Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner and his wife own residential property on the northwest side of Key Thargo in Monroe County, Florida. The property is situated on Florida Bay, a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. The area surrounding the Depkins' property is predominately residential, but there is some nearby commercial development, including a motel which is located on an adjoining parcel. A seawall runs the entire length of the shoreline of the Depkins' property. An L-shaped dock and a covered dock extend out into the water from opposite ends of the seawall forming a cove. The Depkins, who live in Key Thargo only a portion of the year, have a boat which they currently moor alongside the L-shaped dock in that area of the cove where the depth of the water is the greatest. The operation of the boat in this area of the cove has not caused any obvious damage to the bay bottom. Two of the Depkins' boats have sunk in stormy weather while moored alongside the L-shaped dock. Therefore, they now dock their boat at a marina when they are away from Key Largo. The Depkins propose to dredge a relatively small 600 square foot area of bay bottom, which they own, in the cove immediately waterward of the seawall. The depth of the water in this area of the cove now ranges from six inches to a foot and a half. The proposed dredging project would increase the depth of the water by two feet and thereby enable the Depkins to dock their boat alongside the seawall, a location they consider safer than the one they presently use for this purpose. The bay bottom which the Depkins propose to dredge consists primarily of bedrock which is irregularly shaped. Most of the bedrock is exposed, however, some of the depressions in the bedrock are filled with sediment. The remaining portion of the bay bottom is covered with sand which is inhabited by various living organisms. Approximately 50% to 75% of the proposed dredging site is covered with vegetation. The dominant vegetation is live algae attached to the exposed bedrock. Various species of algae are present, including red algae, which is the preferred habitat for juvenile lobster. A small portion of the site is covered by live turtlegrass. These few patches of turtlegrass are found in the depressions in the bedrock that are filled with sediment. Without sediment turtlegrass cannot grow. Algae and turtlegrass play significant roles in the production and sustenance of marine life. They have considerable value as a habitat and as a source of food for other living organisms. In addition, they help reduce turbidity and water pollution. If the Depkins dredged the proposed project site, all existing biota within the boundaries of the site would be eliminated and it is unlikely that the area would experience a complete or significant recovery. About twelve to fourteen years ago the Depkins dredged sand from the bay bottom near their L-shaped dock. Almost 30 years ago the owners of the motel situated on the parcel of land adjoining the Depkins' property undertook a similar sand dredging project in the bay. Neither of these prior dredging projects resulted in the long-term loss of any vegetation. If anything, the vegetation in these areas has increased. Unlike these previous projects, the project which the Depkins now propose to undertake involves the dredging of primarily bedrock, not sand. 1/ Revegetation typically does not occur following such dredging activity. It is the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, more likely than not, the Depkins' proposed dredging project, if permitted, will result in the permanent loss of vegetation and consequently will have a long-term adverse effect on ambient water quality, the conservation of fish and other aquatic wildlife, and marine productivity. Furthermore, if the project was completed and the Depkins were to begin docking their boat alongside the seawall, there would be an increase in conflict turbidity attributable to the movement of the boat in and out of this area of shallow water. 2/ No measures to mitigate these adverse consequences have been proposed or suggested. 3/ There are many other owners of bayfront property in the Florida Keys who, like the Depkins, are desirous of dredging an access channel to the landward extent of their property. The Department's current practice is to deny these property owners permission to engage in such dredging activity. Although in the past year the Department has processed only about a half dozen permit applications for dredging projects similar in size and scope to that proposed by the Depkins, there would likely be a substantial increase in the number of permit applications were the Department to announce, through its disposition of the Depkins' permit application, that it was henceforth allowing such projects. If the Depkins and these other property owners were permitted to undertake such projects, the resulting damage to the marine environment would be widespread. The impact would extend far beyond the relatively small area of bay bottom that the Depkins propose to dredge. The Department has proposed the following reasonable alternative to the proposed dredging project which would also provide the Depkins with improved access to their residence by boat: Extend the existing [L-shaped] dock offshore to a terminal platform located at a water depth of at least four (4) feet MLW and elevate the intermediate portion of the dock to at least five (5) feet above MHW to prevent boat mooring in shallower areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order denying the Depkins' permit application. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of August, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division f Administrative Hearings this of 8th day of August, 1989.
The Issue Whether Save the Manatee Club has standing in this proceeding? Whether the exemptions in paragraphs (3), (5) and (6) of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, (the Exemptions) are "invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority" as defined in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes? Whether the Exemptions violate the prohibitions and restrictions on agency rulemaking contained in the last four sentences of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Save the Manatee Club, Inc., is a not-for- profit corporation dedicated to protecting the manatee. Respondent, The Southwest Florida Water Management District, is one of five water management districts in the State of Florida. A public corporation created pursuant to Chapter 61- 691, Laws of Florida, the District's geographic boundaries encompass a number of counties or some part of them including the three counties on the shores of Tampa Bay: Hillsborough, Pinellas and Manatee. See Section 373.069(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Within this boundary, the District is generally charged with the protection of water resources and with the management and storage of surface waters of the State pursuant to Part IV, Section 373.403 et seq., Florida Statutes. Intervenor, South Shores Properties Partners, Ltd., is a limited partnership composed of a subsidiary of Tampa Electric Company (TECO) and another business organization, Shimberg Cross Company, referred to by its President Glen Cross as "actually SCSS" (Tr. 133), apparently an acronym for Shimberg Cross Company. Mr. Cross' company is the general partner in the South Shores partnership. South Shores was formed in anticipation of closing on a contract entered by Shimberg Cross to purchase a parcel of real estate in Hillsborough County. The closing proceeded in January of 1998. On January 23, 1998, eight days or so before the closing, South Shores was formed as "a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of Florida." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 15). It succeeded to the contract rights of Shimberg Cross and then, pursuant to the closing, became the owner of the real estate subject to the contract. South Shores hopes to sell the property to Atlantic Gulf Communities, an organization that will actually develop it. If the arrangement with Atlantic Gulf Communities is not consummated, South Shores will look for another developer or develop the property itself. No matter what party (if any) is the actual developer, South Shores, as the present owner, now seeks the benefit of the Exemptions in support of a District- issued conceptual permit for development of the parcel in Hillsborough County (the Parcel). The Parcel and Its Proposed Development The Parcel is 720 acres in southwestern Hillsborough County. South Shores proposes to use it for a multi-phase, mixed-use project. The development project is denominated "Apollo Beach aka (sic) Bay Side" (Petitioner's Exhibit 13) on the draft of the conceptual permit attached to the District's Notice of Proposed Agency Action. Atlantic Gulf Communities calls it "Harbor Bay". (Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 4). (It will be referred to in this order as Apollo Beach/Bay Side). If all goes as planned by South Shores, the Parcel's developer (whether South Shores, Atlantic Gulf Communities, or some other party) will be able to provide the residential portion of Apollo Beach/Bay Side with direct access by boat to Tampa Bay through an existing canal system on the Parcel. For now access to the bay is blocked by an earthen berm or "plug." With the plug in place, boat access to the bay from the canals can only be achieved by means of a boat lift. A lagoon is also part of South Shores' development plans for Apollo Beach/Bayside. Not yet excavated, the lagoon will allow residents to harbor boats close to their residences. If the lagoon is dug, a boat lift (different from the one necessary to allow boats to cross the plug if left in place) will be constructed to give the boats access to the canal system. With access to the canal system established, once the plug is removed, the boats will have unrestricted access to Tampa Bay. In the "Abstract" section of the conceptual permit proposed for issuance by the District, the project was described as follows: Apollo Beach (a.k.a. Bay Side) is a proposed multi-phase, mixed use development on approximately 720.0 acres in . . . Southwestern Hillsborough County. The project will include single-family and multi- family residential areas and commercial sites. The property is in close proximity to Tampa Bay, West of U.S. Highway 41 and immediately south of the existing Apollo Beach development. The site is presently undeveloped but does contain an existing manmade canal system that is tidally connected to Tampa Bay. The Applicant has demonstrated that the proposed project has an Environmental Resource Permit exemption pursuant to Chapters 40D-4.051(3)(5) and (6), F.A.C. and will only require Standard General Permits for Minor Surface Water Management Systems for the future construction in accordance with Chapter 40D-4.041(4), F.A.C. Because of this exemption, this Conceptual Permit will only review the storm water quality aspects of the project in accordance with 40D-301(2) and will not address storm water quantity issues or impacts to wetland/fish and wildlife habitats. The project will include the realignment of existing Leisley Road and the construction of a roadway system to serve the proposed residential and commercial areas. The project will also include the excavation of a "fresh water Lagoon" approximately 136 acres in size. Most of the proposed single-family residential lots will be constructed on the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. Surface water runoff from the upland portions of the project will be treated in 25 proposed ponds or isolated wetlands prior to discharge to the "Lagoon" or existing canal system. (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13.) The ultimate effects to manatees of the proposed development project, if completed, were described by Ms. Thompson, the Club's witness: A typical project such as this one will introduce a good number of powerboats into the system, in this case, Tampa Bay. And manatees are impacted by powerboats either through propeller injuries or through collision with the hull of a fast-moving boat and the results are either death or in some cases sublethal injuries that may have other consequences such as inability to reproduce, et cetera. . . . [T]he very same boats can affect manatee habitat by prop scarring, boats going over sea grass beds and destroying the grasses. They also, in shallow water, kick up . . . turbidity which can affect light attenuation reaching the sea grass beds. And then there are the water quality issues which have secondary impacts to the sea grass beds . . . (Tr. 96). The Exemptions preliminarily afforded South Shore by the District will allow the removal of the plug in the canal system. Because removal of the plug will facilitate access to Tampa Bay by power boats harbored in the lagoon, it is the issue about the development of the Parcel that most concerns the Club in its efforts to protect manatees in Tampa Bay and elsewhere. Standing of Save the Manatee Club (i). The Manatee The manatee is the "Florida State marine mammal." Section 370.12(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Designated an endangered species under both federal and state law, 50 CFR s. 17.11 and Rule 39-27.003, Florida Administrative Code, the manatee is protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and by the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. In Florida, the manatee enjoys, too, the protection of the Florida Endangered Species Act and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. The State of Florida has been declared to be "a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee." Id. The Club's Purpose and Activities The Club's primary purpose is to protect the manatee and its habitat through public awareness, research support and advocacy. Long active in efforts to protect the manatee, the Club has achieved special status in manatee protection in Florida. In 1996, it was the recipient of a resolution by the Florida Legislature's House of Representative recognizing its endeavors on behalf of the manatee. The Club has been designated a member of the Manatee Technical Advisory Council provided by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. See sub-sections (2)(p) and (4)(a) of section 370.12(2)(p) and (4)(a), Florida Statutes. The Department of Environmental Protection annually solicits recommendations from the Club regarding the use of Save the Manatee Trust Fund monies. In furtherance of its efforts, the Club has frequently participated before the Division of Administrative Hearings in administrative litigation involving manatees and manatee habitat on behalf of itself and its members. (iii). The Club's Membership The Club has approximately 40,000 members. The number of individual persons who are members of the Club, however, is far in excess of this number because many members are groups that receive membership at discounted fees. For example, a family may be one member or, as is quite common, an entire elementary school classroom may be one member. One-quarter of the Club's membership resides in Florida. Approximately 2,200 of the members are on the west coast of Florida with 439 in Hillsborough County, 584 in Pinellas and 165 in Manatee. The total number of members is therefore about 1,188 in the three counties whose shores are washed by Tampa Bay. (iv). Tampa Bay Tampa Bay is "prime essential manatee habitat." (Tr. 65). At least two factors make this so: the Bay's sea grass beds (manatee feeding areas) and warm water sources, particularly in winter, three of which are "power plant effluence." (Tr. 77). Not surprisingly, therefore, the Club has funded long- term research on the manatee in Tampa Bay. It has "provided about ten years of financial support for aerial surveys to count manatees in Tampa Bay and determine their distribution and the health of the sea grass beds . . ." (Tr. 75), a research project which finished last year. This research has contributed to other manatee research in the Bay leading the Club's witness at hearing to conclude, "[t]here's no other place in the state of Florida that has as long a term, as comprehensive a [manatee] database as Tampa Bay." (Tr. 76). Other activities in Tampa Bay conducted by the Club include the placement of manatee awareness signs. And the Club's staff biologist sits on the Tampa Bay Manatee Awareness Coalition established by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. In sum, the quality of manatee habitat in Tampa Bay is enough to make it especially important to the Club. But, its importance to the Club