The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Krista Howard,2/ is entitled to issuance of the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI, as announced by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, in the Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Lease to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands issued on July 28, 2017, and subsequently amended on January 11, 2018.3/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Defenders is a Florida non-profit corporation that has been in existence since the mid-1980s or earlier. Defenders' primary purpose is to protect and preserve Crooked Lake so that it may remain an Outstanding Florida Water ("OFW") for all members of the public to use and enjoy. Defenders has more than 25 members who reside in Polk County, Florida. Its membership consists of approximately 100 family memberships, mostly comprised of persons who live on or near Crooked Lake. Petitioners Gerards are riparian landowners on Crooked Lake, whose property is located immediately adjacent to, and slightly to the northwest of, Respondent Howard's property. The Gerards' home address is 1055 Scenic Highway North, Babson Park, Florida 33827. Respondent Howard is the applicant for the Consolidated Authorization for the Dock. Howard's property, which is riparian to Crooked Lake, is located at 1045 Scenic Highway North, Babson Park, Florida 33827. Respondent DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of DEP's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules adopted pursuant to that statute. Pursuant to that authority, DEP determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Pursuant to section 253.002, Florida Statutes, DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") and, in that capacity, reviews and determines whether to issue or deny, applications for approval to use sovereignty submerged lands.5/ DEP Review of the Application The Dock is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands and in surface waters subject to State of Florida regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, an environmental resource permit and a sovereignty submerged lands lease are required. On or about February 14, 2017, Todd Rickman, Howard's professional contractor who designed the Dock, filed an Application for a Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease for Existing Structures and Activities6/ ("Application") with DEP's Southwest District Office, seeking approval to construct and operate the Dock. On or about March 15, 2017, DEP requested additional information regarding the project. Howard submitted the requested items, and the Application was determined complete on May 30, 2017. Notice of DEP's receipt of the Lease portion of the Application was provided as required by section 253.115. The comment period commenced on June 15, 2017, and ended on July 6, 2017. As previously noted, on July 28, 2017, DEP issued the Consolidated Notice of Intent, proposing to issue the Consolidated Authorization to construct and operate the Dock. On January 11, 2018, DEP amended the Consolidated Notice of Intent to accurately reflect the "clearly in the public interest" permitting standard for the ERP portion of the Consolidated Authorization, which is applicable to projects proposed in OFWs. Background Crooked Lake Crooked Lake (also, "Lake") is an approximately 4,247-acre freshwater lake in Polk County, Florida. It is an irregularly shaped karst lake roughly resembling an inverted "L," with the longer axis running north to south. It is located on the Lake Wales Ridge. Crooked Lake is designated an OFW by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.700(9)(i)9.7/ The Lake is classified as a Class III waterbody pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.400(15).8/ The elevations and bottom contours in Crooked Lake vary substantially throughout the Lake. Thus, water depths may, and generally do, vary substantially from one location to another throughout the Lake. The water levels in Crooked Lake fluctuate frequently and, at times, dramatically, depending on rainfall frequency and amounts. A graph prepared by Petitioners' Witness James Tully, using Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD") historical water level data for Crooked Lake measured in National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 ("NGVD") shows water levels historically fluctuating from as low as approximately 106 feet in or around 1991, to as high as 123 feet NGVD in or around 1951, 1961, and 2004. Rickman generated a water level graph using the Polk County Water Atlas ("Atlas") website. This graph, which covers the period of 2008 through mid-2017, shows that the water levels in Crooked Lake, for this most recent ten-year period, fluctuated approximately five feet, with the lowest levels falling slightly below 114 feet NGVD for relatively short periods in 2012 and 2013, and the highest level rising to approximately 119 feet NGVD in mid-2017. The competent, credible evidence shows that although water levels in Crooked Lake may occasionally rise to levels at or around 123 feet NGVD, those conditions have been associated with extreme weather events such as hurricanes, are atypical, and are relatively short-lived. The maximum water level in Crooked Lake is subject to control by a weir located south of the Lake. Discharge from the weir occurs at a control elevation of 120 feet NGVD. As such, the water level in parts of Crooked Lake may, at times, temporarily exceed 120 feet NGVD, but will eventually decrease to 120 feet NGVD as the water flows south and is discharged through the weir. To the extent rainfall does not recharge the Lake, water levels may fall below 120 feet NGVD. The ordinary high water line ("OHWL"), which constitutes the boundary between privately-owned uplands and sovereignty submerged lands, has been established at 120.0 feet NGVD for Crooked Lake. Crooked Lake is used for recreational activities such as fishing, swimming, boating, and jet ski use, and there are public and private boat ramps at various points on the lake that provide access to the Lake. There is no marina having a fueling station on the Lake. The credible evidence shows that the northeast portion of the Lake, where the Dock is proposed to be located, experiences a substantial amount of boat and jet ski traffic. This portion of the Lake also is used for swimming, water- skiing, wakeboarding, the use of "towables" such as inner tubes, and for other in-water recreational uses. The Proposed Dock Howard holds fee title by warranty deed to parcel no. 333028-000000-033140 located at 1045 Scenic Highway, Babson Park, Florida.9/ This parcel has approximately 110 linear feet of riparian shoreline on Crooked Lake. The Dock is proposed to be constructed and operated on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to this riparian upland parcel, which is located on the eastern shore of the northeastern portion of Crooked Lake. The Dock, as proposed, is a private single-family residential dock that will be used by Howard for water-dependent recreational purposes, such as specifically, boating, fishing, swimming, and sunbathing. The Dock is not proposed to be constructed or used by, or to otherwise serve, commercial or multifamily residential development. The Dock is configured as a "T," supported by pilings and consisting of a 4-foot-wide by 152-foot-long access walkway, and an approximately 1,983-square-foot terminal platform comprised of a lower-level platform having four vessel slips and a flat platform roof. Two sets of stairs lead from the lower level of the terminal platform to the platform roof, which will be elevated eight feet above the lower-level platform and will have a railed perimeter. The platform roof will function as a roof for the boat storage area below and a sundeck. The four slips on the Dock's lower-level platform will be used for permanent mooring for up to six watercraft: a 23-foot-long ski boat,10/ a 20-foot-long fishing boat, and four jet skis. As proposed, the Dock will occupy a total area of approximately 2,591 square feet. The lower platform of the Dock is proposed to be constructed at an elevation of 121 feet NGVD. The roof/upper platform will be constructed eight feet above that, at an elevation of 129 feet NGVD. The pilings supporting the Dock will be wrapped in an impervious material to prevent leaching of metals and other pollutants into the water. Pursuant to the Specific Purpose Field Survey ("Survey") for the Lease submitted as part of the Application, the Lease will preempt approximately 2,591 square feet, and closely corresponds to the footprint of the Dock. The submerged lands surrounding the Dock that are not occupied by the footprint of the Dock, including the area between terminal platform and the shoreline, are not included in the preempted area of the Lease.11/ The Survey shows "approximate riparian lines" which delineate Howard's riparian area oriented to the center of the waterbody and to the primary navigation channel in the northeast portion of Crooked Lake. As shown on the version of the Survey initially filed as part of the Application, the Dock was proposed to be located approximately 4.7 feet, at its closest point, from the southern riparian line. However, in response to DEP's request for additional information, the Survey was modified in April 2017, to shift the Dock northward within Howard's riparian area. The Dock is now proposed to be located 25.1 feet, at its closest point, from the southern riparian line, and 29.4 feet, at its closest point, from the northern riparian line. The walkway of the Dock will commence at an approximate elevation of 120 feet NGVD, which corresponds to the OHWL established for Crooked Lake. As previously noted above, the walkway will extend waterward approximately 152 feet, where it will intersect with the terminal platform. The terminal platform will extend another 52 feet waterward. In total, the Dock is proposed to extend waterward approximately 204 feet from the OHWL. Although the Dock would be one of the longest and largest docks on Crooked Lake, the credible evidence establishes that there are several other docks of similar size and/or length on the Lake. Rickman testified that he obtained approvals for, or was otherwise aware of, several docks over 2,000 square feet on the Lake. Additionally, the evidence showed that eight other docks on the Lake are longer than the proposed Dock.12/ Rickman testified that most of the larger docks on Crooked Lake have roofs, and that most of these roofs are pitched, rather than flat.13/ As noted above, the water level in Crooked Lake frequently and, at times, extensively fluctuates. As a result, there are periods during which water depths in parts of the Lake are extremely shallow. Rickman testified that the Dock was designed to extend far enough out into Crooked Lake to reach sufficient water depth to enable Howard to maximize the use of the Dock for boating throughout the year. The Dock is designed to extend out to the point at which the bottom elevation of the Lake is approximately 109.9 feet NGVD. Based on the Atlas' ten-year water level graph for Crooked Lake referenced above, Rickman projected that at this point, the water depth typically would be sufficient to allow Howard to operate her largest vessel, the 23-foot ski boat. The ski boat has a 25-inch draft.14/ The boat will be stored out of the water on a boat lift on the Dock, attached by cables to a sub-roof immediately beneath the platform roof. When being lowered into or hoisted from the water, the boat will be placed in a boat cradle consisting of two containment railings approximately 18 inches high each on either side, and a "V" shaped aluminum bottom with bunks on which the boat is cradled. The aluminum bottom of the cradle was estimated to be two to three inches thick. Although the boat cradle is approximately 18 to 21 inches in "total height,"15/ the cradle does not have to be completely lowered its entire 18- to 21-inch height into the water when used. Steven Howard explained, credibly, that the cradle needs to be lowered into the water only a few inches lower than the ski boat's 25-inch draft to enable the boat to float into or out of the cradle. To that point, Rickman testified that taking into account the 25-inch draft of the ski boat and the "total height" of the boat cradle, between 40 and 44 inches of water depth would be required when the cradle is used in order to avoid coming into contact with the Lake bottom. Based on the Atlas graph showing the lowest water levels for the previous ten-year period at approximately 114 feet NGVD, Rickman designed the Dock to extend out to the 109.9-foot NGVD bottom elevation point. At this point, the projected water depth would be slightly more than four feet during periods of the lowest projected water levels for Crooked Lake. For the Dock to be able to wharf out to 109.9 feet NGVD bottom elevation, it must extend a total of approximately 204 feet waterward into the Lake. The credible evidence establishes that while Howard's ski boat is one of the largest, it is not the largest boat operated on Crooked Lake. Impacts Assessment for Environmental Resource Permit Water Quality Impacts As noted above, Crooked Lake is a Class III waterbody. Accordingly, the surface water quality standards and criteria applicable to Class III waters in Florida codified in rule 62-302.300 apply to Crooked Lake. The Dock, as proposed to be constructed and operated, is not anticipated to adversely affect or degrade water quality in Crooked Lake. Specifically, as required by the Consolidated Authorization, a floating turbidity curtain will be installed around the boundary of the construction area before construction commences, and it must be left in place until construction is complete and turbidity levels in the work area have returned to background levels. Additionally, as noted, the pilings supporting the Dock must be wrapped in an impervious material to prevent leaching of metals and other pollutants into the water over the life of the structure. The Consolidated Authorization also prohibits the installation and use of fueling equipment at the Dock; prohibits the discharge of sewage or other waste into the water; prohibits liveaboards; prohibits fish cleaning or the installation of fish cleaning stations unless sufficient measures such as sink screens and waste receptacles are in place; and prohibits repair and maintenance activities involving scraping, sanding, painting, stripping, recoating, and other activities that may degrade water quality or release pollutants into the water. Although the Consolidated Authorization imposes a specific condition requiring, for all vessels using the Dock, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with motor in the down position) and the top of submerged resources, it does not specifically address circumstances where the use of the boat cradle, rather than the vessel itself, may come into contact with the Lake bottom. DEP's witness acknowledged that if the boat cradle were to come into contact with the Lake bottom, water quality standards may be violated. Given the information presented at the final hearing regarding the operation of the boat lift and the need for sufficient clearance between the bottom of the boat cradle and the lake bottom, the undersigned recommends that a specific condition be included in the Consolidated Authorization prohibiting contact of the Lake bottom by the boat cradle. This recommended condition is set forth in paragraph 73.A., below. Upon consideration of the conditions imposed by the Consolidated Authorization discussed above, including imposing a specific condition that prohibits contact of the boat cradle with the Lake bottom, the undersigned finds that the Dock will not adversely affect or degrade the water quality of Crooked Lake. Water Quantity Impacts The Dock, as proposed, is a piling-supported structure that will not impound, store, or impede the flow of surface waters. As such, the Dock will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or offsite property, will not result in adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, and will not result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of surface or ground water levels. Impacts to Fish, Wildlife, and Listed Species and Habitat The Application states, in section 5, question 6, that there is no vegetation on Howard's riparian shoreline. However, the Survey depicts an area of emergent grasses approximately 60 feet wide and extending diagonally approximately 70 feet waterward into the Lake. The Survey depicts this grassed area as straddling the riparian line between Howard's property and the adjacent parcel to the south. The Survey shows the Dock as being located a significant distance waterward of the grassed area, such that no portion of the Dock will be located on or near this grassed area. Additionally, an aerial photograph of Howard's property and the Lake waterward of Howard's property shows a smaller patch of what appears to be emergent grasses further offshore. This grassed area is not shown on the Survey, and it cannot definitively be determined, by examining the Survey and the aerial photograph, whether this grassed area is growing in an area that will be impacted by the Dock. Steven Howard acknowledged that this smaller grassed area may be located at or near the jet ski slip on the southeastern side of the Dock. An environmental assessment of this smaller grassed area was not performed or submitted as part of the Application. Thus, any value that this area may have as fish and wildlife habitat was not assessed as part of DEP's determination that the Dock will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, and to listed species and their habitat. In order to provide reasonable assurance that the Dock will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, and to listed species and their habitat, the undersigned recommends including a specific condition in the Consolidated Authorization requiring this smaller grassed area to be completely avoided during construction and operation of the Dock, or, if avoidance is not feasible, that an environmental assessment be performed prior to construction so that the value of this grassed area, if any, to fish, wildlife, and listed species can be evaluated to determine whether minimization and compensatory mitigation should be required. This recommended condition is set forth in paragraph 73.B., below. As