Findings Of Fact SFWMD is a public corporation and local sponsor for the federally authorized Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. As part of its duties as local sponsor, SFWMD operates eight pumping stations and six other structures all of which discharge into Lake Okeechobee. On August 26, 1977, SFWMD filed an application with DER for an operating permit for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. By mutual agreement, SFWMD and DER determined that there was insufficient data available to determine whether SFWMD qualified for an operating permit, therefore, DER proposed issuing a TOP. On November 22, 1978, DER issued its notice of intent to issue a TOP to SFWMD for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. Among the conditions contained in the TOP is that the permit will be effective for thirty (30) months. Petitioners complain that Lake Okeechobee is being environmentally damaged by the drainage into Lake Okeechobee of waters from surrounding agriculture and dairy farming areas. This, say the Petitioners, is causing the eutrophication or damaging enrichment of the Lake by the addition of chemical elements above their natural levels in that environment. DER and SFWMD contend that at least thirty (30) months is required to complete the testing and observation of the Lake and to make long-range plans for reduction of drainage into Lake Okeechobee and to develop necessary management alternatives to accomplish that goal. The proposed TOP provides a temporal framework. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to present to DER a program for interim actions which will reduce nutrient loading during the time of the permit. Within 120 days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit for approval by DER a plan of study for determining the probable impacts of management alternatives for reducing the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. Within twenty-four (24) months of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit to DER an analysis of the impacts of each reasonable management alternative which will reduce the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. During two successive rainy seasons SFWMD is required to do extensive chemical testing on site. After SFWMD submits its analysis of the impacts of management alternatives, DER has six months to review the data submitted and approve a schedule for implementing a plan to reduce nutrient loadings into Lake Okeechobee. Petitioners have submitted seven (7) Proposed Findings of Fact, five of which are hereby adopted in this Recommended Order: Lake Okeechobee is in a eutrophic state and getting worse as a result of man's activities. Both state agencies charged with respon- sibility for protecting Lake Okeechobee have long recognized that the Lake is in a eutrophic state and is in need of relief. Both the DER and the SFWMD have recognized that backpumping contributes significantly to eutrophication. Since 1975, DER and SFWMD have known that backpumping is one cultural activity that should be and could be stopped or substan- tially reduced. (This proposed Finding of Fact was numbered 6 in Petitioners' pleading.) The durational provision of the TOP is linked to the addi- tional time the DER and SFWMD claim it will take to study ways to stop backpumping. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact numbers 5 and 7 are hereby rejected for the following reasons. First Petitioners request a finding that "the state agencies have done nothing to reduce the amount of bad water backpumped into Lake Okeechobee." In fact DER and SFWMD have proposed the TOP with its temporal frame work and requirements of interim actions for reduction of backpumping. Petitioners also propose as a finding of fact that "the TOP's durational provision as drafted is unreasonable and arbitrary in not assuring immediate reductions in backpumping and therefore, should be redrafted to require such action." Petitioners have not supported this contention with substantial, competent evidence. In fact, the TOP provides that a plan for the reduction of nutrient loading be presented within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the TOP. Furthermore, the proposed finding of fact is outside the scope of the issues framed by the pleadings. The issue is whether the thirty (30) month durational provision of the TOP should be reduced to twelve (12) months and not whether the TOP provides for immediate reductions in backpumping. The reason for the issuance of the TOP in lieu of an operating permit is to allow SFWMD time to gather data, to assess impacts and to develop management alternatives for the control of nutrient and pollutant loadings. Although some biological and chemical data already exist, much of the information requested of SFWMD under the TOP is currently unavailable. Specifically, the TOP requires that numerical nutrient limits be established for each discharge point and that specific management alternatives be developed. Currently available data on backpumping reduction does not specifically detail how much reduction is feasible nor what alternatives are soundest environmentally. Existing reports dealing with backpumping into Lake Okeechobee are not specific enough to support presently implementable management alternatives. Petitioners introduced no evidence to establish that the budgetary or manpower constraints with which SFWMD must deal would allow a reduction of the durational provision of the TOP from thirty (30) months to twelve (12) months. SFWMD's witnesses, however, established that if SFWMD were required to complete the study within one year, it would be economically impossible unless money and personnel earmarked for other important projects were tapped. Not only would the instant studies suffer a decline in quality but other equally pressing environmental studies would be jeopardized.
Findings Of Fact By Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed, and it is so found, that the District is a public corporation in Florida under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, F.A.C.. It exists as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach. Respondent James P. McCarthy and his wife, Rebecca, reside at 6017 Southern Road South in West Palm Beach. This property is located within Section 3, Township 44 South, Range 42 East, in Palm Beach County. On December 31, 1991, the District issued a Notice of Violation to the Respondent notifying him that his 2 inch pvc irrigation line, exposed near the top of the bank due to erosion, constituted an encroachment on the District's right-of-way adjacent to Canal 51 at the rear of his property. The line was not removed. On April 9, 1992, the District issued its Second Notice of Violation to Respondent McCarthy assessing a civil penalty in the ultimate amount of $560.00 for the same alleged encroachment, and on April 24, 1992, Mr. McCarthy filed his Petition for Formal Hearing to contest that action. Mr. McCarthy does not contest the fact that the line exists as indicated by the District but debates the allegation that it constitutes an encroachment violation requiring a permit, contending that the District has failed to properly complete the work it promised to do on his property, the completion of which is a condition precedent to the requirement for a permit. The South Florida Water Management District owns a right-of-way located on the south bank adjacent to C-51 canal in West Palm Beach, and the McCarthy's property is adjacent to that right-of-way. They have constructed a 1 1/2 inch PVC lawn irrigation line from the sprinkler system in their backyard beneath and across the District's right-of-way into the canal. According to Douglas Sykes, the District's senior engineering field representative in the area, who inspected the McCarthy's pipe line subsequent to the completion of the Corps' work, the line meets the District's standards and is permittable. All that is required is for McCarthy to make the requisite application and pay the permit fee. On April 17, 1989, the McCarthys and the District entered into a written Settlement Agreement by which both granted deeds to each other for portions of the land adjacent to the canal for the payment of the sum of $11,000.00, plus attorneys fees, to be paid to the McCarthys. This agreement did not, however, address either the slope or grade of the canal bank adjacent to the McCarthy property. The bank slope was to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with their proposed constructions plans. The agreement did, however, call for the McCarthys to obtain an irrigation permit pursuant to District criteria "after completion of construction." The Director of the District's Right-of-Way Division, responsible for the enforcement of the occupancy regulations in the right-of-way, considered the canal complete when the Corps ceased its construction activities and removed its equipment. This was done before September, 1991. The Corps notified its contractor that it accepted the C-51 project as complete on March 20, 1991. Mr. Sykes also inspected the area subsequent to the departure of the Corps' contractor. He found the work to be consistent with the District requirements, though as late as June, 1992, some additional work was being done by the District on property to the east of the McCarthy property. There is some indication that when the District sought permission to cross McCarthy's property line to access that work area, permission was denied. The District crossed McCarthy's property anyway, causing some minor damage. This work has now ceased. The District employee who negotiated the settlement agreement with the McCarthys intended for the term "completion of construction" to mean the moment when the Corps relinquished its control of the right-of-way to the District. This was done on September 4, 1991. Other landowners applied for and received permits for irrigation lines when the Corps' contractor left the site. As McCarthy tells it, in early 1990, after the settlement agreement was signed, the heavy construction was begun on the canal project and the trees were removed. A roadway was put in and the contractor began to install a large earthenware berm on the property. After some of it was done, he stopped the workers and found that the berm should go on another property. It was removed and after that, no other work was done. Mr. McCarthy contends the agreed-upon canal bank was not properly constructed by the Corps. He claims the Corps' contractor left the canal bank without the required grading and in a rough state without sod. This is, supposedly, the only parcel that was not graded properly or sodded. He was left with a 1 1/2 :1 slope - very steep, and he complained about this in writing to the District because it was not what he claims they had all agreed upon. Mr. Shattner, the District's Director of Construction Management, indicates that regardless of what drawing is examined, the slope is no more gentle than 2:1. Throughout 1990 and 1991, Mr. McCarthy alleges, he repeatedly advised the District that it had not lived up to their agreement but never got an answer. The agreement does not define the slope to be used except as it referred to a survey which was supposedly attached to the agreement. Towards the end of 1991, Mrs. McCarthy wrote to Mr. Swartz of the District about the work but received no answer. She then called the office of Mr. Creel, the District Executive Director, to complain. On December 19, 1991, someone called back and agreed to send someone out to look at the berm. No one came, however, and the next contact with the District was the violation letter of December 31, 1991. Mr. McCarthy has repeatedly taken the position with the District that it has not lived up to the terms of its agreement with him and he will not apply for a permit for the line until the construction is completed properly. The current line complained of by the District is temporary and will be destroyed by the corrective construction. The residue of the Corps' work remaining on his property is, he complains, unsafe. It does not conform to either the county code or the District's own manual which calls for a 4:1 ratio.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued dismissing the assessment of the currently assessed $560.00 civil penalty against the Respondents herein, James and Rebecca McCarthy, but requiring them to apply within 30 days from the date of that Order for a permit to construct and maintain an irrigation pipeline across the District's right-of way for Canal C-51 at the rear of their property. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Glazier, Esquire Toni M. Leidy, Esquire South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 James P. and Rebecca R. McCarthy 6017 Southern Boulevard South West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Silver Sands Estates, Inc., has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to undertake development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that part of such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Property. Pursuant to Warranty Deeds dated August 15, 1975, and November 10, 1980, Silver Sands Estates, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Silver Sands"), acquired certain real property located in Clay County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). At the time Silver Sands acquired the Property, the applicable zoning district permitted the development of the Property for single-family residential development at a maximum density of one unit per acre. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied Upon by Silver Sands. In 1979-1980, Silver Sands prepared a development plan for the Property which included the planned single-family residential development known as "Little Rain Lake Estates." The planned development consisted of a total of 96 single-family residential lots. Phase One and Phase Two consisted of 13 lots in each phase. In approximately 1979-1981, Silver Sands improved and maintained an unpaved private road, Little Rain Lake Road, which was to be used for the development of Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. The approximate costs to Silver Sands for these actions was $1,000.00. In 1979-1981, Silver Sands caused surveys, topographical surveys, and engineering plans to be prepared for the construction of a portion of Little Rain Lake Road as a paved dedicated road. Little Rain Lake Road was intended to serve Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. The road was planned to eventually extend approximately 3,640 linear feet east from State Road 21. The approximate cost to Silver Sands for these items included the following: surveys, $4,000; topographic surveys, $6,000; engineering, $6,000. Plans for the construction of approximately 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road were submitted to Clay County in 1980 for review and approval. This portion of Little Rain Lake Road was intended to serve nine of the lots within Phase One of Little Rain Lake Estates; the lots were shown on the plans for the road submitted to Clay County. The plans also depicted a temporary turnaround at the end of the 1,400 linear feet of the road submitted for approval. It was evident from the plans that Silver Sands planned a future extension of the road to serve the rest of Little Rain Lake Estates. Subsequent to the filing of the plans for the construction of the first 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road, Clay County requested that Silver Sands submit the development plan for all phases of Little Rain Lake Estates (as described in Finding of Fact 3). Silver Sands complied with this request. Clay County was, therefore, aware of Silver Sands' plan to develop Little Rain Lake Road in conjunction with its development of Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. On November 12, 1980, the proposed plans for the construction of the first 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road were approved by Clay County. Between 1981 and 1991 eight lots within Phase One of Little Rain Lake Estates were sold. Silver Sands' Detrimental Reliance. In December 1980 and January 1981 Silver Sands constructed the first 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road approved by Clay County. The cost of the construction was $26,845. In February, 1981, Clay County confirmed that the first 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road approved by Clay County had been constructed pursuant to Clay County specifications. By Warranty Deed dated March 2, 1981, Silver Sands dedicated the portion of Little Rain Lake Road serving Phase One of Little Rain Lake Estates to Clay County. Also between 1981 and 1991, Silver Sands continued to maintain the unpaved and private portion of Little Rain Lake Road extending the remaining approximately 2,240 feet of the portion of Little Rain Lake Road intended to serve Phase One and Phase Two. The approximate cost to Silver Sands for these actions was $1,000.00. In 1997, Clay County requested Silver Sands to convey to the County approximately 34 acres of property along Little Rain Lake Road, formerly a part of Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. Silver Sands conveyed the property to the County. Also in 1997, Clay County requested Silver Sands to dedicate the remaining approximately 2,240 feet of Little Rain Lake Road which had been surveyed and engineered by Silver Sands in 1979-1980. The County also requested Silver Sands to provide the surveys and plans which Silver Sands had prepared in 1979- 1980. Silver Sands dedicated the remaining portion of the road and provided the surveys and plans to the County. Rights that will be Destroyed. In 1991, Clay County adopted the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Comprehensive Plan"). Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan the land use category applicable to development of the Property as single-family residential limits density to one unit per 10 acres. Under the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1990, Phases One and Two of the planned development of the Property cannot be developed for the 13 lots located in Phases One and Two which still remain in Silver Sands' ownership. The portion of the Property still owned by Silver Sands which has not been developed consists of the four lots in Phase One and the nine lots in Phase Two (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property does not include the lots in Phase One which were sold between 1981 and 1991 or the acreage conveyed to Clay County in 1997. If Silver Sands must comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the Subject Property cannot be developed for the 13 lots originally intended on the Subject Property in Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent Jeffrey Hill should pay the administrative penalty and investigative costs, and should undertake the corrective actions that are demanded by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“Department”) in its Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Civil Penalty Assessment (“NOV”).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner and operator of a community water system and its associated piping, designated PWS No. 2124409, located on parcel ID No. 03-4S-17-07486-001 on Country Club Road, in Lake City, Columbia County, Florida (“the property”). Respondent is a “person” as defined in section 403.852(5), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a “supplier of water” as defined in section 403.852(8). The water system is a “public water system” and a “community water system” as defined in sections 403.852(2) and (3), respectively. The community water system is a Category V, Class D water system with a capacity of 28,800 gallons per day that supplies between 25 and 3,300 people, using groundwater as its source. Count I Count I of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for nitrate and nitrite in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count II Count II of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for primary inorganic contaminants for the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count III Count III of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to analyze for secondary contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IV Count IV of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for volatile organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count V Count V of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for synthetic organic contaminants in the 2011-2013 compliance period, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VI Count VI of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to sample for total coliform from June 2013 to date, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VII Count VII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to employ an operator for the system since May 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count VIII Count VIII of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to submit test results required by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-550, and failure to file a monthly operation report since April 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count IX Count IX of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to issue Tier 3 notices in May 2013 and March 2014, advising customers of the failure to monitor for certain contaminants, which Respondent admitted. Count X Count X of the NOV charges Respondent with failure to provide a consumer confidence report to his customers in 2012 and 2013, which was admitted by Respondent. Count XI In Count XI of the NOV, the Department states that it incurred $530 in investigative costs related to this enforcement matter, which is admitted by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The site for the proposed combined cycle generating facility, hereinafter referred to as Unit S-5, is part of the existing 22-acre utility complex located near the western edge of the City of Lake Worth, Florida. This site, which has been used by the Lake Worth Utilities Authority for electrical power generation for over 25 years, is shared by the power plant, water treatment plant, public works department and various other municipal agencies. The site is bounded by public use areas, such as the Lake Worth Senior and Junior High School and athletic field on the north and east, the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad right-of-way and Interstate Highway 95 on the west and the Lake Worth Utilities Authority water treatment plant on the south. The most significant visual change to be caused by the addition of Unit S-5 to this site will be the addition of a 75 foot high exhaust stack and the mechanical draft cooling tower. Both of these structures will be, in large part, masked by the 1-95 elevated roadway, which dominates the skyline in the area of the site. Unit S-5, as proposed, will be of the combined cycle type, nominally rated at 29.5 megawatts. The unit will basically consist of a gas turbine- generator unit, unfired heat recovery steam generator, and steam turbine- generator unit and auxiliaries. The unit will utilize a cooling tower as is presently being done for the four existing steam units already on site. Operating at designed capacity, Unit S-5 will use an estimated 346,000 gallons of water per day through 1982. It is similarly estimated that, operating at designed capacity, 28,000 gallons of water per day would be discharged as cooling tower blow-down, boiler blow-down and demineralizer backwash. The applicant estimates that the average water use of Unit S-5 will be 201,000 gallons per day, which is approximately 3.8 percent of the 1978 projected average daily output of the Lake Worth Utilities Authority-water plant, from which the water will be taken. The Lake Worth Utilities Authority water Plant has a total design capacity of 25 million gallons per day. The design of Unit S-5 will allow operation on both gaseous and/or liquid fuels. Natural gas and number two diesel oil will be the fuels fired in this unit. The presently existing fuel facilities and supply arrangements are sufficient to provide the fuel needs of Unit S-5. Unit S-5, as designed, will be a highly efficient generator of electricity. It would allow the Lake Worth Utilities Authority to produce electricity at a lower cost by consuming less fuel per unit of electricity produced. According to the applicant's projections, the net savings in system operating costs would range from $70,000 to $500,000 per year depending upon fuel costs and fuel availability." The applicant presented unrebutted testimony showing that, because of the efficiency of the proposed unit, annual fuel savings could be as high as the equivalent of 860,000,000 cubic feet of natural gas or 5,370,000 gallons of oil. Further, operation of Unit S-5 would result in a substantial reduction in power plant water consumption. The applicant, Lake Worth Utilities Authority, has shown, by unrebutted testimony, that Unit S-5 will be highly efficient in operation and result in a substantial savings in operating costs should it come on line in 1978. ,As shown by the staff report of the Department of Environmental Regulation, Composite Exhibit 3, the construction of Unit S-5 will