takes on added significance because it is the site of one of only three adoption programs the Club sponsors in Florida. The Tampa Bay Adoption Program The Tampa Bay Adopt-a-Manatee Program was established in April of 1999. The six manatees subject to the Tampa Bay Manatee Adoption Program (as of October 7, 1999) have been adopted by 1,229 members, 284 of which have been schools. (Petitioner's Exhibit 9). Those adopting receive a photo of the manatee, a biography, a scar pattern sheet, and a map showing their manatees' favorite habitat areas along the west coast of Florida. Of the six "Tampa Bay Adoption" program manatees, five have been seen in Tampa Bay and one south of Tampa Bay in the Marco Island area. Of the five seen in the bay, four "winter at the warm water discharge area of Tampa Electric Company's power plant" (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, Tr. 67) where they can be observed by members of the Club and the Tampa Bay adoption program as well as by the public. The TECO Power Plant The TECO power plant area is the major warm water refuge for manatees known to frequent Tampa Bay, particularly during the winter. The waters near the plant have been observed to be the host of more than 100 manatees at one time, following the movement of cold fronts through the area. The plant has a manatee-viewing center, one of the two principal places in the state for viewing manatees in the wild. The Club's membership handbook gives detailed information about how to see manatees at the TECO viewing center. During the winter months, the Club frequently directs its members to the TECO viewing center. Precisely how many individuals, either as members of the Club through a group membership or as members, themselves, actually have viewed manatees at the TECO viewing center or elsewhere in Tampa Bay was not established. Nor was any competent estimate made of how many might visit the TECO viewing center in the future. The viewing center and the power plant are in the vicinity of Apollo Beach/Bay Side, the development project South Shores seeks to have approved for an Environmental Resource Permit (the ERP). The SWFWMD ERP Program Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, governs water resources in the state and sets out the powers and duties of the water management districts, including their permitting powers. Part IV of the chapter covers the management and storage of surface waters. According to SWFWMD rules, "'Environmental Resource Permit' means a conceptual, individual, or general permit for a surface water management system issued pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes." Rule 40D-4.021, Florida Administrative Code. The permit issued to South Shores in this case through the application of the challenged Exemptions, is a conceptual Environmental Resource Permit. See Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13 and Rule 40D-4.021(2), Florida Administrative Code. The conceptual permit preliminarily issued South Shores is one that was reviewed by the Club's staff, just as it reviews many permit applications for potential effects to manatees. Because of use of the Exemptions as proposed by the District to South Shores, however, any review the Club conducted to assure that the permit met all general permitting criteria was of no use. Much of those criteria were not applied by the District to the application. If the Exemptions were not available to South Shores, the District would have to employ ERP permitting criteria to the surface water management activities associated with the development project, including removal of the plug, lagoon construction, and boat lift installation. The Exemptions, therefore, keep the Club from participating in what otherwise would be the process for the District's administrative decision on the application of those criteria. In sum, the Exemptions preempt the Club's participation in the state mechanism provided by ERP permitting criteria for assessing, inter alia, threats to the manatee and its habitat from harms associated with the proposed development project. The District recognized this effect of the permit in the draft of the permit. The draft states: "Because of this Exemption, this Conceptual Permit will . . . not address . . . impacts to . . . wildlife habitat." (Petitioner's Exhibit no. 13). The Exemptions, therefore, prevent the Club from carrying out functions useful to protection of manatee habitat, that is, participation in the District's application of wildlife habitat protection criteria. The non-application by the District of permit criteria related to wildlife habitat protection and the Club's inability to assure itself that the criteria are correctly applied poses the danger that manatee habitat will be lost, diminished or damaged. If the Club is ultimately proved right in its assertion that the manatee and its habitat will be damaged by the South Shores development without application of permitting criteria related to wildlife habitat, then the approved application increases the threat that Club members will encounter greater difficulty in observing, studying and enjoying manatees in the wild and in Tampa Bay in particular. Standing of South Shores to Intervene The District has no opposition to South Shores' intervention. As for the Club's position with regard to South Shores intervention, the Club stipulated to South Shores' standing to intervene in a notice filed with its proposed order. South Shores benefits, moreover, from the application of the Exemptions to its proposed project. In light of not having to show compliance with permitting criteria otherwise applicable, South Shores will escape some permitting costs and therefore, enjoys economic benefit. Furthermore, by allowing South Shores to avoid the requirements of compliance with ERP permitting criteria, the Exemptions facilitate fulfillment of the obligation of South Shores to obtain a permit to develop. The District's Rule-making Authority The District governing board has been granted general authority by the Legislature to adopt rules to implement the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972: The governing board of the district is authorized to adopt rules . . . to implement the provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. The Legislature has framed this authority in relationship to the District's power to administer the Chapter and its Part IV: In administering the provisions of this chapter the governing board has authority to adopt rules . . . to implement provisions of law conferring powers or duties upon it. Section 373.113, Florida Statutes. In another provision in Chapter 373, the district has been given rule-making authority that exceeds the authority to implement specific provisions granted typically to most administrative agencies in Florida. This authority is broad indeed. Tied to water use in general, it is bound only by unspecified conditions as warranted: . . . governing boards, . . . may: Adopt rules . . . affecting the use of water, as conditions warrant, . . . Section 373.171, Florida Statutes. The Exemptions; Specific Authority and Laws Implemented The Exemptions are as follows: 40D-4.051 Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from [ERP] permitting under this chapter: * * * (3) Any project, work or activity which has received all governmental approvals necessary to begin construction and is under construction prior to October 1, 1984. *(4) Any project, work or activity which received a surface water management permit from the District prior to October 1, 1984. * * * Any phased or long term buildout project, including a development of regional impact, planned unit development, development with a master plan or master site plan, or similar project, which has received local or regional approval prior to October 1, 1984, if: The approval process requires a specific site plan and provides for a master drainage plan approved prior to the issuance of a building permit, and The Developer has notified the District of its intention to rely upon this exemption prior to April 1, 1985. Projects exempt under this subsection shall continue to be subject to the District's surface water management rules in effect prior to October 1, 1984. As specific authority, the Rule containing the Exemptions references 373.044, 373.113, 373.149, 373.171, and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. For "Law Implemented", the Rule lists Sections 373.406, 373.413 and 373.414(9), Florida Statutes. Section 373.414(9) is cited by the Rule both as specific authority and as one of the laws implemented. The first of the statutory provisions cited by the Rule as a law implemented is Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. It reads: 373.406 Exemptions.- The following exemptions shall apply: Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any natural person to capture, discharge, and use water for purposes permitted by law. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to affect the right of any person engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture to alter the topography of any tract of land for purposes consistent with the practice of such occupation. However, such alteration may not be for the sole or predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters. Nothing herein, or in any rule, regulation, or order adopted pursuant hereto, shall be construed to be applicable to construction, operation, or maintenance of any agricultural closed system. However, part II of this chapter shall be applicable as to the taking and discharging of water for filling, replenishing, and maintaining the water level in any such agricultural closed system. This subsection shall not be construed to eliminate the necessity to meet generally accepted engineering practices for construction, operation, and maintenance of dams, dikes, or levees. All rights and restrictions set forth in this section shall be enforced by the governing board or the Department of Environmental Protection or its successor agency, and nothing contained herein shall be construed to establish a basis for a cause of action for private litigants. The department or the governing board may by rule establish general permits for stormwater management systems which have, either singularly or cumulatively, minimal environmental impact. The department or the governing board also may establish by rule exemptions or general permits that implement interagency agreements entered into pursuant to s. 373.046, s. 378.202, s. 378.205, or s. 378.402. Any district or the department may exempt from regulation under this part those activities that the district or department determines will have only minimal or insignificant individual or cumulative adverse impacts on the water resources of the district. The district and the department are authorized to determine, on a case-by- case basis, whether a specific activity comes within this exemption. Requests to qualify for this exemption shall be submitted in writing to the district or department, and such activities shall not be commenced without a written determination from the district or department confirming that the activity qualifies for the exemption. Nothing in this part, or in any rule or order adopted under this part, may be construed to require a permit for mining activities for which an operator receives a life-of-the-mine permit under s. 378.901. Certified aquaculture activities which apply appropriate best management practices adopted pursuant to s. 597.004 are exempt from this part. For the most part, this section sets out general classes of exemptions. And it allows the District to consider whether an activity comes within an exemption on a "case-by-case" basis. See Section 373.406(6), Florida Statutes. But, none of these "exemptions" appear to have anything to do with the grandfather protections provided by the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. See paragraphs 93-96, below. Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, in pertinent part, reads: (1) Except for the exemptions set forth herein, the governing board or the department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the construction or alteration of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. The department or the governing board may delineate areas within the district wherein permits may be required. Other than to make reference in subsection (1)to the existence of exemptions under Part IV of Chapter 373: "Except for the exemptions set forth herein . . .", Section 373.413 does not deal at all with exemptions. Certainly, it does not make reference with any specificity to the subject matter of the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding. Cited both as "specific authority" and "law implemented" is paragraph (9) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Unlike Sections 373.406 and 373.413, it has a connection to the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding as is seen from perusal of the underscored language, below: (9) The department and the governing boards, on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provision of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. Such rules shall seek to achieve a statewide, coordinated and consistent permitting approach to activities regulated under this part. Variations in permitting criteria in the rules of individual water management districts or the department shall only be provided to address differing physical or natural characteristics. Such rules adopted pursuant to this subsection shall include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(29) and may include the special criteria adopted pursuant to s. 403.061(35). Such rules shall include a provision requiring that a notice of intent to deny or a permit denial based upon this section shall contain an explanation of the reasons for such denial and an explanation, in general terms, of what changes, if any, are necessary to address such reasons for denial. Such rules may establish exemptions and general permits, if such exemptions and general permits do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively . . . (emphasis supplied.) History of the Exemptions The Exemptions have been adopted twice and amended several times. One of the amendments and the second adoption followed omnibus legislation in the environmental permitting arena: the amendment in the wake of the passage of the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, and the second adoption in the aftermath of the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (i). Amendment after the Henderson Act The Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, (the "Henderson Act", later codified as Part VII of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes) was enacted through Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida. Approved by the Governor on June 1, 1984 and filed in the Office of the Secretary of State on the same day, (see Laws of Florida, 1984, General Acts, Vol.1, Part One, p. 224) the Act had an effective date of October 1, 1984. The Henderson Act does not amend any provision in Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the part of the Water Resources Act which delineates water management district authority over the program for permitting related to the management and storage of surface waters ("MSSW"). Nonetheless, between the adoption of the Henderson Act and its effective date, the District amended and adopted rules in Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40 of the Florida Administrative Code because of the Act's passage. Rule 40D-4.011 set out the policy for the amendments and adoptions: (2) The rules in this chapter implement the comprehensive surface water management permit system contemplated in part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. As a result of the passage of Chapter 84-79, Laws of Florida, the Warren G. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984, the District has adopted the rules in this Chapter and Chapter 40D-40 to ensure continued protection of the water resources of the District including wetlands and other natural resources. (Exhibit OR 4, See the page containing paragraph (2) of Rule 40D- 4.011 in the exhibit.) /1 Exhibit OR 4, a document officially recognized during this proceeding, is denominated "SWFWMD's Rule Amendment No. 116." The exhibit contains a letter on SWFWMD letterhead, signed by Dianne M. Lee for "J. Edward Curren, Attorney - Regulation" dated September 5, 1984. Under cover of the letter is a rule package filed by the District with the Secretary of State on September 11, 1984. Included in the package is the newly amended Rule 40D-4.051. The amended 40D-4.051 contains subparagraphs (3), (5) and (6), the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. They are worded precisely as they remain worded today. Consistent with the policy expressed in Rule 40D-4.011, Florida Administrative Code as filed in September of 1984, the effective date of the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions was the effective date of the Henderson Act: October 1, 1984. The Exemptions contained in the amendment filed in September of 1984 are "grandfather provisions." The first two are designed to protect certain projects, work or activities from the requirements of the Henderson Act if they had governmental approvals on October 1, 1984. The third is designed to protect from the Act "phased or long term buildout project[s]" that meet certain requirements, among them receipt of governmental approvals by October 1, 1984. At the time of the 1984 amendments, the Rule cited to Sections 373.044, 373.113, 373.149 and 373.171 for "Specific Authority," that is, the statutory source for the district's authority to make rules. For "Law Implemented" the Rule cited to Section 373.406, Florida Statutes. At that time, Section 373.406 contained only four subsections. These four are worded substantially the same as the first four subsections of the section today. Although Section 373.406 was the only law implemented by the Rule in 1984, the section is neither mentioned in nor part of the Henderson Act. The section, itself, does not make mention of the Henderson Act or of protection from it based on government approvals obtained by October 1, 1984. Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in its form both immediately before and after the Henderson Act provided exemptions that appear to have nothing to do with the Exemptions challenged in this proceeding. The only connection between Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, in 1984 and the Exemptions at issue in this proceeding when amended into the Rule in 1984 appears to be the use of the term "exemptions." The exemptions set out in the Section 373.406, Florida Statutes, as it existed in 1984, are not related to grandfather protection from the effects the Henderson Act had on the District's permitting considerations. Following the amendment to the Rule containing the Exemptions, the Rule was amended further. It was amended on October 1, 1986, March 1, 1988, and January 24, 1990. None of these amendments appear to have affected the Exemptions under consideration in this proceeding. The Rule became the subject of rule promulgation by the District again, however, as a result of a second omnibus act of the Legislature in the environmental permitting arena, the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993. (ii). The Reorganization Act of 1993 Nine years after the passage of the Henderson Act, the Legislature enacted the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act of 1993 (the "Reorganization Act"). Passed as Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, the Session Law declares its underlying policy: Declaration of Policy.-- The protection, preservation, and restoration of air, water, and other natural resources of this state are vital to the social and economic well-being and the quality of life of the citizens of this state and visitors to this state. It is the policy of the Legislature: To develop a consistent state policy for the protection and management of the environment and natural resources. To provide efficient governmental services to the public. To protect the functions of entire ecological systems through enhanced co- ordination of public land acquisition, regulatory, and planning programs. To maintain and enhance the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the environmental agencies of the state in the most efficient and effective manner. To streamline governmental services, providing for delivery of such services to the public in a timely, cost-efficient manner. Section 2., Ch. 93-213, Laws of Florida. The Reorganization Act carried out this policy in a number of ways. Among these, it merged the Departments of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Natural Resources into the Department of Environmental Protection. In so doing and at the same time, it incorporated DER's dredge and fill permitting program instituted by the Henderson Act into the programs of the water management districts for the Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW). The permitting program that resulted from the consolidation of DER's dredge and fill permitting program with the District's MSSW permitting program is what has been referred to in this order as the Environmental Resource Permitting or ERP program. With regard to rules under the new ERP program, the Reorganization Act amended Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. Two sentences in subsection (9) of the amended section bear repeating: The department and the governing boards [of the water management districts], on or before July 1, 1994, shall adopt rules to incorporate the provisions of this section, relying primarily on the existing rules of the department and the water management districts, into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters. * * * Such rules may establish exemptions . . . if such exemptions . . . do not allow significant adverse impacts to occur individually or cumulatively. . . . As discussed earlier in this order, the Henderson Act did not directly create exemptions in the District's MSSW permitting program. Nonetheless, the District through the Exemptions of Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code, provided "grandfather" protections in the wake of the Act effective October 1, 1984. Whereas grandfather concerns were raised in front of the District after the Henderson Act, grandfather concerns and concerns about other situation that should be entitled to exemptions were raised to the Legislature during the advent of the Reorganization Act. These concerns were addressed in the Florida Environmental Reorganization Act, itself. The Act provided specific exemptions that were self- executing. Included were ones providing grandfather protection for certain activities approved under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, (DER's dredge and fill program) from imposition of new ERP permitting criteria expected to be promulgated in the wake of the Reorganization Act. The are contained in subsections (11) through (16) of Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. None of these exemptions make reference to the Exemptions at issue in this case. Of these provisions, only one addresses activities subject to rules adopted pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373 prior to the anticipated ERP permitting criteria: An application under this part for dredging and filling or other activity, which is submitted and complete prior to the effective date of [the anticipated ERP rules] shall be reviewed under the rules adopted pursuant to this part [including the Exemptions in Rule 40D-4.051] and part VIII of chapter 403 in existence prior to the effective date of the [anticipated ERP rules] and shall be acted upon by the agency which received the application, unless the applicant elects to have such activities reviewed under the [anticipated ERP rules]. Chapter 93-213, Section 30, p. 2149 of Laws of Florida, 1993, General Acts, Vol. 1, Part Two, now Section 373.414(14), Florida Statutes. 2/ Rule Activity in 1995 In observance of the mandate in the first section of Section 373.414(9), Florida Statutes, the District undertook adoption of rules "to incorporate the provisions of [Section 373.414] . . . into the rules governing the management and storage of surface waters." These rules were the ERP rules anticipated by the Reorganization Act. They included the rules necessary for the District to administer under its ERP program its newfound authority over much of the dredge and fill permitting program formerly administered by DER and now consolidated with its permitting authority in its MSSW rules. Among the rules passed under the authority of the Reorganization Act's Section 373.414(9) is Rule 40D-4.051, the Rule containing the Exemptions subject to this proceeding. Filed with the Secretary of State on September 13, 1995, the adoption package for the new readopted states the following, in pertinent part: 40D-4.051 Exemptions The following activities are exempt from permitting under this chapter [Individual ERPs]: (1) - (7) - No change. (Exhibit OR 6, p. 14). The result of this adoption is that the Exemptions became part of the District's ERP Rules. They now apply to both the MSSW authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, which existed prior to the Reorganization Act, and, in a consolidated fashion, the District's authority conferred by the Reorganization Act to regulate certain dredge and fill activity formerly regulated by DER.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Since 1915, the Leisey family has owned or controlled some 710 acres adjacent to Little Cockroach Bay in Hillsborough County. Leisey Shellpit, Inc. now proposes to develop some 55 acres of that property, which has in the past been utilized for row crops, citrus, timbering and mining. The proposed development is to include an 870-boat marina, of which approximately half would be dry storage, located on a 16-acre lake adjacent to the waters of Little Cockroach Bay. The 16-acre lake was created through shell mining operations, and other lakes are to be part of the total project. Leisey proposes to widen and deepen existing mosquito ditches and existing canals or channels to provide access from the proposed marina to Cockroach Bay and the open waters of Tampa Bay. Adjacent to the marina lake, the proposed development also includes a flushing channel, a 250-seat restaurant, a 24-unit resort hotel or motel, a museum, fueling facilities with upland gas storage, an 8-boat ramp launching area, a convenience store, a boat repair facility, a dockmaster's office and 688 parking spaces. The total development further includes a 114-unit apartment complex and 23 single-family residential lots on other lakes nearby the marina lake, a stormwater and agricultural runoff system and a sewage treatment plant. Leisey proposes to widen and convert an existing mosquito ditch between the marina lake and Little Cockroach Bay to a flushing channel in order to accomplish a tidal flushing action in the marina lake. In order to provide access for boats, Leisey proposes to widen and dredge two parallel existing mosquito ditches running southwesterly from the marina lake and an existing channel running east-west along Cockroach Bay Road and extending into the Cockroach Bay channel. These access channels will be dredged to provide a 50- foot wide bottom in most areas with a minus 6 N.O.S. elevation for the bottom of the channels. In areas which do not need dredging, there exists a gentle slope of 6:1. Where excavation is to occur, there will be a 3:1 slope. The total amount of dredging contemplated is 175,000 cubic feet. The majority of the spoil material will be pumped through a polyethelene pipe to the marina lake until that lake is contoured to desired elevations. Secondary spoil sites for any surplus materials are available in lakes owned or controlled by the Leisey family. Depending upon economic and environmental considerations, Leisey intends to use a combination of dredging methods, including suction dredging, dragline dredging, and use of a cutter head dredge. In order to control turbidity, petitioner will utilize earth barricades, silt screens and double silt screens depending upon the type of dredging performed in various locations. The shellpit which is proposed to become the marina lake is not a state water at this time. It will become a state water at the time it is connected to other state waters by the proposed access channels and flushing channel. It would be classified as a Class III water body. The Cockroach Bay Channel which Leisey proposes to widen and dredge has not been dredged in the past. The applicant was unable to predict the extent to which future maintenance dredging would be required if it is widened and deepened to provide access to the proposed marina. The water body areas adjacent to the proposed marina, particularly Cockroach Bay, are presently classified by the Department of Natural Resources as approved for shellfish harvesting, and have been so classified since at least 1975. However, since December 10, 1984, the area has been temporarily closed for shellfish, oyster, clam and mussel harvesting. When a marina is constructed, it is the policy of the Department of Natural Resources to reclassify the area within the marina proper as prohibited for shellfish harvesting and to establish a buffer zone outward from the marina which also would be prohibited for the harvesting of shellfish. The size of the buffer zone is dependent upon the quality, design, hydrography and usage of the marina. The DNR considers a worst-case scenario in terms of potential biological contamination when establishing the size of the buffer zone. In the case of the potential marina, the size of the buffer zone would be hundreds, thousands of yards. It is the policy of the DER to deny a request for a variance if the proposed project would result in DNR closing an area previously approved for shellfish harvesting. Waters approved for shellfish harvesting are classified by DER as Class II waters. Aquatic preserves are designated by the State for the preservation or enhancement of the biological, aesthetic and scientific values of those areas. The boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve are described by statute in Section 258.391, Florida Statutes, and such description also defines the boundaries of the Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) classification of the DER. Due to cost considerations, the applicant did not perform a mean high water line survey to demonstrate the proper boundaries of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve and the corresponding OFW boundaries. The statutory legal description of the Aquatic Preserve was derived from a lease given to the State by the Tampa Port Authority, to which the submerged lands in Hillsborough County had previously been dedicated. That description continuously makes reference to mean high water lines in Tampa Bay and the Little Manatee River. The applicant's professional land surveyor was of the opinion that the waters easterly of the islands offshore the proposed marina, including Little Cockroach Bay, are not a part of the Aquatic Preserve, and thus are not a part of the OFW designation. It was this witness's opinion that the only portion of the project to occur within the Aquatic Preserve is approximately 600 feet of the existing Cockroach Bay Channel to be dredged as an access channel. The DER's expert witness was of the opinion that the statutory legal description does include the waters of Little Cockroach Bay. The intervenors presented testimony that, at the time the description of the Preserve was developed, the Tampa Port Authority did not consider Little Cockroach Bay as a separate water body and intended it to be part of the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. The Preserve has been managed by the DNR as including the area of Little Cockroach Bay. The proposed marina lake is designed to be four feet deep at its edges and six feet deep In the central portion. An existing mosquito ditch is to be widened to provide a source of new water from Little Cockroach Bay on the incoming tide. At the conclusion of the flood tide, a computer-controlled gate will close, forcing water to exit through the access channels during the ebb tide. A flow directing wall will be installed for the purpose of promoting adequate water exchange in all portions of the marina. Petitioner's plans for the operation of the marina include a prohibition against live-aboards and a `no-head" policy. Fueling at the upland fuel pumps will be encouraged by a price differential. The upland fuel storage tanks are to be protected by barriers and earthen berms. The water side fueling facility is to be protected by a containment boom. In the event of a fuel spill, it is contemplated that the entire marina can be sealed off from outside waters by closing the flushing gates and by closing a turbidity curtain across the access channel. It is contemplated that a dockmaster or assistant will be on-site at the marina to ensure compliance with all rules and to handle any emergencies that may arise. In order to determine the viability of a given basin for use as a marina, it is appropriate to consider the flushing