Findings Of Fact The Applicant/Respondents, Melvin and Mary Thayer have applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) for a "dredge and fill permit" seeking authorization to remove an existing 32-foot wooden fence and install in its place a chain-link fence, which as originally applied for would not extend more than 32 feet waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake as marked by the waterward end of the existing wooden fence. The fence proposed would be five feet high and would possess a gate at its landward end which would permit pedestrian passage in both directions around the near-shore area of the lake. The project site is located approximately 400 feet south of U.S. 441-192 and adjacent to Alligator Lake, lying one mile west from Bay Lake within Section 10, Township 26 South, Range 31 East in Osceola County, Florida. As clarified and amended prior to hearing, the application now requests the permit to authorize, instead, a 26-foot fence extending that distance waterward from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. The Department has permitting jurisdiction under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes as well as Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. There is no dispute that the Department has jurisdiction of the permitting of the subject fence inasmuch as the fence would be constructed waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation or the "high pool" level of Alligator Lake in Class III waters of the state. Additionally, the area of the project waterward of the 64- foot mean sea level elevation lies on sovereign lands of the State of Florida under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources. That Department, as yet, has not issued a permit for use of sovereign land for the intended purpose as envisioned by Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. Ed Edmunson was tendered by both Respondents as an expert witness and was accepted as to his expertise in biological assessment of dredge and fill construction projects. It was thus established that the construction and installation of the fence and removal of the existing fence would cause no Class III water quality violations. Additionally, it was established that no navigational impediment would result from the fence as presently proposed which only involves a 26-foot fence extending from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation waterward in a perpendicular direction from the shore and near-shore of Alligator Lake. Parenthetically it should be noted that the original proposal involved extending the fence 32-feet waterward and then installing a right angle section parallel to the shoreline for an indeterminate distance. The right angle portion of the fence has been deleted from the permit application and the portion perpendicular to the shoreline has been amended from 32 feet down to 26 feet from the 64-foot mean sea level elevation. In that connection, it was established by witness Walter, accepted as an expert in the field of engineering, that on January 7, 1985, the water line of Alligator Lake was at 62.4 feet mean sea level elevation and the end of the existing 32-foot wooden fence was 16 feet from the then existing waterline of the lake. If the water in the lake was at the 64 feet mean sea level elevation or "high pool" stage, which has occurred on the average of once every three years, the water at the end of the fence would still be only .9 feet in depth at the waterward extreme end of the proposed 26-foot fence. Indeed, it was established with- out contradiction by the Applicant, Melvin Thayer, that in the 17 or 18 years he has observed the project site, that only "seven or eight inches of water is the most depth he has seen at the end of the fence." Thus, the fence as proposed to be installed, will pose no impediment or hazard to the navigation of fishing boats, skiing boats or other craft, and, in that regard, a dock in close proximity to the site of the proposed fence extends approximately 90 feet waterward at the present time. In view of the Petitioner's other objection to the fence concerning their feared loss of access to walk around the near-shore area of the lake to visit friends and the like, the permit applicants have agreed to install a gate for public access anywhere specified by the Department along the extent of the proposed fence. The testimony of Petitioner's witnesses, including a representative of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, consists largely of objections to the precedent of permitting a private fence to be constructed in the waters of the state and on state water bodies, but no impediment to navigation has been established especially since the neighboring dock and numerous other docks around the shoreline of the lake extend waterward much farther than will the proposed fence. No degradation to water quality has been established to result from the proposed project. The fence has not been shown to be contrary to the public interest since it will not interfere with wildlife habitat or natural resources, nor impede navigation in any way, and was shown not to impede any public use of the lake or the near-shore area of the lake, in view of the access gate to be provided in the fence. In short, reasonable assurances have been provided that all permitting criteria within the Department's jurisdiction at issue in this proceeding will be complied with, although a permit from the Department of Natural Resources authorizing use of the state lands involved has not been issued as yet.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Melvin and Mary Thayer for authority to remove an existing fence and to install a fence extending 26 feet waterward of the 64-foot mean sea level elevation of Alligator Lake with an attendant public access gate installed therein be GRANTED upon satisfaction of the above-stated condition. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of January, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 15th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia M. Hoover, MSM Consultant 5366 East Space Coast Parkway St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Norman J. Smith, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1549 Kissimmee, Florida 32741 B. J. Owens, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Mosquito Ditch Exemption of Section 373.4211(25), Florida Statutes, applies so as to exclude Petitioners' property adjacent to Miguel Bay in Manatee County from the permitting authority of the Department of Environmental Protection? If not, whether Petitioners are entitled to an Environmental Resources Permit from the Department?
Findings Of Fact The Property Not far from the southern terminus of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge spanning the waters where Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico meet is a subdivision known as San Miguel Estates. On the western shore of Terra Ceia Island in Manatee County, it takes its name from an adjacent body of water: Miguel Bay. Miguel Bay is classified by rule of the Department of Environmental Protection as Class II surface waters meaning it has been designated usable for "Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting," Rule 62.302-400(1), Florida Administrative Code. The classification is the highest available to surface waters which are not fresh. As a part of the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve, Miguel Bay also enjoys the status of an Outstanding Florida Water, so designated by the Environmental Regulation Commission to confirm its worthiness to receive special protection because of natural attributes. See Rules 62- 302.200(17) and 62-302.700(9)(h)39., Florida Administrative Code. The bay surrounds the subdivision together with two bayous, Custer to the northwest and Tillette to the southeast. The mouth of Tillette Bayou is formed by Boots Point, also a part of Terra Ceia Island and the subdivision jutting into the bay directly north of the point. The bay surrounds or washes onto the shores of a number of keys: Sister, Skeet, Ed's, and Rattlesnake. Through the middle of the subdivision runs a county- maintained road: Miguel Bay Drive. It provides access to a cul- de-sac containing seven lots. Lots 2, 6, 7, and 8 are fully improved with residential structures, boat docks and elevated walkways. Lots 3 and 4 are undeveloped. An application for a permit to construct a house on Lot 3 was denied in the early part of this decade. It is uncertain whether Lot 4 is permitted for a residential structure but an application for a permit to construct a boardwalk on the property is pending. The lot owned by the petitioner and his wife, also undeveloped, is Lot 5. Consisting of approximately 5.5 acres on the south side of Miguel Bay Drive, Lot 5 is within the geographical jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It contains wetlands contiguous to the bay. The wetlands have suffered various disruptions over the years. In addition, to mosquito ditches dug more than 30 years ago, a dike was built around the same time to prevent the gulf tide from flowing onto the property. Furthermore, part of the property was cleared at one time as part of an agricultural venture. On its northern side, adjacent to Miguel Bay Drive, is the property’s approximate 0.9 acres of uplands. On the opposite side of the lot, where the wetlands meet the bay, the Petitioners plan a boat basin. A section of the proposed boat channel serving the basin, where it connects to the bay, is located within the Outstanding Florida Waters boundary of the bay. The boat basin will be part of a residential project planned by Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis. In addition to an access drive and the boat basin and channel, the Petitioners plan to build a house in the middle of the lot. In the mid-1960’s, Lot 5 was ditched for mosquito control. The mosquito control ditches transect the property along two lines running roughly east-west: one, just to the south of the uplands, not too far from the road; the other, just to the north of the dike and a mean high-water line approximated by Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis’ engineer, John Benson. Valuable Mangroves Mangroves cover the bulk of the property south of the uplands. Most are normal-sized. For example, “[a]ll the mangroves up . . . at the mosquito ditch going toward the . . . street [are] huge, . . . 10, 15, 20 feet.” (Tr. 41.) The mangroves closer to San Miguel Bay, too, are normal-sized. But in a basin in the center of the property there is an acre or so of “stunted mangroves that [are] only . . . three to four feet tall." (Tr. 39.) "And that [is] very unusual . . . there [is] obviously something wrong with them.” (Tr. 40-41.) The problem for the stunted mangroves is stress in their root zone due to "anoxia in the soil, that is, lack of oxygen." (Tr. 318). The anoxia is most likely a function of location: the stunted mangroves are in a basin surrounded by the mosquito ditches. The normal-sized mangroves are not experiencing anoxia because they are better irrigated. Those alongside or in the mosquito ditches are irrigated by the water which collects in the ditches while those in the southernmost part of the property are irrigated by tidal froth from the bay. Although the property has been ditched, diked and bermed (and may have even been tilled at one time for agricultural purposes after it was cleared), the mangroves on the property serve a valuable ecological function, particularly to the bay. The height of the mangroves does not alter their ecological value because the value is largely in their root system. The entire root system of the mangroves covering over four-fifths of the property serves as a filtration base for water running off the uplands. It provides, moreover, critical habitat for commercially important species such as redfish and snook. Building a residence in the middle of this mangrove swamp, even were it to disrupt only the stunted mangroves, would cause adverse ecological impact. The adverse impact would fall heavily on the bay because it needs the natural flushing action allowed by the uninterrupted tangle of mangroves covering more than four acres of the five and one-half acre plot. At the same time, wildlife enjoy orderly habitat in the mangroves on the property. The presence of a residence and the alterations to the property, particularly the loss of well over an acre of a mangrove root-system caused by dredging and filling to support the residence, would render the remaining mangrove wetlands on the property much less supportive of the wildlife inhabiting it now and the wildlife that would otherwise inhabit it in the future. The Parties Petitioners moved to Florida from Illinois in 1991. Mel McGinnis is a double above-the-knee amputee who walks with the aid of prosthetic devices. Pamela McGinnis is a licensed real estate broker. Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis live in Palmetto where Mrs. McGinnis conducts her real estate business. The Department of Environmental Protection is the state administrative agency with permitting authority under Part IV of the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes and Chapters 62-330, 62-341 and 62-343, Florida Administrative Code, as well as Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Pursuant to operating agreements executed between the Department and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) via the authority of Chapter 62-113, Florida Administrative Code, the Department is responsible in this case for reviewing the permit application of the Petitioners. Manasota-88, Inc., filed a petition to intervene which was granted subject to proof of standing at hearing. No proof of standing was offered, however; Manasota-88's status as an Intervenor has been rescinded and it has been dismissed as a party to the proceeding. See Paragraphs 78 - 81, below in the Conclusions of Law section of this order. Acquisition of the Property In 1993, Mel and Pamela McGinnis purchased Lot 5 in San Miguel Estates. They were attracted to the lot because of the more than 500 feet of waterfront it enjoyed on Miguel Bay. The seller of the property was the federal government. The sale was arranged through the United States Marshall’s office as part of a forfeiture proceeding. The property had been seized by federal authorities because of the illegal involvement in drug activity of its owner at the time of the seizure. Prior to a decision to make the purchase, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis were concerned about clear title because of the property's shadowy history. They researched the matter at the county offices. Their concerns were allayed when they found no liens and discovered the property was part of a platted subdivision. They inquired whether there would be water or sewer services provided by local government. The county reported plans to put water lines in soon, a promise made good in 1994. In testimony, Mrs. McGinnis summed up the results of the pre- purchase investigation: “We really didn’t perceive [there] to be a problem.” (Tr. 22.) Plans to Develop and an Application for an ERP In 1995, the McGinnises began planning the construction of the residential structure and boat dock on Lot 5. Accompanied by their engineer, John Benson, they met on the site in August of 1995 with Ken Huntington, an environmental manager in the Environmental Resources Permitting Section of the Department. Before the meeting, the McGinnises believed the mosquito ditches to be creeks. After John Benson corrected the misimpression, Mr. Huntington indicated there was a possibility the property might qualify for a mosquito ditch exemption from environmental resource permitting. Mr. Huntington did not make a commitment, however, at this early stage of the case's development that the Department would determine the exemption applied. In fact, the Department insisted that an application for an Environmental Resources Permit be filed before a decision could be made on the exemption. Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis, on October 5, 1995, applied for the Environmental Resource Permit. The application sought authority to dredge and fill in waters of the state for the purpose of constructing a single-family residence, driveway, swimming pool and boat channel and basin. It showed the construction to have impact upon approximately 1.61 acres of wetlands. About 1.39 acres of the affected area would be cleared and filled for the construction of the home, pool, and driveway. The remainder of the area under impact (about .22 acres) would be excavated for the construction of the boat basin and channel. Two months later, in December of 1995, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis submitted additional application materials. The submission consisted of several parts: a written statement from Larry Rhodes, the Mosquito Control Director for Manatee County from 1961-94; a proposed work order of the mosquito control district from 1966; information from their engineers; and, aerial photographs from 1960 and 1965. These materials were intended to support the assertion that Lot 5 was eligible for a mosquito control exemption from Environmental Resource Permitting. Preliminary DEP Action On April 1, 1996, a Preliminary Evaluation Letter was sent to Petitioners by the Department. The letter stated that based on site inspection, "it appears that the project cannot be recommended for approval." Petitioners' Exhibit 1-h. Cautioning that the preliminary evaluation did not represent final agency action, the letter went on to provide modifications which would reduce or compensate for the project's negative impacts. Among them, was "relocation of the proposed structure to a more landward location." Id. The letter was not preliminary in one way. It explained the Department’s final position that the project site did not qualify for the mosquito ditch exemption: As indicated in previous Department correspondence of January 19, 1996, the Department does not believe that the project meets the . . . exemption. Pursuant to 40D- 4.051(14), Florida Administrative Code, the subject exemption applies only to 'lands that have become surface waters or wetlands solely because of a mosquito control program, and which lands were neither wetlands nor other surface waters before such activities . . .' Historical aerial photographs do not support that the parcel was not previously wetlands. Id., at pg. 2. Ten days later, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis, through their attorneys, requested a one-week extension to submit revised plans "which attempt[] to reduce the impacts in response to the issues . . . raised [by the April 1 correspondence]." Petitioners' Exhibit 1-i. In a letter dated April 17, 1996, Mr. McGinnis submitted the revised plans in the form of proposals designed by Benson Engineering and CCI Environmental Services. As a prelude to the proposed modifications it had designed, Benson Engineering wrote, We have spent considerable effort to reduce the negative impacts with out (sic) placing the development in the unacceptable upland. The location of the residence has been chosen due to the nature of the stressed mangroves. This area (approximately 1.6 acres) is characterized in a report by H. Clayton Roberson, Environmental Scientist with CCI Environmental Services, Inc. dated 29 January, 1996. The majority of the mangroves to be impacted are less than 3 feet in height, with atypical stunted growth. The current proposal reduces the impacts to only 45% of the stressed area, and only 24% impact to the total site. This 24% development ratio is also being mitigated with enhanced water circulation to the entire site, . . . Petitioners' Exhibit 1-j. In the cover letter submitting the proposed modifications, Mr. McGinnis' frustration at this point with the process was evident. At least two of the items in the letter demonstrate its depth: Property was purchased by us from the government with no disclosure by anyone or any recorded documentation that would have given us even a hint that building our home would become such a nightmare. This property is in a long established recorded subdivision, and all adjacent property owners are either built, under construction or permitted to build. Our property as submitted to you under the revised design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Placement of any dwelling on the road will have a major negative impact on this parcel. I cannot stress enough the negative economic impact that would be incurred by this action. Petitioners' Exhibit 1-j. Denial On May 1, 1996, the Department issued its Notice of Denial. The notice contained five parts: I. Description of the Proposed Activity; II. Authority for Review; III. Reasons for Denial; IV. Proposed Changes; and V. Rights of Affected Parties. Part III of the notice (Reasons for Denial) cited a June 1995 site inspection. It included a description of the site: 5.5 acres, the majority of which, according to a 1952 Soil Conservation Service survey, is Tidal Swamp, and according to a 1983 Soil Survey is classified as Wulfert-Kesson Association soils. The site had been found during the inspection to be dominated by mangroves, red, black and white. Other vegetation associated with wetlands had been observed "within the subject system at the time of inspection" (Petitioners' Exhibit 1-k) as well as Marsh periwinkle, Fiddler crabs, tricolered heron, greenback heron, and snowy egret. The project was found, moreover, to result in 1.61 acres of impact to a mangrove community with wetlands in a Class II waterbody directly contiguous to an aquatic preserve. After detailing the value and significance of mangroves to habitat and water quality functions and the applicant's failure to provide reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, would comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373 and the rules adopted thereunder, Part III of the notice recited two primary bases for the denial. First, the immediate and long-term impacts of the activity were expected to cause violations of water quality standards. Second, the project was found to be contrary to the public interest for those portions of the activity located in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters. With regard to water quality, the Department found the project did not meet standards applicable to biological integrity, transparency, and turbidity. The project was expected, furthermore, to cause: adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; adverse impacts to the value of functions provided fish, wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; and adverse secondary impacts to water resources. With regard to the public interest test for those portions of the activity located in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters, the Department expected the project to adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species and their habitats; adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project, among other adverse impacts; and fail to meet standards imposed by law. Despite the existence in the Department's opinion of numerous substantial bases for denial, the Department offered hope to Petitioners that they might yet be able to build a residential structure on Lot 5. The first of changes to the project listed in the notice that might "enable the Department to grant a permit," Petitioners' Exhibit 1-k, was for Petitioners to "[r]elocate the proposed residence to a landward location-in proximity to the existing road which would result in a significantly minimized wetland impacts." Id. Other modifications included submission of an acceptable mitigation plan and addressing cumulative impacts, perhaps by way of granting a conservation easement. In response, the McGinnises modified their proposal. But the modifications did not include moving the residence into the uplands at the northern end of the property. The Department considered the changes to the proposal but the changes did not, in the Department's view, make the project permittable. (See Tr. 155). Environmental Dispute Resolution On May 15, 1996, a few weeks from the issuance of the Department's Notice of Denial, Mel and Pamela McGinnis filed a Request for Relief under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Resolution Act, Section 70.51, et seq., Florida Statutes. The Department filed a response to the request and parties participated in a hearing and mediation in accordance with the Act. A hearing was held on September 18 and 19, 1996, before Special Master Raymond M. McLarney who referred to the event as the "first Special Master Proceeding in Property Rights with the FDEP and a landowner." Petitioners' No. 4, Special Master Summary Report, Ex. 1a, p. 1. 36. Paragraph 4 of the Report Summary, bearing the heading, "Special Master's Initial Observation," states: Following completion of the hearings . . ., the Special Master concluded and communicated to the parties that the FDEP's Notice of Denial unreasonably and/or unfairly burdens use of the McGinnises['] real property. The Special Master's initial observation and conclusion was provided to the parties to serve as an indication of sufficient hardship to support modification, variances or special exceptions to applicable statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances of FDEP as applicable to the subject property, all as authorized by Section 70.51(25) of the Florida Statutes. The Special Master encouraged the parties to mediate their differences and attempt to seek a mutually- acceptable solution through the process of mediation. The parties agreed. Id., at 4. The Special Master's Report Summary reports that the result of the mediation was that "the McGinnises and FDEP reached a mutually-acceptable solution evidenced by an [attached] agreement . . . incorporated herein. The . . . solution . . . was initialed/signed on each page by authorized representatives of the parties and was accomplished in accordance with Section 70.51(19)(c) of the Act." Id., at 5. The “Initial Observation” section of the Report Summary appears to contain what would have been the Special Master’s Recommendation (that is, the conclusion that the Department’s actions “unfairly burdened the Petitioners’ use of the property”) had the Special Master not thought that the Department and the McGinnises had reached a mediated agreement. Whatever the appropriate characterization of this section of the report, the Department treated it as a recommendation. It did so when it declared the Special Master’s Report Summary null and void several months after receiving it. Null and Void On January 29, 1997, the Department received the Special Master's Report Summary. By order dated March 14, 1997, the Department rejected its "recommendations." Petitioners' Exhibit 4, Order, p. 1. Under an overarching declaration that the report summary was null and void (amounting to a declaration that the entire proceeding was null and void) the order detailed essentially four bases for the rejection: a. the hearing that led to it was not open to the public as required by the Act; the report was not timely submitted; c. the proceeding had not satisfied other requirements of the Act besides public openness and therefore was inadequate; and d. the report incorrectly concluded that the Department and the McGinnises had reached a mutually-acceptable solution. Allegations of the Petition In the body of the petition which initiated this case, Petitioners refer to the Special Master proceeding as one which led to a mediated agreement. They also make reference to the Department’s rejection of the Special Master’s recommendation. See Petition, paragraph 11, p. 3. But although they seek “[s]uch other relief as may be just and appropriate under the circumstances [of the case],” Petition, paragraph 12.c., p. 5, they do not plead in the petition that the rejection was either wrong as matter of law or action for which they specifically seek relief. Instead of challenging the Department’s rejection of a recommendation by the Special Master or the Department’s declaration that his Report Summary was null and void, the petition challenges only two decisions of the department. One is the Notice of Denial determining the Petitioners not entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit. The other is the decision that the project is not exempt from permitting because of effects caused by the mosquito control ditches. The Days of Mosquito Ditching Long before the Legislature enacted the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act to address unreasonable burdens placed on land owners by governmental regulation, local governments were confronted by issues less abstruse. The Manatee County Commission, for example, was striving to eradicate mosquito infestation along its coastline. One of the tools the county used in its efforts was ditching. Mosquito ditches were installed in uplands and fresh waters throughout Manatee County but they were excavated mainly in the salt marshes along the county’s coastline because "the biggest [mosquito] problem in Florida is coastal mosquitoes." (Tr. 105). Larry Rhodes, presently a resident of Terra Ceia and a long-time resident of the area, was the Director of Manatee County Mosquito Control at the time the mosquito ditches were dug across the McGinnis property. His tenure as director ended in 1994. It spanned a period of more than 33 years, having begun in 1961. Shortly after the commencement of Mr. Rhodes’ tenure, but prior to some of the canal construction by the developers of nearby Terra Ceia Estates, the McGinnis property was cleared almost entirely. Except for a small wet area of black mangroves, the property had been dominated by wax myrtle, guava and Brazilian Pepper, an invasive exotic in the process of pushing out the other dominant species. The clearing by the developers of Terra Ceia Estates, personally observed by Mr. Rhodes, was done at the time of installation of a system of canals. Around the canals a waterward dike was placed in order to keep the tides from Miguel Bay from inundating the property. The clearing shows up in an aerial photograph taken in 1965. Soon after the aerial was taken and developed, the mosquito ditches were excavated. Approved by the State Board of Health in 1966, the ditches were dug through the McGinnis property during that year or the next, when the mosquito ditch system in the area of San Miguel Estates was completed in 1967. As the result of the ditching, with the exception of the spoil banks where Brazilian Pepper took over, mangroves proliferated over the formerly-cleared land. Red mangroves grew "up [in] all the ditches and then black and white mangroves in other areas." (Tr.122). Maps, Aerial Photographs, and Soil Surveys The status of the property as cleared thirty-odd years ago and the subsequent generation of mangroves produced in the intervening years over most of the property, including alongside and in the mosquito ditches, did not mean necessarily that the cleared area had not been wetlands prior to the clearing activity. The Department, therefore, confronted with the Petitioners’ claim of a mosquito control exemption, set out to investigate. The investigation was necessary because entitlement to the exemption turns on whether the nature of the property as wetlands after the clearing was due solely to the excavation of the ditches. The investigation consisted of reviewing aerial photographs, maps and soil surveys and later required resort to expert opinion from outside the department. After an initial review conducted by Ken Huntington and Rose Poyner, another Department staff member, the Department contacted GIS analyst Robert P. Evans of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. As a GIS analyst, Mr. Evans’ primary functions (conducted for more than 25 years for the district) are GIS mapping and interpretation of aerial photographs. Mr. Evans reviewed a series of aerial photographs beginning with 1940 black and white photographs and ending with infrared photos from 1990. A 1940 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) photograph showed that the site of the McGinnis' proposed project consisted of mangroves that year. A copy of a 1951 NRCS aerial photo showed mangroves on the site as did a copy of a 1957 aerial photo. After review of the photos, Mr. Evans was of the opinion that the site of the proposed project was wetlands and had been so historically, that is, before the ditches approved and excavated in the mid-sixties. Rick Cantrell, the Administrator of the Wetlands Evaluation and Delineation Section of the Department, the "Administrator [of wetlands delineation] for the whole Department in the whole State of Florida," (Tr. 306), and an expert in aerial photo interpretation for purposes of wetlands delineation, also reviewed aerial photos of the site. Mr. Cantrell reached the opinion that the property had been historical wetlands, just as had Mr. Evans. In the meantime, Mr. Evans was hard at work seeking independent confirmation of his opinion. First, he reviewed United States geological surveys of the site. The 1969 revision of the 1964 edition of the Palmetto USGS Quad map of the area, based on an aerial photograph taken in 1951, shows the McGinnis project site was wetlands prior to the ditching. Not content to rely on the authoritative evidence of aerials and official federal geological survey maps, Mr. Evans sought out another source: soil surveys. These, too, confirmed the historic existence of wetlands on the site. Favored with Mr. Evans’ opinion, the Department contacted Juan Vega, a soil scientist, and asked him to use his expertise in both soil survey review and site testing to assist the inquiry. Mr. Vega agreed to look into the issues. He examined two soil surveys: a survey of Manatee County soils issued in December of 1958 by the United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with a Florida Agricultural Experiment Station (Respondent's Exhibit 8) and a subsequent Soil Survey of Manatee County conducted by the federal Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of Florida and other state entities (Petitioner's No. 9). The second survey, "done in '79 or '80," (Tr. 286) was a recorrelation of the first. The first survey shows the site to be tidal swamp as is all of Lot 5 with the exception of the less than one acre of uplands on the property's northern border. Vegetation in tidal swamps is usually mangroves in abundance. As one would expect from their denomination, tidal swamps are influenced by salt water tides, contain tidal soils and are generally wet. The 1979-80 survey indicated that the soil found on the site is Wulfert-Kesson Association. This soil is characterized by an accumulation of organic materials and ore black minerals on the surface, a process known as gleying. Gleying is caused by saltwater inundation and tidal effects and therefore, of course, is indicative of the presence of hydric soils in a wet area. The soil surveys led Mr. Vega to conclude that the site of the project was composed of historic wetlands. Field Testing The Department's interest in having Mr. Vega conduct soil testing on the site of the project was not fruitful. Access to the site was denied. In lieu of on-site testing, therefore, Mr. Vega conducted soil analysis nearby, a few hundred feet to the east of the proposed site. In March of 1996, he dug several holes, one near the road and others adjacent to the mangrove area of Lot 5. The soil near the road was Bradenton, "pretty much natural native soil." (Tr. 289). The soil from the other areas, buried under approximately two feet of fill, was Wulfert and Kesson, both hydric soils. There was also present a layer of muck, that is, decomposed organic material. It indicated that the soil had not been converted from uplands to wetlands but rather that the soil had been wetlands historically. The field testing conducted by Mr. Vega on the adjacent site confirmed his opinion that the site of the proposed McGinnis project was wetlands and had been so historically. Historic Wetlands The evidence on the issue of the property's status is summarized as follows: United States Geographical Survey maps indicate the area of Lot 5 in San Miguel Estates to be historic wetlands; federal soil surveys confirmed by nearby soil testing and conducted with the cooperation of the State of Florida indicate the presence of hydric soils on the lot; and aerial photographs show that mangroves existed on the site both before the clearing in the sixties and after the mosquito ditches were excavated in 1966-67. Although the proposed site contains mangroves stunted and suffering from the stress of anoxia today, and there are mangroves in and alongside the mosquito ditches dug as part of a governmental program in the 1960s which grew after the land had been cleared, Lot 5 in San Miguel Estates, with the exception of the approximate .9 of an acre alongside the road at the north end of the property, is comprised of wetlands that existed prior to the mosquito ditching activity. In short, Lot 5 is comprised of historic wetlands. The Permit Application Sovereign submerged lands would be affected by the project, a project permanent in nature. "[D]irect impact would be the excavation of the access channel from the boat basin to the water. So that last [scoop] of dirt, if you will, or piece of land separating the basin from Miguel Bay, that cut would be into the bottom of Miguel Bay, [an Outstanding Florida Water and part of