzed for chlorides. To date, the highest reading in any well has been 59 parts per million, well under the recommended limit of 250 parts per million. Stuart has three possibilities for alternative or supplemental well fields; across the St. Lucie River to the north, across the St. Lucie River to the west, and south of the existing well field. The southern option would require the least capital outlay, but would result in the least reliable source of fresh water. The western option would require the most capital outlay, but would result in sufficient fresh water for the foreseeable future. The northern option would require more capital outlay than the southern option, but less than the western option, and would afford a reliable source of fresh water, possibly for as long as two decades. Test wells need to be dug in order to obtain the specific data necessary intelligently to decide among these options.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That despondent issue to petitioner a permit for the consumptive use of 2.9 mgd of water from Stuart's existing well field for a period of two years; and That respondent issue permits for all test wells petitioner seeks to dig and for which petitioner makes appropriate application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Walker, Esquire South Florida Management District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Ed Glucker, Mayor Sewall's Point 1 South Sewall Point Road Jensen Beach Post Office, Florida William R. Scott, Esquire City Attorney City of Stuart Post Office Box 599 Stuart, Florida 33494 Walter R. Stokes, M.D. 1289 Fork Road, Northwest North River Shores Stuart, Florida 33494 Robert B. Cook, Esquire The Gentry - Suite 108 860 U.S. Highway One Post Office Box 14235 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Harold Eckes, Utility Consultant Martin County 101 East Beverly Road Jupiter, Florida 33458
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the record owner of certain contiguous lots in Escambia County, Florida, which were part of a subdivision originally platted and recorded in 1926. Three of those lots, contiguous to each other, are waterfront lots lying along the southern shore of Bayou Garcon in Escambia County. A portion of the northern boundary of those lots, as originally platted and recorded and conveyed to Petitioner, extends beyond the current upland and into the waters of Bayou Garcon, a Class III Florida Water body. That portion of the lots extending into the bayou is roughly triangular in shape, measuring approximately 125 feet from the northwest corner of the property eastwardly to the shoreline and approximately 40 feet from the northwest corner of the property south to the shoreline. See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit C. Immediately adjacent to the inundated portion of Bayou Garcon, that is the shoreline, is a so-called "beach berm," consisting of a sand deposit historically built up by wave action. This beach berm is well vegetated, primarily with juncus and also with spartina patens. Immediately landward of this beach berm, and physically separated by it from the open waters of Bayou Garcon, is a so-called juncus marsh. This juncus or salt-brackish marsh is vegetated predominately with black needle rush (juncus roemerianus), which is gradually supplanted by sawgrass (cladium jamaicense) near the junction of the marsh area with the landward upland of the three lots. This marsh area extends almost all the way across all three lots in a region running roughly parallel to the course of the bayou. The marsh area terminates in upland, however, on the most easterly lot so that a portion of that lot's upland runs continuously from the landward boundary along Gorham Road to the edge of the open waters of Bayou Garcon on the waterward edge of the beach berm in question. While the beach berm serves to isolate the marsh area to some extent from the open waters of Bayou Garcon, vegetation is continuous from the marsh across the beach berm to the waters of the bayou in a number of places or for most of its length across the waterward boundary of the three lots in question. The open waters of Bayou Garcon and the waters present in the marsh do exchange. The evidence was uncontroverted that the beach berm is overflowed by tidal waters during occasional storm tides, during the course of a typical year, and by other unusually high tides, such as Spring tides. The berm appears to be more frequently inundated from a point lying at the northwesterly corner of the three lots even at normal high tides. Thus, although there is some conflicting evidence regarding the frequency with which the waters of the bayou exchange with the marsh waters, there is no question that this exchange of waters does occur and thus that water salinity varies in the marsh and in Bayou Garcon as a result of this exchange and that the various characteristic elements of the marshes' biological productivity are exported to the waters of the bayou thereby. The marsh and the adjacent littoral zone underlying Bayou Garcon currently perform a number of relevant biological functions. These include the uptake of nutrients from upland runoff, fertilizers, heavy metals and the like and the production of detrital material, which is exported from the marsh during periods of tidal exchange to form part of the nourishment of the estuarine food chain. The marsh and the adjacent littoral zone of the bayou also constitute an important habitat for marine life forms and other wildlife. It constitutes a nursery ground for fish, shrimp, crabs, amphipods, worms, mollusks and other species. The smaller species are in turn fed upon by larger predators such as wading birds, larger fin fishes and the like. The marsh and its littoral zone is thus important to commercial and recreational interests involving fisheries, both sport and commercial. The Petitioner's proposed project consists of the erection of a bulkhead faced with "riprap" along the northerly boundary of the three contiguous lots, running approximately 125 feet, which boundary and proposed bulkhead would include part of the waters of Bayou Garcon waterward of the current shoreline. The Petitioner then proposes to place 1,745 cubic yards of fill in the area landward of that bulkhead extending across the littoral zone of the waters of the bayou, across the beach berm referenced above and back-filling the entire marsh to the upland portion of the subject