previously noted, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with the motor in the down position) and the top of submerged resources for all vessels that will use the docking facility. Compliance with this condition will help ensure that the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and to listed species and their habitat of any such submerged resources is not adversely impacted by vessels using the Dock. The Consolidated Authorization also contains a specific condition requiring handrails to be installed on the Dock to prevent mooring access to portions of the Dock other than the wetslips. This will help protect submerged resources in shallower areas in the vicinity of the Dock. Fish populations in the immediate area of the Dock site may temporarily be affected during construction of the Dock; however, those impacts are not anticipated to be permanent. Additionally, as previously discussed, the Dock pilings must be wrapped with an impervious material to prevent leaching of pollutants into the water, and once installed, the pilings may provide habitat for fish and a substrate for benthic organisms. Provided that the conditions set forth in the draft Consolidated Authorization, as well as the recommendation regarding the smaller grassed area, are included in the final version of the Consolidated Authorization, it is determined that the construction and operation of the Dock will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, or to listed species or their habitat.16/ Impact on Navigation Petitioners assert that the Dock will constitute a hazard to navigation in the northeast portion of Crooked Lake. Specifically, they assert that because the Dock will extend out approximately 204 feet into the Lake, it necessarily will create a navigational hazard to boaters in the vicinity. As support, Petitioners presented evidence consisting of Steven Howard's testimony that an inner tube on which his nephew was riding, that was being pulled behind a motor boat, collided with the Gerards' 84-foot-long floating dock adjacent to Howard's riparian area. Petitioners argue that if an 84-foot-long dock creates a navigational hazard, a 204-foot-long dock would create an even greater navigational hazard. The undersigned does not find this argument persuasive. The portion of Crooked Lake on which the Dock is proposed to be located is approximately a mile and a half to two miles long and one-half to three-quarters of a mile wide. Although this portion of Crooked Lake experiences substantial boat traffic, the evidence shows that the Lake is sufficiently large in this area, even with the Dock in place, to allow safe navigation. To this point, it is noted that there are two other longer docks in the northeastern portion of Crooked Lake, extending 220 and 244 feet into the Lake from the shoreline. There was no evidence presented showing that either of these docks constitutes a navigational hazard.17/ Petitioners also assert that during periods of high water in this portion of Crooked Lake, the Dock will be underwater and thus will present a navigational hazard. In support, they presented photographs taken on October 30, 2017—— approximately six weeks after Hurricane Irma struck central Florida——showing ten docks, out of the 109 docks on Crooked Lake, that were partially or completely submerged.18/ When the photographs were taken, the approximate water elevation was 119.2 feet NGVD. All or a portion of the submerged docks had been constructed at or below the 119.2-foot NGVD elevation. The docks without roofs were mostly or completely invisible under the water. However, for the roofed docks, the roofs remained visible above the water even when their docking platforms were submerged. Here, although the walkway and lower platform of Howard's Dock is proposed to be constructed at an elevation of 121 feet NGVD, the roof will be constructed at an elevation of 129 feet NGVD. Thus, even during the relatively infrequent periods19/ during which the water level in Crooked Lake may exceed 121 feet NGVD, the platform roof will still be visible to vessels navigating in this portion of the Lake. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring the waterward end of the Dock to be marked with a sufficient number of reflectors to be visible from the water at night by reflected light. This condition provides additional assurance that the Dock will not present a navigational hazard. For these reasons, it is determined that the Dock will not adversely affect navigation. Other ERP-Related Issues The evidence did not show that the Dock is proposed to be located in or proximate to a "work of the District," as defined in section 373.019(28). The only "work of the District" about which evidence was presented is the weir located south of Crooked Lake. This structure is many thousands of feet south of the Dock. There was no evidence presented showing that the Dock would have any impact on this weir. The Dock, as proposed, was designed by an experienced professional contractor who has designed and installed many docks on Crooked Lake, and, as such, is anticipated to function as proposed. The Dock must be built according to engineering diagrams to the Consolidated Authorization, and as-built drawings must be submitted when Dock construction is complete so that DEP can confirm that the Dock is constructed in accordance with the approved design. The evidence establishes that Howard, as the applicant, and Rickman, as the professional contractor in charge of construction, are financially, legally, and administratively capable of ensuring that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. No evidence to the contrary was presented. The Dock will be located in the waters of Crooked Lake and will be affixed to the submerged bottom. The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources ("DHR"), did not provide any comments indicating that historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be impacted by the project. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a general condition requiring subsurface activity associated with construction of the Dock to immediately cease, and DHR to be contacted, if any prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, stone tools or implements, dugout canoes, or other physical remains that could be associated with Native American cultures or early colonial or American settlements are encountered at any time within the project site area. Additional Recommended Conditions Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the following specific conditions be included in the Consolidated Authorization, Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI: A minimum six-inch clearance shall be maintained between the top of all submerged resources and the deepest draft of the cradle of the boat lift while in use. For purposes of this condition, submerged resources consist of the bottom sediment and/or any submerged grasses or other aquatic organisms. Any emergent grasses in the permittee's riparian area shall be avoided during the construction and operation of the Dock. If it is not feasible to avoid these grasses, an environmental assessment of the grassed area shall be performed and submitted to the Department prior to commencing construction, so that the value of this grassed area, if any, to fish, wildlife, and listed species can be evaluated and the extent to which minimization and/or compensatory mitigation is appropriate can be determined. Clearly in the Public Interest Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.070, Standards for Issuing or Denying Permits, states in pertinent part: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. In addition to the foregoing permitting requirements, because the Dock is proposed to be located in an OFW, Howard also must provide reasonable assurance that the Dock meets the "clearly in the public interest" standard. The "clearly in the public interest" standard does not require the applicant to demonstrate need for the project or a net public benefit from the project. Rather, this standard requires the applicant to provide greater assurances, under the circumstances specific to the project, that the project will comply with the applicable permitting requirements.20/ For the reasons discussed above, and with the inclusion of the additional recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., it is determined that the proposed Dock meets the applicable permitting requirements and the "clearly in the public interest" standard for issuance of the ERP. Impacts Assessment for Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease Water-Dependency of the Proposed Dock A water-dependent activity is one which can only be conducted in, on, over, or adjacent to water areas because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereignty submerged lands for specified activities, including recreation, and where the use of water or sovereignty submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(71). Petitioners argue that the Dock will not constitute a water-dependent activity because the depth of water in the slips may, at times, be insufficient to allow operation of Howard's vessels while complying with the requirement that a minimum 12- inch clearance be maintained between the lowest draft of the vessel and submerged resources. The undersigned finds this argument unpersuasive. The Dock is being constructed specifically for the purpose of enabling Howard to use her vessels for boating——a recreational activity for which use of the water indisputably is an integral part. The Dock's primary purpose is to moor vessels that will be used for the water-dependent recreational activities of boating and fishing, and other water-dependent recreational uses of the Dock include fishing, swimming and sunbathing. Case law interpreting the Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 makes clear that because docks are used for mooring vessels or conducting other in-water recreational uses, they are "water-dependent" activities for purposes of the rules.21/ Thus, even if water depths in the Dock's slips are at times insufficient for vessel mooring or launching,22/ this does not render the Dock not a "water-dependent activity." Resource Management Requirements The preempted area of the Lease is proposed to be used for a Dock that will be used for boating, fishing, and swimming. These traditional in-water recreational uses are consistent with the management purposes of sovereignty submerged lands as described in rule 18-21.004(2)(a). With the inclusion of the conditions currently proposed in the draft Consolidated Approval, as well as the recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., the undersigned determines that the Dock will not result in adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and associated resources. With the inclusion of the conditions currently proposed in the draft Consolidated Approval, as well as the recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., the undersigned determines that the Dock is designed to minimize or eliminate impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and submerged resources. With the inclusion of the currently proposed conditions in the draft Consolidated Authorization, as well as the recommended conditions set forth in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., it is determined that the Dock, as designed and constructed, will minimize or eliminate cutting, removal, or destruction of wetland vegetation. Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed Consolidated Approval requires the avoidance of adverse impacts to historic and cultural resources. Riparian Rights Consistent with rule 18-21.004(3)(d), the Dock is proposed to be constructed in Howard's riparian area and will be set back more than 25 feet from the northerly and southerly riparian lines shown on the Survey. Rule 18-21.004(3)(a) prohibits activities authorized under chapter 18-21 from being implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe on traditional common law riparian rights, as defined in section 253.141, of upland owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands. Similarly, rule 18-21.004(3)(c) requires all structures and activities to be designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent riparian owners. Collectively, these provisions prohibit an activity that will occur on sovereignty submerged lands from unreasonably infringing on or unreasonably restricting the riparian rights of upland riparian owners. Riparian rights are rights appurtenant to, and inseparable from, riparian land that borders on navigable waters. § 253.141, Fla. Stat.; Broward v. Mabry, 50 So. 830 (Fla. 1909). At common law, riparian rights include the rights of navigation, fishing, boating, and commerce. Hayes v. Bowman, 91 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1957). The right of navigation necessarily includes the right to construct and operate a dock to access navigable waters. Belvedere Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Transp., 476 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1985); Shore Vill. Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 824 So. 2d 208, 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Common law riparian rights also include the right to an obstructed view. Lee Cnty v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Many of these common law riparian rights have been statutorily codified in section 253.141. Statutory riparian rights include the "rights of ingress, egress, boating, bathing, and fishing and such others as may be or have been defined by law." § 253.141(1), Fla. Stat. At issue in this case are the competing riparian rights of next-door neighbors——i.e., Howard's right to wharf out to navigable waters for purposes of boating and other water- dependent recreational activities, and the Gerards' right to an unobstructed view. The question is whether Howard's proposed construction and operation of a dock of sufficient length to enable her to use her boats would unreasonably infringe on or unreasonably restrict the Gerards' right to an unobstructed view of the Lake. By virtue of the riparian rights appurtenant to Howard's riparian property, she is entitled to wharf out to water deep enough to enable her to navigate. She owns two boats, one of which pulls a draft of 25 inches, and the other, a draft of 20 inches, which she uses to navigate the Lake. Thus, an essential aspect of Howard's riparian right of navigation is her ability to construct and operate a dock long enough to enable her to reach water depths sufficient to use these boats. However, as noted above, this right is not unfettered. Howard's exercise of her riparian navigation right cannot unreasonably infringe on Gerard's right to an unobstructed view. Florida case law holds that the right to an "unobstructed" view does not entail a view free of any infringement or restriction whatsoever by neighboring structures or activities. In Hayes, the court defined the right as "a direct, unobstructed view of the [c]hannel and as well a direct, unobstructed means of ingress and egress . . . to the [c]hannel." Id. at 801 (emphasis added). The court then prescribed the rule that "in any given case, the riparian rights of an upland owner must be preserved over an area 'as near as practicable' in the direction of the [c]hannel so as to distribute equitably the submerged lands between the upland and the [c]hannel." Id. (emphasis added). To the extent there is no channel in this portion of the Lake, Hayes dictates that riparian rights must be apportioned equitably, so that a riparian owner's right to an unobstructed view can extend only from the owner's property in the direction of the center of the Lake. Kling v. Dep't of Envtl. Reg., Case No. 77-1224 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 6, 1977; Fla. DER Nov. 18, 1977) at ¶¶ 11-12 (emphasis added). Here, no evidence was presented showing that the Dock——which will be located immediately south and east of the Gerards' riparian property and attendant riparian area——will present an obstruction to the Gerards' view of the Lake channel. Additionally, the evidence did not establish that Howard's Dock would obstruct the Gerards' view of the center of the northeast portion of Crooked Lake, which is located west and slightly south of their property.23/ Administrative precedent in Florida provides additional support for the determination that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on the Gerards' right to an unobstructed view. In O'Donnell v. Atlantic Dry Dock Corporation, Case No. 04-2240 (Fla. DOAH May 23, 2005; Fla. DEP Sept. 6, 2005), riparian owners challenged the proposed approval of expansions of sovereignty submerged lands leases authorizing Atlantic Dry Dock, a neighboring commercial shipyard, to expand its shipyard facilities and install new docking facilities. The administrative law judge noted that although the expanded shipyard would further encroach on the riparian owners' already somewhat-restricted view from their property, it would not substantially and materially obstruct the Petitioners' view to the channel. He commented: "it [their view] may be further obstructed to the west in the direction of the Atlantic Marine yard, but not in the direction of the channel." To that point, he found that although "any lateral encroachment on the Petitioners' line-of-sight to the channel by the large eastern dry dock proposed will be an annoyance, . . . [it] will not rise to the level of a substantial and material interference or obstruction of the Petitioners' view to the channel." Id. at ¶ 119. He found that "there is no 'special riparian right' to a view of the sunset, just as there was no right to a particular object of view . . . by the riparian owners complaining in the Hayes case." Id. at ¶ 120. Castoro v. Palmer, Case Nos. 96-0736, 96-5879 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 1, 1998; Fla. DEP Oct. 19, 1998), also is instructive. In Castoro, neighboring riparian owners challenged the proposed issuance of an environmental approval and sovereignty submerged lands lease for a 227-foot-long dock having a terminal platform with boat lift. The owners contended that due to the dock's length, it would impermissibly obstruct their views of the water. The administrative law judge rejected that contention, distinguishing the circumstances from those in Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), in which the