have minimal impact on the environment because of the previous impact of construction of the existing units already on site. Further, normal operation of the unit, as proposed, at worst, will cause a minimal increase in environmental impact over that caused by existing units. When displacement of older, less efficient units occur, Unit S-5 may reduce the overall environmental impact of the plant site. The unit is designed to operate in compliance with all applicable state and federal environmental standards and regulations. The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 403.57, Florida Statutes, to prepare a report and recommendation as to the present and future needs for electrical generating capacity in the area to be served by the proposed site. Such a report and recommendation was prepared and submitted as required by statute in this proceeding. The Public Service Commission found the area to be served by Unit S-5 to be an area containing approximately 11 square miles, which includes the City of Lake Worth and vicinity, as defined in the territorial agreement dated March 6, 1972, between Florida Power and Light Company and the Lake Worth Utilities Authority. Due primarily to the severe depression of the state economy and the price increases in the cost of fuel oil, the Florida Public Service Commission report finds that the annual growth rates in demand for electricity have been reduced. Using what it termed a "realistic" growth rate of 7.5 percent annually and a minimal growth rate of 5.75 Percent annually, the Florida Public Service Commission concluded that a need for the additional generating capacity to be provided by Unit S-5 would not exist until 1982 to 1984. Consequently, the Commission concluded that a need for the generating capacity for Unit S-5 will not exist in 1978, the year in which the applicant proposes to bring the unit on line. However, the Commission's report notes that they have considered summaries of an economic analysis submitted, by the Lake Worth Utilities Authority which showed that, due to the greater efficiency of the proposed unit, the savings in operating the system with this new unit would more than offset the cost to build it. Noting that the Commission staff reviewed these summaries and performed an analysis of their own for a range of generating efficiencies and fuel costs, the report concludes that the assumptions for this analysis were reasonable and that, based on these assumptions, there is an economic advantage when operating with the proposed Unit S-5, even though a need to meet demand may not exist at the time the unit is to come on line. A need for the generating capacity of Unit S-5 will not exist until 1982 to 1984. The Division of State Planning of the Department of Administration has reviewed the 1975 ten-year site plan of the Lake Worth Utilities Authority with regard to proposed Unit S-5. The report of the Division of State Planning notes that the Division concurs with the Public Service Commission in its assessment that need for the generating capacity will not exist in 1978. However, the report notes that it has no basis for disagreement with the applicant's calculations that bringing Unit S-5 on line would provide power cheaper than can the Present system. Therefore, the Division's report concludes that the ten- year site plan of the Lake Worth Utilities Authority, as amended by the final version of its site certification request, is suitable, and recommends that the proposed Plan be certified. There will be no new associated transmission facilities involved in the construction and operation of Unit S-5. Existing transmission facilities will be utilized. The staff report of the Department of Environmental Regulation concludes that if Unit S-5 can produce electricity at a significantly lower cost and thereby justify that the unit is necessary environmentally, Unit S-5 appears acceptable. It further concludes that if Unit S-5 is needed, and considering the slight environmental impacts of Unit S-5, the site is suitable at present and certification could be granted subject to proper conditions. Composite Exhibit 3 includes a statement of General Conditions of Certification and Special Conditions of Certification, which the Department of Environmental Regulation have proposed be made applicable to this facility if certified. The applicant, Lake Worth Utilities Authority, has stipulated and agreed that the General and Special Conditions of Certification, as proposed, should be imposed if certification is granted. As shown by Florida Pollution Control Board Order No. 75-2, dated February 10, 1975, Exhibit 7, the Florida Pollution Control Board, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, found that the proposed site for Unit S-5 is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances. At the conclusion of the presentation by the parties to this proceeding, opportunity was given to the general public to comment upon the application for site certification. No one appeared to make comment.
Recommendation Having reviewed the record of this proceeding, and based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that certification, pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, be granted the Lake Worth Utilities Authority, for the construction and operation of Unit S-5 in Lake Worth, Palm Beach County, Florida. It is further recommended that this certification be made subject to the General and Special Conditions of Certification as set forth in Composite Exhibit 3. Entered this 17th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joe McGlothin, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 700 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32340 Louis F. Hubener, Esquire Attorney, Division of State Planning 600 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Ross A. McVoy, Esquire Attorney, Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Vance, Esquire Attorney, Lake Worth Utilities Authority 1201-A Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands (Letter of Consent) should be issued to Respondent, Palm Beach County (County), authorizing it to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands for a restoration project in Lake Worth Lagoon.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are determined: The Parties Trump is the owner association for a two-towered residential and commercial condominium building located at 525 South Flagler Drive in downtown West Palm Beach, upland and west of the project site in the Lagoon. Each tower rises thirty floors and together they have of two hundred twenty units. The first five floors are common areas including a lobby on the first floor, while a pool and patio are located on the fifth floor of the north tower. The property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive, a four-lane divided road with landscaping and sidewalks which runs adjacent to, and on the western side of, the Lagoon. There is no dispute that Trump has standing to initiate this action. Flagler owns, manages, and leases two multi-story office buildings located at 501 Flagler Drive on the upland real property directly west of the project location. Like the Trump property, the Flagler property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive. There is no dispute that Flagler has standing to participate in this matter. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the applicant in this proceeding. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes,2 to issue to the County an ERP for the project, as well as authority as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to authorize activities on sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21. Background On October 29, 2007, the County submitted to the Department its Joint Application for an ERP and Letter of Consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in the Lagoon owned by the Board of Trustees. The application was assigned File No. 50- 0283929-00. After an extensive review process, including three requests for additional information, on August 12, 2008, the Department issued its Notice of Intent authorizing the County to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands in the Lagoon with approximately 172,931 cubic yards of sand and rock material to create the following: (a) approximately 1.75 acres of red mangrove habitat including 1.52 acres of mangrove islands and 0.23 acres of red mangrove planters; (b) approximately 0.22 acres of cordgrass habitat; (c) approximately 0.90 acres of oyster habitat; (d) approximately 3.44 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat; and (e) a 10-foot by 556-foot (5,560 square feet) public boardwalk with two 3-foot by 16-foot (48 square feet) educational kiosk areas and a 16-foot by 16-foot (256 square feet) observation deck for a total square footage of approximately 5,912 square feet. The Notice of Intent also included a number of general and specific conditions particular to this project. Trump (by timely Petition) and Flagler (by intervention) then challenged the Notice of Intent. They contend generally that the project unreasonably infringes upon or restricts their riparian rights and fails to meet the permitting and consent to use criteria set forth in Chapters 18-21 and 40E-4, as well as Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Section 253.141, Florida Statutes. Conflicting evidence on these issues was presented at the hearing. The conflicts have been resolved in favor of the County and the Department, who presented the more persuasive evidence. The Project The project area is a cove in the Lagoon, a Class III water body which extends within the County from North Palm Beach to Manalapan. The western side of the water body in the project area is lined with a vertical concrete seawall approximately 6.64 feet above the mean low water line. The waters immediately adjacent to the Trump and Flagler upland property are generally two to five feet deep along the seawall. To the east lies the island of Palm Beach, to the south is the Royal Park Bridge, which connects West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, while to the north is the Flagler Memorial drawbridge. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet from shore to shore. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) runs roughly through the middle of the Lagoon in a north-south direction. Currently, there is an artificial dredge hole in the project area around four hundred feet from the western seawall. The dredge hole, which descends to approximately twenty feet at its deepest location, is filled with muck, which can be re- suspended by wave energy into the water, blocking the sunlight necessary for the support of biotic life. The muck covers the natural hard bottom, consumes oxygen, and presents an unsuitable environment for benthic organisms. The dredge hole is too deep to support seagrasses. The project calls for filling the dredge hole to intertidal elevations, i.e., between the high and low tide elevations, for mangroves and elevations suitable for seagrass. In all, approximately 173,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed in and around the hole to build up three separate islands within the project footprint, on which the County will plant 10,000 red mangroves, which naturally grow between fifteen and twenty-five feet in height. (The County estimates that eighty to ninety percent of the mangroves will survive and grow to a height of at least fifteen feet.) The top of the islands, not including mangroves, will be just below the mean high water mark. The County also proposes locating planters along the seawall and oyster reefs along the southern end of the project. The planters are designed to extend out approximately twenty feet from the seawall and will be placed on sovereign submerged lands. The last five feet will consist of limestone rock. Mangrove, spartina, and seagrass habitats will provide a biodiverse source of food and habitat for other species, and occurs naturally within the Lagoon but has been lost over time. Oyster habitat is proposed for additional bio-diversity and to provide a natural water filtration function. From the County's perspective, the restoration project would be incomplete without all the habitats proposed. The planters will be at an intertidal elevation, planted with red mangroves and spartina, and faced with rock to reduce wave energy in the area. The oyster reefs are rock structures designed to rise one foot above mean high water line for visibility to boaters. The project also includes a boardwalk and attached educational kiosks on the south side of the project to bring the public in contact with