lots. The placement of this bulkhead, riprap and associated back-filling will eliminate essentially all of the biological and ecological functions performed by the marsh, as well as the adjacent intertidal and littoral zones across the water frontage of the three lots. The project, as currently proposed, would replace these functions with a new source of negative impacts to Bayou Garcon, Perdido Bay and related State waters, including the deposition of additional nutrients such as lawn fertilizers and septic tank leachates associated with development, which can fertilize and cause excessive algae growth and resultant retardation of dissolved oxygen levels in the waters involved. Resultant development of the filled lots will cause additional water quality degradation in the form of pesticides and coliform bacteria emanating from septic tank leachate, associated with the upland development. Development of waterfront land in the Bayou Garcon area has increased in recent years. Much of the development occurring in the past involved filling marshes, such as that involved in the case at bar. Substantial areas of salt marsh have been filled and substantial areas remain in a relatively natural state along the bayou in the area of the proposed project. The cumulative effect of development in the area, that is the bayou, its littoral zone and adjacent salt marshes, of the type and in the manner proposed by the Petitioner, will result in significant degradation of water quality, as well as a substantial loss of the biological functions previously described and delineated in Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, with resulting substantial adverse impact on the public interest. Prior to the filing of the permit application, the Petitioner's consultants met with a representative of the Department at the project site, whereupon the Department's representatives advised them that the Department had certain objections to the project as it was then proposed. They discussed these problems concerning the adverse environmental impact of the project, and the Department proposed modifications, during the free-form review stage of the permit application, intended to lessen the environmental impacts while still protecting the existing shoreline from erosion, which was one of the objects of the Petitioner in applying for the permit. The Petitioner, however, elected not to modify the design of the project to incorporate the changes or all of the changes suggested by DER, so that, after a review of the application the Department issued a notice of its intent to deny it. A permit had been issued by the Department for the same property on November 9, 1978, which authorized a dredge and fill project similar in scope and configuration to that sought in the instant proceeding, contingent upon receipt of all necessary State and Federal governmental authorizations. The Department did not assert jurisdiction over the subject marsh area at that time, apparently taking the position that there was a break in the continuity of the jurisdictional vegetation across the middle of the beach berm, which constituted a continuous gap across the entire waterward frontage of the property, so as to sever the vegetative connection to State waters. That 1978 permit authorized construction of a seawall along the waterward side of the berm and around a group of trees growing at the northeast corner of the property, immediately proximate to the shoreline. It also authorized the placement of fill landward of the seawall and in the subject marsh area. That marsh area was designated as an area "to be filled" on the relevant permit drawings. The Petitioner began installation of that project, pursuant to that 1978 permit, in July 1978, after obtaining the necessary authorization from the United States Army Corps of Engineers on May 18, 1978. Construction continued under the 1978 permit until the Petitioner received a Cease and Desist Order from the Corps of Engineers and a Notice of Violation and an Order for Corrective Action from the Department of Environmental Regulation. Factual details and legal conclusions concerning the enforcement action are summarized in the Recommended Order of Hearing Officer Benton entered May 20, 1983, which was adopted by the Secretary of DER on June 6, 1983, affirmed by the First District Court of Appeal in Lord vs. DER, supra, and officially recognized in this case. As a result of that enforcement action, the Petitioner was allowed to leave the vertical bulkhead around the trees at the northeast corner of her property but was required to remove a promontory that had been constructed by placing unconsolidated fill into the waters of the bayou. The Hearing Officer noted: "Respondent also contends that permit number 17-11736-IE authorized this deposition of fill west of the bulkhead out into the waters of Bayou Garcon. The permit clearly does no such thing. The permit contemplated bulk- heading and back-filling, not road building. The amount of unconsolidated fill exposed to wave action is at least 2 1/2 times what was authorized by the permit to be put behind bulkheads. . . Filling in the waters of the State requires a permit pursuant to Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, and Respondent had no permit authorizing placement of the fill so as to build the promontory." See page 8 of 1983 Recommended Order. The 1978 permit expired on May 18, 1982. Before its expiration date, the Petitioner did not place significant amounts of fill in the subject juncus marsh behind the beach berm although the permit authorized her to. When the application for the current permit was filed, the promontory fill in the waters of the bayou had been removed in accordance with the enforcement proceeding and Final Order therein, and only the northeast corner of the property around the subject stand of pine trees remains bulkheaded. The Petitioner has not attempted, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Rule 17-4.022(8), Florida Administrative Code, to have the Department validate the jurisdictional determination which it made in connection with the 1978 permit application. The time has now expired for such a validation of the Department's 1978 determination of the landward extent of State waters, using the vegetative index adopted June 10, 1975. Such a validation would have had to have been made within six months of October 1, 1984, the effective date of the amendments to Chapter 403, commonly