the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve]." (Tr. 156). The proposed project would cause adverse impact to the quality of the receiving waters. The filtration function of the mangrove forest would be diminished and the boat basin would cut into the bottom of the bay within the aquatic preserve. Petitioners offered no evidence that water quality standards listed in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, including those for biological integrity, transparency and turbidity would be met, all concerns listed by the Department in its Notice of Denial as a basis for its action on the permit application. Nor did Petitioners demonstrate that the dredging of the boat access channel in Miguel Bay would not violate ambient water quality standards, another basis for the Department's notice of denial. Any mitigation offered by Petitioners for the impacts of fill associated with construction of the access road and fill pad for the house were not adequate. "That fill will eliminate over half an acre . . . of mangroves and wetlands that are crucial to the eco system (sic) in Miguel Bay." (Tr. 157). In addition to the filtration these lost mangroves would have provided, "mangrove wetlands are vital for habitat, for fish and wildlife services." Id. Petitioners have not provided reasonable assurance that the boat basin would not create water quality violations, including dissolved oxygen concentrations falling below standards. Petitioners have not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts that result from construction activities on the site. Secondary impacts include the establishment of nuisance species in disturbed areas. The property contains sufficient uplands upon which to construct the residential structure or at least enough of it to greatly minimize impact to wetlands. Siting a dock on the bay would obviate the need for the boat basin and channel. An associated boardwalk would eliminate the need to dredge wetlands populated by mangroves. Utilizing a dock and a boardwalk would save almost a quarter of an acre of wetlands from dredging. Mr. McGinnis' status as a double above-the-knee amputee may certainly be expected to create special needs, but other than to mention his disability, Petitioners made no showing that such a modification was not practicable in light of his condition. The proposed project would also present cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. There is significant development already in San Miguel Estates and there are other applications for development pending: for example, a permit application for construction of a boardwalk through wetlands submitted for the adjacent Lot 4. In sum, the project will have adverse water quality impacts, impacts to sovereignty submerged lands, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts. Ways proposed by the Department of dramatically minimizing, reducing or preventing these impacts have not been accepted by Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis.
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 both the mosquito ditch exemption and the Environmental Resource Permit applied for by Petitioners, Mel and Pamela McGinnis, for the project in DEP Permit File No. 412783533. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank E. Matthews, Esquire Kimberly A. Grippa, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire T. Andrew Zodrow, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner is entitled to an environmental resource permit and modified sovereignty submerged land lease for the construction of commercial marinas and related structures at Petitioners property in Lee County, Florida. PRELIMARY STATEMENT On October 23, 2006, Petitioner applied to the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) for an environmental resource permit (“ERP”). Petitioner also sought modification of its sovereignty submerged land lease ("Lease") from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees). On September 28, 2007, the District issued a Staff Report recommending that the ERP and Lease be denied. The Governing Board of the District adopted the staff’s recommendation on October 11, 2007. On October 12, 2007, the Petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing challenging the agency action. The District referred the petition to DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The case was abated for an extended period of time during which the parties attempted to settle their disputes. In October 2009, Intervenors' petition to intervene was granted. Intervenors were subsequently granted leave to amend their petition. Following notice from the parties that they were unable to settle their disputes, a final hearing was scheduled. At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of: Michael Morris, Jr.; David Depew; and Hans Wilson, accepted as an expert in ocean engineering, environmental sciences and navigation. Petitioner presented the testimony of Anita Bain through the introduction of her deposition. Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 8, 9, 14 through 16, 19, 20, 24, 26, 30, 34, 35, 40 through 43, 46 through 50, 52, and 56 through 58, were admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit 35 was accepted as a proffer. The District presented the testimony of: Holly Bauer- Windhorst, accepted as an expert in environmental biology; Melinda Parrott, accepted as an expert in marine biology and environmental impact analysis; Anita Bain, accepted as an expert in biology and environmental impact assessments; Robert Brantly, a professional engineer and Director of the Department's Bureau of Coastal Engineering; and Mary Duncan, accepted as an expert in biology and manatee impact assessment. The testimony of Peter Eckenrode was presented through his deposition. The District's Exhibits 5, 10, 12, and 14 through 18 were admitted into evidence. Intervenors presented the testimony of: Leonardo Nero, accepted as an expert in marine biology, seagrass conservation, oceanography, navigation, and vessel operation and maintenance; Gary Shelton; Sally Eastman; and Christine Desjarlais-Leuth. Intervenors' Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 14 were admitted into evidence. The two-volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH. The parties filed proposed recommended orders. Petitioner filed revised pages to its proposed recommended order to correct scrivener's errors. Petitioner moved to strike an issue that was raised for the first time in the District and Intervenors' Joint Proposed Recommended Order. The motion to strike is granted as discussed in the Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Highpoint Tower Technology, Inc., is a Florida corporation with its mailing address at 800 South Osprey Avenue, Building B, Sarasota, Florida 34246. Petitioner is the owner of property located in Section 25, Township 45 South, Range 22 East, in Lee County, Florida, consisting of approximately eight acres. The property is on Bokeelia Island, on the northern tip of Pine Island. Petitioner is the applicant for the ERP and Lease which is the subject of this proceeding. The District is a regional water management agency with powers and duties established in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Its principal office is located at 3301 Gun Club Road in West Palm Beach. The District regulates certain construction activities in waters of the state pursuant to Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40E. The District has also been delegated authority from the Board of Trustees to process applications for submerged land leases for structures and activities on or over sovereignty submerged lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051. Intervenor Sally Eastman resides on property adjacent to the proposed project. Intervenors, Christine Desjarlias-Leuth and Ron Leuth, own and reside on riparian property approximately 400 feet from the proposed project. Intervenor Gary Shelton owns and resides on riparian property near the proposed project. All Intervenors use the waters of Charlotte Harbor for water-based recreational activities, including fishing, swimming, boating, wading, and nature observation. The Affected Waterbodies The north side of Petitioner's property is adjacent to Charlotte Harbor. The south side of the property is adjacent to Back Bay. Both waterbodies are within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. The aquatic preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water. Aquatic preserves are so designated because they have exceptional biological, aesthetic, and scientific value. It is the intent of the Legislature that aquatic preserves be set aside forever as sanctuaries for the benefit of the public. See § 258.36, Fla. Stat. Aquatic preserves were established for the purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.001(1). Charlotte Harbor in this location is a large expanse of open water with 10 to 12 miles of fetch to the north, making it subject to high winds and waves during storms. The water bottom of Charlotte Harbor is sandy. There are many areas of Charlotte Harbor with "prop scars," which are caused when boats travel in shallow waters and impact the bottom with boat motor propellers. There are seagrasses growing in the vicinity of Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, mostly Thallasia testudinum (turtle grass) and Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass). Healthy turtle grass beds are growing near the proposed marina structures in Charlotte Harbor. There was some dispute about whether the turtle grass is 12 inches or 18 inches in length. The more persuasive evidence is that mature turtle grass is 18 inches in length. If there is turtle grass of shorter length in the area of the proposed project, it will eventually mature to a length of 18 inches. These seagrass communities qualify as a Resource Protection Area ("RPA") 1, which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(54) as "[a]reas in aquatic preserves which have resources of the highest quality and condition for that area." There is also small patch of soft whip coral offshore, as well as some sea lettuce and interstitial algae on the sandy bottom. No water quality data for this area of Charlotte Harbor was presented by Petitioner. West Indian manatees are known to forage and move in the area near Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline, as well as in Back Bay. The manatee is a "listed" species. Back Bay is a small, semi-enclosed bay. It is shallow, averaging around four feet in depth at mean low water. A narrow passage known as Jug Creek leads out of Back Bay to Pine Island Sound. There are no seagrasses along Petitioner's shoreline on Back Bay, but there are seagrasses elsewhere in Back Bay. There are many prop scars in the shallower areas of Back Bay. The water bottom in Back Bay is silty and organic. It can be easily stirred up by boats and propeller action. No water quality data for Back was presented by Petitioner. Existing Structures A public access fishing pier extends about 400 feet from Petitioner's property into Charlotte Harbor, generally forming a "T." The pier has existed for decades and was one of the first landing and offloading piers in the region for commercial fishing activities, with fish houses on the adjacent uplands. The riparian owner obtained title to the submerged lands beneath the fishing pier by operation of the Butler Act, which vests title in the riparian upland owner to submerged lands if structures were erected over or upon the submerged lands before 1951. Therefore, a submerged land lease from the Board of Trustees is not required for the fishing pier. However, Petitioner obtained a submerged lands lease in 2000 for two recreational boat slips along the east side of the pier. There is a seawall along Petitioner's Charlotte Harbor shoreline. Petitioner's upland was formerly occupied by approximately 120 mobile homes, which were served by septic tanks. The mobile homes were removed two or three years ago and Petitioner obtained a separate environmental resource permit from the District in May 2006 for a proposed new residential and commercial development on the uplands called Bokeelia Harbor Resort. Construction of the new development, which would include single-family homes, multi-family buildings, a swimming facility, and a restaurant, has not yet begun. In Back Bay, Petitioner's shoreline has a seawall and a number of finger piers extending off the seawall. Petitioner has two submerged land leases in Back Bay, one that authorizes 50 boat slips and another that authorizes 10 slips. Only about a dozen boats have been using these slips in recent years. There are two boat ramps on Petitioner's property for access to Back Bay. The record evidence leaves unclear whether the ramps were for the exclusive use of the former mobile home residents or were used by the general public. The historical and current use of the boat ramps, in terms of the average number of launches per month or year, was not established in the record. There is a man-made, seawalled canal or basin on Petitioner's property that connects to Back Bay. There are piers and slips in the canal, which Petitioner claims could accommodate about 30 boats. Aerial photographs of the canal indicate that 20 to 25 boats is a more reasonable estimate. The water bottom of the canal is privately owned and, therefore, does not require a submerged lands lease. Petitioner presented inconsistent information about the number of existing boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner claimed that there are as many as 108 slips in Back Bay. That number seems impossible, given that only 60 slips are authorized by the two submerged land leases. There was no exhibit presented to show where the 108 slips are located. The Department of Community Affairs determined that 85 slips in Back Bay were "vested" for purposes of the development of regional impact review program in Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, which means the slips were constructed before July 1, 1973. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission thinks there are now 82 boat slips in Back Bay. The Department of Environmental Protection thinks there are 80. Petitioner had a motive to exaggerate the number of existing slips. The unsupported testimony of Petitioner's witness that there are 108 slips in Back Bay was not substantial evidence.1/ It is found that Petitioner currently has approximately 82 boat slips in Back Bay. Petitioner is not currently controlling the use of the slips in Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay, such as by limiting the size or draft of vessels. There are no signs that inform boaters about seagrasses or manatees. There are currently no sewage pump-out facilities. Petitioner is not currently controlling boaters' uses of fuel or other chemicals. However, no evidence was presented to show the extent of any past or current polluting activities. Petitioner sought to show that the septic tanks that had been removed from the upland property were a source of nutrients and other pollutants to Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors objected to this evidence as irrelevant because the ERP and Lease applications do not involve the removal of the septic tanks and their replacement with a central sewage collection system, and because Petitioner removed the septic tanks some years ago as part of its re-development of the uplands. The objection was sustained, but Petitioner was allowed to make a proffer that the removal of the septic tanks improved the water quality of the adjacent waterbodies. The issue was one of relevancy alone, because it was apparently undisputed that the removal of the septic tanks resulted in some unquantified improvement in the water quality of adjacent waterbodies.2/ The Proposed Project Petitioner proposes to construct new commercial docks and related structures (marinas) in both Charlotte Harbor and Back Bay. The Charlotte Harbor marina would have 24 boat slips, which is 22 more slips than currently exist. The Back Bay marina would have 43 slips, which is 39 fewer slips than currently exist. Overall, the proposed project would result in a reduction of about 17 slips. Petitioner would make all boat slips in the marinas available to the public on a “first come - first served” basis. Some slips would be leased on an annual basis. An unspecified number of slips would be for day rental, primarily to accommodate patrons of the restaurant on the uplands. In Charlotte Harbor, a long pier would extend to a dock configuration that forms a marina basin, with concrete panels on three sides extending from above the water line to below the sandy bottom to act as a breakwater. The opening into the marina basin for ingress and egress by boaters would be to the southeast. On the west side of the marina basin would be a 1500 square foot fishing platform. Slips 1 through 5 would be along the east side of the pier and would have boat hoists to raise the boats out of the water. Because seagrasses are growing near slips 1 through 5, Petitioner agreed to limit the draft of boats using these slips to 30 inches. Slips 6 through 24 would be within the protected marina basin. These slips are intended to accommodate larger boats than the kinds of boats that can safely navigate in the shallow waters of Back Bay. However, boats using slips 6 through 24 would not be allowed to have drafts greater than five feet. These slips would not have hoists. All the new slips in Back Bay are designed for a maximum boat length of 30 feet, but the slips vary with regard to maximum allowed draft, from 16 inches to three feet, depending on the depth of the adjacent waters. The Charlotte Harbor marina would extend about 100 feet more waterward so that it would be 500 feet from the shoreline, which is the maximum extension allowed under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(a)1. No boats slips or mooring would be allowed beyond the 500-foot limit. The canal connected to Back Bay would be filled in, and three additional residential units would be placed on the uplands created by the filling. Petitioner suggested that the canal has poor water quality, such as low dissolved oxygen, and that elimination of the canal would be a benefit for the water quality of Back Bay. Petitioner presented no water quality data to support this allegation, but the elimination of the canal would more likely than not have some small water quality benefit for Back Bay. The boat ramps on the upland would be removed. A new seawall would be installed along Petitioner's Back Bay shoreline and approximately 400 reef balls would be placed in the water along the face of the seawall. The reef balls are three feet tall and four feet wide, made