the habitats. The County will maintain the boardwalk, empty the trash daily, and open/close the gates at sunrise/sunset. The County proposes a minimum ten-foot buffer between seagrass beds and the fill area. The project is part of the County's Lagoon Management Plan, which outlines the County's restoration goals within the Lagoon. The County has performed numerous other restoration projects within the Lagoon to re-introduce mangrove and seagrass habitat, such as Snook Island, which consisted of filling a 100- acre dredge hole, installing mangrove islands, seagrass flats, and oyster reefs. The Snook Island project restored mangrove habitat and recruited fish and bird species, including endangered and threatened species. Snook Island has remained stable, with no sediment deposition or erosion. The County intends to fill the dredge hole with native lagoon bottom sediment. A clam-shell machine will deposit the sediment below the water line to reduce turbidity. Sediment will be placed around the edges of the dredge hole, reducing the velocity of the fill as it settles to the bottom and encapsulates the muck, as required by Draft Permit Special Condition No. 19. The County will use turbidity curtains, monitor conditions hourly, and stop work if turbidity levels rise beyond acceptable standards. These precautions are included in Draft Permit Conditions 12, 13, and 14. The County will use construction barges with a four- foot draft to avoid propeller dredge or rutting and will place buoys along the project boundary to guide the construction barges, precautions integrated into the Draft Permit conditions. The County's vendor contracts require maintenance of construction equipment to prevent leakage. A similar condition is found in the Draft Permit. Both the intertidal and seagrass flats elevations at the top of the islands will be built at a 4:1 slope; elevations subject to wind and wave energy will be reinforced with a rock revetment constructed of filter cloth and rock boulders. Seagrass elevations will have no reinforcing rock because they are deep enough to avoid significant currents. Proposed drawings were signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The ERP Criteria To secure regulatory approval for an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in current Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. The latter rule requires that a public interest balancing test be made, and that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered. Also, the BOR, which implements the rule criteria, must be taken into account. a. Rule 40E-4.301 21. Paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(g), (1)(h), and (1)(k) and subsections (2) and (3) of the rule do not apply. Although Trump and Flagler have focused primarily on paragraphs (1)(d), (f), and (i) in their joint Proposed Recommended Order, all remaining criteria will be addressed. Paragraph (1)(d) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity "will not adversely affect the value of the functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." Based on the project design, the filling of the dredge hole and capping of muck, the restoration of seagrass habitat, and the creation of mangrove habitat, the project will have no adverse impacts but rather will be beneficial to the value of functions for fish and wildlife. Paragraph (1)(e) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The County will be required to manage turbidity that may be generated from the project. In part, the turbidity will be contained by the proposed construction method for filling the dredge hole. As noted earlier, the native sand will be deposited using a clamshell-type arm to dump the sand under the water around the periphery of the edge of the downward slope of the dredge hole. This will continue around the periphery of the hole, building up a lip and letting it slide down towards the bottom of the hole, squeezing the muck into the center of the hole and beginning to encapsulate it. Once there are several feet of native sand over the muck to encapsulate it, the County will resume the filling at the target rate. Subsection 4.2.4.1 of the BOR requires that the County address stabilizing newly created slopes of surfaces. To satisfy this requirement, the County will place the fill at a 4:1 slope. The outer edge of the mangrove islands slope back to a 4:1 slope and use rock rip-rap to stabilize that slope. Also, filter cloth, bedding stones, and boulders will be used. Because water currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de-stabilize. There will be turbidity curtains around the project area. Those are floating tops and weighted bottoms that reach to the bottom and are intended to contain any turbidity that may be generated by the project. Specific Conditions 12, 13, and 14 require extensive monitoring of turbidity. The County proposes to use a barge with a draft no greater than four feet. This aspect of the project will require a pre-construction meeting and extensive monitoring throughout the project. As a part of the application review, the County performed a hydrographic analysis which was coordinated with and reviewed by the Department staff. There are no expected debris or siltation concerns as a result of the project. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that over the long term, the project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By filling the dredge hole and providing habitat for seagrass, mangroves, and oysters, the project will provide net improvement to water quality. The requirements of the rule have been met. Paragraph (1)(f) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the activities will not "cause secondary impacts to the water resources." More detailed criteria for consideration are found in BOR Subsection 4.2.7. The County has provided reasonable assurance that through best management practices, it will control turbidity. Also, Specific Conditions in the proposed permit require that water quality monitoring be conducted throughout the process. There will be no impacts to upland habitat for aquatic or wetland dependent species. This is because a vertical seawall is located upland of the project site, and no surrounding uplands are available for nesting or denning by aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. A secondary impact evaluation also includes an evaluation of any related activities that might impact historical and archaeological resources. There are, however, no historical or archaeological resources in the area. If resources are uncovered during the project, Draft Permit conditions require notification to the Department of State. Finally, there are no anticipated future activities or future phases on the project to be considered. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project "will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Trump and Flagler contend that the project cannot be constructed and successfully operated as proposed. Trump's expert witness, Joseph Pike, testified that there were ambiguities and conflicts within the plan drawings that would require changes upon build-out; either fill will be placed outside of the fill area, or the mangrove islands will be smaller than depicted. Mr. Pike also voiced concerns that a 4:1 slope would not be stable and might cause fill to migrate to existing seagrass beds. He further stated that the Snook Island project included 18:1 slopes, and he thought providing rock revetment only at the intertidal zone was insufficient. Mr. Pike acknowledged that he had used 4:1 slopes in lake projects; however, in a tidal project involving fill placement, he opined that a 4:1 slope was likely to "relax." He did not do calculations about what slope might hold and admitted that prior experience using similar slopes with the same type of fill might change his opinion. Finally, Mr. Pike noted that a portion of the dredge hole would not be filled and concluded that the project would not fully cap the muck. Trump's biologist, James Goldasitch, speculated that the water flow changes would cause sediment deposition on existing seagrass beds, possibly causing the seagrasses to die. He admitted, however, that the County's plans called for the creation of 3.44 acres of seagrass and did not know the amount of habitat created compared to the amount of habitat he anticipated being affected. The Department's engineer, Jack Wu, approved the hydrologic aspects of the County's plan, but Mr. Goldasitch speculated that Mr. Wu was more focused on shoreline stability than on depositional forces. Mr. Goldasitch never actually spoke to Mr. Wu regarding his analysis, and Mr. Wu's memorandum refers not only to engineering and construction aspects of the proposal but also to the criteria in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Mr. Goldasitch believed the County's boardwalk will impact the seagrass beds by blocking sunlight, but acknowledged that the Draft Permit required the boardwalk to be elevated and portions to be grated. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department's expert witness concluded that the permit conditions for constructing the boardwalk, which are common, eliminated impacts to seagrass. Mr. Goldasitch further opined that the 4:1 slope might slump, but then deferred to the opinion of a registered engineer on this type of engineering matter. The County presented its professional engineer, Clint Thomas, who worked on the project design. Mr. Thomas explained that permit drawings are not intended to be construction-level in detail, but are merely intended to provide sufficient detail for the regulator to understand the project within the 8 and 1/2 by 11-inch paper format required by the Department. The County will ultimately prepare permit-level, construction-level, and as-built drawings. Permit conditions also require a pre-construction meeting. No fill will be placed outside the area designated for fill, and the 4:1 slope will start at the outer boundary of the designated fill area until it reaches the specified elevation. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the plan view drawings depict a mangrove island too close to the western project boundary, but stated that the mangrove island would simply be placed farther to the east during the construction-level plan process. Islands will become smaller islands, but will not be relocated, and in no event will the fill area expand; the fill boundary is a very strict limit. There is no evidence that the County has ever violated a fill boundary established in a permit. The 4:1 slope was based on the type of fill proposed for the project and to maximize project features. Mr. Thomas has successfully used 4:1 slopes with non-compacted fill in the Lagoon, both at Snook Island in its as-built state and at other projects. The islands at Snook Island are similar to those proposed. Other areas in the Lagoon have held slopes steeper than 4:1 with the same type of fill. Therefore, Mr. Thomas opined the 4:1 slope would hold. In rendering this opinion, he explained that the currents in the project vicinity are only around 1.2 knots. Because currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de- stabilize. Mr. Thomas addressed the contention that a change in water flow velocity would cause sediment to deposit on existing seagrass. The oyster reefs are rubble structures that allow the water to flow through. If any sediment flows through, it will deposit on the north side of the oyster bar, rather than on the seagrass beds. Given these considerations, the evidence supports a finding that the project will function as proposed. Finally, paragraph (1)(j) requires that the County provide reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that the County has complied with this requirement. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301. b. Rule 40E-4.302 In addition to the conditions of Rule 40E-4.301, the County must provide reasonable assurance that the construction of the proposed project will not be contrary to the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Trump first contends that the project will increase the mosquito population. The evidence shows, however, that the mangroves will be placed below the mean high water mark and therefore no increase in mosquitoes should occur. Also, the design of the project, coupled with the local mosquito control program, should ensure that there will be no increase in mosquito population or a risk to the public health. Trump also raised the issue of an increase in trash along the boardwalk area or in the newly-created mangrove islands. The County presented evidence that there will be appropriate trash receptacles in the area as well as regular garbage collection. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as a part of the project for safe boating by the public. The County consulted with the United States Coast Guard regarding navigation issues. Further, the project will not cause flooding on the property of others or cause an environmental impact on other property. Although a number of Trump residents expressed sincere and well-intended concerns about the project impacting the value of their condominiums (mainly due to a loss of view), BOR Subsection 4.2.3.1(d) provides that the "[Department] will not consider impacts to property values or taxes." Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)2. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Subparagraph 4. of the same rule requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The proposed activity is a restoration project for the creation of seagrass and mangrove habitats. As such, it is beneficial to the conservation of fish and wildlife and is expected to increase the biotic life in the project area. Besides providing additional habitat for fish and wildlife, the project will add to the marine productivity in the area. In terms of recreational opportunities, the project is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and birdwatching. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has also recommended issuance of the permit with the standard manatee condition for in-water work. This recommendation has been incorporated as Specific Conditions 23 through 25 Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)3. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect navigation and the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The nearest navigation channel is the ICW. The project is located outside of that area. Subsection 4.2.3.3 of the BOR provides additional guidance on the evaluation of impacts of this nature. Paragraph (a) of that subsection provides that, in evaluating a proposed activity, the Department "will consider the current navigational uses of the surface waters and will not speculate on uses which may occur in the future." Trump residents indicated that in the project area persons are now picked up off the seawall and then travel to the ICW. Access to the seawall is possible from the east and south, although existing shoals currently limit the approach from the south. Large boats do not use the area because of shoals. In general, "[t]here's not a whole lot of boating activity in the project area." The parties agree that if the project is constructed as designed, boats will not be able to travel directly out from the seawall in front on Trump or Flagler to the ICW, as they now do. However, navigation in the area will still be available, although not as convenient as before. As to water flow, shoaling, and erosion, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 4:1 slope will be stable and will not cause fill to migrate outside of the boundaries of the project into existing seagrass beds. The tidal flow will continue through the area after construction without sediment deposition into existing seagrass beds or destabilizing the 4:1 slope. There will be no shoaling or erosion. Finally, the project will be permanent and there are no significant historical and archaeological resources in the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)5. and 6. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County's proposal is neutral as to whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others; that the County's proposal is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the County's proposal is positive with respect to the conservation of fish and wildlife, recreational values and marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When these factors are weighed and balanced, the project is not contrary to the public interest and qualifies for an ERP. D. Proprietary Authorization Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. In making its review, the Department reviews the rule in its entirety; it also looks at the forms of authorization (e.g., letters of consent, leases, deeds, or easement) to determine the most appropriate form of authorization for an activity. Trump and Flagler have raised contentions regarding the proprietary authorization, including whether the application should have been treated as one of heightened public concern, whether the proper form of authorization has been used, and whether their riparian rights are unreasonably infringed upon by the project. Heightened Public Concern Rule 18-21.0051 provides for the delegation of review and decision-making authority to the Department for the use of sovereign submerged lands, with the following exception found in subsection (4) of the rule: (4) The delegations set forth in subsection (2) are not applicable to a specific application for a request to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253 or 258, F.S., where one or more members of the Board, the Department, or the appropriate water management district determines that such application is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern, because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. On March 13, 2008, the Department's West Palm Beach District Office sent a "heightened public concern [HPC]) memo" to the Department's review panel in Tallahassee,3 seeking guidance as to whether the project required review by the Board of Trustees under the above-cited rule. The Department emailed the County on March 14, 2008, stating that the project would be elevated to the Board of Trustees for review to approve the entire Lagoon Management Plan. The County asked for reconsideration, concerned over timing restraints on grant opportunities. This concern is based on the fact that the County will receive grant monies to assist in the construction of the project and must have regulatory approval by a date certain in order to secure those funds. A second HPC memorandum was sent to the review panel on April 22, 2008. Part of the interim decision to elevate the application to the Board of Trustees concerned the boardwalk connection to the City of West Palm Beach's existing seawall. The City of West Palm Beach is the upland owner of the seawall, sidewalk, and Flagler Drive. On June 9, 2008, the Mayor of West Palm Beach sent a letter to the Department stating that the City "fully supports" the proposed activity, and that the County and the City collaborated on the design of the project, held joint public meetings, and produced a project video. See Department Exhibit Trump and Flagler argue that under the City Charter, the Mayor cannot unilaterally bind the local government to allow structures to be built on City property. Assuming this is true, one of the remaining conditions for the County to initiate the project is to obtain a "letter of concurrence" from the City of West Palm Beach authorizing the County to connect the boardwalk to the seawall. Therefore, the review panel ultimately concluded that the application could be reviewed at the staff level and did not require Board of Trustees review. The evidence at hearing did not establish that the application was one of heightened public concern, given the limited size of the project, its location, and the net benefit to both environmental and natural resources. Compare Brown, et al. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., et al., DOAH Case No. 04-0476, 2004 Fla. ENV LEXIS 112 (DOAH Aug. 2, 2004, SFWMD Sept. 8, 2004). Therefore, review by the Board of Trustees was not required. Form of Authorization Trump and Flagler contend that an easement is required by the County, rather than a consent of use. The standard for obtaining an easement is more stringent than a consent of use, and an easement offers a greater interest in sovereign lands. Rule 18-21.005(1) provides the general policy direction for determining the appropriate form of authorization and reads in relevant part as follows: It is the intent of the Board that the form of authorization shall grant the least amount of interest in the sovereignty submerged lands necessary for the activity. For activities not specifically listed, the Board will consider the extent of interest needed and the nature of the proposed activity to determine which form of authorization is appropriate. This rule requires that the Department should apply the lowest and least restrictive form of authorization. Trump and Flagler argue that the County's project constitutes a spoil disposal site under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)8., a public water management project other than public channels under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)10., or a management activity which includes "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," as described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)11. Each of these activities requires an easement rather than a letter of consent in order to use sovereign submerged lands. The evidence shows that the County's project is not a spoil disposal site. Also, it is not primarily a public water management project as there is no evidence that the project relates in any way to flood control, water storage or supply, or conservation of water. Likewise, there is no evidence indicating that the activities will prevent access by the public by exclusion. Even though many of the features (structures) of the project will be permanent, the project is intended to generally increase public access to water resources, as well as the islands, boardwalk, and kiosks. Besides raising the issue of heightened public concern, the second HPC Memorandum dated April 22, 2008, sought guidance as to whether the project required a consent of use or an easement. The review panel concluded that the project qualified for a consent of use, rather than an easement under Rule 18- 21.005(1)(f), because the County's project most closely fits the definition in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. That rule provides that if the proposed activity involves "[h]abitat restoration, enhancement, or permitted mitigation activities without permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," an applicant may use sovereign submerged lands with a consent of use. Because the County's project increases public access not only to water resources in the Lagoon but also to the permanent structures being built, it more closely falls within the type of activity described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. Notably, all of the County's restoration projects in the Lagoon have been previously authorized through a consent of use. Finally, the review panel concluded that the project did not fall under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)16., which requires an easement for environmental management activities that include "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public" because of the rule's focus on the exclusion of the general public. Riparian Rights The parties have stipulated, for the purpose of this proceeding, that Trump and Flagler have riparian rights, including view, ingress/egress, fishing, boating, swimming, and the qualified right to apply for a dock, that should be considered. Trump and Flagler contend that their right to wharf out (build a dock) from the seawall, ingress/egress from navigable water, and view will be unreasonably infringed upon if the application is approved. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.004(3)(a)("[n]one of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law riparian rights, as defined in Section 253.141, F.S., of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands"). For the reasons given below, the greater weight of evidence establishes that none of these riparian rights will be unreasonably infringed upon. Currently, while access is possible from the east and the southern approaches, existing shoals limit the southern approach. The boardwalk will further limit boat traffic on the south end, and boats would not be able to cross over the islands. Boat traffic will still be able to access the cove from the north end, and the restoration project will create a boating destination. Trump witness Pike opined that the County's project would negatively affect navigation between the upland parcels and the ICW because the project would eliminate the eastern and southern approaches and leave only the northern approach, which could not be used by both parcels fully. The County's expert, Dr. Nicholas De Gennarro, testified that, during his site visits, he observed boat traffic waiting for the drawbridges using the east side of the ICW away from the project site. Dr. De Gennarro noted that several existing structures are closer to the ICW than the proposed County project, which lies 220 feet away from the ICW. Thus, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the project would not impact navigation in the ICW. With respect to ingress/egress, Dr. De Gennarro acknowledged that access to the Trump and Flagler properties would not be available from the southern and eastern approaches, but concluded that the restriction represented nothing more than an inconvenience. He noted that the southern approach was already a less preferable approach due to existing shoals. At present, there is very little boating in the area outside of special events. While the project would limit the use of boats directly over the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands, the project will provide a boating destination. Further, both the City docks to the north of the site and the temporary docks in front of Flagler's property –- both used for special events –- will still be available under the County's proposal. There is no swimming and very little fishing in the area because of the degraded conditions caused by the dredge hole. Accordingly, while the project will fill a small portion of water currently available, but not used, for swimming, it will greatly enhance swimming by providing a destination for swimmers. The mangroves planned for the intertidal islands are likely to reach a height of fifteen feet and will be interspersed with spartina. The seawall is located six feet above the water line, making a person's view at eye level already several feet above the water. Trump and Flagler's buildings are built at even higher elevations. Therefore, the mangroves will not substantially obscure the view from either property, even at street level where the view is already partially obscured by existing landscaping. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet across. From north to south around one hundred acres of water can now be viewed from the vicinity. Since the intertidal islands only comprise one and one-half acres, the overall impact to the view of the water body is very small. The mangroves in the planters extending out from the seawall will be trimmed to one foot above the seawall; the County requested the condition and committed at hearing to trimming the mangroves if the City of West Palm Beach does not. County photographs show Trump and Flagler's present view of the water body and demonstrate the comparatively small percentage of the view affected by the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands. See County Exhibits 133a-e and 134a-d. The photographs also demonstrated that sizeable palm trees are already part of the existing view. Additionally, the County photographs depicted the small impact that trimmed mangrove planters would have on the view. The area obstructed by the mangrove islands and seagrass is negligible compared to the expanse of the existing view. Trump and Flagler offered no evidence to contradict the County's analysis regarding the scope of the impact on the view. Trump residents Dale McNulty, Dean Goodman, and Charles Lemoine testified that they personally would not want to view mangrove islands regardless of tree size or the size of the islands. Understandably, after years of unfettered view and an open expanse of water, they are opposed to any type of project in this area of the Lagoon. However, Mr. Goodman acknowledged that he would still be able to see the Town of Palm Beach from his unit. The evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from both Trump and Flagler's property, the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights. Mr. Lemoine stated that he had a forty-foot trawler that he would like to dock in front of his property. He currently docks the boat at a marina twenty miles north of the Trump property. He prefers to bring his boat in stern first and enter slips oriented north to south. He indicated that he can drive his boat in five feet of water, but prefers six feet; however, he also testified that he has brought his boat directly up to the bulkhead in front of Trump, which is approximately a two- or three-foot depth. The witness has seen sailboats and other boats moored near the bulkhead over extended timeframes. Mr. Lemoine speculated that Trump might seek a dock, either alone or in conjunction with Flagler, but admitted that Trump has never applied for a dock permit. He stated that Trump has had discussions about the possibility of a dock over the last fifteen years and speculated that a dock plan might include anything from the purchase/lease of the City docks to a lease of Trump's riparian interests to a third party. By contrast, Trump resident and former Board member Dean Goodman indicated "the idea was to provide an amenity [for] a number of people that are in the building that are boaters." Mr. Goodman stated that he hoped to be able to have a boat in front of the building someday, but did not own a boat in Florida. Association president Dale McNulty explained that, while informal discussions have occurred regarding the possibility of a dock, no official action had been taken. Mr. McNulty characterized the dock plans as being "sort of in the land of wishful thinking." Mr. Pike, while acknowledging that both parcels would still be able to design a dock for their property, opined that the County's project unreasonably limited the size and configuration of the docks possible. Mr. Pike initially admitted that a safe navigation depth for a forty-foot boat, or even a sailboat, was four feet below mean low water (MLW), but stated that he would prefer to design a dock with an additional two-to- three feet of water below the four-foot draft to avoid propeller damage. However, Mr. Pike conceded that he has designed docks for boats in four feet below MLW and ultimately based his own calculations on an assumption of a four-foot draft and one-foot cushion, or five feet below MLW. Mr. Pike also opined that a north-south alignment for boat slips was a preferred slip orientation. Given the bathymetry in the area and the documented seagrasses, Mr. Pike estimated that twenty slips could be designed for the Flagler property, rather than the thirty-four slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. He thought that a design might accommodate thirty to thirty-two slips for Trump, rather than the forty-slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. Based on the limitation on number of slips and configurations, the witness opined that the County's project would unreasonably interfere with Trump and Flagler's ability to design a dock. He admitted, though, that the numbers derived from the County Manatee Protection Plan represent a maximum number, rather than a specified or guaranteed number. He further admitted that other agency limitations may further restrict Trump and Flagler's right to dockage. Without a permit application or plan from Trump or Flagler, County witness Robbins concluded that the most reasonable assumption was an owner-oriented facility designed for the building owners/tenants. The County introduced a graphic illustrating areas available for dock construction, with sufficient depth for 35- to 40-foot boats (-6 feet NGVD) and with no seagrasses present. Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2. limits ownership-oriented facilities generally to forty square feet for each foot of riparian shoreline, giving Trump the ability to apply for a dock that preempted a maximum of 16,000 square feet, and Flagler a maximum of 14,000 square feet. Under the County Manatee Protection Plan, Trump would be limited to forty slips; Flagler would have the potential for thirty-four slips. Mr. Robbins testified that, in his experience, a minus five MLW is a common depth for docks, but that elevations as shallow as a minus four MLW could be used depending on the type of boats and the dock configuration. Mr. Robbins explained that, even with the County's project in place and factoring in the other limitations, Trump would still have 61,842 square feet of potential space within which to design a dock. Flagler would still have 41,481 square feet of potential space, even considering the need to retain a path for ingress and egress from the Trump parcel. A more detailed analysis of the seagrasses might make more square footage available for dock construction. Dr. De Gennarro also evaluated whether a dock could be designed to serve Trump and Flagler's parcels. The vessel owner statistics for the County indicate that at least ninety-five percent of the boats registered in the County are thirty-nine feet or less; consequently, Dr. De Gennarro focused on boats forty feet or less. Dr. De Gennarro considered the water depths and the existence of subaquatic vegetations and concluded that the graphic presented by Mr. Robbins was conservative, but still provided adequate space for both Trump and Flagler to construct appropriate dockage, allowing thirty-eight boats for Trump and thirty-two for Flagler of varying size. However, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that a dock design of forty slips for each would also be possible, depending on the size of the boats. Dr. De Gennarro proposed that a single, double-loaded parallel dock design would be a good layout for a potential docking facility in front of both Trump and Flagler's property that would be protected by the County's proposed islands, provide sufficient water depths, and provide an attractive facility. He specified, however, that the single, double-loaded parallel dock design was simply one of "many" that might work in the given space. Dr. De Gennarro explained that the existing dredge hole would not be a preferable location for either a mooring field or a dock because the deep muck-bottom would drive up the costs for either type of facility. Accordingly, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the County's project would not foreclose or even substantially restrict the ability to locate a dock in front of Trump and Flagler’s property. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that neither the right of ingress/egress nor the right to boat in the vicinity is unreasonably infringed upon by the County's project. Trump and Flagler will continue to have reasonable access to navigation. The northerly approach preserved by the County's project will allow for boat traffic to safely navigate in the area. While the southerly and easterly approaches are eliminated by the County's plan, the evidence indicates that the two approaches were less preferable than the northerly approach because of the presence of shoals. Based on the above considerations, the County's project will not unreasonably infringe upon Trump or Flagler's qualified right to a dock. The fact that the project might preclude the design and permitting of a dock that would host very large vessels does not mean that Trump and Flagler's rights regarding docking have been unreasonably infringed. The evidence shows that substantial docking facilities of multiple configurations are still possible even if the County's project is approved. In summary, the County's application for proprietary authorization should be approved. Other Contentions All other contentions raised by Trump and Flagler have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the County's application for a consolidated ERP and consent to use sovereignty submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issue here presented concerns the entitlement of the Applicant/Respondent, Walker G. Miller, to construct an addition to his existing boat house of approximately 450 square feet, and an addition to his existing chain link fence, both of which are located on Lake Down, Florida. The Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, has indicated its intention to grant the permit application request and the Petitioners, Milton and Gail Hess, and David Storey and others, have opposed the Department's intention to grant the permit.