time or residence time -- the time necessary for water in a given system to exchange with waters in adjacent areas outside the system. In marinas that are tidally Influenced, flushing will, in large part, be a function of the tidal forcing. Utilizing a one-dimensional computer model, and assuming that no mixing occurs when water from the flushing channel enters the basin, the applicant predicts that the flushing or residence time of the basin will be approximately 4.2 days assuming a low tide, 5.6 days assuming a mid-tide volume, and 6.6 days assuming a high tide. If one were to assume a completely mixed system, the flushing time would be 8.6 days assuming a low tide, 11.4 days assuming a mid-tide volume, and 14 days assuming a high tide. Over a period of time, the tide level in the proposed basin will actually be represented by the range between high tide and low tide. Rather than assuming a low tide condition, it would be more accurate to use a tidally averaged or mid-tide volume of water. A no-mixing assumption does not take into account dead-water zones within a water basin. In reality, a marina would have some dead zones through the existence of the obstacle effect of objects such as boat hulls. Also, in this proposed marina, the area behind the deflection wall or flow directing wall would be outside the direct flow path and, thus, "dead" water. A one-dimensional model is typically utilized to predict the flushing times of narrow rivers or canals, as it represents tidal flow in only one direction in a straight line. A more appropriate model to utilize in a circular boat marina is a two-dimensional model. The tidal flushing of water bodies whose flow patterns are non-linear are more appropriately predicted by use of a two-dimensional model. The applicant failed to produce competent substantial evidence that the anti-fouling paints used on boats, as well as oils and greases typically produced by boats, would not violate Class III water quality standards in the marina lake and the access channels. It was also not demonstrated that Class III water standards for collform bacteria would be met. These factors are particularly important due to the potential for back flow which could cause marina waters to run back through the flushing canal into Little Cockroach Bay. Also, extreme weather events can force large volumes of water with high concentrations of contaminants out into Tampa Bay. While petitioner's water quality witnesses took samples and reviewed some of the available data base for the area dating back to 1950, the ambient water quality of Cockroach Bay for the period March 1, 1978, to March 1, 1979, was not established. The Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission did have monitoring stations in the vicinity of this project during 1978 and 1979. Also, while the petitioner's experts did consider the effects of dredging during construction, the effects of turbidity from future boat traffic were not established. There are currently existing water quality violations with respect to dissolved oxygen in the Class II and Class III waters associated with the proposed project. The more accelerated export of detridal material, as well as the introduction of oils and greases from boats, will cause increased DO violations. The resuspension of fine materials and sediments resulting from dredging and boat traffic in the channels could further lower oxygen demands. The widening and dredging of the access channels proposed by the petitioner will result in the immediate removal of approximately 0.3 acres of seagrasses and about 3.09 acres of mangroves. Most of the seagrass impacts would occur at the western mouth of the Cockroach Bay access channel. Many of the mangroves to be removed are mature, healthy fifteen to twenty- foot trees. Secondary losses of seagrasses and mangroves can be expected from the turbulance and erosion caused by wakes and from propeller damages associated with greatly increased boat traffic in the area. Petitioner proposes to mitigate these secondary losses by providing channel markers, speed limit signs and "no wake" signs in the channel. With respect to the immediate losses, petitioner proposes to replace the 0.3 acres of seagrasses with 0.3 acres of new plantings in the proposed flushing canal. It is suggested that the marina will naturally be vegetated by seagrasses. Petitioner also offers as mitigation for the loss of seagrasses in the dredged access channels the fact that over one acre of hard substrate in the form of pilings and seawalls will be constructed at the marina. It is suggested that this acre would become colonized by sessile attached animals, such as barnacles and oysters, and by red algae, and that this assemblage would become a source of primary productivity and provide a filtering benefit similar in function to grass beds. With respect to mangrove mitigation, petitioner intends to plant six-foot high mangrove trees along the perimeter of the proposed marina lake and along portions of the access channel, and to scrape down an area near the north lake to provide suitable elevations for mangroves and higher marsh vegetation. In total, petitioner plans to replace the 3.09 acres of lost mangroves with 4.25 acres of replanted mangroves. Approximately 80% of the seagrasses in Tampa Bay have been destroyed by development. A significant fraction of the remaining seagrasses are located in the Cockroach Bay area. Seagrass mitigation is highly experimental. No successful seagrass mitigation has occurred in Tampa Bay. The success of replanting seagrasses in the proposed flushing canal is particularly suspect due to scouring, flushing velocities and the potential for poor water quality in the event of a reverse flow from the marina into the flushing channel. The increased salinity in the marina lake could adversely affect seagrasses located there. Propeller cuts are already apparent in Cockroach Bay, as boaters cross the seagrass meadows in order to reach prime fishing areas. An increased amount of boat traffic in the area could be expected to exacerbate such occurences. While mangrove replantings have achieved more success, the areas to be destroyed are mature large systems which provide a considerable detridal feeding base for the animals associated with them, as well as cover for animals, fish and invertebrates that utilize those areas. Many of the types of animals and fish that utilize mangrove areas, as well as seagrass areas, are attached organisms that do not migrate. Mangroves require a stable substrate. The remaining mangrove system in the access channels could change with increased boat traffic, especially in those areas where the slopes are to be reduced to 3:1. The DER does not yet have a promulgated rule regarding mitigation. Its present policy is to evaluate mitigation plans on a case-by-case, site- specific basis. No specific ratio between the impacted area and the mitigated area is required. Instead, it is the policy of DER to analyze various factors, such as the present condition of the area being dredged or filled in terms of the age of the vegetation and the functions being served; proximity of the area to special areas such as Class II waters or an OFW; proximity between the areas impacted and the area planned for mitigation; and past examples of success of the mitigation proposed. DER considers mitigation in relationship to the public interest review standards, and does not consider mitigation when reviewing water quality standards. It is the present policy of the DER to either avoid adverse impacts to healthy seagrasses or to require a lot of" mitigation for those areas which will be lost if the project proceeds. This policy is due to the lack of demonstrated success in replanting or recreating new seagrass communities. While the planting and growing of mangroves has been more successful, it is the policy of the DER to recognize that there is a time lag between the planting and successful growing. When a large, healthy mangrove system is being destroyed and replaced by younger, smaller trees, DER generally requires more than a one- to-one ratio in mitigation. It is the policy of DER to consider the creation of a barnacle habitat as mitigation only when the dredging or filling project itself impacts that type of habitat. Petitioner conducted studies which led to the conclusion that the construction and operation of the proposed project would not reduce the biological integrity or diversity by more than 25 percent. However, given the removal of seagrass meadows and the adverse effects from greatly increased numbers of boats in the area, the applicant did not provide reasonable assurances that the biointegrity standards could be met. Manatees have been sited in Cockroach Bay and the Cockroach Bay boat channel. Due to its seagrasses and shallow waters, Cockroach Bay is one of the most important nursery areas for fish in Tampa Bay. Many wildlife species of special concern have been sited at or near the project site. These include the mangrove terrapin, the mangrove coocou, the brown pelican, the American alligator, the little blue heron, the snowy egret and the tri-colored heron. It is the policy of the DER, when considering the impact of a project upon fish and wildlife, to utilize all federal and state lists of endangered and threatened species. It is highly likely that increased boat traffic and human activity in the area will affect such wildlife. Several locations along the proposed north/south and east/west access channels could pose serious navigational difficulties due to restricted visibility. Given the potential number and sizes of boats in the access channels, manuevering problems can be expected, particularly during weekends. A boater must make a right angle turn where the north/south channel meets the east/west channel. A boat of 25 to 35 feet in length would have difficulty making such a turn in a fifty foot channel at speeds which would not produce a wake. If the vessel suffered engine failure or encountered other traffic at this turn, a hazardous navigational situation could arise. It would take a vessel approximately 20 to 30 minutes to travel at a safe speed from the marina to the mouth of the channel. It is common to observe boaters impatient to get into open waters or return home at the end of the day and navigating at speeds beyond that which is posted or in excess of that which is prudent or safe. Although not part of the application for variance or the instant permit application, petitioner offered evidence of its proposed stormwater management plan, sewage treatment plan, and agricultural runoff treatment plan. These plans are still conceptual in nature and would be the subject of future permitting requirements. Petitioner projects that these implemented plans will actually improve the water quality in the area of the project site. A porous concrete product is to be utilized for parking spaces and throughout the development except immediately adjacent to the marina. This product allows stormwater to pass through it and go into the groundwater, and it is designed to retain and break down oils and greases. Reversed sloping around the marina lake and access channels are to be used to prevent any direct discharge of stormwater. Flow is to be directed away from the marina through grasssed swales into retention ponds and into other isolated lakes. An advanced wastewater treatment plant, with a hyacinth treatment lake, is planned to provide sewage treatment for both this development and the surrounding communities, with an ultimate capacity of 250,000 gallons per day. The treated effluent, after going through the treatment lake will be directed into a rapid exfiltration trench to sheet flow into the mangroves. Petitioner also plans to redirect existing agricultural runoff, identified as being a present source of pollution to water in the area, so that it would go into several lakes and ultimately exit through rapid exfiltration trench sheet flow into the mangroves. In 1983, one of the greatest paleontological finds in this country occurred in one of the mine pits on the Leisey property. Over two hundred and fifty thousand specimens were obtained. Petitioner has entered into an agreement with the Florida State Museum whereby a museum will be constructed near the proposed marina, and displays from the paleontological discovery and other archeological exhibits from the Leisey property will be shown in an educational format. Petitioner has offered to dedicate the museum to the State. Should petitioner receive all permits required for construction of its proposed marina development, the Leisey family has offered to dedicate approximately 54 acres of mangrove lands near Little Cockroach Bay to the Tampa Port Authority or other appropriate entity for preservation purposes. There does appear to be a shortage of available marina spaces in Tampa Bay. However, there is a pending application before DER for an expansion of an existing marina in the vicinity, and other sites along the Bay would be of lesser conflict with existing seagrasses and mangrove systems. If petitioner's marina facility were constructed and operated as proposed, it would serve as a port of refuge to boaters during storms. Petitioner also proposes to reserve two of the eight boat ramp spaces for public safety and environmental agency personnel so that boats can be quickly launched and retrieved in emergency situations. The provision of an eight- space boat ramp and the 432 wet slips and 438-boat dry storage will increase public access to the off-shore waters. The proximity of the Tampa Ship Channel results in direct access to the Gulf of Mexico, and recreational activity will be enhanced by the project. In this proceeding, the burden to demonstrate that the proposed marina project complies with all applicable statutes, rules and policies of the DER and to provide reasonable assurances that the State's water quality standards will not be violated rests with the applicant, Leisey Shellpit, Inc. Due to the location of the proposed project, that burden is heavy and somewhat complicated. Surface waters in Florida are classified according to their present and future most beneficial uses, and water quality criteria have been developed to maintain the minimum conditions necessary to assure the suitability of the water for the designated uses. Section 403.061(10), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-3.081, Florida Administrative Code. In addition, certain waters, due to their exceptional recreational or ecological significance, have been designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), with the intent that they be afforded the highest degree of protection. Section 403.061(27), Florida Statutes. A designation of a water body as an OFW is a determination that the environmental, social and economic benefits of the special protection outweigh the environmental, social and economic costs. Rule 17-3.041(:2)(f), Florida Administrative Code. The waters within and adjacent to the proposed project in this proceeding include OFW entitled to the highest protection, Class II waters with the designated use of "shellfish propagation or harvesting," and Class III waters with the designated use of "recreation, propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife." Rule 17-3.081, Florida Administrative Code. As such, this project is subject to numerous statutory and regulatory requirements. The waters adjacent to the proposed marina, access channels and flushing channels are Class II waters. As such, Rule 17-4.28(8), Florida Administrative Code, governs requests to dredge and fill in those areas. That rule provides as follows: "(8)(a) The department recognizes the special value and importance of Class II waters to Florida's economy as existing or potential sites of commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting and as a nursery area for fish and shellfish. Therefore, it shall be the department's policy to deny applications for permits or certifications for dredging or filling activities in Class II waters, except where the applicant has submitted a plan of procedure which will adequately protect the project area and areas in the vicinity of the project from significant damage. The department shall not issue a permit for dredging or filling directly in areas approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources. Provided, however, that the staff of the department may issue permits or certifications for maintenance dredging of existing navigational channels, for the construction of coastal protection structures and for the installation of transmission and distribution lines for carrying potable water, electricity or communication cables in rights-of-way