of cement, and have openings. It is expected that oysters and barnacles would colonize the reef balls. Because there are oysters, barnacles, and other filter feeders in Back Bay, that expectation is a reasonable one. Fish are likely to be attracted to the reef balls. Petitioner contends that the reef balls, after they are colonized by oysters, will provide water quality benefits, because oysters filter the water when feeding. Although there was some support in the record for this general proposition, there was no evidence presented about the types of pollutants that can be removed from the water by oysters, or the level of water quality improvement that reasonably could be expected. Reef balls have been used at another marina in the region and were determined by the regulatory agencies to provide some public benefit, but Intervenors' expert, Leonard Nero, believes that the value of reef balls is exaggerated. It is his opinion that reef balls do not function like a natural habitat because there is no primary food production or sustainable biological interrelationships. It is found that the proposed reef balls would provide some small environmental benefits to the Back Bay ecosystem. In Back Bay, there are currently no channel markers except in Jug Creek. Petitioner proposes to provide channel markers so that boats entering and leaving the marina would be guided away from shallower waters and away from seagrasses. Petitioner prepared a Marina Management Plan to govern the operation of the marinas, including the use of the slips. The management plan requires waste receptacles and restricts the use and storage of fuel and other chemicals. The plan also includes an education program to inform marina users about water quality and habitat protection. A harbor master would be employed to oversee the operation of the marinas. The harbor master would be responsible for assuring compliance with the requirements in the Marina Management Plan, including maximum boat drafts, fuel spill prevention and clean-up, proper use of sewage pump-out facilities, prevention of hull cleaning and use of deleterious boat cleaning products, and proper disposal of fish cleaning wastes. The harbor master's office would be located on the docks over Charlotte Harbor. The District and Intervenors are not impressed with Petitioner's proposal to employ a harbor master to control marina activities because the harbor master would not be at the marinas 24 hours a day and could not be present at both marinas at the same time. However, the employment of a harbor master would strengthen the use and enforcement of the Marina Management Plan. There would be educational signs for boaters with information about manatees and seagrasses. Petitioner proposes to install sewage pump-out facilities at both marinas that would be connected to the sewage collection system that will serve the upland development. The proposed project includes modifying the proposed upland residential development to add three residential units and a cul de sac, and enlarging a stormwater retention area to accommodate the associated stormwater impacts. Project Impacts Seagrasses It is usually difficult and sometimes impossible for seagrasses to re-colonize an area that has been prop-scarred. Seagrasses are the primary food of manatees, so an adverse impact to seagrasses is an adverse impact to manatees. The seagrasses to the east of the entrance of the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina are subject to disturbance from boats entering and leaving the marina. Boats approaching or departing from slips 1 through 5 are likely to cross these seagrasses from time to time. The water depth in the area of slips 1 and 2 is about minus five feet (mean low water) at the shallowest. For any seagrasses growing at minus five feet, and assuming the seagrasses are 18 inches in length, the clearance between the bottom of a boat with a 30-inch draft and the top of seagrasses would be 12 inches at mean low water. District and Intervenors are also concerned about the potential impacts to the seagrasses near the proposed Charlotte Harbor marina from large boats using slips 6 through 24, which could have a draft of five feet. About 260 feet to the east of Petitioner's pier is another pier, known as Captain Mac's Pier. There are seagrasses between the two piers. Boaters wanting to reach slips 6 through 24 would have to navigate past Petitioner's marina basin, into the area between Petitioner's pier and Cap'n Mac's pier, and then make nearly a 180 degree turn to enter the marina basin. The more persuasive record evidence indicates that this maneuver would sometimes be difficult for inexperienced or inattentive boaters even in relatively calm conditions. In windy and storm conditions, the maneuver would be difficult even for experienced boaters. If there are tethered buoys marking the limits of the seagrasses, as proposed by Petitioner, the buoys would add to the navigational challenge. The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that it is likely that boaters in vessels with drafts greater than 30 inches, when entering or leaving the marina basin, would sometimes cross the seagrasses and do damage to the seagrasses and other submerged resources. Another potential adverse impact to seagrasses is shading caused by structures. Shading caused by the existing fishing pier in Charlotte Harbor appears to have impeded the growth of seagrasses in some areas near the pier. The proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina presents a relatively unique shading issue. Petitioner did not adequately demonstrate that shading from the proposed structures in Charlotte Harbor would not adversely affect seagrasses. The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would also cause adverse impacts to seagrasses in Back Bay. However, because Petitioner has reduced the numbers of slips in Back Bay and eliminated the boat ramps, the boat traffic in Back Bay should be reduced. Furthermore, Petitioner would restrict boat drafts and mark a channel to guide boaters to deeper waters and away from seagrasses. Therefore, the proposed project would likely reduce the risk of damage to seagrasses and other submerged resources in Back Bay. The District and Intervenors describe Petitioner's proposal to install channel markers in Back Bay as too "tentative" because there is another developer that has proposed to install channel markers and Petitioner's proposal is to install the markers if the other developer does not. However, the details of the channel marking are in evidence. If the channel marking is made a condition for construction of the proposed project, it can be considered a part of the reasonable assurance of compliance with relevant permitting criteria. No specific evidence regarding the general health and value of the seagrasses in Back Bay was presented. The seagrasses in Back Bay are not designated as an RPA. There was no evidence presented that there is soft coral or other submerged resources in Back Bay. Therefore, the reduced risk of harm to the seagrasses in Back Bay does not offset the potential harm that the proposed project would cause to the seagrasses and other submerged resources in Charlotte Harbor. Manatees Petitioner agreed to comply with all of the conditions recommended by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission related to the protection of manatees: In order [to] ensure a minimum clearance of 12 inches above the top of seagrass so as to avoid damage located in the project ingress/egress route, the maximum draft, including propeller(s), for vessels associated with slips 1-5 in Charlotte Harbor shall be 30 inches. The Standard Manatee Conditions for In- Water Work (revision 2009) shall be followed for all in-water activity. Handrails shall be constructed and maintained along the access pier and the landward side of the terminal platform to prevent mooring outside of the designated slip areas. The Permittee shall develop and implement a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC)-approved marina educational program prior to slip occupancy. The Permittee shall develop this educational program with the assistance of FWC, and FWC shall approve this education plan prior to its implementation. The program may include (at a minimum) the posting of permanent manatee educational signs and the display of brochures in a prominent location. The educational program must be maintained for the life of the facility. The [Permittee] shall install and maintain seagrass marker buoys as depicted in the site plan for the docks in Charlotte Harbor. The buoys must be permitted by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Boating and Waterways Section, and maintained for the life of the project. The [P]ermittee shall provide bins for the disposal of or recycling of monofilament line or other used fishing gear. The [P]ermittee shall also provide educational signs encouraging the use of these bins. Larger boats are generally more lethal in collisions with manatees because there is usually more momentum involved. Greater momentum generally causes deeper propeller cuts and other serious physical injury. Slips 6 through 24 in the Charlotte Harbor marina would accommodate boats of greater size (up to five-foot draft) than would have used the slips that would be eliminated in Back Bay, creating some small, unquantified additional risk of increased injury or death to manatees in Charlotte Harbor and other area waters. Lee County reviewed the proposed project against the Lee County Manatee Protection Plan and scored the project as "Preferred." The factors that the County considered in scoring the project were not explained. The reduction of boat traffic in Back Bay that would result from the eliminating boat slips and removing the boat ramps, and the marking of a channel away from seagrasses in Back Bay, would reduce the current risk to manatees using Back Bay. However, that reduction of risk is offset by the increased risk of injury to manatees associated with the addition of 17 larger slips in the Charlotte Harbor marina, the potential for collisions with any manatees foraging in the seagrass near the Charlotte Harbor marina, and the potential loss of seagrasses from boat impacts and shading. The overall effect of the proposed project on manatees would probably be negative. Water Quality The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would cause additional pollution associated with boating activity and, therefore, would violate the water quality standard applicable in Outstanding Florida Waters that ambient water quality cannot be degraded. However, Petitioner would reduce the total number of boats that could operate out of the marinas and would implement a number of prohibitions and other management practices that would reduce the potential for pollution when compared to the current situation. There was no evidence presented to quantify the pollution that might now be occurring as a result of the absence of pump-out facilities at the marinas, or the presence of related pollution in Charlotte Harbor or Back Bay. However, it was undisputed that the availability of pump-out facilities is generally a benefit for water quality. Petitioner has not indicated where the sewage pump-out facilities would be located. Although this is a relatively minor issue, the location of these facilities can affect the potential for pollution and, therefore, it is reasonable for the District to require this information before the ERP can be approved. Although the District and Intervenors contend that insufficient information was presented regarding flushing characteristics in Charlotte Harbor, that contention is inconsistent with their claim that strong winds, waves, and tidal forces that occur in this area of Charlotte Harbor would cause shoaling and scour at the breakwater. There is sufficient evidence that the Charlotte Harbor marina would be well flushed. An issue was also raised about the potential for turbidity problems in Back Bay caused by disturbance of the silty bottom by boats using the Back Bay slips. However, the reduction of the number of boats that would operate out of the Back Bay marina, the marina management proposals, and the channel marking would likely reduce such incidents in Back Bay. As discussed above, some small water quality benefits to Back Bay would be realized by the reef balls and the elimination of the canal. The overall effect of the proposed project would be to reduce the potential water quality impacts associated with the marinas, resulting in some small net improvement to the ambient water quality of the Pine Island Aquatic Preserve. Shoaling and Scour Shoaling is generally the accumulation of unconsolidated sediments that occur because of their movement by hydrodynamic forces of water flow, waves and currents. Scour is a type of erosion that occurs when current forces, when moving around a structure, push sediments away. Petitioner's expert, Hans Wilson, testified that it would take a relatively extreme amount of wave energy to create scour at the bottom of the breakwater. He said that the proposed breakwater was similar to one used at Royal Palm Yacht Club in Charlotte Harbor, which has not caused shoaling or scour. Robert Brantly, of the Department of Environmental Protection, believes that the proposed breakwater could cause shoaling and scour. While not agreeing with Mr. Brantly's concern, Petitioner offered to place reef balls at the base of the breakwater to further dissipate wave energy. Petitioner's evidence on this issue lacked much detail, but the evidence offered by the District was speculation -- Mr. Brantly thought there might be a problem and wanted to see more information. The District failed to rebut Petitioner's prima facie case that the breakwater would not cause shoaling or scour. Public Uses The District and Intervenors contend that the proposed project would reduce access by the general public to the aquatic preserve because the boat ramps would be eliminated and the fishing platform would be smaller than the area now available to the public on the fishing pier. The evidence shows some small reduction in public access to the aquatic preserve would likely result from the proposed project. Fill The District and Intervenors claimed for the first time in their Joint Proposed Recommended Order that the proposed breakwater for the Charlotte Harbor marina is prohibited fill. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(1)(c) prohibits "filling waterward of the mean or ordinary high water line." "Fill" is defined in Rule 18-20.003(27): "Fill" means materials from any source, deposited by any means onto sovereignty lands, either for the purpose of creating new uplands or for any other purpose, including the spoiling of dredged materials. For the purpose of this rule, the placement of pilings or riprap shall not be considered to be filling. The District claims that the breakwater is "clearly prohibited" and that no additional factual evidence needs to be presented to determine the issue. However, although it is clear that the rule prohibits the deposition of fill materials such as dirt or sand into the water, it is not clear what other activities are prohibited by the rule.3/ Docks and marinas are clearly allowed by the aquatic preserve rules. Whether the breakwater is a piling structure is not answered by the record evidence. Evidence regarding the practices of the Board of Trustees, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the District in the interpretation and application of the rule is also absent from the record. Therefore, even if the issue had been timely raised by the District and Intervenors, the record evidence is insufficient to prove their claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District deny the ERP and Lease requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether proposed amendments to Rule 46-39.005 adopted by the Marine Fisheries Commission, setting maximum lengths for nets used for the commercial harvesting of mullet, establishing one week alternating closure periods for mullet harvests during the late fall/ early winter roe season, setting a 500 pound per vessel per day harvest limit during the pre-roe season and a one thousand pound limit if two licensed commercial fishermen fish together during the roe season, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioners assert that the economic impact statement which accompanied the notice of rulemaking is inadequate.