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in Case No. 80-1769, Milton Hess, is an adjacent landowner to the Applicant/Respondent, Walker G. Miller, with property located on Lake Down, near Windermere, in Orange County, Florida. The Petitioners in Case No. 80-1770, David Storey and others, are also landowners on Lake Down. Applicant's parcel is located on Down Point, which is a peninsular extending from the Lakes's southern shore. The project as contemplated by the Applicant is the construction of a 15 foot by 30 foot unenclosed addition on the north side of an existing dock/boathouse combination located on Lake Down. The 450 square foot addition is to be utilized as a storage room adjacent to the boathouse portion of his existing structure. The present structure has a total surface area of approximately 825 square feet. Additionally, by amendment to the application made on August 13, 1980, Applicant proposes to construct a chain link fence from the south property line to the dock facility. Lake Down is one of the waterbodies that constitutes the Butler Chain- of Lakes. The Lake is characterized by outstanding water quality and diversified biological resources. The Chain-of Lakes is widely recognized as the outstanding aquatic resource in the State, as far as water quality is concerned. Development on Lake Down is light, with widely scattered residential units separated by expanses of citrus groves. The construction of the addition will not significantly impact Lake Down or the Butler Chain-of Lakes, either on a long-term or short-term basis. The shading effect of the structure will result in a slight decline of rooted aguatic vegetation. However, such decline should be minimal. Further, reasonable assurances have been given that the proposed project would not result in any violations of State water quality criteria or standards. The existing dock structure now obstructs a portion of the view of the lake enjoyed by Petitioner Hess. However, by constructing the proposed addition on the north side of the existing boathouse, no further impediment of the view will occur.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a permit be granted by the Department of Environmental Regulation to Walker G. Miller to construct an addition to his boathouse and a chain link Fence on Lake Down as more specifically described in his amended application. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: David Storey Route 3, Box 929 Orlando, Florida 32811 Jack Ezzard and Kathryn Ezzard Route 3, Box 925 Orlando, Florida 32811 Tari Kazaros Route 3, Box 924 Orlando, Florida 32811 Mrs. H. D. Barrarly Post Office Box 203 Gotha, Florida 32734 Paula M. Harrison Post Office Box 203 Gotha, Florida 32734 Ava Careton Route 3, Box 926 Orlando, Florida 32811 Nikki Clagh Route 3, Box 928 Orlando, Florida 32811 Milton and Gail Hess 4413 Down Point Lane Windermere, Florida 32786 Walker G. Miller Post Office Box 348 Windermere, Florida 32786 B. J. Heller, Esquire 644 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Richard D. Lee, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact RCA is developing 91 acres in a 219-acre basin near Ocoee in Orange County as a residential subdivision, Twin Lakes Forest. In an effort to attenuate the polluting effects of water draining from the subdivision into waters of the state, RCA has begun construction of an earthen dam or berm so as to cut off the south end of a lake bed, proposing to transform that part of the now almost dry lake into a "retention pond." LAKE OR MEADOW? The amount of water in Lake Meadow, the lake involved, fluctuates with the level of the groundwater. It has been as deep as 18 feet and, at other times, has nearly dried up completely. Like one-quarter of Orange County's 1,000 to 1,300 lakes, Lake Meadow rises and falls, comes and goes. With a few exceptions, such as Lake Alfreda and Crooked Lake, most intermittent lakes in the area are very small, one to five acres. A map prepared by a tax assessor's office on August 8, 1978, depicts Lake Meadow covering approximately 50 acres. Petitioner Boyett's Exhibit No. 1. In 1969, 1970, and 1972, Lake Meadow covered the full extent of what landowners in the area consider to be the lake bed, some 50 acres. Petitioner Boyett's Exhibits Nos. 3, 4, and 6. Two years ago a boy from Minnesota drowned in Lake Meadow. Today, the lake bed is mostly dry. In the early 1960s, Lake Meadow attained its highest level in the last 30 years, covering substantially more than 50 acres, and spilling over to connect with Lake Kerr to the east. In July of 1978, Lake Meadow had disintegrated into at least seven discrete pools. Petitioner Boyett's Exhibit No. 4. The lake has been very low before, too, but the area is drier this year than at any time in the past 30 years. As recently as 1980, DER would have asserted dredge and fill jurisdiction over this project, according to DER's James Morgan. Even under the driest conditions, there is water in the south end of the lake bed where Ms. Caflish caused a hole to be excavated so she would always have water for irrigating her orange groves. The water there is very cool, 10 feet below the surface. Whether a true spring is present was not established by the evidence. The paving and drainage facilities location plan prepared for RCA by its consulting engineers shows existing ponds within the Twin Lake Forest subdivision. There are two canals in the vicinity. INTERMITTENT VEGETATION There are no pine saplings in Lake Meadow's bed, but there are clumps of willow and willow fringes north of and downgrade from the berm. Dog fennels taller than a man were the predominant plant species in immediate proximity to the berm. Dog fennels spring up when lake beds go dry. Previously dominant vegetation like cattails and saw grass have retreated into dormancy and tubers. When water returns, these plants will emerge and again become dominant. STORMWATER DETENTION The berm is to be built to an elevation of 80 feet above sea level. The berm has a liner intended to prevent lateral seepage. The sand used to construct it has been compacted and is proposed to be seeded and mulched after cracks caused by recent rains are repaired and construction is completed. Eventually, the berm is to become the responsibility of the City of Ocoee. Along an overflow weir with a height of only 78 feet above sea level, a skimmer would be installed to keep paper, oil, and other floatable debris out of the northern stretches of Lake Meadow. It would not be effective for that purpose if the lake's surface rises higher than 80 feet above sea level. AN INCH AN ACRE In deciding whether to exempt an applicant from stormwater discharge permitting requirements, 1/ DER uses this rule of thumb: A retention pond should be able to hold the same volume of water as the volume of a sheet of water one inch thick lying over the basin drained. Research has demonstrated that the initial flush of stormwater runoff is markedly more laden with pollutants than discharge that follows in the same storm. Only one in ten rainfalls exceeds one inch. The retention pond planned for the south end of the lake bed would have an area of 8.25 acres. It is designed to hold some 18 acre feet, just in the part of the pond above 76 feet above sea level, almost one inch for each of the 219 acres in the basin, or more than two inches for each acre RCA proposes to develop. Water would be collected and conveyed by a pipe entering the pond with its top at 70 feet above sea level and its bottom at 65 feet above sea level. RCA owns the lake bed on either side of the proposed berm. SUBMERGED BERM FORESEEN If the pond will not drain, it will not provide adequate storage. If the level of the lake rises above the berm, there would be no retention of stormwater discharge in the pond. There will be no pond as such if Lake Meadow returns: the "retention pond" will be part of the lake. If past experience is a reliable guide, at some point in the next ten years, the lake can be expected to rise to 85.5 feet above sea level. (Testimony of Klos.) PETITIONERS SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED The respondents stipulated to petitioners' "standing." Petitioners own land adjacent to Lake Meadow and some of them have hunted birds and fished on Lake Meadow. Ducks, quail, and alligators have all been seen on or near the lake. PROPOSED ORDER CONSIDERED Respondent DER has submitted proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a proposed recommended order which have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. Paragraphs 1 and 3 through 12, the first two sentences of paragraph 13, and the first sentence of paragraph 14 of DER's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, where relevant. Paragraph 2, the last sentence in paragraph 13, and the final two sentences of paragraph 14 of DER's proposed findings of fact have been rejected as unsupported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER exercise dredge and fill jurisdiction over the berm site, pursuant to Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. That DER require RCA to apply for a license to discharge stormwater, pursuant to Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1982.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, in misusing his official position by threatening to discontinue the City's patronage of the Complainant's business because she displayed the campaign sign of one of Respondent's opponents in her business window; and (2) if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Tom Ramiccio (Respondent) was elected to the Lake Worth City Council. He was elected mayor in 1997. On February 21, 1999, Respondent was involved in a campaign for re-election. The election was held in March and Respondent was re-elected. As Mayor of the City of Lake Worth (City of Lake Worth or City), Respondent was subject to the requirements of Part III, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Carol Dippel is a florist who owns a shop on Lake Avenue in downtown Lake Worth. Once a year there is a "street painting festival" in the downtown area. The festival was in progress on February 21, 1999. During the 1999 street painting festival, Respondent was campaigning for re-election. During the street festival, on February 21, 1999, Respondent went into Ms. Dippel's store, Lake Avenue Flowers and Balloons, because he noticed a campaign sign for his opponent in her store window. Respondent's opponent for that election was Pam Wynn. Respondent was curious about why Ms. Dippel was supporting his opponent and inquired whether he had done anything to offend her. Ms. Dippel responded that she believed that Respondent had done a good job for the City, but that she was supporting Ms. Wynn because of Respondent's position on the neon lighting ordinance. Respondent told Ms. Dippel that even if Pam Wynn were elected, there would be no change in the neon ordinance. This was because four other city commissioners supported the neon ordinance. Ms. Dippel had two neon calla lilies in her storefront and supported the rights of shop owners to use neon signs. Respondent, on the other hand, was strongly opposed to neon lights in the downtown area and had supported a recently-passed ordinance restricting the use of neon. Respondent and Ms. Dippel then proceeded to have discussion that lasted about 10 to 15 minutes. They debated Respondent's vision of a historic downtown area and also discussed the artistic merits of neon and the role of the government in limiting the individual choice and rights of property owners. The discussion between Respondent and Ms. Dippel was spirited but not angry. However, as Respondent turned to leave, he told Ms. Dippel that in the past he and the City of Lake Worth had done business with her but would no longer do so. Ms. Dippel felt that Respondent, by this statement, was trying to coerce or intimidate her into removing the Pam Wynn sign from the window of her shop. Portions of the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Dippel were overheard by Beverly Douglas, an occasional employee of Ms. Dippel, who was working in the shop that day. Ms. Douglas heard Respondent tell Ms. Dippel that he, his wife, and the City of Lake Worth had been customers of Ms. Dippel but would no longer do business with her. Ms. Douglas believed that Respondent's conduct was intimidating and characterized his statements to Ms. Dippel as "giving her a hard time." Ms. Douglas' testimony was credible and her account of Respondent's statement that he and the City of Lake Worth would discontinue doing business with Lake Avenue Flowers and Balloons corroborated that of Ms. Dippel. The City of Lake Worth does not have a contract to purchase flowers from Ms. Dippel's store, nor does it have an account there. However, the City of Lake Worth has purchased flowers from Ms. Dippel's store in the past, although not on a regular basis. An affidavit from the City Finance Director reflects that the City purchased flowers or other products or services from Ms. Dippel's store on three occasions since March of 1996. According to the City's financial records, the City made the following payments to Lake Avenue Flowers: $12.00 on or about March 26, 1996; $95.00 on or about September 22, 1997; and $100.00 on or about May 26, 1998. Respondent was not been involved in any of the aforementioned