known as the "Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Act". Since that six month deadline mandated by the above-cited rule has long since passed, that prior 1978 jurisdictional determination, which resulted in the 1978 permit authorizing the filling of the marsh, can no longer have any material effect in this proceeding. The record establishes no representations or acts on the part of the Department or its representatives occurred during the life of that 1978 permit such that representations or actions of the Department during the life of that permit would have prevented the Petitioner from filling the marsh, landward of the berm or, in fact from completing the other work authorized by the permit, such as constructing the bulkhead across the front of the lots in accordance with the terms of the permit. The only thing interfering with the Petitioner's work on the project involved in the 1978 permit was the above-mentioned enforcement case, which stemmed from the Petitioner exceeding the authorization of that permit in the first place. No agency action or representation by any of its employees or agents prevented the Petitioner from filling the marsh area landward of the beach berm before the 1978 permit expired.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the application of Joyce L. Lord for a dredge and fill permit as described above, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3033 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1 & 2. Accepted. 3-5. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented for the reasons enumerated in the body of the Recommended Order. Accepted in part, but rejected as to its material overall import as not being in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted as to its chronology of events only; rejected otherwise as being not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and as immaterial to the disposition of the material issues presented. Rejected as to its material import and as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officers Findings of Fact on this subject matter. 12 & 13. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the testimony and evidence. 14. Accepted, but not in and of itself dispositive of material issues presented. 15 & 16. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter and as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the testimony and evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory Paul Farrar, Esquire Paul Shimek, Jr., Esquire 311 North Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 David A. Crowley, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should grant a dredge and fill permit which has been requested by the Respondent, William R. Cullen (Applicant). That proposed permit has been opposed by the Petitioners (who will be referred to collectively as Petitioners for convenience sake).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to issue permits pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, William R. Cullen, filed an application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a slip marina on June 4, 1985. The original request was subsequently amended to seek approval for a forty-two slip commercial marina. The project site for the Applicant's marina is located at Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The site is within Buttonwood Sound, Florida Bay. The property is owned by Mr. Cullen and his family. All of the proposed improvements will be constructed on submerged lands or uplands owned or controlled by the Cullen family. The project site is located within a commercial area of Key Largo and contains frontage on both the water, Buttonwood Sound, and the highway, U.S. Highway 1. The project site has a basin which was created by the excavation of materials used for road construction from the shoreline and the installation of an L-shaped rock jetty which runs roughly perpendicular and then parallel to the shoreline. This jetty was installed during the late 1960s. The water depths within the basin range from 3 feet to approximately 14 feet. The water within the basin is subject to the same tidal considerations as the waters within Buttonwood Sound. There is no interruption of the flow of water in and out of the basin from those waters of the Sound. The water within this basin is within an Outstanding Florida Water as defined in Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant's plan calls for the excavation of appproximately 30,170 square feet of upland area and the dredging of the existing basin for approximately 18,460 dredged square feet. During the construction phases, the Applicant proposes to install turbidity curtains to limit the adverse effects expected during that time. The improvements are intended to be a permanent alteration to the basin design and will permanently modify the marine life habitat within that basin. The Applicant proposes to remove portions of the existing jetty to allow additional water to flow through the basin unimpeded by the jetty walls. The removal of the jetty walls will expedite the dilution and flushing of potential pollutants from the basin on a tidal frequency. That flushing is purported to assure that the water quality within the basin will not be diminished. However, such pollutants will be flushed into Buttonwood Sound. Stormwater accumulating on the upland project is to flow toward a lower upland area and should not to be dumped into the basin. The proposed marina is to have fueling facilities and the Applicant has agreed to design that system to limit inadvertent spillage. Further, as a condition of the permit, the Applicant has agreed to abide by the Department of Natural Resources' spill contingency plan requirements. The proposed marina is designed to provide portable sewage pumpout facilities for each slip. A permanent pumpout facilities will also be available. The Applicant seeks to attract boats in the range of 30 to 50 feet in length at this facility. While there are a number of other marinas in other areas of Key Largo which might accomodate that size boat, the marinas in the immediate vicinity of this project site are designed for smaller craft. The area within the basin consists of unvegetated bottom, submerged rip-rap, sea grasses, and hardbottom/algae communities--the predominant classifications being the latter two. The deeper hardbottom areas are to be filled and portions of the sea grasses will be dredged in order