previously used for such lines. (b) The department shall also deny applications for permits or certifications for dredging and/or filling activities in any class of waters where the proximity of such activities to Class II waters would be expected to have an impact on the Class II waters, and where reasonable assurance has not been provided that the activities will not result in violations of the applicable provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, in the Class II waters. Petitioner does not dispute that the waters are Class II waters. In spite of the fact that a variance from the rule was requested, petitioner contends that the prohibition against dredging in areas "approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources" is not applicable here because the area is now temporarily closed to shellfish harvesting. In the alternative, petitioner contends that even if these waters are "approved" for shellfish harvesting, it is entitled to a permit to "maintenance dredge an existing navigational channel." This latter contention is without merit. There was no evidence that the access channels proposed to be widened and deepened had been previously dredged. Indeed, the evidence was to the contrary. Consequently, the proposed activity cannot be categorized as "maintenance dredging." Moreover, neither the proposed north/south access channel nor the proposed flushing channel are "existing navigational channels." Petitioner's argument with regard to a distinction between an area "approved" and an area "temporarily closed" to shellfish harvesting is initially logically appealing. However, the argument fails to recognize the purpose of the Class II designated use -- shellfish propagation or harvesting, as well as the DER policy to deny a request for a variance when a project would result in the permanent loss of an area for shellfish harvesting. It was undisputed that DNR establishes buffer zones around marinas within which shellfish harvesting is prohibited, and that the size of the buffer zone is dependent, in part, upon the size of the marina. The area "buffered" would be permanently, as opposed to temporarily, closed for shellfish harvesting. The DER's policy to deny permits or variance requests when the project would result in the permanent closure of a significant area for shellfish harvesting is supported by the remainder of Rule 17-4.28(8)(a), as well as by the purpose for the Class II designation. Thus, under the facts of this case, it is concluded that the prohibition against dredging and filling in areas "approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources," as set forth In Rule 17- 4.28(8)(a), is applicable and that petitioner has failed to demonstrate entitlement to a variance from that prohibition. Even if petitioner were entitled to a variance, it has not provided reasonable assurances that the short and long term effects of the proposed activities will not violate water quality standards and public interest requirements so as to be entitled to a dredge and fill permit. As noted above, Outstanding Florida Waters are entitled to the highest degree of protection. An applicant for a permit to conduct activities which significantly degrade or are within such waters is required to affirmatively demonstrate that the activity meets the criteria set forth In Rule 17-4.242, Florida Administrative Code. Among those criteria are that the activities be "clearly in the public interest and that the "existing ambient water quality," within the OFW not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity. "Existing ambient water quality" is defined in Rule 17-4.242(1)(d) as the water quality which could reasonably be expected (based upon the best scientific information available) to have existed for the year prior to the OFW designation. The Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve was designated as an OFW on March 1, 1979. Rule 17-3.041, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, the appropriate year for determining the "existing ambient water quality" of that OFW is from March 1, 1978, through March 1, 1979. Petitioner admits that at least 600 feet of the proposed east/west access channel is within the Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve. Since a mean high water survey was not conducted by the petitioner, or otherwise presented in this proceeding, the undersigned is unable to render a conclusion regarding the precise boundaries of the Aquatic Preserve or the coextensive OFW designation. It is persuasive that the DNR has managed the Preserve as though Little Cockroach Bay were included within it and that the Tampa Port Authority, from whom the lease to the State was derived, has not recognized Little Cockroach Bay as a separate water body. In any event, at least a portion of the proposed activity will be conducted within an OPW, and petitioner has failed to establish the ambient water quality of those waters for the relevant time period. As a result, petitioner has failed to meet its burden of affirmatively demonstrating that the proposed activity will not lower the quality of that water. While the petitioner did present evidence regarding the current condition of the waters and some historical data was reviewed, there was no affirmative demonstration of the quality of water which existed between March 1, 1978, and March 1, 1979. It simply was not established that petitioner relied upon the best scientific evidence available in its attempt to demonstrate that "existing ambient water quality" would not be lowered by the proposed activity. The operation of an 870-slip marina, along the public boat ramps, will generate a large amount of pollutants. Constant and heavy boat traffic within the marina lake and going in and cut of the area on a daily basis can be expected to continuously resuspend contaminants and pollutants. Given these factors, it was particularly incumbent upon the petitioner to make accurate predictions regarding flushing times, and to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated as a result of the proposed activity. The use of a one-dimensional model, along with the assumptions of no mixing and low tide conditions within the basin, does not provide adequate or accurate predictions with respect to the flushing or residence time of the proposed marina lake. The use of these flushing model computations to make water quality predictions for the lake and channels undermines those predictions. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards, particularly with regard to dissolved oxygen, for Class II and III waters will not be violated on a short and long term basis. Without such assurances, and also considering the loss of healthy seagrasses and mangroves which will result from both dredging and continued boat traffic in the area, the proposed project Is not permittable. As stated In Rule 17- 3.011(5), Florida Administrative Code: Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. When an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because the existing water quality does not meet standards, mitigation measures which cause net Improvement of the water quality may be considered. Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In mitigation, the petitioner has offered its plans for stormwater management, agricultural run-off and sewage treatment to demonstrate that water quality conditions will be improved by the overall development contemplated. Without a reasonably accurate prediction of the extent to which the proposed project and related activities will cause or contribute to existing DO violations, as well as other violations, in the subject waters, It is impossible to determine whether these mitigation measures will cause a net Improvement of the water quality in the area. In addition, the plans for the proposed stormwater management, agricultural runoff and sewage treatment systems were conceptual in nature. Until more detailed plans are developed, it is impossible to determine whether future permit applications for those projects would be acceptable. The petitioner's mitigation plans for the removal of seagrasses and mangroves is likewise unacceptable. Attempts to replant seagrasses, especially in Tampa Bay, have not been successful and are in an experimental stage. Petitioner's proposed 1:1 mitigation ratio is not appropriate for seagrasses due to the possible failure of its attempts, the proposed location of the replantings, and the expectation of secondary losses from boat traffic, erosion and potential future maintenance dredging. While the replanting of mangroves have a past record of success, a larger than 1:1 ratio would be appropriate to account for the difference in functions between a healthy system of large trees and the replanting of smaller trees, to account for the secondary losses which may be expected from greatly increased boat traffic and to account for the difference in locations between the trees to be removed and the trees to be replanted. An applicant must also provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project is "not contrary to the public Interest" or, in the case of the presence of Outstanding Florida Waters, that the project will be "clearly in the public interest." In making public interest determinations, the Legislature has set forth seven criteria to be considered and balanced, and has allowed applicants to offer measures to mitigate adverse effects. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. The seven factors are: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. In order to demonstrate that its Mangrove Bay Marina proposal is not contrary to and is clearly in the public interest, petitioner offers its mitigation plans previously discussed with regard to seagrasses, mangroves, stormwater, agricultural runoff and sewage treatment. It is contended that these features of the total project, along with the provision of a secure and well-policed facility, will have a beneficial effect upon public health, safety and welfare and will conserve fish and wildlife and their habitat. It is also urged that its well- marked and maintained channels will Improve navigation and not contribute to harmful shoaling or erosion and will provide for an adequate flow of water. Safe mooring, boat storage and public boat ramps will enhance fishing and recreational values, and marine productivity will not be adversely affected, according to the applicant. Finally, the petitioner offers its museum with educational programs to demonstrate enhancement to significant historical and archaeological resources. There can be no doubt that the applicant has attempted to develop a proposal which will satisfy environmental, as well as social, concerns. It is also true that the marina project would satisfy the need for additional boat slips In the Tampa Bay area. The prime problem is the location of the proposed project. The Cockroach Bay and Little Cockroach Bay areas are relatively undisturbed by development. The area is Important as a research area and as a nursery area for juvenile fish and shellfish. The designation of waters adjacent to and within the proposed project site as Outstanding Florida Waters and Class II waters establishes their importance and govern the manner in which activities therein are to be evaluated. The applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the project complies with water quality criteria and public Interest considerations applicable to these wetlands. The long and short term adverse environmental impacts upon water quality, seagrasses and mangroves are sufficient to justify a denial of the permit application. Those considerations, coupled with the disruption of wildlife habitat, the hazardous design of the marina channels, the destruction of a highly productive aquatic system without appropriate mitigation, and the potential of harming manatees, far outweigh any positive benefits of the project. The paleontology museum, while serving a laudable educational function, will not serve as mitigation for any estuarine loss and the historical and archaeological resources to be considered under Section 403.918(2)(a)6, Florida Statutes, refer to historic properties representing more than 10,000 years of human presence. In short, while the project may provide some advantages with regard to recreation and public safety, its adverse effects upon fish, wildlife, harmful erosion and shoaling, marine productivity and the present condition and value of the functions being performed in the area are contrary to the public interest. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any overriding public interest that would outweigh these considerations. As a final matter, it was stipulated that Manasota-88, Inc., the Florida Audubon Society, Eagle Audubon Society and Tampa Audubon Society had standing to participate as intervenors in this proceeding. Petitioner's motion in opposition to the intervention status of the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council was initially denied, subject to that organization presenting proof of its standing at the hearing. The Council failed to produce such proof, and its petition to intervene is accordingly denied.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the requests of Leisey Shellpit, Inc. for a variance and a permit and certification to construct and operate the Mangrove Bay Marina and attendant access and flushing channels be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 11th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-0568, 86-0569 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner Leisey: 6, last two sentences Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 7, last two sentences Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 8, last sentence Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 9, last sentence Rejected; the evidence. demonstrates that the words "temporarily closed" should be substituted for "not approved." 11, last sentence Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 14, last sentence Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 18, last sentence Rejected; not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. 19, last two sentences Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 20, last sentence Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 21, last three sentences Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence as to "existing ambient water quality. 23, last three sentences Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 24, last sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 25, last sentence Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 28, last sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 30 - 33 Accepted, with a recognition that the plans are conceptual in nature, and not detailed as required for permitting purposes. 35, last sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. 43, third sentence Rejected; not established by competent, substantial evidence. Respondent, DER: 2 Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. 16, first sentence Rejected as to the words "will occur," as opposed to "could occur." 70 Rejected; insufficient evidence was adduced to render a finding regarding the precise OFW boundaries. 76 Rejected; irrelevant and immaterial. 85 Rejected as to the specifics of the permitability of other sites, as not established by competent, substantial evidence. 94, last sentence Rejected as speculative. 96 Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence. 99 Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial. 102 Rejected, as speculative. 113 Rejected, not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Intervenor Manasota-88: This party's post-hearing submittal contains mixed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed factual findings are generally accepted and have been addressed in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire Robert, Egan & Routa, P.A. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Robert S. Tucker, Esquire Linda M. Hallas, Esquire 9455 Koger Blvd., Suite 209 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 M. Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact By Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida filed June 22, 1994, Petitioner requested a permit to dredge about 500 square feet of uplands for a boatslip and to maintenance dredge 1700-1900 square feet in an adjacent canal, removing 125 cubic yards of material waterward of mean high water. The Application describes the work as including a vertical concrete seawall running 92 feet inside the boatslip, a cat walk from the boatslip to the canal, and a roof over the boatslip. A drawing attached to the Application depicts the proposed boatslip at the east end of the Petitioner's lot and with rounded corners to facilitate flushing. By Notice of Permit Denial executed October 24, 1994, Respondent advised that the permit was denied. The Notice states that water quality in the surrounding canal system is generally poor with low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The shoreline vegetation is primarily mangroves, which are tall but not robust. The proposed dredge area consists of a healthy littoral shelf with live oysters and shells. Based on the foregoing site description, the Notice denies the permit because of impacts to the conservation of fish and wildlife and marine productivity and a degradation of the current condition and relative value of the affected area. The Notice relates all of these factors to the loss of the mangroves and dredging of the adjacent canal bottom. The Notice adds that the project would have an adverse cumulative impact on water quality and public resources if similar projects were constructed. In the alternative, the Notice suggests that Petitioner eliminate the dredging into the uplands and canal and instead construct a boat shelter in the canal in an area of existing adequate water depth. By letter dated November 7, 1994, Petitioner challenged the denial. The letter states that Petitioner has maintained an environmentally productive shoreline consisting of mangroves, oysters, and rip rap, rather than concrete seawalls, as are found along the shoreline of most of his neighbors. The letter suggests that, if Petitioner followed Respondent's suggestion and built a slip in the canal, Petitioner would be permitted to do maintenance dredging in the artificial canal. The letter concludes that the maintenance dredging and shading of an over- the-water boathouse would have more impact on the environment than dredging uplands and a small access channel to the slip. Petitioner's residence is located in Aqualane Shores, which is an established residential subdivision located between Naples Bay on the east and the Gulf of Mexico on the west. Petitioner's lot is located about two-thirds of the distance down a long, relatively wide artificial canal known as Jamaica Channel. Jamaica Channel intersects Naples Bay to the east of Petitioner's property. Jamaica Channel is a Class III waterbody. Petitioner owns about 200 feet of shoreline at the corner of Jamaica Channel and a shorter, narrower canal. The entire area is heavily canalized and completely built-out with nearly exclusively single family residences. Most of the shoreline in the area is bulkheaded with concrete seawalls. Jamaica Channel was dredged in the early 1950s. Early riprap revetment crumbled into the water and in some areas became colonized by oysters, which supply food and filter impurities from water. Shoreline owners weary of repairing riprap installed vertical seawalls, thereby destroying the oyster beds and intertidal habitat. But much of the riprap adjacent to unbulkheaded shoreline eventually was stabilized by mangrove roots. The absence of concrete seawalls along Petitioner's shoreline has permitted a significant colony of oysters to populate the 25-foot littoral shelf running along Petitioner's shoreline. The oysters form a hemisphere, thickest at the middle of Petitioner's shoreline and narrowest at the east and west edges, narrowing to a width of as little as 6-10 feet. In recent years, Australian pines were removed from Petitioner's shoreline. As a result, mangrove seedlings have successfully occupied much of the shoreline. The proposed boatslip would be located at the east end of the shoreline where there is a natural gap in the mangroves. As a result, only three mangroves would have to be removed, and a relatively narrow band of oysters would be dredged and, as offered by Petitioner, relocated. The proposed dredging involves uplands and submerged bottom. As to the uplands, Petitioner intends to create a slope in the slip with the rear one to one and one-half feet shallower than the front, although this slope is not reflected on the Application. The purpose of the slope is to facilitate flushing. Petitioner evidently intends to dredge sufficient material to fill the rear of the slip with two feet of water at mean water and the front of the slip with three feet of water at mean water. The dredging in Jamaica Channel would involve an 18-20 foot wide path leading to the slip. Beyond the oysters, the bottom is fine sandy substrate with scattered rock. The relocation of oyster-covered rocks might be successful, if there are sufficient areas suitable for colonization that have not already been colonized. However, the dredged areas would not be recolonized due to their depths. Presently, the Application discloses level dredging down to an elevation of -5 NGVD. Petitioner's intent to slope the boatslip has been discussed above. Although Petitioner did not reveal a similar intent to slope the area dredged in Jamaica Channel, Petitioner's witness, Naples' Natural Resource Manager, testified that he would insist on similar sloping the entire length of the dredged area, so that the deepest area would be most waterward of the boatslip. If the dredged canal bottom were not sloped, Petitioner proposes removing about 4.25 feet of material about ten feet from shore, about 3.4 feet of material about 22 feet from shore, about 1.8 feet of material about 30 feet from shore, and about 0.5 feet of material about 40 feet from shore. Petitioner did reveal that the cross-section indicating a dredged depth of -5 feet applies only to the centerline of the dredge site, which would be tapered off to the east and west. The slope of the taper was not disclosed, but it is evident that the affected areas within 20 feet of the shoreline would be dredged at least two feet deeper and, in most areas, three feet deeper. The deepening of Jamaica Canal in the vicinity of the shoreline would not only eliminate existing oyster habitat, but would also eliminate habitat currently used by small fish. The deepening of Jamaica Channel in the vicinity of the shoreline would also impact water quality in the area. Water quality in Naples Bay and Jamaica Channel is poor and violates water quality standards for DO. Due to poor mixing of freshwater infusions and saltwater, DO levels deteriorate with depth. Where DO levels are probably adequate in the shallows around Petitioner's shoreline, the proposed dredging would likely result in depths at which violations could be expected to occur. Petitioner offers to install an aerator to introduce oxygen into the water. Ignoring the fact that the aerator was to operate only in the boatslip and not in the remainder of the dredged area, Petitioner did not show the effect on DO levels of this proposal. Even if the aerator had been shown to result in a net improvement in area DO levels, Petitioner also failed to show how the operation of the aerator would be guaranteed to extend indefinitely, or at least until the dredged areas were permitted to regain their pre-dredged depths. Petitioner argues that he could construct an over-the- water boathouse and maintenance dredge, and the resulting environmental impact would be greater. Several factors militate against this proposed alternative and thus preclude consideration of this alternative against the proposed project. Most significantly, the oysters have occupied the littoral shelf adjacent to Petitioner's shoreline for a period in excess of 20 years. There is considerable doubt as to whether Petitioner would be permitted to maintenance dredge under these and other circumstances. Respondent argues more persuasively the issue of cumulative impacts. There are about 350 residences in Aqualane Shores, of which only 150 have boatslips similar to that proposed by Petitioner. This raises the prospect of an additional 200 boatslips as a cumulative impact on water and biological resources.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application. ENTERED on May 26, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 26, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as irrelevant. 4-5 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 5 (remainder)-6: rejected as irrelevant. 7: rejected as recitation of evidence. 8: adopted or adopted in substance. 9: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 10: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, irrelevant, and not findings of fact. 11-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (remainder): rejected as recitation of evidence and as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 13: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-20: adopted or adopted in substance. 21-25: rejected as unnecessary. 26-29: adopted or adopted in substance. 30: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Miles L. Scofield Qualified Representative Turrell & Associates, Inc. 3584 Exchange Ave., Suite B Naples, FL 33942 Christine C. Stretesky Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Ocean Reef Club, Inc., is the developer of certain lands located on the northern end of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The development began as a fishing village in the 1940's and now includes private residences, a marina, and residential docking facilities. Ocean Reef applied in 1982 to DER for a permit to construct a residential docking facility known as Fisherman's Wharf. The facility was to provide a number of parallel docking spaces with an access channel following an existing tidal creek to the northeast connecting to a waterway known as the Harbor House Basin. The permit was issued on October 5, 1984, authorizing construction of a 4-foot wide parallel dock approximately 600-feet long, the dredging of a turning basin through the excavation of approximately 1800 cubic yards of material and the dredging of some 200 cubic yards from an existing tidal creek along a 480 lineal foot length of the creek to a width of 5-feet; all located in No Name Creek, a tidal creek connecting Harbor House Marina to Pumpkin Creek, in Card Sound, Key Largo, Monroe County, Section 11, Township 59 South, Range 41 East. That permit was extended by a letter dated June 10, 1987, and now carries an expiration date of October 5, 1989. The existing permit held by Ocean Reef Club, valid until 1989, would allow the direct dredging of a tidal creek vegetated by seagrasses over a 400- foot length yielding a direct dredging of seagrasses of some 3000 square feet. During the two-year processing time leading to issuance of the permit, Ocean Reef sold a portion of the property comprising the access channel to third parties who now will not grant their permission authorizing channel construction across their property. As a result, in 1987, Petitioner requested a major modification to permit no. 440601649. Although Petitioner attempted to show that its change of plans had been inconsistently processed by DER as a new permit application when DER was obligated to treat it as a modification of a prior permit which would require no new application, processing, or permit, Petitioner was unable to do so. Petitioner's expert professional land surveyor, Joseph Steinocher,, concurred with DER witnesses Kelly Jo Custer and David Bishof that the Ocean Reef plan changes were so significantly altered as to constitute a wholly new project. Steinocher specifically indicated it was a "significant change in that there is no relationship between the two," and Custer, DER's marina permitting specialist, testified that DER's consistently applied policy is to require all such significant permit modifications to be processed de novo as wholly new permit applications because to do otherwise would not be in the public interest. Custer was also qualified as an expert in marine biology and water quality, and from Custer's viewpoint, the changed plans constitute a new and different project for many reasons but primarily because the project impacts on water which have been designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) during the intervening years. The project revision/new permit application plans changed the configuration of the turning basin, providing for a kidney-shaped upland basin with the utilization of an additional portion of No Name Creek, extending Southeasterly toward the entrance of a water body known as Fisherman's Cove. Because the project initially proposed disturbance of wetlands and dredging of mangroves, a mitigation area of some 10,300 square feet was included in the plan. The original proposal called for the straightening of an oxbow in the existing tidal creek and the placement of fill through approximately one-half the reach of the tidal creek to gain access to the dredge area with the fill to be removed after construction. During the processing of the latest permit application, adverse comments were received from DER staff members, and the Petitioner modified the application to eliminate the straightening of the oxbow. The pending proposal involves the construction of 24 boat slips along a floating dock, the installation of boulder rip-rap, and the placement of culverts to allow access to a central island to remain after construction of the docking facility. As a result of prior permit agreements between the parties, Ocean Reef Club had conveyed approximately 730 acres to the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund by special warranty deed dated March 17, 1982. Petitioner asserted but failed to prove up that all construction involved in the pending proposal is landward of those lands either conveyed by that special warranty deed or otherwise in the control of the State of Florida and in fact would be wholly upon its own property. Even had the private property encapsulation of the construction been established, Petitioner's registered land surveyor admitted that the tidal creek entrance is within the limits of the deed to the State of Florida. Access for the proposed 24-slip facility will be through the existing tidal creek that has water depths ranging from minus 2.2 feet to in excess of minus 8 feet at low tide. The earlier proposal would have required only a small portion of the natural creek to be used by motor boats. The project contemplated in 1984 and the one which is the subject of the present litigation are not comparable either biologically nor legally. It is noted that one condition of the 1984 permit even required navigational barriers to be placed at the mouth of No Name Creek. Accordingly, it is specifically found that the significant plan changes render the pending Ocean Reef permit application truly a new project rather than a minor modification as contemplated by Chapter 17-12 F.A.C. Petitioner also attempted to demonstrate that DER's denial of the new permit application was inconsistent with its issuance of permits for similar marina projects in other locations. Neither these allegedly similar applications, supporting plans therefor, nor permits were offered in evidence for comparison. Moreover, for one reason or another, some of the named projects differed so much from the subject application that one witness, Kenneth L. Eckternacht, expert in hydrographic engineering, physical oceanography, and navigation, characterized the comparison as "apples to monkies." Some projects could only be compared to the applicant's proposal by one similar component, i.e. elimination of, and mitigation with regard to, mangroves. For this reason, Dr. Snedeker's limited testimony in this regard is discounted. Some projects could not be conclusively identified as within OFW. None involved the use of the type of creek system involved in the instant project. Ocean Reef Club also could not show that the current permit denial is inconsistent with the granting of the permit for the project as previously conceived in 1984, and which project cannot now be constructed due to Ocean Reef's sale of certain land to uncooperative third parties. As set forth in the foregoing findings of fact, the two projects are neither biologically nor legally identical or even clearly comparable. Petitioner's assertion that it has proposed special or enhanced mitigation because the existing permit, still valid until 1989 but now impossible to comply with, allows direct dredging of approximately 3,000 square feet while the present permit application, as modified, would not require dredging this 3,000 feet, is rejected. Under the new project plans, the proposed basin will be located immediately adjacent to the existing tidal creek which would provide the navigational access to and from the basin. The connection will be created between the basin and the creek by excavating only 100-150 square feet of mangroves which lie between the creek