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Sigma International, Inc., owns and operates a mullet processing, wholesaling and exporting business in Florida. The restrictions embodied in the proposed rules will substantially affect its interests. Seafood Consumers and Producers Association is a non-profit association of businesses and consumers interested in fishery resources and fish harvesting in Florida and elsewhere. The rules would substantially affect interests of the association and the interests of individual members of the association. Bob Combs Fish Co. are fishermen, a first receiver of fish caught by others, and a fish wholesaler doing business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interests. Everglades Fish Corporation are fishermen, are first receivers of fish caught by others, and fish wholesalers doing business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect their interests. Houston Brown is a fisherman who does business in the State of Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect his interests. Triad Seafood is a first receiver of fish caught by others, and a fish wholesaler which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interests. Horse Weeks Fish Co. is a first receiver of fish caught by others, and a fish wholesaler which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interest. A.P. Bell Fish Co. are fishermen, a first receiver of fish caught by others, a wholesaler, retailer, and distributor of fish and fish products which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interests. SaltWater Enterprises, Inc., are fishermen, a first receiver of fish caught by others, a wholesaler, retailer and distributor of fish and fish products which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interest. The Fisherman's Market, Inc., is a first receiver of fish caught by others, a wholesaler, retailer and distributor of fish and fish products which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interest. The Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) is legislatively created and assigned to the Department of Natural Resources. It has authority to adopt rules. Sections 370.025, 370.026 and 370.027(1), Florida Statutes (1991). It adopts fishery conservation and management measures which promote the continued health and abundance of marine fisheries resources in Florida. Section 370.025(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1991). The Fish Black or striped mullet is a popular food sought for the flesh of the fish and especially for its roe, which is available annually during the autumn spawning season beginning in October. Mullet roe is highly valued by the Japanese, and much of the roe is exported to Japan. Mullet is the most intensively harvested finfish in Florida; in 1989 mullet accounted for 19.3 percent of the state's total finfish catch. Florida is the source for 85 percent of the nation's black mullet catch. Since 1976 the demand for the export of black mullet roe has increased, which has increased fishing pressure on the species' egg bearing females. Roe-bearing fish caught during roe season are about four times as valuable as the fish would be if caught in the pre-roe season. Mullet has a shelf life as a fresh fish of no more than four days due to the oil in its flesh. Although it can be frozen, in the Florida retail market frozen mullet is not considered a desirable food. There is a California market for frozen mullet, however, where it is popular with Asians. Since the closures during the roe season proposed in the Commission's rules will be for periods of one week, there could be days when no fresh mullet would be available to Florida consumers. Earlier Regulation of the Black Mullet Fishery - 1989-1992 Black or striped mullet (mulgi cephalus) are regulated by the Commission as a restricted species. Section 370.01 (20), Florida Statutes (1991), and Rule 46-39.001(4), Florida Administrative Code. Size and bag limits are imposed on recreational takings of mullet. Commercial fishermen taking mullet must hold a saltwater products license with a restricted species endorsement. When they sell their catch they must provide a trip ticket to the purchaser of the fish which includes the fisherman's name and license number, the gear used in the catch, the place of the catch, the species caught and the number of pounds of fish caught. This information is then sent by the purchaser to the Department of Natural Resources, and is an important part of the Department's data base used in regulating the fishery. The Marine Fisheries Commission began a study of black mullet in 1987, and adopted rules restricting commercial black mullet fishing in 1989. Those rules established gear restrictions, amended certain qualifications for licensure to catch mullet in commercial quantities, and set roe season closure periods for mullet fishing. During 15 weekends of the year, the fishery was closed for 36-hour periods. The minimum net size for mesh was set at three inches. Amendments to the rules in 1990 closed new areas to fishing, set minimum net mesh size which could be used during the roe season at four inches, and prohibited commercial fishermen from using spotter aircraft to locate schools of fish. The weekend closures were extended from 36 to 54 hours, and two more weekends were closed for fishing. In drafting all its management measures, the Commission attempted to make it possible for fishermen to fish year round for mullet, and thus make fresh mullet available to consumers throughout most of the year; See the Purpose and Effect Statement of the rule published at 18 Florida Administrative Weekly at 4931, which reflects this Commission policy. In 1991 the Commission debated whether additional regulation was necessary for the mullet stock and proposed new rules and amendments to existing rules which were published in Volume 17, No. 32, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 9, 1991, at pages 3593 et seq. but, as noted above, the validity of these rules was challenged. In a final order that was issued on December 9, 1991, provisions of those rules were found to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority (DOAH Case Nos. 91-5408R and 91-5422R). The District Court of Appeal affirmed that determination in the opinion entered in Florida Marine Fisheries Commission v. Organized Fishermen of Florida, 610 So.2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Those invalidated rules had their genesis in a decision made by the Commission in February 1991 which set a statewide spawning potential ratio (SPR) for black mullet. The SPR is a measurement tool used by the Commission and by other regulatory groups, such as the Federal Fishery Management Councils, in the regulation of fish stocks. It is a measure of the biomass (essentially the total weight) of those fish capable of reproducing, divided by an estimate of what would have been the total biomass of fish of reproductive age if there were no fishing at all in the fishery. The goal the Commission set of maintaining a 35 percent SPR for black mullet was chosen using the best information available. The goal is a reasonable tool for the Commission to use in assessing the effectiveness of any of its efforts to manage the black mullet population to produce maximum stock abundance. The 35 percent target is the minimum level which could be set to provide adequate management of the stock and avoid the risk of a dramatic reduction in the number of fish available. The Commission was disappointed that its August 1991 efforts to increase regulation (and in its view, protection) of the mullet population had been turned back through litigation. It credited data on mullet landings showing a continuing decline in the mullet population. This led the Commission to believe that the spawning potential ratio for mullet in the 1991-1992 fishing year had declined to 18-25 percent, well below the target of 35 percent. Review of nine management options and debate at its August 1992 meeting led the Commission to advertise proposed new rules and amendments to existing rules published in Volume 18, No. 35 of the Florida Administrative Weekly at pages 4931 et seq. on August 28, 1992. According to the Purpose and Effect Statement and Summary for these rules the changes proposed to the regulatory regime for black mullet would do six things: proposed rule 46-39.0036 would prohibit the recreational harvesting of mullet from October 1 through October 15, from November 1 through November 15, and from December 15 through January 15 each year; an exception to the closures would be recognized for possessing cut mullet to be used on boats as bait; an amendment was proposed to existing rule 46-39.005 to prohibit the use of gill or trammel nets or beach or haul seine nets longer than 600 yards; subsection (4) of existing rule 46-39.005 was deleted, it had closed the fishery to commercial operation during weekends in the roe season; a new subsection (5) was proposed to rule 46-39.005, which would close the fishery to commercial harvests for the same periods specified for recreational closures; a new subsection (6) was also proposed for rule 46-39.005, which set a limit on commercial harvesting of mullet to 500 pounds of mullet per vessel per day from July 1 through September 30, which is the pre-roe season. At its meeting of September 25-26, 1992, the Commission conducted a legislative-type hearing under Section 120.54(3), Florida Statutes (1991), for the rules it had noticed for adoption. More than 60 people commented on the proposed new rules and amendments to existing rules. On September 26, 1992, the staff of the Commission made a presentation of options it believed were available to the Commission to achieve increased SPR for black mullet and the Commission deliberated using all the information placed before it. Based upon the rule making record compiled, the Commission voted to make changes to the text of the rules as they had been published for comment on August 28, 1992. The Commission decided that instead of two week alternating closures of the mullet fishery for 61 days during the roe season (from October 1-15, November 1-15 and December 15-January 15), it would close the fishery for 56 days using alternating one week periods (from the first through the seventh and fifteen through the twenty-first days of the months of October, November, December and January). The proposed 600-yard maximum net length and 500-pound per fisherman trip limit during the pre-roe season remained, but an increased limit of 1,000 pounds per vessel during the roe season was added if two licensed commercial fishermen used a single vessel. These changes were published in Volume 18, No. 42, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, pages 6221 et seq., on October 16, 1992, as a notice of changes to the Commission's proposed rules. DSPOPS Model for Estimating Spawning Potential Ratio Authorities which manage stocks of pelagic fishes commonly assess the condition of the stock with biological models. Models attempt to account for dynamics of a fishery represented by variables, in an effort to mimic the behavior of the population in its natural state. The models' results provide managers with as accurate an estimate of future fish populations as current science can provide. The choice of a particular model is significantly affected by the data available to be loaded into the model equation. How well any model mimics the natural population necessarily is affected by the accuracy of each of the values used in running the model. The federal National Marine Fisheries Service uses models to assess the condition of stocks of king mackerel, Spanish mackerel and dolphin. The Florida Marine Fisheries Commission has used similar a model known as GXPOPS 1/ to manage the red drum population, with good results, and another for management of Spanish mackerel, which has been brought back from the point of collapse (i.e., a dramatic change in population from an insufficient number of juveniles reaching adulthood). Commission staff chose the biological model known by the acronym DSPOPS 2/ to analyze the current spawning potential ratio of the black mullet fishery. The DSPOPS model is rather sophisticated and contains a significant number of input parameters or variables, such as growth rates, age at sexual maturity, observed harvest levels, recruitment and mortality. The value for some of these parameters are relatively well known through biological sampling, such as age, size, sex and maturity. Values for others, such as mortality of black mullet due to fishing, are subject to some debate. There is sufficient data available to use the DSPOPS model. The model can be run using the high and low estimates for input variables, which yields a range for the SPR, based on those runs. Data the Commission staff used to run the model came from the southwest Florida area. About 75 percent of all mullet landings are made there (especially in the Tampa area), and there is no reason to believe that the dynamics of the black mullet population operate differently there than in the panhandle area or in eastern Florida waters. Catch and effort data for all areas of the state are sufficiently similar to show the fishery is a single unit. Analysis of mullet show Gulf and Atlantic mullet are part of a single gene pool. Moreover, the statute encourages the Commission to manage species populations as a single biological unit. Section 370.025(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1991). The Commission used data only for female mullet, which is appropriate when calculating the spawning potential for a fish where eggs are a limiting factor for the number of fish in a population. Recruitment is a term that refers to those fish that survive the egg and larval stages and eventually mature into adults which can be harvested with fishing effort. There is a relationship between the number of fish able to spawn and the number of fish that are added or "recruited" into a fishery as the result of the spawning, which is known as the spawner recruit relationship. Unfortunately, the spawner recruit relationship cannot be estimated for mullet with enough precision to incorporate it into the model. To account for this, Commission staff ran the model assuming constant recruitment, that is, the assumption was made that there is no relationship between spawning stock and recruitment. This produces an estimate of spawning potential ratio that may be accurate or may be higher than it would be had a spawning recruitment relationship been determined (or assumed). Thus, use of a constant recruitment assumption tends to produce an optimistic assessment of the spawning potential ratio. The most basic variables used in a biological model designed to predict future fish stock are those for mortality rates. In fisheries science, total mortality is universally represented as the variable "Z." It is equal to the rate of fishing mortality, represented as "F," plus the rate of natural mortality "M." 3/ Thus, the equation is that Z = F + M. This is as basic to fishery science as the equation "debits = credits" is to accounting. It is also significant that under this equation, if any two of the three variables are known, the third can be calculated. Non-Parametric Statistics and Independent Review Many of the parameters used in the DSPOPS model have threshold values, they are not parameters which would be expected to have a normal or bell-curved type distribution (such as the average age of fish in a population). Threshold values are non-parametric statistics, and there are no confidence intervals or other measures of variation, such as coefficients of variation, associated with them. This does not mean that the expected SPR levels produced by the model lack utility, are unscientific, or are inherently untrustworthy. Other efforts are made to test the correctness of the parameters values used in the model, or in using the model's output. Using the model to estimate a range of SPR for various regulatory regimes is the best way to manage a fishery. It is for this reason that the Department convened an independent review panel to evaluate the values which its staff had loaded into runs of the DSPOPS model, to represent what would happen in the fishery if various management measures were imposed. This group of outside scientists met with the Commission staff on July 9-10, 1992, to review the data and reach a consensus on the appropriate values to be used for all parameters introduced into the model equation. They cross checked data, and evaluated its consistency with published studies. Although Petitioners complain that scientists who testified for them at the Section 120.54(4) final hearing on the 1991 rules were not invited to this meeting, the Commission's explanation for this is persuasive. The scientists invited were independent, had no association with the Commission, DNR or the Petitioners, and had no other prior associations or biases militating against reaching a consensus. The panel concluded that data available showed female SPR was in the range of from 15 percent to 26 percent, with the most likely value being 21 percent or less. F Value Determined by Tag/Recapture Data and Z Using Time Series of this Data Dr. Behzad Mahmoudi, of the Florida Marine Research Institute, performed a tag/recapture experiment on mullet in southwest Florida in an attempt to determine the F value (fishing mortality) to be used in the DSPOPS biological model. The determination of F can be a problem; for some fish species it is not available. In a few fisheries researchers are assigned to observe and record activity on commercial fishing vessels; there F (fishing mortality) may be calculated by analyzing catch per unit of fishing effort, i.e., the number of pounds of fish landed per hour or per day of fishing. Florida's data gathering through trip tickets does not permit this, since it provides no means to account for the common situation of a fishing trip which yielded no mullet catch. Dr. Mahmoudi's experiment for determining fishing mortality was a good one, which carefully accounted for the biases normally associated with studies designed to estimate F. In a tagging experiment mullet are handled, a smooth plastic filament streamer or tag inserted in a small slit, and then the fish is reintroduced into the waters of the Gulf. These streamers are thin enough to be pulled through the mesh of the crown of fishing caps, where they are sometimes worn by fishermen disinclined to return them to the Commission's researchers, although they are paid $5.00 per tag returned. These tags are then returned to the Florida Marine Research Institute by fishermen or fish processors when tagged fish are caught. When used in conjunction with data on landings of mullet, the proportion of tags returned from among those landed gives an indication of the fishing mortality for the species. The fish were tagged at the beginning of the '89-'90 and '90-'91 seasons, and captured over the following two seasons. Fish tagged in the first year may not be caught until the second year or later. Dr. Mahmoudi also performed ancillary experiments. He put a sample of tagged fish in pools, and evaluated mortality over time caused by the tagging process itself. He also evaluated tag rejection by monitoring tagged fish placed in pools to determine the proportion of spontaneous tag loss. Lastly, he and associates evaluated the non-return rate for tagged fish commercially caught by going to fish processors, and examining commercial catches made by licensed fishermen. After the fishermen and processors had finished with the fish, and returned all tags that were going to be returned, researchers examined those fish to see how many tags yet remained and had not been removed or returned to the Commission. This permitted calculation of the rate at which tags on fish caught are returned. Through these three ancillary experiments, Dr. Mahmoudi accounted for the major variability likely to be introduced into estimations of F (fishing mortality) based on tag recovery. He did not add a specific adjustment to his F value for any increased predation on tagged fish, for there was no reason to believe that it would be anything other than de minimis. Due to the nature of the tag and the placement of the tags on the fish, it is unlikely that tagged fish were ensnared in nets at any higher rate than untagged fish. It is also significant to remember that the recovery rate for tags is not affected by fishing effort. It is based on the percentage of tags which are returned from among fish caught, and is a proportion of fish caught. The more fishermen fish, the larger the absolute number of tags returned, but if the price of fish falls, and fishermen make fewer fishing trips, the proportion of tags returned does not change, although fewer tags may be returned. The range of values which Dr. Mahmoudi estimated for F based on his tag return data of .88 through 1.13 are quite accurate. Moreover, the numbers are consistent with published studies and confirmed by separate calculations discussed below which are