to configure the proposed docks. Additionally, other sea grass areas will be shaded, and thereby disturbed, by the construction of the docks. There are no historical or archaeological features relevant to the proposed site. The area has not been designated as a critical manatee area, however, manatees do frequent the project vicinity and have been observed feeding immediately adjacent to the basin. The permit proposed for this project requires a water quality monitoring plan. In addition to sampling for coliform, diesel by-products, oils, greases, detergents, oxygen, copper, lead and zinc, the plan requires sampling for aluminum, cadmium, and chromium. The monitoring stations are to be located both within the basin (2 stations) and outside the basin (2 stations). Liveaboards or others continuously docked at the marina will create additional shading which will disrupt and adversely affect the sea grass system. In order to provide access to the marina, the Applicant intends to dredge a channel in an area containing sea grass which is undisputedly within the Outstanding Florida Waters. The Department deemed the subject application was complete on February 23, 1988. The Department did not apply the Keys Rule found in Rule 17-312.400, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. The Department also did not apply the Mitigation Rule found in Rule 17-312.300, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. Michael Dentzau has personally reviewed and processed 250-300 dredge and fill permits during his tenure with the Department. Of those projects he has reviewed, he has not recommended that dense sea grass beds of the type located within this project site be dredged in order to construct a commercial marina. Phillip Edwards was responsible for executing the Intent to Issue in this case. In determining that this project had provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated, Mr. Edwards weighed the public interests criteria set forth in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. Because he received letters purportedly from elected officials, Mr. Edwards presumed that the project was in the public interest. That assumption of fact has not been established by this record. According to Mr. Edwards, the adverse effects expected by this project could be adequately addressed by the permit conditions when weighed against the public interest in favor of the project. Since Mr. Edwards' assumptions as to the public interest in this project have not been established, his conclusion regarding the weight that interest should receive can be given little consideration. The project as proposed by the Applicant will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project as proposed by the Applicant will adversely affect fishing or marine productivity within the basin since it will permanently alter the basin biologically by destroying sea grass. The increased boat traffic within the Sound will also detract from the present recreational uses enjoyed by area residents. According to Mr. Edwards, it is very unusual for the Department to issue a permit when sea grasses will be adversely affected. In the 17 years in which he has reviewed permits, only two occasions merited approval when the destruction of sea grasses to the extent in this case would result. Neither of those cases were factually similar to the case at issue. In those cases, however, elected officials advised Mr. Edwards, as he presumed they had here, that there was a public need for the permit. Increased boat traffic will result in increased manatee mortality due to collisions. In order to assure water quality will not be degraded within a marina, the project should have a short flushing time comparable to healthy natural embayments. In this case, the flushing proposed by the Applicant is dependent, in part, on winds which may be inconsistent or relatively minimal during the summer months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by the Applicant. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-3779 et seq. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS: The first three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, it is accepted that the Department deemed the application complete on February 23, 1988; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that the habitat within the basin is the same as the habitat throughout Florida Bay and that the basin is not "enclosed" hydrologically; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as argument, conclusions of law, or comment. The paragraphs do not recite facts pertinent to this case. Paragraphs 13, 14, and the first two sentences of paragraph 15 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph IS is rejected as argument. The first two sentences of paragraph 16 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as argument. To the extent that paragraph 19 accurately describes Van de Kreeke's assessment of the report it is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record. The report upon which comment is directed was not offered in this cause to prove its truth/accuracy. Paragraphs 20 through 22 are rejected as comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record-- see comment to paragraph 19 above. Paragraphs 23 through 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as argument, comment, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as hearsay, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are accepted. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted but is comment. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraph 50 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. The first three sentences of paragraph 52 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The first sentence and that portion of the second sentence of paragraph 53 that ends with the word "authenticity" is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 54 and 55 are accepted. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. Paragraph 57 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 58 is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 59 through 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 69 and 70 are accepted. Paragraph 71 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 72 is rejected as argument. The first sentence of paragraph 73 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 74 is accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 77 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are accepted. Paragraph 80 is rejected as repetitive. With the inclusion of the words "and hardbottom and algae" paragraph 81 is accepted. Paragraph 82 is accepted. Paragraph 83 is accepted. Paragraph 84 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 5l. Paragraphs 85 through 89 are accepted. With the substitution of the word "not" for the word "ever" in the last sentence of paragraph 90, it is accepted. Paragraphs 91 through 94 are accepted. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 96 through 100 are accepted. Paragraph 101 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 102 through 106 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The waters within the basin are of the same origin as they were prior to the creation of the jetty; no artificial body of water was created. With regard to paragraph 3 it is accepted that the jetty was constructed in the late 1960s. Paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that that is the applicants proposal no conclusion as to the likelihood of that is reached. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Inevitably, however, spills will occur and must be considered as an adverse affect of the project. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by competent evidence or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is inadequate to offset the adverse affects to manatees. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is inadequate to limit the adverse affects to sea grass. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through the first sentence of paragraph 6 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 7 through Il are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13 through the first sentence of paragraph 17 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraphs 21 through 26 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 28 is accepted, the remainder rejected as speculative, comment, or unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 29 is accepted, the remainder rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted; however, sea grasses not disturbed by dredging will still suffer adverse affects from shading and silting. Paragraph 36 is accepted but see comment to paragraph 35 above. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 45 is accepted but it should be noted that is not the extent of the proposal. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Presnell Garvin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles Lee Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Robert Routa P.O. Box 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Linda McMullen McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA) was formed in 1974 by inter-local agreement under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, as a supply entity to provide and develop sources of water for its members and other governmental entities. The members of WCRWSA include the two cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa and the three counties of Pinellas (intervenor herein), Hillsborough and Pasco. The petitioner and the intervenor own and operate permitted well fields which are regulated by the respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and are therefore subject to the rules and regulations of SWFWMD. All parties have stipulated, and the evidence so demonstrates, that the WCRWSA and Pinellas County are substantially affected by the challenged proposed rule and therefore have standing to challenge its validity. The proposed rule being challenged in this proceeding was considered by the Governing Board of SWFWMD as a result of a prior rule being declared invalid in another proceeding. The prior rule, codified as Rule 16J-2.11(3), Florida Administrative Code, provided as follows: 16J-2.11 Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit Issuance of a permit will be denied if the amount of water consumptively used will exceed the water crop of lands owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. (Except where determined otherwise, the water crop [precipitation less evapotranspiration] throughout the District will be assumed to be three hundred sixty-five thousand (365,000) gallons per year per acre.) By Final Order dated April 9, 1980, 1/ that rule was declared to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the grounds that it exceeded SWFWMD's statutory authority under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, it impermissibly conflicted with provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, it created property rights to water by virtue of land ownership contrary to Chapter 373 and the decision in the case of Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So.2d and 663 (Fla. 1979); and it was a hydrologically unsound method of determining the issuance or denial of consumptive use permits and was accordingly arbitrary and capricious in nature. The two subsections of proposed Rule 40D-2.301 being challenged in this proceeding read as follows: "40D-2.301. Conditions for Issuance of Permits. Among other factors to be considered by the Board in determining whether a particular use is consistent with the public interest will be: the maximum amount to be withdrawn of a single day; the average amount to be withdrawn during a single week, during a typical growing (or irrigation) season, during an extreme cold season, during a year of extreme drought an during the term of the proposed permit; the amount to be withdrawn in relationship to amounts being withdrawn from adjacent or nearby properties; the proximity of withdrawal points to location of points of withdrawal by others; the total amounts presently permitted from the entire basin, or other hydrologic unit; and the change in storage that such withdrawal and use will cause. If the proposed consumptive use will average less than 1,000 gallons per acre per day, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board will presume that the quantity of water proposed for consumptive use is consistent with the public interest and the applicant will not be required to submit further evidence on this point. If the proposed consumptive use is to average 1,000 gallons or more per acre per day, the applicant must establish that the proposed use of water in such quantity is consistent with the public interest. (NOTE: Present subsections 6 through 11 will be