purchases made by the City from Ms. Dippel's store. However, Respondent, the city manager, and both of their secretaries were authorized to purchase flowers on behalf of the City. The street painting festival was co-chaired by Respondent's friend and supporter, Marion Webber, and funded in part through City grant money. In prior years, the festival had used Ms. Dippel's store to provide gifts to participants. After the February 21, 1999, incident, Ms. Dippel received no more business from the City of Lake Worth or the festival. Respondent admitted that Ms. Dippel's version of what happened on February 21, 1999, is accurate, with the exception of the threat, which he denies. However, the testimony of Ms. Dippel is credible and her version of events, relative to Respondent's statements, is accepted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order and Public Report be entered finding that Respondent, Tom Ramiccio, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes; imposing a civil penalty of $2,000; and issuing a public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Virlindia Doss, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Mark Herron, Esquire E. Gary Early, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 2555 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2555 Sheri L. Gerety, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Parties The applicant for permit is Brevard County's Facilities Construction Division (County). The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), formerly the Department of Environmental Regulation and Department of Natural Resources, is the state agency responsible for reviewing the permit application pursuant to Chapters 373 and 403, F.S. Petitioner, Carolyn Martel (Ms. Martel) owns property adjacent to, and north of the county park. She has owned the property for approximately sixteen years and uses it for a vacation home, with the intent to retire there eventually. The Project On October 26, 1992, the county applied for a permit to construct a public fishing pier and dock at its existing recreational facility, Fisherman's Landing Park, in Grant, Florida, at the south end of Brevard County. Fisherman's Landing Park is located on the Indian River in an area known as the Malabar to Sebastian Aquatic Preserve. The park lies between the river and U.S. Highway No. 1, approximately seven miles north of Sebastian, Florida. The park is approximately 7.9 acres, with approximately 2000 feet frontage along the river. The proposed pier/dock is the second phase of the park construction project, funded in part by the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND), to provide picnic, restroom and emergency docking access for the boating public already using the intercoastal waterway. The only access for boats is from the waterway. No boat ramp exists, nor is one planned for the area. The project site is in Class II waters, and is subject to Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) criteria which apply in the aquatic preserve pursuant to rule 17-302.700(9)(i), F.A.C.. The pier/dock was originally planned to be much larger, but was reduced in size to comply with suggestions by various reviewing agencies. As now proposed, construction will connect with an existing boardwalk and will run in a northeasterly direction over the water, approximately 209 feet, with a platform at the end in a "T" configuration, 30 feet by 9 feet. Its total length is 220 feet, tip to tip. Various governmental agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Office of Protected Species Management of the Florida DEP were involved in the review. After requested changes were made, the project was approved, with general and special conditions, in permit no. 05-221736-4. Because this is a public project, a state-owned lands lease was not required. Instead, a letter of consent was issued on October 5, 1993. THE PERMIT CRITERIA The public health, safety, or welfare or property of others The project must, and will, comply with state water quality standards. No work will be performed on shore or underwater except for pile driving and some renovation to meet handicapped accessibility standards. Projects such as this do not typically cause excessive turbidity. Any turbidity during the construction phase will subside within 24-48 hours. The water quality in the area, already degraded for years, will not be further degraded by the project. The temporary mooring access will discourage pollution already being caused by boaters using the waterway and illegally disposing of waste and garbage. This was a primary rationale for the FIND funding for the project. The pier will be fully accessible to wheelchairs and will meet all accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The only evidence of criminal activity in the park has been some minor vandalism and graffiti. County park rangers patrol the park several times a day. The marine patrol is in charge of law enforcement from the water, and the sheriff conducts frequent patrols from along U.S. Highway No. 1. Park hours (daylight only) are posted, along with other park regulations. The conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats The project is within the Brevard County manatee protection zone which requires a slow speed for boats. As a condition of the permit, manatee and seagrass informational and educational signs shall be placed on the structure. Manatees use the area for grazing and will continue to do so. The project will not significantly increase boating activity; it is not considered a very desirable boating area. The project is intended to divert boats already on the waterway and illegally picnicking and disposing of waste and garbage elsewhere. If manatees are observed in the area during construction, construction will have to stop until the manatees leave. East of the site and east of the channel in the river is Grant Farm Island, a bird rookery which includes endangered birds. According to the scale on the vicinity map (County exhibit #12), the island is approximately 1/4 mile from the park. According to competent expert testimony, the birds will not be affected by the project. There are seagrasses at the site, as surveyed by county and state environmental staff, and as a condition of the permit, the surveys must continue and reports must be made to the DEP. Restoration of any areas damaged by boats must be provided by the county. However, little damage is anticipated since boats will be confined to the end of the dock, where the water is 5-6 feet deep. The entire dock will be constructed at a minimum level of 5 feet above mean high water to allow sunlight to continue nourishing the grasses. With the conditions placed in the permit, the seagrasses shall be only minimally affected. Navigation and the flow of water; no harmful erosion or shoaling The project will not affect the flow of water nor will it cause erosion or shoaling, according to the only competent evidence offered on this subject. The end of the dock is over 350 feet from the channel of the intercoastal waterway, far enough to avoid any navigational hazards. There will be lights and reflectors to warn boaters. Fishing or recreational values and marine productivity Long-standing pollution, including pollution from septic tanks has caused this area to be restricted or closed to shellfish harvesting since the 1970's. It is not a highly productive area for commercial fishing. Opportunities for recreational fishing and other recreation is substantially enhanced by the project, particularly for handicapped persons. There is very little existing public access to the Indian River in this portion of Brevard County. The nature of the project: temporary or permanent There is no dispute that the project is permanent. Significant historical and archaeological resources The Grant community in Brevard County is an old Florida riverfront community. The Grant historical house located at the site will not be affected, except that enjoyment and access to the house will be enhanced for boaters who temporarily moor at the dock. The old house has a dock that is no longer accessible. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed area As provided above, the water quality in the area is already degraded, and the project will not contribute to further degradation, but rather should enhance the quality as an alternative to illegal dumping and disposal. Specific conditions in the permit are intended to maintain the value of functions performed by the existing seagrasses, and adequate monitoring is placed in those conditions to assure their success. The value or function of the public park facility is substantially improved by opening access from the water to boaters, and from the shore to handicapped individuals. Balancing the Criteria and summary of findings Based on competent expert testimony and evidence, the county has provided reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest. With a degree in biology and a master's degree in public health, Ms. Martel is an articulate and knowledgeable advocate for her own position. However, most of her testimony or evidence regarding the project's impacts on the environment was very general; for example: seagrasses are vital to estuarine ecology; manatees are frequently tragic victims of boaters; Brevard County is home to a wide variety of endangered flora and fauna; and similar well-accepted facts. Some of Ms. Martel's concerns are beyond the scope of this proceeding. The park itself was constructed on public property in 1989. The restroom facilities and septic tank were permitted several years ago as part of that earlier phase of park development. Any run-off or other effects of the parking spaces at the site are also the result of the earlier phase and will not be exacerbated by this project. Ms. Martel's concerns about trespassers or squatters on her property are not issues within the permit criteria addressed above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue its Final Order approving permit 05-221736-4, with the proposed general and special conditions attached, and with the additional condition stipulated by the parties with regard to prohibiting refreshment or bait and tackle concessions. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 10th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5566 The following constitute specific rulings on the parties' findings of fact as provided in section 120.59(2), F.S.: Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Adopted in substance in paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6; however, the finding with regard to approval for shellfish harvesting is rejected as not supported by competent evidence. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Adopted, as to location, in paragraph 3; otherwise rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Adopted generally in paragraph 16. Rejected as immaterial; there is no evidence of any impact of this project on wetland areas or on shoreline vegetation. Adopted generally in paragraph 15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 12.-13. Adopted generally in paragraph 7. 14.-18. Rejected as unnecessary. 19. Adopted in general in paragraph 16. 20.-29. Rejected as argument or comment on the evidence, rather than findings of fact. 30. Rejected as unnecessary. As found in paragraph 8, the letter of consent was issued. 31.-38. Rejected as argument rather than findings of fact, or irrelevant (as to the septic tank and parking facilities). 39.-40. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. 41. Addressed in preliminary statement and in recommendation. 42.-45. Rejected as unnecessary or argument, rather than findings of fact. 46. Rejected generally as unsupported by competent evidence (as to negative affect on navigation). 47.-51. Rejected as argument, or unnecessary. 52.-55. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to negative impacts), and unnecessary (as to Tamy Weingarden's qualifications). Ample competent testimony was presented by the applicant. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to cumulative impacts). Rejected as argument or unnecessary. 59.-60. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to negative impacts and negative balance). 61. Adopted in paragraph 21. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn Martel Post Office Box 54872 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73154 Lisa Perlmutter Troner Assistant County Attorney Brevard County Board of County Commissioners 2725 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940 John L. Chaves Asst. General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