and the area of the proposed basin. In making the immediately foregoing finding of fact, the testimony of witnesses has been reconciled without imputing any lack of credibility to any of them. Respondent's expert, Kelly Jo Custer, expert in marine biology and water quality and also their agency marina specialist, testified that the cross-hatching on the project plans, if read to scale, confirms the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses that the square footage of mangroves to be removed is 100-150 square feet and that the cross-hatching must take precedence over the raw number copied onto the plans. The wetlands in and around the project site, including No Name Creek, are within an OFW, specifically the Florida Keys Special Waters. The project site is located in North Key Largo, approximately one-half mile north of John Pennekamp State Park within the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent to the Biscayne Bay/Card Sound Aquatic Preserve. All of these waters are Class III surface waters. The marina basin itself will be excavated to a depth of minus four feet mean low water. The 24 proposed boatslips will accommodate moorage of boats as large as 25 feet with a draft of two feet. The marina basin will enhance recreational values and channel, despite its greater depth, and at the inner portions of its several bends. It is also implausible that Petitioner's plans to limit boat size through condominium documents to be enforced through a homeowners association, to install mirrors, signalling devices, and latches at certain points along the creek, and to install tide staffs at creek entrances will prevent potential head-on boat collisions or bottlenecks in No Name Creek. It is equally implausible that these procedures can provide reasonable assurances that there will not be a chronic increase in water turbidity from increased use or damage to biota from propellers and boat impact. The witnesses generally concurred as to the present ecological status of No Name Creek. It contains Cuban shoalweed and turtlegrass scattered with varied density throughout, and especially found in two patches between the proposed basin and the point at which there is a drastic bend or oxbow in the creek. The seagrasses in the creek serve many valuable functions including providing a substrate upon which epiphytes may attach, and providing a source of food and refuge for fish and small invertebrates. Seagrasses also fix carbon which they absorb from the sediments and water column through photosynthesis. Green and red algae found throughout the creek provide habitat and carbon fixing functions similar to that provided by the seagrasses. Corals and sponges are present. Three species of sponge located in the creek are found only in the Florida Keys and nowhere else in the United States. Other creek biota include barnacles and oysters attached to mangrove roots, lobsters, anchovies, needlefish, grunts, mojarres, electric rays, various small fish, and invertebrates. Biological and botanical diversity is an important measure of the creek's rich ecological quality and value. The increased boat use of No Name Creek inherent in this dredging project will adversely affect the quality and diversity of the biota. In a creek of this configuration with mean low tide occurring roughly every 12 hours and NEAP tides approximately every two weeks, direct impact of boat propellers is a certainty. The shallowest parts of the creek tend to be limerock shelves which provide a hospitable substrate for the corals, and which are most susceptible to propeller damage, as are the seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner's assertion through Mr. Castellanos and Dr. Roessler that all boaters can be relied upon to employ tilt motors to best advantage in shallow water so as to avoid overhanging mangrove branches at the creek's edges (shores) and so as to keep their boats within the portion of the channel away from submerged mangrove roots and further can be trusted to proceed slowly enough to allow slow-moving water creatures to escape their propellers is speculative and unrealistically optimistic. Despite all good intentions, the strong currents of this creek and its meandering nature work against the average pleasure boater keeping to the narrow center channel. An even more compelling problem with this project is that increased sustained turbidity from propellers and boat movement within close range of the creek bottom will scour the creek bottom and/or stir up the bottom sediment on a regular basis. Once suspended, bottom particles will be redeposited on the seagrasses, impeding photosynthesis and smothering the sponges and corals. Upon the testimony of Custer, Echternacht, and Skinner, and despite contrary testimony of Roessler and Larsen, it is found that the admittedly strong currents in the creek will not flush the particles sufficiently to alleviate the loose sediment problem, and may actually exacerbate the chronic turbidity problem. Strong currents can create a cyclical situation in which, as the seagrasses die or are uprooted, even more particulate matter is loosened and churned up. Chronic turbidity of No Name Creek has the potential of violating the applicable water quality standards for biological integrity, for turbidity, and for ambient water quality. These impacts will not be offset by Petitioner's creation of 38,100 square feet of new underwater bottom because, although this new area will become vegetated, it will never be as rich or as diverse as the existing bottom. This is also true of the pilings and rip rap in regard to sessile animals/barnacles. Petitioner's plan to replant red mangroves over 10,300 square feet may be sufficient in mitigation of the loss of 100-150 square feet of mangroves by itself (see Finding of Fact 16) but for the foregoing reasons, it does not constitute full mitigation for the new permit application. The project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect significant historical and archeological resources.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying the requested permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of September, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH Case No. 87-4660 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 20, and 25 are accepted. Accepted except for the last sentence which is rejected upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Accepted but specifically not adopted as stated because the plan calls for destruction of certain mangroves (100- 150 ft.) and the planting of others as opposed to mere "addition." 6, 9, 12, and 27 are accepted in part and rejected in part. There was a failure of proof by both parties as to whether the Petitioner would or would not be conducting all activities landward of those lands conveyed. Although there is testimony to this effect, none of the surveys introduced nor other competent evidence allow the undersigned to definitely plot the description contained in Exhibit P-9 with respect to the current permit application plans. In any case, the proposals are not dispositive of the material issues in this case. The reservation, if it does apply, supports denial of the permit. See FOF 9. 8, 26, 28, 29, and 32 are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, and in some cases as mere recitation of testimony or unproved. See next ruling. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30, 31 and 33. Portions of these proposals are accepted in substance as reflected in the FOF. In part, they are rejected as mere recitation of testimony or as subordinate and unnecessary. The remainder is not accepted due to the relative weight of the credible testimony which is reflected in the facts as found. 34-36. Rejected for the reasons set out in FOF 13. Respondent's PFOF 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 14-22, 24-34, 38-43, 48-52, 54, sentence 2 of 57, all except sentence 1 of 59, and 60 are accepted but not necessarily adopted in the interest of space and clarity or because they are cumulative or mere recitations of testimony. 3. Rejected for the reasons set out in FOF 16. Rejected. There was a failure of proof by both parties as to whether the Petitioner would or would not be conducting all activities landward of those lands conveyed. In any case, the proposal is immaterial to the environmental issues dispositive in this case. See FOF 9 and ruling on Petitioner's 6, 9, 12 and 27. Rejected as this was the unproven opinion of Mr. Poppel. No consent judgment is in evidence. 10, 12, and 13. Portions of these proposals are accepted in substance as reflected in the FOF. In part, they are rejected as mere recitation of testimony or as subordinate and unnecessary. The remainder is not accepted due to the relative weight of the credible testimony as reflected as the facts as found. 23, 53, sentence one of 57, and sentence one of 59, are rejected as argument of counsel or statement of position. 35-37, 44-47, 55, 56, 58, and 61-64 are rejected as subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert A. Routa, Esquire Post Office Drawer 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Richard Grosso, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Melvin J. Laney is the owner of Rodriguez Key which is located approximately one and one-half miles from Key Largo, Florida, in the Atlantic Ocean. The island consists of about 170 acres and is undeveloped. It is approximately 9/10 of a mile long and 3/10 of a mile wide. By application, dated July 31, 1978, Petitioner requested a permit from Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to conduct specified activities incident to the establishment of a primate breeding and research farm. The proposed activities included the construction of a floating pier, filling a sunken barge which is located 100 feet from the shoreline with coral rock and riprap, constructing two buildings on stilts on the east end of the island, clearing some 8.9 acres of black mangroves to provide trails for the placement and servicing of cages, installation of prepackaged waste treatment units, and temporary cages. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibits 1,8) DER's South Florida branch office personnel reviewed the application and issued an intent to deny the requested permit by letter of March 8, 1979, for the reason that Petitioner had failed to obtain local approval required pursuant to Section 253.124,. F.S., and that violations of State water quality standards could be expected by the proposed project. Further, the notice noted that the project would result in adverse effects to marine productivity and wildlife population contrary to the public interest under Chapter 253. Petitioner thereupon requested a hearing. (Petition, Exhibit 6,8) Petitioner plans to bring rhesus, squirrel, and other research primates into the State for the purpose of establishing a breeding and research farm on Rodriguez Key. The primates would be owned by sponsors who would pay Petitioner to provide housing, care and associated services. The project is designed to meet the needs of researchers for the testing of vaccines and other scientific purposes. There is currently a shortage of primates in this country due to a 1978 embargo on the export of such animals by the government of India who had previously been the primary supplier of research primates. (Testimony of Petitioner, Darrow, Exhibit l) Petitioner intends to fill a partly sunken barge near the northeast shoreline with boulders and riprap, cover it with a concrete floor, and construct a floating pier approximately 130 feet long between the shore and the barge for off-loading of supplies and equipment. The project contemplates the construction of an animal care house and a residence, both to be placed on stilts which will each contain a maximum of 10,000 square feet of space. No filling or dredging is planned for either structure. This is a modification from the original permit application which called for some 3,000 cubic yards of fill at the building site. At the western end of the island, Petitioner plans to install 16 rows of prefabricated cages with 64 cages per row, which represents a total area of approximately 12.48 acres. About 4.16 acres of that area will be cleared or otherwise disrupted to place and connect the cage rows. The cages will be secured and there is little likelihood that the animals will escape. Under a current permit from the Fresh Water Game and Fish Commission, the holding cages must be constructed to withstand hurricanes, surge and wind, and provide adequate protection for the animals during such storms. They must also meet or exceed minimum pen specifications established by the Commission. The permit submitted in evidence expired on June 30, 1981. The cages will be prefabricated and placed on metal pilings which are attached to underground rock. There will be troughs located underneath a grate floor for animal wastes which will be collected and pumped to a sewage disposal system. In order to take supplies, materials, and animals to and from the cage area, Petitioner intends to clear a 20-foot wide perimeter "trail" around the island which would be attached at both ends by lateral similar trails. The total distance of the trails is approximately 9,000 feet. The need for a perimeter trail is to deliver materials on one side of the island, service the animals, and then leave by a different route for the purpose of transporting employees, ill animals, or transporting of any animal that might affect the control area for testing and conducting vaccine research. The perimeter trails are designed to be no closer than 75 feet from a red mangrove fringe border around the island. For transportation purposes, it is proposed to use gasoline powered "all terrain" wheeled vehicles which will traverse the trails along two parallel two-inch diameter cables suspended horizontally 36 to 48 inches above the ground level. The cables will be attached to concrete anchors consisting of four inch by four inch steel tubes which are placed at 100 foot intervals along the trails. The tubes will be either hand-driven into subsurface rock several inches or driven by means of a portable pile driver. The tubes will additionally be supported by a concrete block "dead man" attached to a 5/8-inch cable on either side of the tubes and placed underground. Turning platforms would be placed at trail intersections on top of the cable road so that a vehicle could drive upon the platform and execute a turn to a connecting cable road. The low pressure tread vehicles used to traverse the roads will be equipped with shoes or flanges on the inside of the tire rims to securely ride on the pretensioned cables. They will also have low pressure pneumatic tires. The vehicles will also be used in interior areas where mangroves are not present. They will ride on the ground or upon metal plates. These areas are covered with about 9,000 square feet of batis (saltwort) cover which eventually will be killed by vehicle use. Batis is important for sediment stabilization and its removal can cause siltation problems in waters surrounding the island. The need for a 20-foot swath for the cable road is explained by the fact that transport of the 17-foot cages must be accomplished by placing them sideways on the transporting vehicles in order to install and periodically provide service, repair or replacement. A soil study made in representative areas of Rodriguez Key except the west end shows that coral rock exists at levels of approximately 11 to 15 feet below the ground surface, thus necessitating the use of pilings for support purposes rather than shallow footings. Although no soil borings were taken at the west end of the island, the soil expert is of the opinion that the borings reflect general rock characteristics of the entire island. Petitioner's civil engineer who designed the current cable road system prepared several alternative methods of construction, and is of the opinion that suspension of the cables at a height of 15 feet instead of three to four feet as currently planned would be feasible except for cage servicing purposes. A further alternative that was proposed by Petitioner's engineer expert is to place the cages at the east end of the island and utilize a boardwalk constructed of an eight-foot wide precast concrete slab walkway as a boardwalk for positioning of the cages. Six inch by six inch timber posts would be driven to the hardrock layer for a minimum of ten feet to anchor the Platform. The engineer testified that this alternative would be cost effective if used in lieu of the cable road. Respondent's Environmental Specialist testified that such a modification to concentrate the project on