renumbered consecutively following the above new subsections.) The factors listed in subsection (6) of the proposed rule are not all- inclusive. Each of the factors listed are resource related or hydrological considerations. The effect of each of the factors listed is appropriate for consideration by the Governing Board of SEFWMD when making a determination as to whether a consumptive use permit should be granted. With the exception of that portion of subsection (6) relating to a weekly average amount to be withdrawn, the factors listed in subsection (6) are covered by existing specific rules of SWFWMD. The word "acre" in the phrase "1,000 gallons per acre per day" is intended to mean land owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. The figure of 1,000 gallons per acre per day represents the average quantity of water which is available within the respondent's District for man's use and to maintain natural systems. The figure is a district wide estimation. It cannot be arbitrarily applied to any specific site within the District due to the fact that different parcels of land do not possess identical geologic or hydrologic characteristics. The amount of water which is available from a specific parcel of land is dependent upon geographical and hydrological factors which vary considerably from site to site. These factors include, among other things, the amount of rainfall the land receives, the water table, the existence of confining layers, soil and vegetation types, and transmissivity, storage and leakage coefficients. Withdrawals of water in small amounts per acre per day are generally less likely to have adverse hydrologic effects on the water resources within the District than are withdrawals in greater amounts. In most areas of the District, 1,000 gallons per acre per day can be withdrawn without jeopardizing or adversely affecting the resource or the availability of water for others. This would not necessarily be true of coastal areas where salt water intrusion is a possibility or in areas where wells presently exist which withdraw large quantities of water on a daily basis. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of the more than 6,000 consumptive use permits which have been issued by the SWFWMD are for amounts less than 1,000 gallons per acre per day.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's dredging and filling on his property in Center Hill, Florida, qualifies for an agricultural exemption under section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes,1/ from the requirement to obtain an environmental resource permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact The Property is comprised of 118 acres of contiguous parcels located within Section 23, Township 21 South, Range 23 East, in Sumter County, at the intersection of County Road 469 and County Road 710 in Center Hill, Florida. Title to the Property is held by Petitioner and his wife under various entities that they control.2/ The District is an administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its geographic boundaries, and to administer and enforce chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and related rules under chapter 40D of the Florida Administrative Code. The Department is the state agency authorized under section 373.407, Florida Statutes, to make binding determinations at the request of a water management district or landowner as to whether an existing or proposed activity qualifies for an agricultural-related exemption under section 373.406(2). Petitioner uses the Property for raising cattle, an agricultural use. The activities at the Property are operated under the name "Serenity Ridge Farms." Petitioner has had up to 65 head of cattle on the Property, but since 2011, has kept only approximately 30 head. The Property is classified as agricultural pursuant to section 193.461, Florida Statutes. At the time Petitioner acquired the Property, there was an approximately 2.5-acre, more or less triangular, wetland at the southern end of the western parcel at the intersection of State Road (SR) 469 and County Road (CR) 710, Center Hill, Florida (the Site).3/ This wetland was originally the northern part of a much larger wetland system but, years before, had been severed from the larger system by the construction of the two roads which form a “V” at the southern boundary of Petitioner’s property. Due to its severance from the larger system, the condition of the wetland on the Site was adversely affected. In addition, the Site had been used by others for dumping various types of debris over the years, including tires, appliances, and concrete. In approximately 2007, Petitioner decided to clean up the Site and build a pond. Although the primary water needs for his cattle had been met with water troughs serviced by a four- inch well on the Property, he intended to use the pond as a supplemental source of water supply for his cattle. In deciding to build the pond, Petitioner did not consult with the District. Nor did he confer with an engineer regarding the amount of water the pond should hold to meet the needs of his cattle. Rather, his decision as to the size and configuration of the pond was driven by the footprint of the area in the Site that Petitioner perceived as "full of garbage" and a "landfill." In March 2007, Petitioner began cleaning up the Site. He noticed a stench from the garbage as the area was cleaned. During cleanup, 26 old tires, 14-cubic yards of old appliances, and pieces of concrete and steel were removed from the Site. While there were no accurate wetland surveys of the Site prior to the initiation of Petitioner's clean-up efforts, historical photographs of the Site and remnant plants indicate that, at the time Petitioner undertook the cleanup, the wetland had been significantly impacted. The construction of roads SR 469 and CR 710, which occurred prior to 1973, severed and excluded the Site from the larger wetland area, preventing the free flow of water beyond the Site. Although remaining a wetland, the severance adversely impacted the wetland even before the dumping. The likely dominant species in the wetland were Carolina Willow (Salix spp.) and Primrose Willow (Ludwigia spp.). While both Carolina Willow and Primrose Willow are obligate wetland indicator species,4/ Primrose willow can be a nuisance species and Carolina willow can form a monoculture. In June 2007, the District became aware of Petitioner's activities on