consistent with these F values. By treating tagged fish as if they were the whole fish population, Dr. Mahmoudi was also able to determine how many tags were returned at different time intervals, and by using this time series data, was able to calculate a value for Z (total mortality) of 1.5. Since he then had values for both F and Z, he was able to calculate the value of M (natural mortality) as .3. Independent Calculation of Z Through Catch Curve Analysis A commercial catch of fish contains individual fish of different ages. When gear such as gill nets are used, small fish escape, but after the fish reach a certain size, all but the biggest fish are caught (big fish may bounce off or swim around gill nets). The range of ages of the fish caught in gill nets mirrors the age distribution in the fish population, after an adjustment for the smallest and largest fish which escape gill net capture. It is possible then to calculate the slope of a line by plotting the age of fish versus the percent of fish of that age in the catch, and by this method to derive a value for Z (total mortality). Dr. Mahmoudi did this. He then went through an additional verification step. He made a catch of fish using a purse seine net which, unlike a gill net, catches all fish regardless of size. He was able to superimpose the catch curve analysis from this purse seine catch over that generated by the catch curve for fish caught with gill nets, and they matched. This gave him two additional independent and consistent estimates of Z, which also were consistent with his Z estimate of 1.5 from the tag/recapture data. Corroboration of Z value by Otolith Size Mullet have bones in their ear which lay down layers of clear and opaque material creating rings. Counting the number of rings yields a determination of the fish's age. Dr. Mahmoudi counted otolith rings using a large sample of mullet, and he determined the average age of mullet in the fishery was 3.5 to 4 years. This is consistent with the estimates of Z as being 1.5, because use of 1.5 in the equation Z = F + M means that the average age of mullet in the fishery is 3.5 to 4 years old. Independent Calculations of M Natural mortality, or M, is a significant parameter in the DSPOPS biological model, and it is important to have a good estimate for it. Dr. Mahmoudi used three independent methods to calculate a value for M. The first he used, Pauly's method 4/, is one which can be done with little data, but provides a somewhat weak estimate. It was developed for use in estimating sardine populations, and is based on water temperature readings, and the rate of the growth of fish. It yields an estimate of mortality which is accurate within a range of from one half to two times the actual mortality rate for the fish. The independent review panel determined that it was likely that the estimate for mullet of .58 using Pauly's method would be on the high side, i.e., closer to the twice than to one-half of the actual mortality rate. Dr. Mahmoudi then calculated an M value with a different method, Alagaraja's method 5/, which provides a stronger estimate, but requires knowing the maximum age of the fish attained in an unfished environment. This is somewhat difficult because black mullet have been fished in Florida waters for more than 50 years. Other experiments in the scholarly literature showed mullet have been found that were at least ten old, so an age of at least ten years was appropriate and when used in Alagaraja's method yielded a value for M of .4. The consensus of scientists on the independent review panel was that the maximum age of mullet in an unfished population was probably closer to 15 years of age, and using that value, the Alagaraja's method yielded a M value of .3, which was consistent with the M value generated in the tag/recapture study, and reasonably close to the .4 value computed for M under Alagaraja's method using a maximum age of ten years for mullet. The third method was to calculate M based on the values of F and Z determined from the tag/recapture study. Summary of Biological Data For Z there were two independent estimates derived from catch curve analyses (one using gill nets and the other purse seine net catches) and the determination from otolith rings. There were two separate calculations of M using Pauly's and Alagaraja's methods. F was calculated from the tag/recapture study. Independent estimates for Z and M were derived from Dr. Mahmoudi's tag/recapture data, and all were consistent. There are number of reasons, therefore, to have great confidence in the values for the significant variables Z, F and M used by Dr. Mahmoudi in running the DSPOPS model. As with the values for other parameters loaded into the DSPOPS model, which have no statistical confidence intervals associated with them, it is not possible to say that the value of 1.5 for Z is correct within plus or minus X thousandths of a point, at the .05 level of confidence, as is commonly done with parametric statistics, such as reports of opinion polling data. For this reason, separate computer runs were done using high and low estimates of significant variables such as Z (total mortality), F (fishing mortality), and M (natural mortality), paying special attention to the estimates likely to produce the highest SPR value. Effects of Cold Fronts on Catchability and the Effect of Effort-shifting by Fishermen. The more cold fronts which occur during the closure season, the more likely it is that a higher proportion of fish will escape, and conversely if many cold fronts occurred during the open weeks, a larger proportion of fish ready to spawn would be caught. Dr. Mahmoudi ran simulations using data from 17 years on the occurrence of cold fronts, and using what is similar to a random number generator, performed a Monte Carlo simulation for likely occurrences of cold fronts based on the 17 years of data. This data was incorporated into the projections of likely SPRs for different regimes. Net Limitations The Petitioners attack the 600-yard net limitation found in the rule as arbitrary. At the time the rule was being considered, the average net length used in the fishery was about 1,000 yards. The reduction in the maximum net length would have an effect on the catch, but while catch may vary inversely with maximum net length, it does not vary directly with a reduction in net length. Consequently, Dr. Mahmoudi estimated that the 40 percent reduction in the maximum net length would result in an approximately 15 percent reduction in catchability. While this assessment of the effect of the reduction in gear is judgmental rather than statistical, it is reasonable, and not arbitrary, i.e., a judgment unsupported by fact or logic. Regulatory Options For the option proposed of two-week closures during the roe season of October through January of each year, coupled with the 600-yard net limitation and a 500-pound catch limit per vessel, the estimation of SPR mullet would achieve would be from 30 percent to 39 percent. This was the management option discussed at the Commission's August 1992 meeting which led it to the publication of the first iteration of the rule in the August 28, 1992 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. After that publication and before the legislative-type public hearing on the rule which had been noticed for adoption, Dr. Mahmoudi ran the DSPOPS biological model to consider four more management options, three of which were suggested by commercial fishermen or their representatives. The option which suggested the highest SPR range was not necessarily the best option, however, because the Commission also had to consider what the escapement rate would be for roe-bearing mullet during the roe season for that option, and how enforceable that option was likely to be. The commercial fishermen made it clear at the pubic hearing that they would prefer a one week open/one week closed regime, as opposed to the published text of the rule which would have closed the fishery for alternating two week periods. In addition, the rule was amended to allow two licensed fishermen on a single vessel to catch 1,000 pounds of mullet per boat trip during roe season. Fishermen believed that by fishing together when fish were more valuable they could lower their expenses and thus achieve a higher profit margin during the open weeks. The Petitioners argue that had the Commission chosen option 1, a 72- hour-per-week closure during roe season, with one 10 day closure, the predicted SPR would be approximately 32.3 percent (with a range of 27.9 to 36.7 percent), while option 4, the proposal for week one/week off closures, would produce an average SPR of 34.2 percent (having a range of 29.8 to 34.2 percent). They see the options as essentially identical in the SPR but would find option 1 much easier to live with, since it would be easier for fish processors to maintain their labor forces with shorter closures. Option 1 would also make it less likely that there would be many periods when no mullet would be available to retail consumers of fresh mullet since with a four-day shelf life, week long closures could produce periods when fresh mullet could not be found and 72-hour closures do not. The longer the closure period, the more likely closures will coincide with cold fronts; it is closures during these frontal periods which permit the escapement of the most fish. The significant differences between option 1 and option 4 are that under option 1, approximately 20 percent more spawning females would survive the roe season, but under option 4 (which is essentially the option the Commission adopted), the increase in the number of spawning females surviving through the roe season would be 48 percent. Option 4 intuitively is a better management option if the goal is to reach spawning potential ratio of 35 percent, the minimum ratio to sustain stock abundance over time. The Commission did adjust the closure period to help the commercial fishermen by switching the closures periods from a two-week on/two-week off regime to a one-week on/one- week off regime. The Economic and Small Business Impact Statement As is often the case with legislation, the goals stated in Section 370.025(2), Florida Statutes (1991), can be harmonized, but only with some difficulty. Section 370.025(2)(b) requires the Commission to base its conservation and management measures upon "the best information available, including biological, sociological, economic and other information deemed relevant by the Commission." Section 370.025(2)(c), Florida Statutes, requires that those measures "shall permit reasonable means and quantities of annual harvest, consistent with maximum practicable sustainable stock abundance on a continuing basis." The Petitioners interpret this to require the Commission to achieve its biological goals with the least possible negative impacts on the economics or social conditions in the fishery. This is simply not what the statute says. No doubt those regulated would hope that the Legislature would require the least possible impact on them. But what was enacted was the mandate that the Commission's primary goal is to insure the continuing health and abundance of the species, and after doing so, then to permit reasonable quantities of annual harvest which can be sustained over time. The economic impact statement (EIS) was prepared by an economist, using data from a variety of sources. The statement itself is 16 pages long, it contains three pages of references, five figures to illustrate points, and six pages of tables of data to support its conclusions. Much of the important information was derived from a 1989 study published by the Institute of Food and Agriculture Science at the University of Florida by Robert Degner and others entitled "An Analysis of Potential Regulatory Changes on the Economic Structure of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Finfish Industry Centered in Florida" (Reference 11). Section 3 of the EIS estimates the economic benefits and costs to persons directly affected by the proposed amendments. It analyzes who are the persons directly affected (Section 3.20); the costs and benefits of having no regulation, of maintaining current regulations, or of imposing the new regulations published in the August 28, 1992 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly (Section 3.30); the result of changes in net lengths (Section 3.40); the result of the seasonal closures (Section 3.50), and of trip limits (Section 3.60). It contains as well an analysis of the impact of the proposed rules on competition in the open market for employment in Section 4.00, a small business impact statement in Section 5.00, and an analysis of alternatives in Section 6.00. Section 7.00 evaluates costs to the agency and to local governments. Section 8.00 describes the data and methods used by the Commission in making its estimates. The Petitioners presented testimony at final hearing of an economist that many of the views expressed in the economic impact statement are misinterpretations of economic data or are in error. It is essential to remember that the purpose of rulemaking is not to produce assessments of potential economic impact which can withstand the intense scrutiny of a Ph.D. dissertation. Rather, the EIS is required to insure that the agency considers each of the topics required in the statutory economic impact analysis before settling on a policy which will be embodied in its rule, and to give affected persons the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Commission information which could lead to other regulatory choices, if the Commission is persuaded by that economic evidence or argument. Basically, Mr. Murray's testimony at final hearing argued that the Commission's economic impact analysis focused on macro-economic results of the proposed regulations, but not enough on micro-economic results, that is, impacts on individual households and business (Tr. 458). The EIS concentrated on such things as estimates of total dollar losses caused by the regulation proposed. In Section 3.20 the EIS defines the persons directly affected by the rules as "those engaged in the directed harvest of mullet for commercial purposes;" and commercial harvesters (fishermen) were estimated to be between 455 and 3,150 persons, based on estimates in two sources (EIS at 5). The fishermen generally work alone, as two-man crews, and in a few instances in six to eight fishermen groups. These estimates of those directly affected appear to have an adequate basis. While a broader number of people will feel the pinch of the rule (for instance consumers wishing to buy fresh mullet at retail) they are indirectly rather than directly affected, since there is no prohibition against possession of mullet purchased at retail for home consumption during closure periods. The statute requires the analysis of the effect on those persons who will be prevented from harvesting mullet during closure periods and the EIS is not deficient for limiting its analysis to those whose actions would be directly regulated by the Commission. The section of the EIS dealing with the impact on competition and the open market for employment acknowledged that the rule would have seasonal affects on employment and the incomes of persons in roe mullet fishing and processing businesses (EIS Section 4.00 at 9). Most all of the fishermen are small businesses, so there is no effective way to tier the rules to impose lesser restrictions on small businessmen and ultimately achieve the impact the Commission intends to achieve. If small businesses were exempted, no regulation could be effective. EIS has an analysis of the effect on the standing stock of fish and the dollar value of that stock under four scenarios, (1) under equilibrium conditions with no regulation, (2) the then current weekend closure and net size regulations, (3) under the proposed rule as published and (4) under the assumption that the rule would result in an increased recruitment to the fishing stock of an additional 10 percent. The dollar value for the fish used in the these evaluations is probably inappropriate (the value is $6.70 for each fish, which is the ecological value the Department of Environmental Regulation was considering establishing for fish killed through violations of ecologic regulations). What is significant is the comparison of the increase in standing stock in each scenario, as well as the dollar value ascribed to that stock. Commissioners, legislators, or anyone else could interpret the dollar value by making different dollar assumptions for the stocks levels projected. Mr. Murray's written comments pointed out to the Commission that a better value might be 60 per pound. The EIS does provide a means of comparing the benefits of not adopting the rule to the benefits of adopting the rule, at least as far as an increase in the size of the fish stock is concerned. Proper notice of the proposed rule was sent to the Director of Economic Development, the Bureau Chief of Minority Business, and the Small and Minority Business Advocate, as well as to the Joint Administrative Procedure Committee. The Marine Fisheries Commission received neither a response nor an objection from any of these agencies. The Commission amended the proposed rules in significant ways in an attempt to relieve the burdens which the fishermen argued they would suffer if the rules were adopted with no changes. The one week on/one week off closure periods were substituted for the two week closure periods originally proposed, and the trip limit was amended to permit two licensed fishermen to fish in a single boat and bring in 1,000 pounds of fish during the roe season. The agency thus seriously considered alternatives to achieve their management goals while ameliorating the economic impact on those regulated. This shows that the economic information contained in the economic impact statement was seriously considered by the Commissioners. The only economic objection actually voiced to the Commission on September 25, 1992, during public testimony by Mr. Murray was that the EIS did not ascribe sufficient value to mullet flesh taken during roe season, but concentrated on the value of the roe. He informed the Commission that for some sellers, fresh mullet flesh was 80 percent of their sales, and that two week closures could put them out of business. (Ex. 12, at 57-58). This error in the EIS was remedied by Mr. Murray's testimony.