the east end of the island would be recommended because it would eliminate the cable road and its adverse environmental consequences Rodriguez Key is almost completely vegetated by mangroves with a red mangrove fringe around the perimeter and black mangroves on the higher interior areas. Some of the red mangroves are 100 to 150 feet in height and the black mangroves range from 20 to 40 feet high. In the east center of the island is an open area of batis, and red mangroves are located in the center and west end of the island. White mangroves are also present in the south side of the island. Throughout the island, there are watermarks on trunks and prop roots ranging from four inches to six inches, and an abundant growth of brown algae. Such algae requires regular submergence to exist. No significant forms of wildlife are present on the island. Batis is a submerged species which is important for sediment stabilization. In order to clear the 20-foot wide trails with cable suspensions as low as 36 inches above ground, it will be necessary to prune or cut back a large number of mangroves to that height. However, the prop roots of the red mangroves extend above six feet in some areas. If the trees and roots are cut to a three-foot height, it is unlikely that they would survive. Red mangroves produce leaf detritus which forms a part of the food chain for marine life. Such trees are island stabilizers which provide filtration and uptake of nutrients associated with runoff and intertidal waters. The waters surrounding the island are categorized as Class III waters under State regulations. The presence of brown algae on prop roots is evidence that the island is regularly inundated to some degree. Turtle grass, which is an indicator of regular tidal flushing, is in abundance on the flats waterward of the island but not found in the interior. During a visit to the Rodriguez Key in 1981, DER personnel observed standing water across the entire island to a depth of from one inch to one foot at high tide. (Testimony of Carroll, Key, Helbling, Exhibits 6, 8) Thirteen public witnesses testified at the hearing, including residents, landowners, and representatives of housing developments in the Key Largo area. They were uniformly opposed to the proposed project for a variety of reasons. Primarily, they fear that the presence of primates on the island a short distance away from Key Largo will produce excessive noise, odor, and water pollution in the adjacent waters which are used for recreation. Additionally, some are of the opinion that their property values will decrease as a result of the activity. A District Naturalist employed by the Department of Natural Resources at the nearby Coral Reef State Park testified that her agency opposes the proposed activity due to concern that it will cause degradation of water quality in the surrounding waters and that increased boat traffic could damage the shallow coral reef beds which lie near the State park. There is also general apprehension among the nearby residents that a hurricane could destroy any facilities on Rodriguez Key and cause damage to their property. A petition signed by a large number of Key Largo residents reflects their opposition to Petitioner's use of Rodriguez Key as a primate breeding and research facility. (Testimony of public witnesses (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2) Exhibits 9-10) There probably would be no odor problem connected with the presence of monkeys on Rodriguez Key if the cages are regularly cleaned and fecal waste is disposed of according to sanitary methods. Although primates are inclined to vocalize at feeding time or when strangers appear, they do not screech at great length and the presence of trees and other foliage would modify the sound. (Testimony of Darrow)
Recommendation That the application of Petitioner Melvin J. Laney, as modified in the above Conclusions of Law, be approved and that a permit authorizing the requested activities be issued pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S., together with water quality certification under PL-500, subject to standard conditions reasonably necessary for prevention of pollution. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ross A. McVoy, Esquire Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Swedmark and Skelding Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ray Allen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, Indian Beach Manor, Section A, according to plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 48, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with a parcel of submerged land in The Narrows in Section 30, Township 30 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida (Exhibits 8, 11, 12, 13). The real estate in question is located at Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, and abuts that portion of the Intracoastal Waterway between Clearwater Harbor and Boca Ciega Bay called The Narrows. The property in question is approximately 200 feet wide and 500 feet long consisting of some 2.3 acres. It is bounded on the east by The Narrows, with Gulf Boulevard on the west, 191st Avenue on the north, and a boat channel extending approximately 300 feet from The Narrows on the south. The land is located within the intertidal zone below the line of mean high water and is vegetated approximately 75 percent by red and black mangrove trees. At high tide, the property is completely inundated. During low tide periods, a considerable amount of firm tidal flat is exposed. Meandering through the flats are several streams that connect intracoastal waters with shallow pools enclosed by mangroves. At the northwest corner of the property on 191st Avenue is located a city-owned storm sewer pipe which spills stormwater drainage down a ditch which crosses the property add discharges on the east side (Exhibits 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, Composite Exhibit 14, testimony of Albrecht). In April, 1974, Petitioners applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County to fill Lots 1-4. After first denying the application, the board, sitting as the Pinellas a County Water and Navigation Control Authority, held a rehearing and approved the application on December 17, 1974, subject to the approval of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida. By Resolution 25-74, December 10, 1974, the town council, Indian Shores, Florida, had urged the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority to grant the permit as being in the best interests of that town in that it would eliminate a health and welfare menace to the town's citizens (Composite Exhibit 1). Petitioners then made application to the Department of Pollution Control for water quality certification under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. On April 1, 1975, they were informed by that Department that their application was denied. Petitioners then jailed a petition for review of the denial on April 8, 1975. In their Petition, it was stated that the application for water quality certification was part of a fill only and seawall permit application pending before the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. They contended that the water quality standards contained in Chapter 17-3 were not applicable to their application because there would be no discharge of any kind into state waters. The original application to fill and construct a seawall that had been pending before the Trustees was thereafter transferred to Respondent agency as part of the reorganization of state environmental agencies in 1975. On February 2, 1976, Petitioners were advised by Respondent that it intended to recommend denial to the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation of Petitioners' application for a Chapter 403 and 253 permit and Water Quality Certification under P.L. 92-500 based on biological assessments of August 15, 1974, and January 28, 1975, and a water quality report of April 1) 1975. Petitioners then requested a hearing on February 6, 1976 (Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5). Respondent based its proposed denial generally on the determination that filling of the intertidal mangrove area and the navigable shallow bayous would have material adverse effects on marine life and wildlife and would not be in the best interests of conservation of marine biological resources (Exhibit 4). The property is essentially a cul de sac with less than the usual water flow exchange by tides and there is some impoundment of the water that flows through the roads and adjacent property. There is evidence of pollution of the water by reason of the culvert and ditch which drains from the northwest boundary of the property. A certain amount of wash from boat traffic along the Intracoastal Waterway undoubtedly introduces additional pollutants into the area. The property also has been used as a dumping ground to some extent and a borrow pit exists at the northwest corner of the property. Water samples taken in July, 1976, reflected pollution, primarily as to nitrogen and sulfur, in the area whore the stormwater drainage culvert empties onto the property. Filling of the land will remove much of the present pollutants caused by stormwater runoff (Testimony of Davis, Exhibit 6) In spite of the pollution of the water, the property in question is a productive mangrove system. The shallow bottoms function as feeding areas for animal life and the vegetation provides a diversified habitat for the estuary. Prop roots and pneumatophores of the red and black mangroves are covered with barnacles, oysters and other shellfish, and live oyster bars are found on the flats. Various species of red, green and brown algae vegetate the shallow streams and pools. Export of mangrove detritus which is biologically important as a basic food chain substance is very evident. An acre of mangroves can produce almost 8,000 pounds of detritus for herbivores a year which is transported out by the tide. Detritus is the sole diet for adult mullet. Marine life and wildlife observed in the area consists of a variety of fish, invertebrates, and birds (Exhibits 4 and 17, testimony of Burdett, Knight, Matthews). During the period from 1943 when the Indian Beach Manor area was platted until 1975, approximately 300 feet (about half of the platted depth of the lot) had been lost through erosion. The proposed seawall will be 5' 7" high and will tie into an existing seawall on adjoining city property to the north. Petitioners plan to create a dike four or five feet high across the eastern shore boundary of the land, pump out the water, and fill with Florida sand to elevate the land about six feet (Testimony of Albrecht, Campbell).
Recommendation That Petitioners' application for a permit to fill and construct a seawall under Chapter 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Reynold Caleen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman W. Goldner, Esquire P.O. Drawer 14233 St. Petersburg, FL 33733
The Issue The issues to be determined in this appeal are whether the decision of the Community Development Board (“CDB”) to approve Flexible Development Application FLD2015-10040 filed by Appellee Clearwater Marine Aquarium, Inc. (“the Aquarium”), cannot be sustained by substantial competent evidence before the Board, or that the decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law.
Findings Of Fact The Aquarium is the owner of a 4.53-acre site, consisting of three parcels, located at 249 Windward Passage in Clearwater, Florida (“the property”). The site is on a small island near Clearwater Beach, known as Island Estates. A single roadway, called Island Way, provides ingress and egress to Island Estates. The Aquarium property is zoned Commercial. The property is designated Commercial General in the Future Land Use Element of the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The area around the Aquarium property is developed with attached dwellings, offices, a marina, an automobile service station, a restaurant, and a retail plaza with building heights ranging from one to six stories. On September 30, 2015, the Aquarium filed a Flexible Development Application for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to develop two buildings, a dolphin pool, and a parking garage. To be approved, the proposed development must meet “flexibility standards” set forth in the City’s Community Development Code. The application required a Level Two approval. Under Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code, a Level Two approval requires that notice of the application be mailed to owners of properties “within a 200-foot radius of the perimeter boundaries of the subject property.” The notice mailed by the City identifies (by parcel number) only one of the three parcels which comprise the Aquarium site. The City Clerk mailed notice of the Aquarium’s application to owners of parcels located within 200 feet of the single parcel identified in the notice. The calculation of 200 feet was not made from the boundaries of the Aquarium’s combined three-parcel property. Whether the mailed notice conformed with Section 4-206 was not an issue raised before the CDB. The record does not show the reason the calculation was made in the manner it was made, whether it was consistent with the City’s interpretation of the applicable code requirement, or whether it was based on the location of the proposed structures. There is no evidence in the record about what additional property owners, if any, would have received notice if the boundaries of the entire site had been used. Section 4-206 of the Community Development Code also requires that a sign be posted on the “parcel proposed for development.” The record does not show whether the sign was posted. Appellant Kohut Family Trust received mailed notice of the Aquarium’s application by and through Peter Kohut at his residential address. On January 12, 2106, Mr. Kohut attended a town hall meeting about the Aquarium’s application, held at St. Brendan’s Church on Island Estates. Mr. Kohut stated that he sent e-mails and through word-of-mouth was able to get about 55 people to attend the town hall meeting. At the town hall meeting, an Aquarium representative presented information about the proposed project and answered questions. On January 19, 2016, the CDB conducted a public hearing on the Aquarium’s application. Mr. Kohut appeared at the public hearing, requested and was granted party status by the CDB, and made a presentation to the CDB. Mr. Kohut did not mention the Kohut Family Trust in his presentation to the CDB and did not request party status for the Kohut Family Trust. Mr. Kohut told the CDB that “the only notification that was given was given by the civic organization to its members.” Because Mr. Kohut knew he had received mailed notice, Mr. Kohut likely meant that the only detailed information about the Aquarium’s proposed project was provided at the town hall meeting. Mr. Kohut was provided an opportunity to present witnesses, introduce evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses at the public hearing. He did not introduce any exhibits or present any witnesses. Mr. Kohut objected, generally, about increased traffic and lowered property values and, specifically, about his desire for curbs and gutters. Mr. Kohut did not identify any specific criterion for approval of the Aquarium’s application that he believed would not be met. The City Planner, Matt Jackson, was accepted by the CDB as an expert witness in the areas of zoning, site plan analysis, planning in general, and the City’s landscape ordinance. Mr. Jackson discussed the Aquarium’s application and stated his opinion that it complied with all applicable Community Development Code and Comprehensive Plan requirements. Mr. Jackson was cross-examined by Mr. Kohut. The Aquarium’s attorney made a presentation to the CDB in support of the application and introduced the testimony of engineers Al Carrier and Robert Pergolizzi. The CDB accepted Mr. Carrier as an expert witness in the areas of civil engineering, land use planning, and planning in general. The CDB accepted Mr. Pergolizzi as an expert witness in the areas of planning, land use, and traffic impact studies. Mr. Pergolizzi was cross-examined by Mr. Kohut. The attorney for Island Way Grill, Inc., obtained party status for his client and made a presentation in support of the Aquarium’s application. Steven Traum obtained party status and made a presentation to the CDB. Mr. Traum did not appear for oral argument on April 8, 2016, and did not file a proposed order. On January 22, 2016, the City entered a Development Order memorializing the CDB’s approval of the Aquarium’s application.