the Site. The District opened a complaint file and advised Petitioner that he should not proceed without a permit. Petitioner met with District staff on a number of occasions during his activities in an attempt to find a resolution with the District, but a resolution was never reached. As a result of Petitioner's dredging and filling, a 1.12-acre pond was created and an area of approximately 1.3 acres of wetland was filled. There is no remaining wetland function at the Site. In July 2008, the City of Center Hill sent a letter to the District's Environmental Regulation Manager. The letter, dated July 2, 2008, was signed by the City of Center Hill's Mayor, Chairman of the City Council, and City Clerk, and stated in pertinent part: As community leaders we have many responsibilities that include the stabilization and revitalization of the City of Center Hill. We are fortunate to have citizens who are concerned and active regarding the quality of life in the neighborhoods they reside in. The upkeep of our neighborhoods remains a critical element to the success of our community. Code enforcement cannot be successful without the support of our local citizens. It is the responsibility of each of us to keep our properties code compliant. This will ensure a safe and healthy City. As part of a large voluntary effort, we are pleased that Serenity Ridge Farms in eastern Center Hill implemented a clean-up on property adjacent to the intersection of SR 469 and CR 710 (E. Jefferson Street). The community has increased traffic visibility at this location after the removal of nuisance overgrowth. Additionally, the hauling of debris from the site eliminated a public health hazard that existed as a common dumping-ground for many years. In fact, the work at this location far exceeds any code compliance among the nearly 60 cases that have come to our attention in recent years. Property owners like Serenity Farms are what make our City in Sumter County a great place to live. Hence we ask that our correspondence be included in your files and distributed to members of your staff as you see fit. The subject property has no code deficiencies in the City of Center Hill. Despite the City's letter and efforts between Petitioner and the District, negotiations to settle the District's complaint by restoration or mitigation of the alleged adverse impacts of Petitioner's dredge-and-fill activities have been unsuccessful. The District’s governing board authorized initiation of litigation against Petitioner on December 14, 2010. On January 4, 2011, Petitioner submitted an after-the- fact application to the District for an environmental resource permit for the pond, along with an approximately $1,500 permit application fee. After conducting a site meeting to review the impact of Petitioner's activities, District staff made a request for additional information. The request for additional information (RAI) requested an amount of engineering that, according to Petitioner, would make compliance cost prohibitive. As Petitioner explained in his testimony: My quick estimate, and what the engineering, required all of that, surveys[,] to[p]ographic surveys, could have been anywhere from 50 to [$]75,000, maybe more. While the actual costs to comply with the Districts RAI have not been determined, Petitioner's testimony that the RAI requirements were cost prohibitive is credited. On November 14, 2011, the District wrote a letter to the Department formally requesting a binding determination from the Department as to whether the activities on the Property qualify for the agricultural exemption afforded by section 373.406(2). After receiving the District’s request, Department staff conducted a site visit of the Property on December 28, 2011. The approximately 1.12-acre open water area resulting from Petitioner’s dredging and filling ranges from 4 to 6 feet deep at the center, depending on the groundwater level. At the time of the District’s site visit, the central pond depth was approximately four feet. December is the dry season in this area of Florida and in 2011 there was a drought. The Department’s survey of the Site shows a water depth of six feet. There has been some recruitment of wetland vegetation in the shallower areas of the pond. In fact, some of the emergent vegetation is of higher quality than that which existed prior to the dredging and filling, and there is evidence that wildlife is utilizing it. In addition, Petitioner’s activities included the construction of berms below the bisecting roadways that help filter direct road run-off that previously washed into the Site. The Site, however, has not been restored to a wetland in any significant way. No regeneration is expected at sustained depths of greater than two feet. The maximum recommended depth for planting is one-and-one-half feet. The pond is fenced off, preventing the cattle from direct pond access. Petitioner has spent over $12,000 landscaping and putting in an irrigation system around the pond area. The irrigation system is designed to water the landscaping, including sapling live oaks and sod. Neither landscaping a pond nor irrigating landscaping around a pond is typical for cattle ponds. Petitioner has stated that he would someday like to build a retirement home overlooking the pond. The irrigation system, like the watering troughs on the upland portions of the Property, is serviced by a four-inch diameter well. Generally, a four-inch well can produce 60-100 gallons per minute. The pond as constructed contains approximately 100,000 gallons in the first four inches of water alone. The District’s standard permitting allocation for water withdrawal for cattle is 12 gallons of water per day. Under the Department’s best management practices rule,5/ the allocation is up to 30 gallons per head of cattle per day. On February 10, 2012, the Department rendered its Preliminary Determination which concluded that Petitioner’s activities did not meet the requirements for an agricultural exemption. Under the heading "Application of Statutory Criteria,” the Preliminary Determination stated: Pursuant to Section 373.406(2) F.S., all of the following criteria must be met in order for the permitting exemption to apply. "Is the landowner engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture?" YES. The [Department's Office of Agricultural Water Policy] finds that [Petitioner] is engaged in the practice of agriculture on 118 acres of agricultural land in Sumter County, as