The Issue Whether a consumptive-use permit for quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500043 requested water from one (1) well. The center of withdrawal will be located at Latitude 27 degrees 40' 38" North, Longitude 82 degrees 29' 31" West in Hillsborough County. Said withdrawal is for disposal off-site. This application is for an existing use. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Tampa Tribune on May 14 and May 21, 1975 pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The application, map of the premises, legal description, receipts of certified mail, copy of the Notice, and affidavit of publication were received without objection and entered into evidence as Exhibit 1. No letters of objection were received. The witness for Permittee was duly sworn and agreement was reached on each point enumerated as required by Rule 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes with the exception as enumerated in No. 7. Upon request of the Hearing Officer a Joint Stipulation was filed in which it was agreed that the following conditions to the permit should be attached: "1. That applicant, Carol A. Ranallo, construct two observation wells on the south side of the pit mutually agreeable locations by inserting six (6) inch casings and screens to the depth of at least fifty (50) feet. The casings to be grouted in the bore hole from the bottom of the casing to the top of the ground level. The sites of the observation wells shall be selected by James Hudson of Delta Engineering Company and G. P. Szell within 15 days after issuance of the Consumptive Use Permit. 2. That the applicant or its agents or employees submit monthly readings to the staff of the Southwest Florida Water Management District of the chloride content of the water being withdrawn from the two wells and the level of the water table as read and determined under static conditions."
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: Petitioner is an employee of the Boromei-Mirabella Seafood Company, a licensed fish dealer located in Tampa, Florida. The scope of Petitioner's employment included the vehicular transport of fish for sale or purchase. While engaged in his employment, Petitioner was apprehended and arrested by officers of the Commission, and charged with violation of Rules 39-10.02(4) and 39- 10.02(5), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's arrest occurred in Highlands County, Florida, on or about December 11, 1980. Petitioner, for purposes of this proceeding, admits to the factual behavior alleged in the arrest citation issued by Respondent's offices. The rules challenged in this proceeding were promulgated by Respondent in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, also known as the Administrative Procedure Act. The challenged rules became effective on August 11, 1979. Both rules cite Article IV, Section 9, of the Florida Constitution and Section 372.021, Florida Statutes, as "specific authority" for promulgation of the rules. In addition, Section 372.65, Florida Statutes, is listed in the Florida Administrative Code, as the "law implemented" by the two challenged rules.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy began on July 9, 1990, when petitioners, David and Victoria Page, filed an application with the district office of respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing certain construction activities (including the erection of a seawall) on their residential lot located at 3108 Gulfwinds Circle, Hernando Beach, Florida. The property faces west on the Gulf of Mexico, a water body designated as a Class III water in the State. The application was eventually deemed to be complete on October 24, 1990. After conducting a review of the application and an on-site inspection of the property, on January 18, 1991, DER issued its notice of permit denial. The notice identified the reasons for the denial as being petitioners' failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated and that the project would be in the public interest. Also, DER cited expected adverse cumulative impacts if the application was granted. The notice provided further that if petitioners agreed to locate their seawall landward of the jurisdictional line, the project would be approved. In July 1991, petitioners amended their application to propose that the seawall be constructed even further seaward of the jurisdictional line. When efforts to resolve the case were unsuccessful, petitioners requested a formal hearing on January 17, 1992, to contest the agency's decision. Petitioners purchased their property in 1989. It lies within Unit 2 of Gulf Coast Retreats, a residential subdivision in Hernando Beach, Florida. The property is identified as lot 20 on Gulfwinds Circle and fronts the Little Pine Island Bay (Bay), which is a part of the Gulf of Mexico. Access to the Gulf is provided by a channel (six feet in depth) in the Bay in front of lot 20 and which eventually runs into the Gulf several miles south of petitioners' lot. It is undisputed that in 1985 Hurricane Elena passed offshore causing erosion to lot 20 and other adjacent lots. Consequently, the upland portion of the lot is now smaller than before the hurricane. However, petitioners purchased their property in that state of condition. Lots 19 and 21 are on the south and north sides of petitioners' property and are owned by the Steins and Budricks, respectively. Both neighbors have constructed vertical concrete seawalls in front of their homes. Budrick was issued a permit to construct a seawall on December 28, 1989, while Stein constructed his without a permit. However, Stein has subsequently filed an after-the-fact permit application and was recently advised by DER that the application was complete. At hearing, a DER representative expressed the view that the Stein application will probably be approved since his wall is landward of the DER jurisdictional line. It is noted that the Stein and Budrick seawalls sit back from the original property lines because of the erosion suffered during the 1985 hurricane and correspond to the jurisdictional line established by DER on their property. Another application for a permit to construct a seawall was filed by the owner of lot 18 in March 1992. Like Stein and Budrick, that owner proposed to construct his wall on the landward side of the jurisdictional line. Petitioners, who live in Kansas, desire to construct a home on their lot. They have proposed to place one hundred cubic yards of fill (limerock) on 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands on the western end of their lot and construct a 110-foot vertical seawall up to thirty feet seaward of the jurisdictional line. Thus, there will be dredge and filling activities in the Gulf of Mexico, a class III water of the state, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of DER. By law, DER is required to establish a jurisdictional line to show the landward extent of waters of this state, including the Gulf of Mexico. Such extent is normally defined by species of plants or soils which are characteristic of those areas subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters of the state. As a general practice, using a prescribed plant or species indicator list, DER makes an on-site inspection of the property to determine what vegetation, if any, is found on the property and is subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters. In this case, the dominant vegetation found on lot 20 was paspalum distichum, a plant on the species list subject to regular and periodic inundation by the Gulf waters. Accordingly, DER observed where the vegetation ended and used that point for the placement of the jurisdictional line. As a cross check, DER also noted the rack line, which is indicative of the landward extent to which the high tides rise, and found it to correspond to the vegetation line. It should be noted that the jurisdictional line established on petitioners' property corresponds with the line drawn on lots 18, 19 and 21, and if that line is used to construct the seawall on lot 20, the seawalls on all four lots would run in a straight line. Although petitioners objected to the jurisdictional line as established by DER, they offered no credible evidence to show that it was improper or should have been placed at a different location. On January 9 and 15, 1991, Richard W. Pugh, a DER field environmental specialist, conducted an on-site inspection of the property and adjacent waters. He also was responsible for establishing the jurisdictional line. Finding numerous adverse environmental effects that would occur if the permit was granted as proposed, Pugh recommended that the application be denied. This recommendation was accepted by the deputy assistant secretary for DER's Southwest District Office and a notice of permit denial was accordingly issued. The bases for the denial were that (a) reasonable assurances had not been given by petitioners that water quality standards would be satisfied; (b) a cumulative adverse impact on the area would occur if the permit was approved, and (c) petitioners had failed to give reasonable assurances that the project was in the public interest. In order to prove entitlement to a permit, petitioners must give reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is in the public interest. In this respect, they offered no evidence to provide these assurances. This in itself supports a finding that no entitlement to a permit has been shown. Even so, the agency elected to present evidence on these issues after petitioners' case-in-chief was concluded. Findings of fact drawn from that evidence are set forth below. On April 6, 1992, a DER marine biologist, Dr. George H. Farrell, visited the site and conducted a biological evaluation of the composition of the benthic community in the intertidal and subtidal wetlands which would be impacted by the project. Based on his tests and observations, Dr. Farrell concluded that the project as proposed would have an adverse impact on marine and wildlife resources in the area. This is because the area has very good water quality, contains a high species diversity, performs an integral part in the food web, and serves a valuable nursery function for estuarine dependent juvenile fish species and a corridor function for migrating estuarine dependent fish species. This testimony was not challenged by petitioners and is hereby accepted. 1/ In granting or denying a water resource permit, DER is also required to consider certain statutory criteria found in Subsection 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, to determine whether a project is in the public interest. Although petitioners did not address these criteria, and thus failed to give any assurances that the project is in the public interest as required by law, testimony adduced by DER established that under petitioners' proposal, there will be a permanent loss of 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands due to filling activities. These wetlands are now used by fish and wildlife habitat and will no longer be available for use. In addition, the same area is used as a nursery area by a variety of fish species. As such, the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats and will adversely affect the fishing values and marine productivity in the vicinity. Second, because petitioners' proposed seawall will jut out from their neighbors' walls by as much as thirty feet, and the corners of the seawall in that configuration will result in erosion or shoaling depending on whether the waters are moving north or south, the project will cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Third, because the wall is being constructed of concrete and steel and is not temporary, the project will be of a permanent nature and thus have a permanent adverse impact. Finally, the ecological functions being performed in the immediate vicinity of the project are extremely important and the elimination of this zone will significantly impair those functions. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the project is not in the public interest. DER has a policy of not granting a permit if adverse cumulative impacts may be expected as a result of granting that permit. This policy is derived from a statute (s. 403.919, F.S.) requiring such impacts to be considered in the permitting process. In the case at bar, DER reasonably predicts that if it granted petitioners' application and authorized them to construct a seawall which jutted out up to thirty feet beyond their neighbors' walls, it would be obligated to grant similar permits to property owners on adjacent lots. Because petitioners' application will have an adverse impact on the water quality and is contrary to the public interest, the granting of additional permits would exacerbate those impacts. When an applicant proposes to fill (destroy) wetlands, and the applicant is unable to meet the public interest criteria set forth in subsection 403.918(2), DER shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. In this case, no mitigative measures were proposed by petitioners. At hearing, petitioners' representative asserted that in June 1991, the Cabinet (presumably sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) implemented a new "policy" which allows property owners to "recover and bulkhead" land previously lost due to avulsion and erosion. He further represented that such requests were to be filed within five years after the event (hurricane). Although petitioners were not the property owners when the event occurred, and more than five years has elapsed, in July 1991 petitioners filed a request with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reclaim and bulkhead their property and that request remained pending as of the date of hearing. A copy of the policy itself (or rule, if any, implementing the policy) was not made a part of this record. Even so, there was no evidence to establish that the granting of that application would require DER to grant a water resource permit, and DER takes the position that the request has no bearing on the issue of whether a water resource permit should be issued to petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioners' application for a water resource permit. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 27th day of April, 1992.
The Issue The preliminary issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (District) has jurisdiction over the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) filed by the Save the Manatee Club (Club)--i.e., whether the Petition was timely or, if not, if the District has jurisdiction under principles of equitable tolling or excusable neglect.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1999, Hidden Harbor filed with the District an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to construct and operate a surface water management system serving a proposed residential development in Lee County, Florida. In January 2001, the Club sent an email to the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) stating that it was concerned about Hidden Harbor's Application No. 991011- 13, as it might impact an area the Club would like to see as a manatee sanctuary, and was requesting copies of all FWCC documents relating to the permit. FWCC forwarded a copy of this email to the District on January 19, 2001. At the time, the Club's internet website gave the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. On April 9, 2001, the Club opened a Southwest Florida regional satellite office in Estero, Florida, and installed Laura Combs as Regional Coordinator in charge of that office. Responsibility for monitoring the Hidden Harbor application was delegated to Combs and the satellite office. Nonetheless, the Club's website continued to give the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. Combs's prior work experience with the Club was as assistant director of governmental relations in Tallahassee, Florida. In that position, she tracked legislation and actions of the Governor and Cabinet that were of interest to the Club. She had no role in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of governmental agencies. Combs's education included a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in urban and regional planning. She did not have specific legal education in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of state governmental agencies. On May 30, 2001, the District mailed to the Club at its Maitland office address a letter enclosing the "District's staff report covering the [Hidden Harbor] permit application [No. 991011-13]" and notifying the Club that the "recommendations as stated in the staff report [to grant the attached draft permit] will be presented to our Governing Board for consideration on June 14, 2001." The Club also was advised: Should you wish to object to the staff recommendation or file a petition, please provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers (refer to the attached "Notice of Rights") to [the District's deputy clerk]. The "Notice of Rights" addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. You are advised, however, to be prepared to defend your position regarding the permit application when it is considered by the Governing Board for final agency action, even if you agree with the staff recommendation, as the Governing Board may take final agency action which differs materially from the proposed agency action. The Notice of Rights stated that it was intended to conform to the requirement of Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, to "inform the recipient of any administrative hearing or judicial review that is available under this section [120.569(1)], s. 120.57 or s. 120.68." It cautioned: Please note that this Notice of Rights is not intended to provide legal advice. Not all the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. The Notice of Rights included a section entitled "Petition for Administrative Proceedings," which stated in pertinent part: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action. The affected person may request either a formal or an informal hearing, as set forth below. A point of entry into administrative proceedings is governed by Rules 28-106.111 and 40E-1.511, Fla. Admin. Code, (also published as an exception to the Uniform Rules of Procedure as Rule 40E-0.109), as set forth below . . .. Formal Administrative Hearing: If a genuine issue(s) of material fact is in dispute, the affected person seeking a formal hearing on a SFWMD decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. or for mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, Fla. Stat. within 21 days . . . of either written notice through mail or posting or publication of notice that the SFWMD has or intends to take final agency action. Pertinent to this case, the Notice of Rights included a verbatim reproduction of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.201, addressing required contents of a petition to initiate proceedings involving disputed issues of material fact. Rules 28-106.111, 40E-1.5111, and 40E-0.109 were not reproduced in the Notice of Rights. It is not clear