construction of a bridge that blocked 80 percent of the riparian owners' view of the channel was held to constitute a "substantial and material" obstruction to the riparian right of view. The ALJ noted that although the dock would have "some impact on the neighbors' views" and their use of the waterbody, it did not unreasonably impact their riparian rights to an unobstructed view or to use of the waterbody. Id. at ¶¶ 73-74. In Trump Plaza of the Palm Beaches Condominium v. Palm Beach County, Case No. 08-4752 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2009; Fla. DEP Oct. 8, 2009), a condominium association challenged the proposed issuance of a sovereignty submerged lands use approval to fill in a dredged area and create mangrove islands in the Lake Worth Lagoon, alleging, among other things, that the creation of the mangrove islands would unreasonably infringe on their riparian right to an unobstructed view. In rejecting this position and recommending issuance of the submerged lands use approval, the ALJ noted that the area obstructed by the mangrove islands would be negligible compared to the remaining expanse of the view, and further noted that the owners' real concern was directed at the aesthetics of the project——specifically, they did not want to view mangrove islands. The ALJ stated: "[t]he evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from [the riparian owners' property], the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights." Id. at ¶ 86. Applying these case law principles, it is determined that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on or unreasonably restrict the Gerards' riparian right to an unobstructed view. To that point, the cases make clear that the right to an "unobstructed" view is not an unfettered right to a view of the water completely free of any lateral encroachment, but, instead is the right of a view toward the channel or the center of a lake without unreasonable infringement or restriction. Here, although the Dock will laterally encroach on the Gerards' full panoramic view of the Lake——and, as such, may even constitute an annoyance, the evidence did not show that the Dock will obstruct or otherwise restrict their view to the channel or the center of the Lake. Moreover, to the extent the Gerards have expressed concern about the Dock interfering with their view of the south shore of the Lake, O'Donnell makes clear the desire to have a particular object of view——here, the south shore of the Lake——is not a legally protected riparian right. It is also found that the Dock will not unreasonably interfere with the Gerards' riparian rights of ingress, egress, boating, or navigation. As previously noted, the Dock will be located at least 25 feet inside the riparian lines established for Howard's upland property, and, it will not be constructed in a location or operated in a manner that will obstruct, interfere with, or restrict the Gerards' access to the Lake or to sufficient water depths to enable navigation.24/ The evidence also did not establish that the Dock will restrict or otherwise interfere with the Gerards' use of their riparian area for ingress and egress, boating, fishing, bathing, or other riparian uses. In sum, it is concluded that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on or restrict the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners. Accordingly, it is determined that the Dock will meet the requirements and standards in rule 18-21.004(3) regarding riparian rights. Navigational Hazard For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 63 through 67, it is determined that the Dock will not constitute a navigational hazard in violation of rule 18-21.004(7)(g). Not Contrary to the Public Interest Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) requires an applicant to demonstrate that an activity proposed to be conducted on sovereignty submerged lands will not be contrary to the public interest. To meet this standard, it is not necessary that the applicant show that the activity is affirmatively in the "public interest," as that term is defined in rule 18-21.003(51). Rather, it is sufficient that the applicant show that there are few, if any, "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs" of the proposed activity. Castoro, at ¶ 69. For the reasons discussed above, and with the inclusion of the additional recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., it is determined that the proposed Dock meets the "not contrary to the public interest" standard required for issuance of the Lease. Demonstration of Entitlement to ERP Howard met her burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case of entitlement to the ERP by entering into evidence the Application, the Notice of Intent, and supporting information regarding the proposed Dock. She also presented credible, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that required to meet her burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to the ERP. The burden then shifted to Petitioners to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the Dock does not comply with section 373.414 and applicable ERP rules. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Petitioners did not meet their burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p) in this proceeding. Accordingly, for the reasons addressed above, it is determined that Howard is entitled to issuance of the ERP for the Dock. Demonstration of Entitlement to Lease As previously discussed, Howard bore the burden of proof in this proceeding to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Dock meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements for issuance of the Lease for the Dock. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Howard met this burden, and, therefore, is entitled to issuance of the sovereignty submerged lands lease for the Dock. Petitioners' Standing Defenders' Standing As stipulated by the parties and noted above, Defenders is an incorporated non-profit entity created for the primary purpose of protecting and preserving Crooked Lake so that it may remain an OFW for all members of the public to enjoy. Defenders has been in existence since at least the mid- 1980s. Robert Luther, the president of Defenders, testified that the organization's purpose also entails providing education and promoting public awareness in order to preserve the natural beauty, water quality, ecological value, and quality of life around Crooked Lake. As stipulated by the parties and noted above, Defenders has more than 25 members. Luther testified that Defenders has approximately 100 family members, most of whom live on or around Crooked Lake. He noted that many of Defenders' members own boats, which they park at a local boat landing on the Lake. Based on this testimony, it is inferred that these members operate their boats on Crooked Lake. After receiving the public notice of the project, Defenders' board of directors voted to oppose issuance of the Consolidated Authorization for the Dock. Luther testified that the board's decision was based on the determination that "it was clearly within the public interest" to oppose the Dock. Gerards' Standing The Gerards reside at 1055 Scenic Highway, Babson Park, Florida. Their riparian property is immediately adjacent to, and northwest of, Howard's property. The Gerards own a floating dock that is located within their riparian area.25/ The dock consists of two 4-foot- wide by 30-foot-long ramps attached to a 24-foot-long by 8-foot- wide pontoon boat. Priscilla Gerard testified that she enjoys spending time sitting and reading books on the beach in front of her property, and that having that area to sit and read is a significant aspect of her enjoyment of her lakefront property. Ms. Gerard observed that extensive boating activities in the northeast portion of the Lake on weekends is disruptive, and interferes with her use of her beach for relaxing and reading. She particularly noted that boats operating very close to the shore cause waves to splash up on her beach, interfering with her ability to sit and read close to the shore. She did not contend that Howard's use of the Dock for boating would contribute to the disruptive nature of existing boat traffic in the vicinity. Ms. Gerard has viewed the plans for the proposed Dock and is very concerned that due to its size, her view of the south side of the Lake will be completely blocked. She acknowledged, and other competent, credible evidence showed, that there are other docks on the Lake in the vicinity of her riparian property. The evidence shows that existing docks having lengths of 145 feet and 170 feet are located in the vicinity of, and are visible from, the Gerards' property. She testified that an existing dock and tiki hut block her view of the Lake to the north. She acknowledged that although Howard's Dock, if constructed as proposed, may somewhat obstruct her view to the left (south) of her property, it would not block her view straight out into the Lake. Phillip Gerard testified that he has boated extensively on Crooked Lake in a variety of vessel types. He further testified that he has observed a range of boating practices on Crooked Lake, including seeing water skiers and persons being towed behind motorized vessels on inner tubes and other types of "towables." He testified that, based on his personal observations, persons being towed do not have independent control of the speed or direction of the "towable"; thus, depending on the direction in which the towing vessel turns, the towable may be slung to the left or the right. Gerard commented that such lack of control could result in a person riding on a towable colliding with a dock, and he noted that Howard's nephew, who was riding on an inner tube being towed by a boat, was involved in such a collection with his (Mr. Gerard's) own dock. Mr. Gerard did not testify that the Dock would present a navigational hazard to, or otherwise interfere with, the Gerards' riparian right of ingress and egress. Neither of the Gerards testified that the Dock would impact their ability to access navigable waters in the Lake. Mr. Gerard acknowledged that if Howard's Dock were constructed, boats that currently travel very close to the shoreline of his property would be forced to swing further out in the Lake, away from his riparian shoreline, in order to avoid the Dock.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the issuance of Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Consolidated Notice of Intent and attached draft of Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI, as modified to include the Additional Recommended Conditions set forth in paragraphs 73.A. and 73B. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 5th day of July, 2018.
The Issue This case presents two questions for consideration. The first question concerns the Petitioners' contention that the grant of the permit at issue must be considered contemporaneously with the matters of file in the application made by the Respondent, The Deltona Corporation, with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, File No. 64-24208, pending before the Department. From the point of view of the Petitioners, should this contemporaneous review process be afforded, then the current permit would not be granted due to the alleged deficiencies associated with the application, File No. 64-24208. The second question to be answered in this case concerns the dispute between the Respondents on the issue of water quality monitoring as a condition to granting the permit sought herein. The Respondent Department would have the applicant monitor in six lakes in the area of the project and the applicant would restrict its monitoring activity to three lakes in the project area. The Petitioners support the Department in its position on the monitoring question. 1/
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, The Deltona Corporation, has made application with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, to effect drainage system improvements to a land locked conveyance network which consists of the enlargement and regrading 990 lineal feet of existing channel cross- section and the installation of additional culverts and control structures at road crossings. The project also involves repairs and replacement of a damaged culvert. The work would be accomplished by land based equipment transported to the work site by existing overland routes. The excavated sand fill would be placed on upland property owned by The Deltona Corporation. The details of the project and data related to the geographical area may be found in the Joint Exhibit I admitted into evidence. The date of the application for permit is December 12, 1979. On January 25, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation sent out a notice of the pending review by the Department of the permit application. After receipt of that notice, attorney for the Petitioners, on February 12, 1980, wrote to the Department expressing the objection to the project made by property owners in the area of the project site, together with a list of those owners found in an attached Petition of owners' names and addresses. A copy of this letter and attached Petition may be found as Joint Exhibit No. VII admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the receipt of the statement of objections, the Department issued a construction permit dated April 30, 1980, subject to conditions. A copy of this permit may be found as Joint Exhibit No. VIII admitted into evidence. The Petitioners, through their counsel, then filed a formal petition dated May 6, 1980, which was the vehicle utilized in establishing the details of this dispute and was the basis for the Department Secretary forwarding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration by a hearing officer in keeping with the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The hearing was conducted on October 16, 1980, and the Petitioners' position was more specifically defined in the course of that hearing and the claim as described in the issue statement of this order constitutes the substance of the Petitioners' position. 2/ Joint Exhibit No. I; petitioners' Exhibit No. 1 and Respondent Deltona's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 constitute sketches and aerial photographs of the general project area. Joint Exhibit No. 1 identifies the work area with more particularity. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 indicates the desired flow pattern of the water through the various lake systems and indicates whether the flow is by gravity flow or pump flow. This drawing depicts the proposed channels and structural improvements that would be involved. The Department has indicated that all the regulatory concerns which it has about the project associated with Permit No. 64-26478-4E, the permit in question, have been adequately addressed, subject to the conditions set forth in the permit document. Joint Exhibit Nos. V and VI; Respondent Deltona's Exhibit Nos. 5, 6 and 7; and the Petitioners Exhibit No. 2 are exhibits pertaining to water quality concerns, to include sample results. The testing and other information provided indicates that the project as contemplaced, would meat the regulatory parameters set forth in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The Department in expressing its concern that continued water quality monitoring be conducted has indicated that it feels that future periodic monitoring should be done in Jenkins Pond, Lake Big, Lake Diana, McGarity Lake, Sidney Lake and Lake Mitnik. The Respondent Deltona would only conduct this monitoring in the first three lakes named. By looking at the Respondent Deltona's Exhibit No. 2, it could be seen that all of the aforementioned lakes would be in the same basic flow pattern. Of the system of lakes, the area around McGarity Lake is the most highly developed and and has the greatest potential for causing unacceptable pollution. That pollution could be carried through the other lakes within the system as described in view of the potential of the system, if the project is built, to convey a greater volume of water at a higher rate of flow. A more expansive water quality monitoring system within six lakes as opposed to three lakes would increase the opportunity to discover potential hazards from pollutant at an earlier data. This is particularly so by using lakes such as McGarity Lake where there is a higher level of developmental build-out.