evidenced by their current agricultural land use classification, the ongoing agricultural production activities observed on site, and the aforementioned cattle sale receipts. "Are the alterations (or proposed alterations) to the topography of the land for purposes consistent with the normal and customary practice of such occupation in the area?" NO. [The Department] finds that the construction of a cattle watering pond within the footprint of a wetland is not a normal and customary practice for the area because: Cattle watering ponds are not normally constructed within wetlands; and Cattle watering troughs were observed in other upland locations throughout the property, precluding the need for a cattle pond in this location. "Are the alterations (or proposed alterations) for the sole or predominant purpose of impeding or diverting the flow of surface waters or adversely impacting wetlands?" NO. (As to impeding or diverting surface waters.) [The Department] finds that the construction of a pond in the wetland was not for the sole or predominant purpose of impeding or diverting surface waters. During the December 28, 2011 site visit, [the Department's Office of Agricultural Water Policy] staff verified that the post-development drainage patterns are consistent with the pre-development drainage patterns. Secondly, the wetland is not connected to offsite drainage systems, as it was severed in its entirety by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. This occurred prior to [Petitioner] taking ownership of the property. Lastly, the entire farm's drainage system is gravity driven, and is devoid of discharge pumps. YES. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) [The Department] is aware that the wetland was already of questionable quality (see letter from the City of Center Hill) when the pond was constructed, given that the wetland was severed and excluded from the larger wetland system by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Nevertheless, [the Department] finds that the activity was for the sole or predominant purpose of adversely impacting the wetland, as the character of the wetland was destroyed. In sum, the Preliminary Determination concluded that Petitioner’s dredging and filling activities did not qualify for the agricultural exemption provided under section 373.406(2) because the activities are not normal and customary and they adversely impacted wetlands. At the final hearing, however, the evidence indicated that Petitioner’s activities were normal and customary for cattle operations in the area. While the water needs of Petitioner’s cattle are usually served by a four-inch well, the pond constructed at the Site has been an effective supplemental source of water for Petitioner’s cattle operations. When the well ran dry, Petitioner used pump trucks to siphon water from the pond and fill the upland troughs. Petitioner plans to put a pump in the pond to supply water to his cattle, but has not yet done so. Man-made, belowground cattle-watering ponds are very typical in Florida, especially in south and southwest Florida because of the high water tables in the southern part of the peninsula.6/ Further, “[i]t is not uncommon practice for Florida cattle ranchers to excavate cattle ponds, remove muck from existing cattle ponds, and/or grade side slopes of ponds in low lying depressional areas to provide a safe and reliable water source for their cattle.”7/ The fact that it is common for cattle ponds to be built in low-lying areas was further demonstrated by aerial photographs presented by Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Modica, of areas near the Property, including an approximately six-acre pond off Palm Avenue (the Sanchez property), a pond at a site labeled Emory Lane, and a pond off CR 48. While the ponds are considered by the District to be out of compliance on the grounds that they may have adversely affected wetlands, their existence shows that dredging and filling in low areas for cattle ponds is common practice in the area.8/ Although the pond is larger than needed because the footprint of the dumping area was large, and Petitioner may have some non-agricultural plans for the Site in the future, under the facts and evidence as outlined herein, it is found that the pond constructed by Petitioner was for purposes consistent with common practices for cattle operations in the area. On the issue of whether there was adverse impact to a wetland, the evidence showed that Department changed its position several times while drafting the Preliminary Determination. Of the five drafts of the Preliminary Determination, on the question (c) "[a]re the alterations (or proposed alterations) for the sole or predominant purpose of . . . adversely impacting wetlands?” one draft stated: UNSURE. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) Documentation shows a 2.47 acre wetland impact area. This dredge and fill activity was for the purpose of converting the wetland to an open water and pasture area. However, this remnant wetland area was severed and excluded from the larger wetland system, as it was originally impacted by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Although wetland conditions prior to Zagame’s actions cannot be determined with certainty, a letter from the City of Center Hill indicates questionable wetland condition, which obfuscates remaining quality and function. Another draft, in answering the same question, stated: NO. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) In the opinion of the [Department], the impacted remnant wetland was of questionable quality (see letter from the City of Center Hill) having been previously severed and excluded from the larger wetland system, by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Considering those factors addressed in the above- quoted drafts of the Department’s drafts of the Preliminary Determination, as well as the evidence of the condition of the wetland when Petitioner began his cleanup operations, it is found that the predominant purpose and effect of Petitioner’s activities was to construct a cattle pond and clean up a dumping ground, not to adversely impact a wetland.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding that the activities on Petitioner’s property addressed in this case are exempt pursuant to section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 February, 2013.
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