from the evidence when the letter dated May 30, 2001, with attachments (the Notice Correspondence), was received in the Club's Maitland office. It was not date-stamped, as time-sensitive correspondence normally would be. Apparently, it was decided to forward the Notice Correspondence to the new satellite office in Estero for handling. Combs received the forwarded Notice Correspondence in early June 2001. This was the "first time [Combs] had been through this type of process." Combs reviewed the Notice Correspondence, eventually focusing on paragraph 1.a. of the "Petition for Administrative Proceedings" section of the Notice of Rights. She did not read any of the cited statutes and rules except for the rules reproduced verbatim as part of the Notice of Rights. Combs made conflicting statements regarding her understanding of the District's administrative process. However, it appears that she understood that the Club could file a petition within 21 days of receipt of the Notice Correspondence, or within 21 days of the "final" action of the District's Governing Board. She testified that, because the Notice Correspondence did not bear a date-stamp, it was unclear when the first 21-day time period began or ended; as a result, she decided to wait until the District's Governing Board took "final" action and file a petition within the second 21-day time period. Combs appeared at the meeting of the District's Governing Board on June 14, 2001, and spoke in opposition to issuance of the draft permit. Notwithstanding the Club's opposition, the Governing Board decided to issue the draft permit. Combs does not have authority to file petitions for administrative hearings on District actions. She consulted with her supervisor, Patricia Thompson, and they made a recommendation to the Club's governing board, which has ultimate authority to file petitions. Prior to Combs's involvement in the Hidden Harbor application, the Club had staff legal counsel, who could be consulted with respect to the filing of petitions and would advise the Club's governing board. However, the Club did not have staff legal counsel at the time of Combs's involvement and through the time of filing of this petition. (The Club now again has staff legal counsel.) Neither Combs nor Thompson saw any need to consult an attorney. It is not clear when the recommendation of Combs and Thompson was presented to the Club's governing board or when the Club's governing board made its decision to file the Petition. Neither Thompson nor any member of the Club's governing board (nor anyone else who may have participated in the decision to file the Petition) testified. Several (according to Combs, approximately 12) times after the District's Governing Board's meeting on June 14, 2001, Combs telephoned the District's offices to obtain a copy of the District's Governing Board's "final" action when it was reduced to writing. It is not clear from the evidence why several telephone calls were required. Eventually, on June 26, 2001, Combs received a copy of the permit issued to Hidden Harbor; there was no Notice of Rights attached. On July 17, 2001, the Club filed its Petition challenging the permit issued to Hidden Harbor. In the meantime, Hidden Harbor had obtained a final development order from Lee County in reliance on the Club's failure to petition for an administrative hearing. The Club is not a newcomer to Florida's administrative process. It can be officially recognized that the Club has participated in numerous proceedings before DOAH. At least one of those cases involved issues similar to those presented for determination in this case. See Conclusion of Law 32, infra.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ 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 6th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire Post Office Box 861118 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Martha M. Collins, Esquire 233 3rd Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3089 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) should grant a dredge and fill permit which has been requested by the Respondent, William R. Cullen (Applicant). That proposed permit has been opposed by the Petitioners (who will be referred to collectively as Petitioners for convenience sake).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency authorized to issue permits pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, William R. Cullen, filed an application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a slip marina on June 4, 1985. The original request was subsequently amended to seek approval for a forty-two slip commercial marina. The project site for the Applicant's marina is located at Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The site is within Buttonwood Sound, Florida Bay. The property is owned by Mr. Cullen and his family. All of the proposed improvements will be constructed on submerged lands or uplands owned or controlled by the Cullen family. The project site is located within a commercial area of Key Largo and contains frontage on both the water, Buttonwood Sound, and the highway, U.S. Highway 1. The project site has a basin which was created by the excavation of materials used for road construction from the shoreline and the installation of an L-shaped rock jetty which runs roughly perpendicular and then parallel to the shoreline. This jetty was installed during the late 1960s. The water depths within the basin range from 3 feet to approximately 14 feet. The water within the basin is subject to the same tidal considerations as the waters within Buttonwood Sound. There is no interruption of the flow of water in and out of the basin from those waters of the Sound. The water within this basin is within an Outstanding Florida Water as defined in Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant's plan calls for the excavation of appproximately 30,170 square feet of upland area and the dredging of the existing basin for approximately 18,460 dredged square feet. During the construction phases, the Applicant proposes to install turbidity curtains to limit the adverse effects expected during that time. The improvements are intended to be a permanent alteration to the basin design and will permanently modify the marine life habitat within that basin. The Applicant proposes to remove portions of the existing jetty to allow additional water to flow through the basin unimpeded by the jetty walls. The removal of the jetty walls will expedite the dilution and flushing of potential pollutants from the basin on a tidal frequency. That flushing is purported to assure that the water quality within the basin will not be diminished. However, such pollutants will be flushed into Buttonwood Sound. Stormwater accumulating on the upland project is to flow toward a lower upland area and should not to be dumped into the basin. The proposed marina is to have fueling facilities and the Applicant has agreed to design that system to limit inadvertent spillage. Further, as a condition of the permit, the Applicant has agreed to abide by the Department of Natural Resources' spill contingency plan requirements. The proposed marina is designed to provide portable sewage pumpout facilities for each slip. A permanent pumpout facilities will also be available. The Applicant seeks to attract boats in the range of 30 to 50 feet in length at this facility. While there are a number of other marinas in other areas of Key Largo which might accomodate that size boat, the marinas in the immediate vicinity of this project site are designed for smaller craft. The area within the basin consists of unvegetated bottom, submerged rip-rap, sea grasses, and hardbottom/algae communities--the predominant classifications being the latter two. The deeper hardbottom areas are to be filled and portions of the sea grasses will be dredged in order to configure the proposed docks. Additionally, other sea grass areas will be shaded, and thereby disturbed, by the construction of the docks. There are no historical or archaeological features relevant to the proposed site. The area has not been designated as a critical manatee area, however, manatees do frequent the project vicinity and have been observed feeding immediately adjacent to the basin. The permit proposed for this project requires a water quality monitoring plan. In addition to sampling for coliform, diesel by-products, oils, greases, detergents, oxygen, copper, lead and zinc, the plan requires sampling for aluminum, cadmium, and chromium. The monitoring stations are to be located both within the basin (2 stations) and outside the basin (2 stations). Liveaboards or others continuously docked at the marina will create additional shading which will disrupt and adversely affect the sea grass system. In order to provide access to the marina, the Applicant intends to dredge a channel in an area containing sea grass which is undisputedly within the Outstanding Florida Waters. The Department deemed the subject application was complete on February 23, 1988. The Department did not apply the Keys Rule found in Rule 17-312.400, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. The Department also did not apply the Mitigation Rule found in Rule 17-312.300, Florida Administrative Code, to this project. Michael Dentzau has personally reviewed and processed 250-300 dredge and fill permits during his tenure with the Department. Of those projects he has reviewed, he has not recommended that dense sea grass beds of the type located within this project site be dredged in order to construct a commercial marina. Phillip Edwards was responsible for executing the Intent to Issue in this case. In determining that this project had provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated, Mr. Edwards weighed the public interests criteria set forth in Section 403.918, Florida Statutes. Because he received letters purportedly from elected officials, Mr. Edwards presumed that the project was in the public interest. That assumption of fact has not been established by this record. According to Mr. Edwards, the adverse effects expected by this project could be adequately addressed by the permit conditions when weighed against the public interest in favor of the project. Since Mr. Edwards' assumptions as to the public interest in this project have not been established, his conclusion regarding the weight that interest should receive can be given little consideration. The project as proposed by the Applicant will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The project as proposed by the Applicant will adversely affect fishing or marine productivity within the basin since it will permanently alter the basin biologically by destroying sea grass. The increased boat traffic within the Sound will also detract from the present recreational uses enjoyed by area residents. According to Mr. Edwards, it is very unusual for the Department to issue a permit when sea grasses will be adversely affected. In the 17 years in which he has reviewed permits, only two occasions merited approval when the destruction of sea grasses to the extent in this case would result. Neither of those cases were factually similar to the case at issue. In those cases, however, elected officials advised Mr. Edwards, as he presumed they had here, that there was a public need for the permit. Increased boat traffic will result in increased manatee mortality due to collisions. In order to assure water quality will not be degraded within a marina, the project should have a short flushing time comparable to healthy natural embayments. In this case, the flushing proposed by the Applicant is dependent, in part, on winds which may be inconsistent or relatively minimal during the summer months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by the Applicant. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO CASE NOS. 89-3779 et seq. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS: The first three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted; the remainder is rejected as argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 4, it is accepted that the Department deemed the application complete on February 23, 1988; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument. With regard to paragraph 5, it is accepted that the habitat within the basin is the same as the habitat throughout Florida Bay and that the basin is not "enclosed" hydrologically; otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as argument or comment. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected as argument, conclusions of law, or comment. The paragraphs do not recite facts pertinent to this case. Paragraphs 13, 14, and the first two sentences of paragraph 15 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph IS is rejected as argument. The first two sentences of paragraph 16 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is rejected as argument. To the extent that paragraph 19 accurately describes Van de Kreeke's assessment of the report it is accepted; otherwise rejected as irrelevant, comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record. The report upon which comment is directed was not offered in this cause to prove its truth/accuracy. Paragraphs 20 through 22 are rejected as comment, argument, recitation of testimony or unsupported by the record-- see comment to paragraph 19 above. Paragraphs 23 through 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 and 28 are rejected as argument, comment, or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 29 and 30 are accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 32 and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as hearsay, irrelevant, or argument. Paragraph 35 is rejected as comment or argument. Paragraph 36 is accepted. Paragraphs 37 through 40 are rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 41 through 43 are accepted. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraph 45 is rejected as argument. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted but is comment. Paragraphs 48 and 49 are accepted. Paragraph 50 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 51 is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. The first three sentences of paragraph 52 are accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The first sentence and that portion of the second sentence of paragraph 53 that ends with the word "authenticity" is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument or conclusions of law. Paragraphs 54 and 55 are accepted. Paragraph 56 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. Paragraph 57 is rejected as hearsay. Paragraph 58 is rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 59 through 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 68 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 69 and 70 are accepted. Paragraph 71 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 72 is rejected as argument. The first sentence of paragraph 73 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 74 is accepted. Paragraphs 75 through 77 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 78 and 79 are accepted. Paragraph 80 is rejected as repetitive. With the inclusion of the words "and hardbottom and algae" paragraph 81 is accepted. Paragraph 82 is accepted. Paragraph 83 is accepted. Paragraph 84 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. 5l. Paragraphs 85 through 89 are accepted. With the substitution of the word "not" for the word "ever" in the last sentence of paragraph 90, it is accepted. Paragraphs 91 through 94 are accepted. Paragraph 95 is rejected as not supported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 96 through 100 are accepted. Paragraph 101 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 102 through 106 are rejected as argument, comment, or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The waters within the basin are of the same origin as they were prior to the creation of the jetty; no artificial body of water was created. With regard to paragraph 3 it is accepted that the jetty was constructed in the late 1960s. Paragraph 4 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 5 it is accepted that that is the applicants proposal no conclusion as to the likelihood of that is reached. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is accepted. Inevitably, however, spills will occur and must be considered as an adverse affect of the project. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as unsupported by competent evidence or contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted but is inadequate to offset the adverse affects to manatees. Paragraph 12 is accepted but is inadequate to limit the adverse affects to sea grass. Paragraph 13 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: Paragraphs 1 through the first sentence of paragraph 6 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 7 through Il are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 13 through the first sentence of paragraph 17 are accepted. The remainder of paragraph 17 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is rejected as unsupported by the record or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraphs 21 through 26 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 27 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence or unsupported by competent evidence. The first sentence of paragraph 28 is accepted, the remainder rejected as speculative, comment, or unsupported by the record. The first sentence of paragraph 29 is accepted, the remainder rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 32 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 33 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 34 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 35 is accepted; however, sea grasses not disturbed by dredging will still suffer adverse affects from shading and silting. Paragraph 36 is accepted but see comment to paragraph 35 above. Paragraph 37 is accepted. Paragraph 38 is accepted. Paragraph 39 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 44 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 45 is accepted but it should be noted that is not the extent of the proposal. Paragraph 46 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 47 is accepted. Paragraph 48 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Presnell Garvin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles Lee Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Robert Routa P.O. Box 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Linda McMullen McFARLAIN, STERNSTEIN, WILEY & CASSEDY, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 =================================================================