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner in this matter is Victor T. Cheney, who owns the property in question described as Section 7, south quarter, southeast quarter of northwest quarter of Township 1 South, Range 19 Nest, located near Portland, Walton County, Florida. The property consists of approximately 15 acres and is located 300 to 400 feet south of State Road 20 in Walton County. Respondent is the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation. Several years ago, Petitioner purchased considerable property located on either side of Goodwin Creek, a tributary of Alaqua Creek, which enters into Alaqua Bayou, which in turn empties into Choctawhatchee Bay, which itself enters into the Gulf of Mexico. The property in question was not a part of the original purchase. At some point in the not-too-distant past, Petitioner sold a portion of his property downstream from the instant property to a real estate developer for the purpose of residential subdivision. However, because of the fact that Goodwin Creek, over the years, has been blocked by numerous Beaver dams, the surrounding land has become waterlogged and did not afford reasonable access to the property previously sold for residential subdivision. As a result, Petitioner was forced to purchase the property in question here for the purpose of restoring the proper flow of Goodwin Creek by removal of the dams and draining of the swamp, thereby affording reasonable access to the downstream residential property. Petitioner's position is contained in three major thrusts: the first dealing with trees and forestation, the second dealing with water quality, and the third with the constitutionality of the DER action. The property in question, according to the Petitioner, was initially forestland. However, subsequent to World War II, because of the lumbering-off of what was once virgin forest, as evidenced by surveyors notes dating from 1848 and 1896, beavers were brought in by governmental agencies at Eglin Field during World War II to help control erosion problems. Because the beavers natural enemies, such as wildcats and alligators, have been reduced in number in later years to the point that they are no longer effective in maintaining the beaver population and because beavers proliferate quickly and are hard to control, the beaver population has gotten out of hand. The City of Fort Walton Beach has within recent years engaged in a war with the beavers because of the latters' incursion into the city limits and the destruction they have caused to trees within the city. Beavers, which build dams and flood the land, resulting in a die-off of first the pines and then the tupelos and other hardwoods, are the last attack on the virgin forests of northwest Florida. Other enemies which have taken their toll of the trees during the past years are lumbering, insects, disease and hurricanes. Petitioner wants to reforest the beaver area with loblolly and slash pine. These trees are the dominant forms necessary for a healthy ecosystem, and they provide food and shelter for various birds, some species of which have become extinct because of the loss of trees in the area. Other species are endangered, such as certain types of woodpeckers. Some species of birds need up to 100 acres per family in order to survive. Petitioner wants to plant trees that are productive clients for the local economy. Conifers are the most valuable wood product in this area; and in Petitioner's opinion, the best tree there is for the area in question is the pine tree. Petitioner contends that 20 percent of the land in Walton County, Florida, is in private hands, and the county is poor in forestland. There is too much hardwood, which is of poor quality, and not enough pine, and pine is what he intends to plant in the area if he is permitted to drain it. Turning to the area of water quality, Petitioner urges that the beaver activity has left Goodwin Creek stagnant, without clear headwaters. The area in question contains some SO acre feet of standing water. As a result of beaver activity, the area is plagued with silting, an invasion of saltwater and a putrefaction by sunshine in the summer, and a scum on top of the water. At the bottom of the water is a stinking white globular mass which lies below the freshwater on top. The beaver dams build up swamps behind them, not lakes. Goodwin Creek contains Class III waters which, according to Petitioner, must be maintained in a quality sufficient to sustain body contact (bathing and skiing) . These activities cannot be done in the water as it stands now. If permitted to drain the swamp and clear out the beaver dams, Mr. Cheney claims that the water quality will be improved, contra to the state claim that it would he degraded. He contends that the flushing action resulting from his clearing of the creek will clear and improve the water quality both there and downstream. The predominant fish in the water in the area now is the needlenose gar, which can live in the water as it is now. Those fish are a pest and have no food value. They eat better fish; and their eggs, according to Petitioner, are poisonous. The young gar eat fish that eat mosquito larvae. If the creek is cleared, the gar will clear out and better fish will return. Another purpose of clearing the creek would he to remove the threat to the road and the residential lots downstream because of the constant danger of road washout and the plugging of the drainage culvert by beavers. Removal of the beaver dams would reduce run-over flooding. Petitioner contends his desire is to remove the dams and clear the creek. Yet, the two drawings submitted with his Petition and Amended petition reflect considerably more than merely the clearing of dams. In the first drawing submitted, Petitioner proposed to dig a 30-foot-wide drainage ditch to a depth of 4 feet, running across a portion of the property, using the material excavated from the ditch to build up the area to the north of the ditch and west of the west branch of Goodwin Creek, thereafter planting 15,000 pine trees in the filled area. Petitioner offered no evidence in the form of water quality studies, or forester or reforestation reports from experts in the area. His evidence consisted primarily of newspaper articles, maps, photographs, historic documents and other documents submitted to him by the State. There was no hard evidence to support the allegations of benefit or the contentions as to forestation or water quality as contained in his narrative testimony which included, coincidentally, a rendering of Joyce Kilmer's poem "Trees." On the other hand, Respondent presented the testimony of Clifford S. Rohlke, a dredge and fill field inspector with a background in biology who for 9 years has made biological impact assessments on approximately 1,000 dredge and fill applications throughout the State. Mr. Rohlke was first brought into this case when Petitioner's original application was filed. He went out and looked at the site in section, meeting with Petitioner later, and together they walked the site for a second time. As a result of his inspection, he wrote the biological field report, which outlines the impact of the proposed project. He described the area as rural, floodplain land of the Alaqua Creek basin, which has been subject to numerous fill violations for housing adjacent to the bay and Little Alaqua and Goodwin Creeks. The creek basin in question regularly floods once or twice per year, and much of the land has standing water supporting cypress, tupelo hardwood swamp. The specific site is an inundated hardwood swamp. Overstory vegetation includes black gum, red maple and titi. Submerged and emerging vegetation includes various grasses, moss, water lily, dollar weed and duckweed. The proposed canal and its spoil areas are typically inundated with water In fact, the surface water sheet flows westward around numerous islands and buttresses through various small creek channels intermittently located throughout the wetland area. There is only one piece of upland property in Petitioner's entire parcel which is located to the south of the proposed project area. This particular portion is small and is isolated on three sides by the surrounding basin. As a result, Mr. Rohlke considered the area to be wetlands because of contiguous waters which run up to and flow into Goodwin Creek. There are pools and rivulets throughout the property. He saw three beaver dams, most of which had been breached already; and it is his contention that even if the dams are removed, the water will not dry up naturally because it is historically bona fide wetlands, a low, low area which could not be dried up without a lot of fill. Consequently, this evidence supports a finding that the area in question is in fact a historical wetland, was such before the advent of the beavers, and even the removal of the beaver dams would not radically change the nature of the property to convert it into uplands, thereby taking it outside the jurisdiction of the Respondent. Having thus concluded that the property in question is a historical wetland over which Respondent has jurisdiction, we then turn to the basis for denial by the Respondent of Petitioner's request. The letter of July 12, 1983, reflects as reasons for the intent to deny several factors. One is that he application is incomplete because the Department of Natural Resources has not Issued Its consent to the project. This is correct, though Petitioner contends he was advised by the Department of Natural Resources not to worry about it. A second is that the proposed evacuation and filling will result in violations of state water quality standards and criteria for such Items as bacteriological quality, biological integrity, pH, specific conductives, DO, BOD, nutrients and turbidity. Regarding she issue of bacteriological quality, because of the buildup of muck in standing water areas over the years, the rich muck contains silt, a good media for bacteria, including fecal bacteria, growth. Cutting into this silt will release much of this bacteria into the water downstream from the area of the cut. This in turn will raise the total coliform and fecal coliform bacteria count. In short, disturbing the area by digging would release the bacteria currently trapped in the bog area and the muck. Biological integrity deals with the number of species and the quantity of item per species in the area. Disruption of the natural habitat will vastly alter the biological integrity of this area and other areas downstream. Specifically and primarily, Mr. Rohlke was referring to such species as mayflies, dragonflies, worms, leeches and lesser organisms which would be disturbed and possibly removed, in the case of the lesser organisms, by the removal of the dirt. Not only would removal alter the biological balance, but so would the biological balance of the area where the removed dirt is placed. These minuscule organisms, even if not visible, are extremely important in the breakdown of this material and are important to the food chain:. Eliminating this block would put a big hole in the food chain. It has been the experience of Mr. Rohlke that artificial channels always lower the invertibrate life in the water; and as a result, the water quality goes down. This may not be catastrophic, per se, but there is a cumulative effect which manifests itself in a reduced production of seafood in the area, such as shrimp, oysters, trout and mullet, all of which are important sources of edible seafood. As to the pH, studies show that this pH balance is best when not altered more than one unit. Petitioner's property in question is of a type usually considered alkaline. Dredging would bring in acidic swamp water to mix with the alkaline surrounding water and would result in an alteration of more than one unit. The resulting impact would be adverse to the water quality. As to the question of specific conductives, saltwater has a conductive count of 30,000, freshwater of about 1,000. Stirring up the water by dredging would alter the specific conductives of saltwater and may result in a quick release of freshwater into the saltwater, thereby having a fatal effect on those microorganisms and macroorganisms which are dependent upon saltwater for life. In the area of dissolved oxygen (DO), when organic materials such as are found on the bottom of Petitioner's property are released, there is a strong probability that dissolved oxygen contained in the water will decrease. This would result in the death of fish and other organisms which use oxygen. There are many years of organic buildup on the bottom of the area to be dredged. This area is not a sandy bottom, and release of this organic buildup, with the resultant loss of dissolved oxygen, would be fatal to a large number of species in the ecosystem. Turning to the area of turbidity, which is the suspension of solid matter within the liquid (lack of clarity) the silt that would be stirred us as a result of the dredging, when suspended in the water, tends to suffocate fish and other life forms which breathe through water. This, in conjunction with lowered oxygen levels, creates a combination which is deadly to the many types of organisms. Not only does dredging have an immediate negative short-term impact, but it well may have a long-term impact, as well. The straight sides of a cut canal normally do not support growth which would strain out or hold silt carried by stormwater rushing through the canal. Also, since this is a silty, organic area rather than a clean, sandy bottom, the area is even worse. The turbidity curtain which Petitioner offered to ins tall downstream to curb the turbidity would be, in the opinion of Respondent, ineffective in a stream of flowing water. In considering the validity of Mr. Rohlke's evidence, as outlined above, however, one must consider that he did not take any water samples, did not check for any types of fish, did not take any samples of marine biology, but basically based his opinion and analysis on no more than a walk through the area and his unaided view of the property in question.
Recommendation On the basis of the above, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Victor T. Cheney for a permit to dredge a canal across the property as described in the application be denied. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 5th day of December, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Victor T. Cheney 374 Gardner Drive Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 E. Gary Early, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION VICTOR T. CHENEY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 83-2314 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Mr. Mills owns a 105 acre tract of land on which he raises cattle. This land is directly east of South Bull Pond in Putnam County, Florida. The land which he proposes to fill lies within the landward extent of South Bull Pond. The pond is a natural lake of approximately 350 acres which does not become dry each year. The lake has a maximum average depth of greater than 2 feet throughout the year. Its shoreline is owned by more than one person. South Bull Pond is a Class III water of the State of Florida. Petitioner's proposed project involves the excavation of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of sand and muck from the lake bottom. He plans to place the fill in an area adjacent to the dredge site but within the landward extent of the lake. The area to be excavated is 200 feet long and 50 feet wide. The area to be filled with spoil material is the same size immediately to the east of the dredge area. The excavation will be approximately three feet deep into the lake bottom. Mr. Mills' application indicates that the purpose of the proposed work is to keep his cows out of the bog and also to increase the value of his property. The proposed dredging and filling will result in the permanent elimination of approximately one-half acre of natural vegetation along the lake. This area consists of a natural berm formed by alluvial deposits and a wet bog landward of the berm. There is an opening through the berm which allows the free exchange of waters between the main body of the lake and the bog area. The top elevation of the berm is such that the berm area is submerged for long periods of time. Ordinary high water inundates the berm and passes over it into the bog which is at a lower elevation than the berm. The field appraisal of the proposed site was conducted by Mr. John Hendrix, a Department biologist, on May 5, 1981. The site consists of three areas: the lakeshore, the berm, and the bog. The dominate species along the lakeshore are Saw grass (Cladium jamaicensis), Water Lily (Nymphaea spp.), Pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata), and Spatter dock (Nuphar spp.). The dominant fresh water species on the berm are: Saw grass (Cladium jamaicensis), and Arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.). Two transitional fresh water species also grow on the berm: St. John's wort (Hypericum fasciculatum) and Button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). The dominant species of the bog, which is landward of the berm, are Water Lily (nymphaea spp.), Water shield (Brasenia schreberi), Royal fern (Osmunda regalis), and Arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.). The lake is presently mesotrophic. It has a large productive vegetative structure primarily along the shoreline. The nutrients are "tied up" or stored in the marshes and peaty sediments of this shoreline and are not freely circulating in the main water body. The shoreline vegetation provides filtration for the main water body. The plants physically entrap sediments and biochemically assimilate them. They also store nutrients which otherwise degrade the water in the lake. The proposed dredging and filling will degrade water quality in two ways: 1) The equipment used for dredging will disrupt the sediments. They will then discharge freely into the water column of the lake and release their stored nutrients. 2) The berm and bog areas will be destroyed so that they can no longer stabilize the shoreline or provide the filtration function. Adverse water quality impacts from the project will be both short and long term. The short terms impacts include expected violations of the following water quality criteria found in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code: BOD; dissolved oxygen; transparency; biological integrity; turbidity; pH; nuisance species; and both nutrients criteria. The long term impacts will include stimulation of shifting of the natural balance of the lake towards a more eutrophic state and violation of the water quality criteria for nutrients, dissolved oxygen, BOD and transparency. Petitioner wants to fill the bog to prevent injury to his cows. A workable alternative to filling the bog is to erect a fence across the property to exclude the cows from that area. The drawings submitted by Petitioner as part of his application show that the operation of the dredging machinery would be from the berm. During the hearing Petitioner indicated that such machinery would be operating from the lakeshore. This modification would create fewer short term violations of water quality criteria. However, the following criteria would still be violated: BOD, turbidity, nuisance species, biological integrity, dissolved oxygen, transparency and nutrients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying Petitioner's permit application. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of October 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Jimmie L. Mills Route 2, Box 244 Hawthorne, Florida 32640 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Cynthia K. Christen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit within the waters of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact No. 5 that the fill "over time will become inhabited by the types of life which live at the edge of the water and land." The Department argues that the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding of fact. The law prohibits me, as agency head, from rejecting any finding of fact in a recommended order that is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence, but I can and should reject findings of fact which are not supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. In this case I must agree with the exception. A review of the entire record reveals no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of fact. The only record evidence remotely bearing on the matter is that portion of the testimony of Dr. Peebles where he stated that "there probably are some small animals and little salamanders and whatever that live in that area, but I don't believe that they would all die. I think they migrate out into the other natural area that I'm leaving." (Tr. at 21) 2/ This testimony does not support the finding of fact, and the record contains no other evidence even remotely bearing on the matter. Therefore, I reject this finding of fact and accept the exception of the Department. The Department next takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 11 in which the Hearing Officer states that "However, this effect [on the life cycle of fish] will be minimal and would not itself cause significant damage to fishing or the lake." Once again, the Department contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Dr. Peebles testified: I can't honestly believe that me filling 14.3 percent, of my frontage is going to effect the health, safety, welfare and property of other people. The same goes for . . . whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Now, this is a case where to argue that on a factual basis would require expert witnesses that would say yes and others that would say no. I think we would find conflicts on all of these subjects. (Tr. at 19) Dr. Peebles also testified that "14.3 percent of the shoreline for the use of the owner is not a serious thing. So I don't think any far reaching serious impacts will occur by granting [the permit]." (Tr. at 75) The only other statement in the record which arguably supports the finding of fact is a statement made by Dr. Peebles while questioning the Department's witness. There Dr. Peebles stated that "I know for a fact -- I'm a fisherman. I fish in the lake. It's a good fishing lake, and with all the construction that's already taken place you've still got good water quality." (Tr. at 70-71) Whether the proposed project and the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future similar projects will have a minimal or significant impact on fishing and the lake is an area requiring specialized knowledge, skill, experience or training. Although the lay opinion of Dr. Peebles may be helpful in supporting expert testimony, lay opinion standing alone may not under law establish what the impacts would be. Dr. Peebles acknowledges that he is not an expert in ecology or the environment, and admits that expert testimony is needed to determine whether granting the permit will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. (Tr. at 19) Therefore, Dr. Peebles' opinion that there will be no adverse effect on conservation of fish and wildlife (Tr. at 19) and that the filling of "14.3 percent" of the shoreline for the use of the owners will not have "any far reaching serious impacts" (Tr. at 75) is not supported by expert testimony and is not sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact. Section 90.701(2), Florida Statutes; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence 387 (2d ed. 1984); Husky Industries v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ("Expert testimony is not admissible at all unless the witness has expertise in the area in which his opinion is sought.") Furthermore, the statement that Dr. Peebles made while questioning the Department's witness is not evidence. To the extent that it might be liberally construed as evidence in view of the fact that he was not represented by counsel, the existing fishing quality of the lake is not relevant to the impact of future filling of wetlands around the lake. On the other hand, Mr. Jeremy Tyler, accepted as an expert in the areas of the environment and water quality, (Tr. at 52) testified that the cumulative impact of granting Dr. Peebles' permit and similar permits reasonably expected would result in an adverse impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, (Tr. 35-41, 49-51, 54-55) and ultimately would result in a violation of water quality standards. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) Therefore, not only is there no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact, but there is uncontroverted expert testimony to the contrary Therefore, I accept this exception. The Department also takes exception to any implication in Finding of Fact No. 11 that the Department's only concern is with cumulative impacts. I do not read the Recommended Order as making any such implied finding. The record shows that the Department concluded that reasonable assurance had been provided that the instant project, standing alone, would not result in water quality violations, (Tyler, Tr. at 51, 60, 64) but that water quality violations will occur and the project is contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications are taken into consideration. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-55, 60, 64 and 69) This does not suggest that the Department's only concern in such permitting decisions is cumulative impacts. It only means that under the facts of this application, the only remaining concern is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications. The exception is rejected. The Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 12 to the extent that the statement "Mitigation of the impacts to fishing is not practical" implies that the only negative impact of the proposed project is to fishing. As noted in my discussion of Point 3 above, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that when the cumulative impacts of reasonably expected future projects are considered, water quality violations will result and the proposed project will be contrary to the public interest. I have reviewed the entire record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the impact of the proposed project and cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects would be limited to fishing quality. To the extent that the Recommended Order implies such a limited impact I reject the implication and accept the exception. The Department's final exception to findings of fact argues that Finding of Fact No. 14 improperly implies that the proposed project would not impair water quality. Finding of Fact No. 14 states, "The amount of fill proposed in this application would not place the lake at risk or impair fishing; however, if additional such permits are approved it may at some point impair the waters and fishing." Although some semantic difficulties arise out of the Hearing Officer's use of the terms "place the waters at risk" and "impair the waters," the finding of fact is consistent with - testimony of Mr. Tyler that reasonable assurance had been provided that this proposed project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards. (Tr. at 51) The finding is also consistent with the testimony that when the cumulative impact of this project and similar reasonably expected projects are considered, reasonable assurance had not been provided that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) However, the impact of the project on the water quality of the lake is a matter that requires expert testimony. As in the case with the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife discussed above, Dr. Peebles introduced no expert testimony regarding the impact of the project on water quality. On the other hand, the Department's expert witness testified that although reasonable assurance had been provided that the project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards, (Tyler, Tr. at 51) he also testified that the project by itself would have some adverse impact on water quality. (Tyler, Tr. at 51) Therefore, any implication that the project by itself would not impair the water quality of the lake lacks support in competent, substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebuted expert testimony. To the extent the Hearing Officer's finding implies that the project will not impair water quality, such a finding can not affect the outcome of this case because impairment of water quality is not a proper legal criterion for deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. The proper criterion is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Cf. Houle v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 3671 (DER Final Order, June 13, 1988), per curiam aff'd, 538 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1875 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987), per curiam aff'd, 531 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Since the implied statement of the Hearing Officer does not affect the outcome of this case, any error is harmless and I reject the exception. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Burden of Proof The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not placing the burden of proof on Mr. Peebles to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected similar future projects are taken into consideration. An applicant for a permit has the burden of proof or persuasion to show entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In order to show entitlement to a dredge and fill permit, an applicant must show that he has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest, and both of those tests must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Sections 403.918(1), (2) and 403.919, Florida Statutes; Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 - (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 3/ The applicant's burden of proof includes the burden of giving reasonable assurance that cumulative impacts do not cause a project to be contrary to the public interest or to violate water quality standards. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc., v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., et al., 11 FALR 4237, 4244 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR at 1877. At the hearing, the Department introduced expert testimony that reasonable assurance had not been provided that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards and was not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects were considered. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-58, 60, 64 and 69) Dr. Peebles, who bore the burden of persuasion, introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show that when cumulative impacts had been considered the necessary reasonable assurances had been provided. 4/ Dr. Peebles argues that his project will only fill in 14.3 percent of his shoreline, and only increase the percentage of the lake's wetlands that have been filled to 31.6 percent from the already existing 30 percent. However, it is not the incremental increase that causes the project to be not permittable, it is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects, and Dr. Peebles failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the cumulative impacts. Since Dr. Peebles did not carry his burden of persuasion he was not entitled to the permit as a matter of law, and the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the permit should issue. Therefore, the Department's exception is accepted. Cumulative Impacts The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that: Application of the cumulative effect principle denies the applicant a permit because of the destruction of wetlands by other landowners. The lack of emphasis on enforcement creates a disincentive to comply with the state's regulation of the waters. If those landowners who illegally filled the waters of the state were required to restore the wetlands they destroyed, then new applicants also could fill small portions of wetlands to enhance their use of their property without worrying about cumulative effects. (Recommended Order at 6) At this point it may be helpful to explain the role of cumulative impact analysis. The Department is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Section 403.919, Florida Statutes; Brown v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1876 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987) (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Cumulative impact is not a third test, but rather a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc. v. IMC Fertilizer Inc., 11 FALR 4237 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989). As my predecessor Secretary Tschinkel observed: Without the ability to consider long-term impacts of a project (in combination with similar projects in the area considered "reasonably likely"), DER would be helpless to prevent gradual worsening of water quality and piece-meal elimination of biological resources inflicted by a proliferation of small projects. Morales v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 7 FALR 4786 (DER Final Order, September 18, 1985). The cumulative impact doctrine was originally developed as policy by the Department. It was subsequently codified by the Legislature in 1984 as Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 467, 476 (DER Final Order, December 29, 1988). - The doctrine was approved by the courts in Caloosa Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The cumulative impact statute, Section 403.919, is entitled "Equitable distribution." As the title suggests, the purpose of cumulative impact analysis is to distribute equitably that amount of dredging and filling activity which may be done without resulting in violations of water quality standards and without being contrary to the public interest. In order to determine whether the allocation to a particular applicant is equitable, the determination of the cumulative impacts is based in part on the assumption that reasonably expected similar future applications will also be granted. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all similar future applications must be granted if the current application is granted. Although the Department must be consistent in its permitting decisions to the extent possible and consistent with the public interest, (Rule 17-103.160, Fla. Admin. Code) each future application must stand on its own merit and must provide anew the necessary reasonable assurances subject to cumulative impact analysis. Manasota- 88, Inc, v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., 90 ER FALR 043 (DER Final Order 1 February 19, 1990). In this case Dr. Peebles argued and the Hearing Officer concluded that the application of cumulative impact analysis is inequitable because previous unpermitted and allegedly illegal filling of wetlands around the lake now results in permits being denied which would have been granted but for the previous filling. There was testimony that about 30 percent of the original wetlands around the lake had been filled in the past, (Tyler, Tr. at 67) that all of the past filling was unpermitted, and that some of it may have been illegal. (Tyler, Tr. at 46, 61-62, 66-67, 72) However, the record contains no competent, substantial evidence showing how much, if any, previous filling was illegal. Furthermore, Section 403.919(2) requires the Department to consider the impacts of "projects which are existing", and does not draw a distinction between legal or illegal projects. As to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that cumulative impacts not be considered in this application, I note that Section 403.919, Florida Statutes mandates that such an analysis be conducted for every dredge and fill permit. Section 403.919 states that "The department in deciding whether to grant or deny a [dredge and fill] permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider [cumulative impacts]." See also Brown, supra, 9 FALR at 1876 (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Therefore, to the extent that the Hearing Officer is recommending cumulative impact analysis not be applied to Dr. Peebles' application, the recommendation is contrary to the law and must be rejected. The issue then remains of how past fill, whether legal or illegal, should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Hearing Officer's recommendation in effect would require the Department to conduct a cumulative impact analysis under the assumption that previously filled wetlands should be treated as functioning wetlands. If I were to accept this view it would require the Department to take enforcement action in every case or abandon the protection of water quality of certain waters of the state. Such an interpretation would strip from the Department's hands the ability to exercise its discretion in allocating its limited enforcement resources, and result in the Department's enforcement priorities being set by permit applicants rather than by the Department. I note that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that the Department lacks sufficient resources to enforce every violation, (Tyler, Tr. at 45) although such a fact scarcely needs proof. Acceptance of the Hearing Qfficer's recommendation would place the Department in the dilemma of having to choose to withdraw enforcement resources from more environmentally significant projects or to abandon altogether the protection of less significant projects. Acceptance of the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law would also result in requiring the Department in all cases to determine whether violations had occurred and to take enforcement action for prior violations before it could consider cumulative impacts. Aside from the lack of sufficient enforcement resources, such enforcement' proceedings seldom, if ever, could be commenced and completed within the 90 days within which the Department must act on an application. Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes. The result would in effect limit the scope of Section 403.919 to pristine water bodies, and render the statute largely meaningless. I cannot accept that the Legislature intended such interpretations of Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Although the result of the application of cumulative impact analysis to the facts of this case may seem harsh, the record indicates that Dr. Peebles may still obtain access the waters of the lake by means of a private dock that would not even require a permit if it had 1000 square feet or less of surface area and met the other provisions of Rule 17-312.050(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. Dr. Peebles' existing planned dock is 452 square feet. Therefore, Dr. Peebles could extend that portion of the dock that bridges the wetlands to the uplands by an additional 548 square feet of surface area. For example, the four foot wide bridge to the dock could be extended an additional 137 feet, which is more than enough to reach the upland portion of the lot. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) For the reasons state above, I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law and accept the exception. Public Interest Test The Department also takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In conducting the public interest test the Department must balance the criteria as specified by the Legislature. Section 403.918(2)(a) states: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Department introduced evidence that criteria 1, 3 and 6 were neutral, (Tyler, Tr. at 54-56) that criteria 2, 4, 5 and 7 were negative, (Tyler, Tr. at 35-36, 54, 56, 57) and that when all the criteria were balanced there was a negative value to the project. (Tyler, Tr. at 57-58) Dr. Peebles argued at the hearing and in his response to exceptions that the Department's methodology in weighing each criteria in the public interest balancing test is incorrect. I disagree, and note that Dr. Peebles bore the burden of proof on the public interest test, and was free to introduce competent, substantial evidence on each criteria. As discussed in Part II above, Dr. Peebles did not introduce any competent, substantial evidence as to any of the above. The Hearing Officer's conclusion of law lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it, and is contrary to unrebuted competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, I reject this conclusion of law.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner to place fill in the waters of the state be approved in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida1 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3725 The Agency filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The Agency's findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons indicated as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted Paragraph 11 Adopted that it will damage fishing; however, this damage will be insignificant and will not truly affect tee fishing on the lake. Paragraph 12 Adopted The Applicant's letter was read and considered as oral argument on the issues presented at hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dr. Peyton Z. Pebbles, Jr. 6527 Northwest 42nd Place Gainesville, FL 32606 William H. Congdon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit for a surface management system to serve its proposed development in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact PROPOSED PROJECT Celebrity is seeking a District MSSW permit to construct a surface water management system to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The entire site is within the geographic boundaries of the District. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Parts of Marion County and Alachua county have been designated as Sensitive Karst Area Basin by the District. The project site is located in the designated area. The existing land use is open pasture. The property was previously used for citrus groves. STANDING Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area is an unincorporated group of approximately 76 individuals who want to prevent pollution of Orange Lake. Of the 76 members, three members were present and testified at the hearing. The members attending the hearing were an artist (Riley), a photographer (Suto), and a bass guide (Solomon). Ms. Suto testified that she lives about 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the site. Ms. Riley testified that she lives next door to Ms. Suto and determined that to be over two miles away from the site. Mr. Solomon testified that he lives on the southeast side of Orange Lake approximately 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the project site. No witness testified that any member has a property interest in the subject property. Of the members who testified, none use the subject property. There was no testimony that other members use the property. Twenty-six members wrote letters of concern to the District. Ms. Suto testified to the existence of high levels of lead in her well water. WATER QUANTITY The existing land use, pasture, was used to determine the pre- development peak rate and volume of discharge. The existing surface drainage of the 75-acre project site is divided into two basins. On the north side of the property, the surface water flows toward Orange Lake. This basin is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "2." The south portion of the property is contained within the landlocked drainage basin which is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "1." The post-development flow of surface water will be in the same direction as the pre-development flow. There are no proposed development plans or encroachments into the 100- year floodplain. Therefore, there is no increase in potential for damages to off-site property or persons caused by floodplain development or encroachment, retardance, acceleration, displacement, or diversion of surface waters. There is no reduction in natural storage areas and, in fact, the proposed project increases the natural storage on site. Drainage Basin 2 The District's criterion for systems discharging to basins with an outlet is that the post-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event shall not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The District's criteria also require that the post-development volume of discharge not exceed the pre-development volume of discharge. The retention system which ultimately discharges to Orange Lake is designed to retain the entire 25-year, 24-hour storm event through the series of basins on site. The pre-development peak rate of discharge for the drainage basin which flows to the lake is 55 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The post-development peak rate of discharge from drainage basin 2 is 4 cfs. The post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Runoff from each RV site will be collected in an individual, ten-inch- deep retention basin. Runoff from the road will be collected in roadside swales. Runoff from the clubhouse, country store, and associated parking lots will be conveyed to drainage retention area (DRA) No. 8. The individual retention basins have the capacity to retain the 25- year, 24-hour storm event without discharging. Any surface water discharges from the individual retention basins in Basins 2A, 2B, and 2C as designated on sheet 3 of 16 will flow to DRA Nos. 4, 5, and 7, respectively. In Basin 2D, runoff from the road and RV park model sites will flow to DRA No. 6. The discharge from DRA No. 6 in the 25-year, 24-hour storm will be zero (0) cfs. In larger storms, any discharge from DRA No. 6 will flow to DRA No. 7. In the event DRA No. 7 overflows, the runoff will flow to DRA No. 5. Basins 2G and 2F are located around two existing sinkholes which currently collect stormwater runoff. In the proposed project, Basins 2G and 2F continue to drain the same area as pre-development. However, additional impervious surfaces will be placed in the drainage area. For this reason, an additional three to five feet of clean fill will be placed in the bottom of each sinkhole for filtration purposes. Basins 2H and 2I are less than one acre and currently drain off site. Berms are proposed around the property line at the basin to keep the stormwater on site. Basins 2H and 2I retain 3/4 inch of runoff over the individual basin. The runoff from Basins 2E1 and 2E flows to DRA No. 8 via a drainage swale. DRA No. 8 will retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the drainage area and is an off-line retention basin. The DRA No. 8 is equipped with a diversion box which allows the 3/4 inch of runoff to enter the DRA and then diverts the runoff from larger storms around the DRA so that the treatment volume of runoff (3/4 inch) continues to be treated in DRA No. 8 and does not mix with and discharge from DRA No. 8 during larger storms. Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 1 as designated on plan sheet 3 of 16 is a landlocked basin which does not discharge to Orange Lake. In Drainage Basin 1, as in Basin 2, the runoff from the RV sites flows to the individual retention basins which retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The runoff from the road flows to swales. Overflow from the basins and swales flow to the DRAs. Drainage Basin 1 does not discharge during the 100- year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, pre-development or post- development Drainage Basin 1 is designed to retain the 100-year, 24-hour storm, which is an 11 inch storm event. Drainage Basin 1 is also designed to retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The 25-year, 96-hour storm event is 143% of the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. WATER QUALITY Design Criteria The District's design criteria for water quality are set out in Section 40C-42.025, Florida Administrative Code. The District's retention criteria require that a proposed system have a treatment/pollution abatement volume of 1/2 inch of runoff from the site. For discharges to an OFW, the pollution abatement volume is increased by fifty percent. Therefore, the system must have the volume to retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. Each retention basin retains a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. The District's criteria regarding quantity of water discharged require a larger volume of runoff to be retained than the District's criteria regarding quality. Therefore, the retention system exceeds the District's criteria regarding quality in order to meet the criteria regarding quantity. The District's retention criteria require that the basin recover the treatment volume within 72 hours. Most of the retention basins retain more than the required treatment volume of 3/4 inch, and most will also recover, or become dry, within 72 hours. The retention basins are capable of being effectively maintained in that the side slopes and bottom of the basins can easily accommodate mowing equipment. For erosion control, staked hay bales and silt screens will be utilized on site during construction to prevent the off-site transport of soil material. Following construction, the retention basins will be vegetated with sod to prevent erosion. The District's criteria require that facilities which receive stormwater runoff from areas with greater than fifty percent of impervious surface shall include a baffle or other device for preventing oil and grease from leaving the system. DRA Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 are equipped with an oil and grease removal device called a baffle. The baffle is an acceptable engineering design for the removal of oil and grease from stormwater in a retention basin. The facility operation is uncomplicated. If the individual basins did fill due to a storm event greater than the 25-year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 96- hour in the landlocked basin, they would simply overflow into a DRA. No structures are involved to prevent flooding in large storm events. Water Quality Impacts The individual retention basin at each RV site is considered off-line because it does not discharge in the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. DRA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are considered off-line because they do not discharge during the design storm. DRA No. 8 is considered off-line because of the diversion box which provides for the retention of the treatment volume and diversion of the larger storms. Off-line retention systems generally show greater pollutant treatment efficiencies than other types of stormwater treatment. The first 1/2 inch of runoff or the "first flush" of rainfall contains ninety percent of the pollutants from the site. SURFACE WATER Utilizing information and methodologies generally accepted by experts in the field of water quality, the District analyzed and projected the average surface water and groundwater quality of the discharge from the surface water management system for the proposed project. No data on runoff concentrations currently exists for RV parks. This analysis was based on a review of existing data on untreated runoff concentrations from three multifamily developments and one highway study. Because data from studies of multifamily residential and highway projects was used, the District's estimates of the untreated runoff concentrations for this project are conservative in that the actual concentrations are probably less than estimated. The District's analysis of the average quality of the discharge from the proposed system was also based on projecting the treatment efficiencies associated with the system. This analysis was done by reviewing data from documented studies previously conducted to ascertain the treatment efficiency of retention methods of stormwater treatment. Generally, retention of the first 1/2 inch of runoff removes eighty percent of the pollutants. On this project, a treatment efficiency of ninety-five percent was assumed based on the fact that the system is off-line treatment and a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site will be retained in the basins prior to discharge. The expected average untreated runoff concentrations were then educed by the expected treatment efficiencies to project post-treatment water quality of the discharge from the proposed system. These numbers were then compared to Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code, water quality standards for Class III water bodies, and ambient water quality in Orange Lake. Orange Lake is classified as an OFW. Therefore, the proposed project cannot be permitted if it will cause degradation of that water body. The background data or ambient water quality data for phosphorous and nitrogen was taken from the Orange Lake Biological Report by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in 1986. The ambient water quality for the other parameters in Table 2 of District Exhibit 2 was computed using eight years of data from a District monitoring station on Orange Lake. The projected average concentration for each constituent in the discharge from the system is less than the ambient water quality of Orange Lake. Therefore, the proposed surface water discharge will not violate state water quality standards in waters of the state. The post-development pollutant loading rates should be equal to or better than the pollutant loading rates from the use of the property as citrus or pastureland because the runoff is being retained on site and treated before being discharged. GROUNDWATER Groundwater discharges were reviewed by assessing the type of soil below the retention basin and the distance to the water table. The soil on the site contains some organic matter which is beneficial for treatment purposes. Based on the borings submitted by Celebrity, the water table, if any, is five feet or more below the bottom of any proposed retention basin. Runoff in the basin will percolate through the soil. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus will be taken up by the vegetation in the bottom of the basins. Metals will bind to the soil material below the basin. Oils and greases will be broken down through microbial degradation into nontoxic material. Groundwater discharges from the proposed system will not violate any applicable state groundwater quality standards. These standards will be met within the first three feet below the treatment basins. The standards will also be met by the time the groundwater discharge moves to the edge of the zone of discharge which is at the property boundary. The discharge from the proposed Celebrity project will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in the receiving waters. SINKHOLES Sinkholes may form on the site. Sinkholes that form will probably be "cover subsidence" sinkholes. Cover subsidence sinkholes are those in which a void below the surface fills with the soil from above, causing a depression in the ground surface. There are four relict sinkholes on site. They are cover subsidence sinkholes. The sinkhole nearest the lake has water in the bottom. Stormwater runoff is directed away from the sinkhole. Any water which enters the sinkhole from the land surface or above will enter from the sky. The District has proposed criteria for stormwater systems in designated Sensitive Karst Area Basins. Those criteria are that 1) the water in the basins shall be no deeper than ten feet deep; 2) there should be at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table; and 3) the basins should be fully vegetated. The District currently applies these criteria as policy. In this project, the basins are shallow, ranging from ten inches deep at the RV sites to 2 1/2 feet in the DRAs. The basins have at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table. In the soil borings performed by Celebrity, the water table was shown to exist between five and fifty feet below land surface. The proposed project design meets or exceeds the proposed criteria for Sensitive Karst Area Basins. The basins will be fully vegetated or sodded with grass. Lineations or lineaments are solution features which may indicate a fracture of the underlying limestone. There may be a lineament on the site. There are other sinkholes in the area. If a cover subsidence sinkhole develops in an individual retention basin or DRA, stormwater, if any, will seep or percolate through the several feet of soil prior to reaching an aquifer. Most of the pollutants in the retention basin will meet groundwater quality standards prior to percolation and further treatment in the soil. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Special conditions Nos. 13, 14, and 15 on the permit will require Celebrity to inspect the system monthly for sinkhole development. If a sinkhole develops, Celebrity must notify the District within 48 hours of its discovery. Celebrity must submit a detailed repair plan within 30 days for written approval by the District. Celebrity proposes to repair any sinkholes that develop by a District- approved method. Celebrity Resorts, Inc., is a legally established corporation registered in Delaware and owns the subject property. Celebrity does not intend to subdivide the property but to sell memberships to use the property on a time-share basis. Celebrity will administratively operate the site by employing a park manager who will remain on the property 24 hours a day. If any problems occur with the basins, either he or his designee will be on site to respond quickly to the situation. The park manager will have a full-time maintenance staff which will operate the park. Celebrity will financially operate and maintain the proposed system using funds currently raised and in the future by membership fees. Celebrity is a publicly held corporation. Funds raised from the sale of stock, approximately $3,500,000, have paid for legal and administrative fees as well as the land purchase. Approximately $400,000 has been reserved to operate the facility. It will cost approximately $15,000 per month to run the park. Memberships will be sold for $300 per year. Part of the membership fees will go toward the general maintenance of the site. Maintenance of the proposed system will include regular mowing and monthly inspection for sinkholes and repair if necessary. WETLANDS IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The property contains waters of the state wetlands and isolated wetlands. The waters of the state wetlands are those along the shore of Orange Lake. One isolated wetland exists on site in the sinkhole which is closest to the lake. The sinkhole has standing water in which lemna, or duckweed, is growing. Duckweed is a listed plant species in Section 16.1.1(2) of the Handbook. No construction is proposed in either the waters of the state wetlands or the isolated wetland. The District criteria require the review of impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently provided by the wetlands to these types of fish and wildlife. Since there will be no construction in the wetlands, there will be no impacts to the habitat, abundance and diversity, or food sources of off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species from this proposed project. No threatened or endangered aquatic and wetland dependent species were observed on site. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect natural resources, fish, or wildlife in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect hydrologically-related environmental functions in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area be dismissed for lack of standing and that Celebrity Resorts, Inc., be issued a MSSW permit for its system as designed and proposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-6 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-38 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1&2(1); 3-7(4-7); 8-20(8- 20); 21(2); 22-31(21-30); 32(16); and 33-107(31-105). COPIES FURNISHED: Crawford Solomon Qualified Representative Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Post Office Box 481 Citra, FL 32681 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Nancy B. Barnard Attorney at Law St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jack E. Moore is the owner of real property in Fort Myers Beach known as Lot 9 of Indian Bayou, a subdivision in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 24 East, Lee County, Florida. Moore's property is bordered on the north by the waters of Indian Bayou and Estero Bay. The northern portions of Moore's property are vegetated by juvenile and mature red and black mangroves. Red and black mangrove are the dominant species of vegetation on the northernmost portions of the property, waterward of the fill pad on which Moore's house is built. On April 19, 1983, Petitioner applied to DER for a permit to dredge approximately 1480 cubic yards to a depth of 4' mean low water to create a boat basin behind his house on the property referenced above, and to construct a walkway and fishing dock encompassing approximately 1,235 square feet. The proposed project lies and would be performed in waters of the State of Florida. On April 25, 1983, DER notified Petitioner that his application was incomplete and that certain specified information was necessary to evaluate the application and to deem it complete. On May 24, 1983, DER received additional information from Petitioner, in response to its request. However, certain information was still lacking, including aerial photographs, a hydrographic survey, and consent from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the use of state-owned lands which may be involved in the project. On June 1, 1983, DER notified Petitioner that all of the requested information had not been submitted. Petitioner did not respond to DER's correspondence. On July 19, 1983, DER requested Petitioner to notify DER if he wanted to proceed with his application. Petitioner responded on August 1, 1983, that he needed additional time to supply requested information. On September 20, 1983, Petitioner sought advice from DER about whether he could delete the dredging portion of his project and get approval only for the proposed walkway and dock. DER responded by letter on September 28, 1983, notifying Petitioner that the proposal was a major modification of his application, and enclosing a form to be submitted to DER along with such modification. The letter notified Petitioner that even if only the dock was sought to be permitted, DNR approval would still be required, and DER has no control over the DNR approval process. Petitioner did not contact DER in response to its latest correspondences. On November 28, 1983, DER then issued a notice of intent to deny the application for Petitioner's failure to provide necessary information which would render the application complete and fully reviewable by the DER staff. Petitioner has still not provided aerial photographs, a hydrographic survey, or DNR approval to DER, and offered no such evidence at hearing. The aerial photographs are necessary to review the project's potential impacts on surrounding properties and water bodies. The hydrographic survey is essential since Petitioner is proposing to entrain a large body of water which may not be able to meet State water quality standards. DNR approval is required by statute before DER can issue a permit that may involve state-owned lands. The Petitioner's testimony and evidence merely established his belief that he originally thought the dock and channel project exempt, that he thought settlement of federal litigation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and his predecessor in title, permitted the installation of his rip-rap seawall and fill and that, at DER's behest, he later dismantled the dock and partially refilled the hand-dug channel leading to it. Nowhere in Petitioner's case was evidence offered of reasonable assurances that the "pollution events, envisioned by the authority cited below, will not occur, nor that DNR approval of the use of State submerged lands for the project has been secured.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and what, reasonable mitigative conditions are necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment, prior to issuing Petitioner's default permit.
Findings Of Fact Application and Default Petitioner's application is to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing 650 foot-long man-made canal of the same width and depth, normal (perpendicular) to old Central and South Florida Flood Control (now SFWMD) Rim Canal (the L-48 Borrow Canal), which is along the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Petitioner's initial, incomplete application filed in DEP's Port St. Lucie office on August 31, 2000, included: the proposed project's location by County, section, township, and range; its legal description; a sketch of its general location and surrounding landmarks; a SFWMD letter verifying conformity with the requirements of a "No Notice General Permit for Activities in Uplands" of a drawing for a proposed pond expansion (to a size less than half an acre), "which will provide borrow material necessary for a house pad and access drive"; a description of water control Structure 127, together with its purpose, operation, and flood discharge characteristics, which were said to describe water levels in Buckhead Ridge, the name of the subdivision where the project was proposed; two virtually identical copies of a boundary survey for Petitioner's property (one with legal description circled) showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet; two more virtually identical copies of the boundary survey at the same scale showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, and the proposed canal extension and house locations; and a copy of a 1996 aerial photograph of Petitioner's property and existing canal, and vicinity. The application did not describe a proposed method or any other details of construction, include any water quality information, or include a water quality monitoring plan. On September 15, 2000, Petitioner filed an additional page of the application form with DEP's Punta Gorda office. The page added the information: "Digging to be done with trac-hoe." No other specifics of the proposed construction method were included. What happened after the filing of the application is described in Tuten I and Tuten II, which are the law of the case. However, those opinions do not explain the delay between Tuten I and the issuance of DEP's proposed ERP with conditions approximately two years later. The evidence presented at the final hearing explained only that counsel of record for DEP promptly asked district staff to draft a proposed default ERP with conditions that "would probably track the RAI that had been sent out prior to the default." DEP's district staff promptly complied and forwarded the draft to DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee, which did not provide any legal advice as to the draft ERP for almost two years. There was no further explanation for the delay. As reflected in Tuten II and in the Preliminary Statement, it was DEP's position that the proper procedure to follow after its default was to issue a proposed ERP with conditions and that it would be Petitioner's burden to request an administrative hearing to contest any conditions and to prove Petitioner's entitlement to a default ERP with conditions other than those in DEP's proposed ERP. DEP's Proposed General Conditions The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit include general conditions taken from SFWMD's Rule 40E-4.381, which are appropriate, as indicated in the Preliminary Statement and Conclusions of Law, and as conceded by Petitioner's expert. While the Rule 40E-4.381 general conditions are appropriate, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that some of the general permit conditions contained in Rule 62-4.160, as well as Rule 62-4.070(7) (providing that "issuance of a permit does not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of Chapter 403, F.S., or Department rules"), are more appropriate general conditions to attach to Petitioner's default ERP, even if technically inapplicable, because the Chapter 62 Rules govern the operation of a permitted project (whereas the former govern the construction of a permitted project) and are "more protective of the environment." Actually, all of the rules contain general conditions that govern both construction and operation phases of an ERP, and all are "protective of the environment." There is no reason to add general conditions taken from Rules 62-4.160 and 62-4.070(7) to the applicable general conditions contained in Rule 40E-4.381. DEP's Proposed Specific Conditions (i) In General The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit also include specific conditions which essentially require that Petitioner provide the information in the RAI sent in December 2000, together with additional specific conditions thought necessary to protect the environment in light of the lack of detail in the application without the answers to the RAI. Some DEP's proposed specific conditions are designed to ascertain whether the application would provide reasonable assurance that permitting criteria would be met. (They make the requested information subject to DEP "approval" based on whether reasonable assurance is provided.) In general, those specific conditions no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. (Looked at another way, inclusion of those specific conditions effectively would un-do the default, in direct contradiction of the court's opinion Tuten I and Tuten II.) See Conclusion of Law 52, infra. On the other hand, some of the RAI information was designed to ascertain the proposed method and other details of construction. Pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," DEP also wants broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed broad specific conditions. He takes the position that it was incumbent on DEP in this proceeding to use discovery procedures to ascertain Petitioner's intended method of construction and tailor specific conditions to the method of construction revealed through discovery. At the same time, Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed specific conditions requiring RAI-type information, including the details of his proposed construction method. Notwithstanding the positions Petitioner has taken in this case, his expert testified that Petitioner intends to use a steel wall inserted between the water and upland at the end of the existing canal, phased excavation from the upland side, and removal of the steel wall in the final phase of construction. Assuming that method of construction, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner, and which generally prohibit pollution of the environment, are adequate. Even if the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner would be adequate for the method of construction Petitioner now says he will use, Petitioner's application does not in fact commit to a method of construction. All Petitioner's application says is that he intends to dig with a trac-hoe. Without a binding commitment to a method of construction, it was appropriate for DEP to take the position that specific conditions were necessary to ascertain the method of construction Petitioner would use and, pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," and to impose broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. In his PRO, Petitioner committed to use the construction method described by his expert during the hearing, as follows: Excavation of any spoil shall be done by means of a mechanical trac-hoe; Prior to the excavation of any soil, Petitioner shall first install an isolating wall, such as interlocking sheet pile, between the existing man-made canal, and the proposed canal extension; The mechanical excavation shall be done in such a manner such that the excavated soil is not deposited in wetlands or in areas where it might be reasonably contemplated to re-enter the waters of the State of Florida; After the proposed canal extension is excavated to its project limits in the foregoing manner, the side slopes of the canal extension shall be allowed to revegetate prior to removal of the isolating wall. With a condition imposing this method of construction, fewer and narrower specific conditions will be necessary. ii. Seriatim Discussion DEP's proposed Specific Condition 1 requires a perpetual conservation easement prohibiting docking and mooring of water craft on all portions of Petitioner's property within the canal extension in order to "address cumulative impacts." But DEP did not prove that the proposed conservation easement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, DEP did not prove that there would be any cumulative impacts, much less unacceptable cumulative impacts, from Petitioner's project. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b); and BOR § 4.2.8. Second, even if unacceptable cumulative impacts were proven, those could be addressed in other permit cases (assuming no DEP default in those proceedings), since the concept of cumulative impacts essentially requires an applicant to share acceptable cumulative impacts with other similar permittees, applicants, and foreseeable future applicants. See Broward County v. Weiss, et al., DOAH Case No. 01-3373, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298, at ¶¶54-58 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002). As Petitioner points out, the easement further described in Specific Condition 1 appears to be overly broad for its stated purpose in that it would cover "the legal description of the entire property affected by this permit and shown on the attached project drawings," which could be interpreted to include not just the canal extension but the entire extended canal, or even the entirety of Petitioner's 6.6 acres of property. Indeed, the latter might have been the actual intention, since DEP's witness testified that Specific Condition 1 also was intended to address impacts from fertilizer runoff and septic tank leaching from new homes built along the canal. Although some of those impacts (as well as future construction of additional homes and docks) actually are secondary impacts, not cumulative impacts, it is possible that they can be addressed in DEP or SFWMD proceedings on future applications, as well as in Department of Health proceedings on septic tank installations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 2 requires that: spoil material from the dredging to be "used for the sole purpose of constructing a single-family fill pad" on Petitioner's property under a pending permit; spoil "be placed in a manner so as not to affect wetlands or other surface waters"; and the "spoil disposal location shall be shown in the drawings required by Specific Condition #4 below." DEP did not prove that the first requirement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, it is unreasonable since Petitioner already has built the referenced single-family fill pad and a home on top of it. Second, the reason DEP's witness gave for this requirement was that, under an operating agreement with SFWMD (which was officially recognized), DEP only has jurisdiction to take action on single-family uses (which he defined to include duplexes, triplexes, and quadriplexes) but not on larger multi-family and certain other projects. However, the operating agreement on jurisdiction is not a reason to place Specific Condition 1 on the use of spoil material on Petitioner's default permit. SFWMD can regulate, in permitting proceedings under its jurisdiction, the placement of fill material for multi- family construction or other projects not under DEP jurisdiction. In addition, under the operating agreement, jurisdiction can be "swapped" by written agreement in cases where deviation from the operating agreement would result in more efficient and effective regulation. The second two requirements under Specific Condition 2 are reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 3 requires disclosure of all pending and issued permits for the property from SFWMD, Glades County, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). DEP did not prove that this is reasonable or reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP probably has all such permits and can easily obtain any it does not have. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 4 requires fully dimensional plan view and cross-sectional drawings of the property and area to be dredged, before and after dredging, including a north arrow and the water depths in and adjacent to the dredge area. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this part of the condition is to provide hydrographic information normally provided in an application (or required in an RAI) so that DEP's hydrographic engineer can ascertain flushing characteristics, which are pertinent primarily to the dissolved oxygen water quality parameter and to heavy metals from boat use. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding flushing characteristics, combined with other specific conditions, is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. See Finding 27, infra. In addition, the plan view and cross-sectional drawings required by Specific Condition 4 are to include the location of navigational obstructions in the immediate area, any roads, ditches, or utility lines that abut the property; any encumbrances, and any associated structures. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this information is to determine whether Petitioner has provided reasonable assurance that the "public interest" test under Rule 40E-4.302 is met, and make sure that management, placement, and disposal of spoil material do not infringe on property rights or block culverts and cause flooding. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding the location of culverts to assure that management of spoil does not cause flooding is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. In addition to objecting to having to provide RAI information as a "default permittee," Petitioner's expert asserted that the information requested in Specific Condition 4 would be provided as part of the "as-built" drawings required by General Condition 6. But General Condition 6 does not require "as-built" drawings. Rather, it requires an "as-built" certification that can be based on "as-built" drawings or on-site observation. Besides, the purpose of the "as-built" certification is to determine "if the work was completed in compliance with permitted plans and specifications." Without the information requested in Specific Condition 4, there would only be vague and general permitted plans and specifications and hydrographic information. Finally as to Specific Condition 4, Petitioner objects to the requirement that the drawings be sealed by a registered professional engineer. However, Petitioner cites to General Condition 6, which requires that the "as-built" certification be given by a "registered professional" and cites Rule Form 62- 343.900(5), which makes it clear that "registered professional" in that context means a registered professional engineer. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 5 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that the canal extension will not violate water quality standards due to depth or configuration; that it will not cause a violation of water quality standards in receiving water bodies; and that it will be configured to prevent creation of debris traps or stagnant areas that could result in water quality violations. The reasonable assurance is to include hydrographic information or studies to document flushing time and an evaluation of the maximum desirable flushing time, taking several pertinent factors into consideration. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. In addition, Petitioner's expert testified without dispute that the information requested could take more than 180 days and cost approximately $20,000. However, it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be configured so as have the best practicable flushing characteristics. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 6 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that construction of the canal extension will meet all permit criteria set out in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302 and in BOR § 4.1.1. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 7 requires Petitioner to submit existing water quality information for DEP approval within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction. In this instance, DEP's approval would not be a determination on the provision of reasonable assurance but a determination as to the reliability of the water quality information, which is necessary to establish a baseline for assessing and monitoring the impact of the project. For that reason, the information is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. Petitioner's expert testified that the information could cost $2,000-$3,000 to produce (and more, if DEP rejects the information submitted, and more information is required). He also testified that water quality information already is available, including over 25 years worth of at least monthly information on all pertinent parameters except biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform, at a SFWMD monitoring station in the Rim Canal at Structure 127 (a lock and pump station at the Hoover Levee on Lake Okeechobee) approximately 8,000 feet away from Petitioner's canal. DEP did not prove that the SFWMD information would not serve the purpose of establishing baseline water quality for Petitioner's canal for all but the missing parameters. For that reason, only water quality information for the missing parameters is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment in this case. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 8 requires that, if the water quality information required by Specific Condition 7 shows any violations of state ambient water quality standards, Petitioner must submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, a plan to achieve net improvement for any parameters shown to be in violation, as required by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. See also BOR § and 4.2.4.2. Normally, if applicable, this information would be expected in an application or RAI response. Petitioner's expert testified that this condition would require Petitioner to help "fix Buckhead Ridge" (unfairly) and that it would cost lots of money. But Petitioner did not dispute that the law requires a plan for a "net improvement," which does not necessarily require a complete "fix" of water quality violations, if any. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of a net improvement plan. See Finding 9, supra. But a specific condition that Petitioner implement a plan to achieve net water quality improvement in the event of any water quality violations would be reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 9 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP's approval, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information on how Petitioner intends to prevent sediments and contaminants from being released into jurisdictional waters. DEP asserts that this specific condition asks for a detailed description of how the applicant will comply with various subsections of BOR § 4.2.4.1 that address short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be constructed using adequate turbidity barriers; stabilize newly created slopes or surfaces in or adjacent to wetlands and other surface waters to prevent erosion and turbidity; avoid propeller dredging and rutting from vehicular traffic; maintain construction equipment to ensure that oils, greases, gasoline, or other pollutants are not released into wetlands and other surface waters; and prevent any other discharges during construction that will cause water quality violations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 10 requires Petitioner to submit, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information regarding Petitioner's plans for handling spoil from dredging, including "discharge details, locations retention plans, volumes, and data used to size the disposal cell(s)." It allows this information to be combined with the Specific Condition 2 submittal. It also requires spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP asserts that this specific condition (like Specific Condition 9) is necessary to comply with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition requiring spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 11 requires Petitioner to submit "as-built" drawings to DEP's Punta Gorda office with 30 days after completion of construction, "as required by General Condition #6." Petitioner's expert testified that this condition was unreasonable only because it duplicates General Condition 6 and two statutes. But General Condition 6 actually does not require "as-built" drawings, see Finding 9, supra, and it is not clear what statutes Petitioner's expert was referring to. For these reasons, and because it provides a filing location, Specific Condition 11 is reasonable and reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 12 requires Petitioner to "maintain the permitted canal free of all rafted debris by removal and property upland disposal." DEP asserts that this specific condition is necessary to comply with BOR § by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). Rafted debris, which may be of an organic or inorganic nature, can accumulate at the end of canals due to wind, waves, boats, or other forces. Such organic rafted debris may rot and, by creating a high biological oxygen demand, rob the water of dissolved oxygen. Petitioner's only expressed opposition to this condition is that the conservation easement in Specific Condition 3 might prevent compliance. While it is unclear how the easement would prevent compliance, the issue is eliminated if no conservation easement is required. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 13 requires Petitioner to use turbidity screens during construction for compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The turbidity screen requirements detailed in this specific condition are typical best management practices that contractors use and are a standard condition placed in permits of this nature by DEP. Petitioner contends that turbidity screens are unnecessary given his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient to cover DEP's concerns. However, as indicated, the application does not commit to a method of construction. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 13 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 14 requires Petitioner to "ensure that any discharge or release of pollutants during construction or alteration are not released into wetlands or other surface waters that will cause water quality standards to be violated." Again, this condition is intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). While this specific condition seems general and perhaps duplicates other conditions (which was Petitioner's only point of contention), DEP added it in an attempt to make sure the possible and not uncommon release of pollutants from construction equipment was addressed. As such, the condition is appropriate. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 15 provides details on the use of turbidity screens. Petitioner's primary points of contention are that turbidity screens are not needed for his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 15 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 16 requires Petitioner to used staked filter cloth to contain any turbid run- off and erosion from created slopes of the canal extension. This is the most common best management practice and is a standard condition for ERP permits dealing with side slopes that may affect water quality. Unstable slopes can result in chronic turbidity, which is detrimental to wildlife. Unstable slopes also can lead to upland runoff being deposited into the water along with debris and sediment. Such runoff can bring deleterious substances such as heavy metals and nutrient-loaded substances that might impact dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Petitioner's primary points of contention on Specific Condition 16 are that, like turbidity screens, staked filter cloth is not needed for Petitioner's intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. (Petitioner also questions why the condition gives Petitioner up to 72 hours from "attaining final grade" to stabilize side slopes, but the condition also requires side slope stabilization "as soon as possible," and the 72-hour outside limit seems reasonable.) As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition 13 and 15. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 16 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that staked filter cloth is not needed if he uses the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 17, 18, 19, and 20: details required long-term water quality monitoring and reporting [#17]; establishes sampling intervals and requires Petitioner to submit a "plan to remediate" if monitoring shows water quality violations or "a trend toward future violations of water quality standards directly related to the permitted canal" [#18]; allows "additional water quality treatment methods" to be required if water quality monitoring shows it to be necessary [#19]; and allows water quality monitoring requirements to be modified (which "may include reduction in frequency and parameters . . . or the release of the monitoring process"), "based on long term trends indicate that the permitted canal is not a source to create water quality violations [#20]." These conditions are intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.2 by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The evidence was that these specific conditions are standard for ERP permits where a constructed system may lead to water quality violations in the long term. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, conditions of this kind are not dependent on a post-construction finding of water quality standard violations (even though DEP defaulted on Petitioner's application). Besides contending that monitoring requirements in Specific Conditions 17 and 18 are unnecessary, Petitioner also contends that they are too extensive and not tailored to Petitioner's intended construction, but DEP proved their necessity, even assuming the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. Petitioner complains that Specific Condition 19 is vague and that Petitioner's ERP does not provide for "water quality treatment." But the present absence of post-construction water quality treatment should not preclude the possible future imposition of some kind of water quality treatment if monitoring shows it to be necessary. For this kind of condition, the absence of detail regarding the kind of treatment to be imposed is natural since it would depend on future events. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 21 merely requires that Petitioner's project comply with State water quality standards in Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530. Petitioner contends that this is duplicative and unnecessary. But it certainly is not unreasonable to be specific in this regard. No Improper Purpose As part of his request for attorney's fees under Section 120.595, Florida Statutes, Petitioner necessarily contends that DEP participated in this proceeding "for an improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity." Even assuming that DEP should be considered a "nonprevailing adverse party," Petitioner's evidence did not prove that DEP's participation was for an "improper purpose." To the contrary, DEP "participated" initially because Petitioner filed an application. DEP's denial of Petitioner's application was not proven to be "for an improper purpose" but rather for the purpose of attempting to protect the environment. The propriety of the denial was litigated in Tuten I, which made no finding that the denial was "for an improper purpose" and which ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." The two-year delay between Tuten I and Tuten II was not fully explained, but Tuten II also made no finding that the denial, or the delay, or DEP's proposed ERP with conditions were "for an improper purpose" and again ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." While DEP's views on the nature of the hearing to be conducted for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions" was rejected, it was not proven that DEP argued its views "for an improper purpose" or that its participation, once its views were rejected, was "for an improper purpose," as defined by statute. To the contrary, the evidence was that DEP participated in this proceeding in an attempt to place conditions on Petitioner's permit which DEP thought were necessary to protect the environment, many (although not all) of which are accepted in this Recommended Order. As Petitioner accepts and points out, it remains necessary for Petitioner to construct and operate his project in a manner that does not violate environmental statutes and rules. But without any water quality information or monitoring, DEP's enforcement of those laws and rules will be hamstrung.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Petitioner a default ERP, to expire five years from issuance, to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing man-made canal, as applied for, subject to: DEP's proposed General Conditions 1-19; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 4 and 11-21; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 2, 5, and 7-10, as modified by the Findings of Fact; and the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO (see Finding 14, supra. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that application number 07256-F be APPROVED subject to the special conditions set forth above. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of July 1987.
