Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, the exhibits received in evidence, and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On April 21, 1983, the College filed an application with DER seeking a permit to relocate a drainage ditch that runs through the College property, to fill the existing drainage ditch, and to install a large culvert in the Coconut Creek Waterway which would serve as a road crossing connecting the proposed new College parking lot and N.W. 39th Avenue in Coconut Creek. Upon review of the original application, DER determined that it would not meet the DER's water quality criteria. On September 30, 1983, the College revised its application. It is the revised application which lies at the heart of the present controversy. The revised application no longer contains a proposal to fill in the entire ditch that runs through the College property. Rather, it is new proposed to install two 36-inch culverts in the existing ditch to provide access roads to the proposed new College parking lot. The College also proposed to dredge 832 cubic yards from .5 acres and to install a large structural culvert (measuring 14 feet, 1 inch, by 12 feet, 10 inches) in the Coconut Creek Canal. The existing ditch which runs through the College campus was originally constructed as a drainage ditch. The only water which would flow through that ditch would be provided by run off from the N.W. 11th Street area. At the present time the ditch through the College is plugged in two places. Some time in late July or early August of 1984, contractors employed by the College placed two earthen plugs in the ditch that runs through the College. This was done without benefit of a Department permit and was apparently the result of some confusion on the part of the contractors, the exact nature of which is not explained in the record in this case. The two earthen plugs were not installed in the manner proposed by the subject application, nor were they installed in the locations proposed in the subject application. In their present condition the two earthen plugs effectively prevent the flow of any water through the ditch that runs through the College. The north end of the ditch that runs through the College campus was formerly connected to Coconut Creek Canal. A portion of Coconut Creek Canal runs parallel to N.W. 11th Street. Following the installation of the earthen plugs there was a decrease in the water quality of the portion of Coconut Creek Canal that parallels N.W. 11th Street. The water became cloudier than before and there was some silting. There were fewer base and bluegills and more mudfish. There has also been an occasional unpleasant odor from the area which was not present prior to the installation of the earthen plugs. Also, the residents along N.W. 11th Street complain of an increased mosquito Population since the installation of the earthen plugs. 1/ The proposed 36-inch culverts are substantially larger than is necessary to handle the anticipated flow of water through the College ditch. Calculations made using the methodology approved by the Florida Department of Transportation indicates that 21-inch culverts would have been sufficient to handle any anticipated flow of water through the College ditch. Although the culverts will require some periodic maintenance, they have been designed to minimize the need for maintenance. Properly maintained, the proposed 36-inch culverts will not pose any impediment to the flow of water through the College ditch. There is usually no detectable current or water flow in either Coconut Creek Canal or the College ditch in the area where the College proposes to install the three culverts. Accordingly, inasmuch as there is usually no detectable flow of water, any impediment to water flow which might be caused by the culverts is insignificant. This is particularly true with regard to the issue of weed growth. While it has been contended that the culverts might reduce the rate of water flow to the extent that aquatic weed growth would be promoted because of the stillness of the water, long before this permit was ever applied for and long before the earthen plugs were installed the City of Coconut Creek had serious problems with aquatic weeds growing in all of its canals. As described by one of the City's former mayors, several years ago the hyacinths covered the canals solid from bank to bank and were growing so thick and solid that rabbits could actually run across the canals hopping on the hyacinths. This type of hyacinth growth only occurs in still water. The City has been able to control the hyacinth problem by an ongoing weed control program which consists of spraying chemicals on the plants several times each year. The small amount of water flow which does occur in Coconut Creek Canal is directly related to stormwater runoff, including water generated by the residents along N.W. 11th Street washing their cars and watering their lawns. The portion of Coconut Creek Canal which extends eastward from the College ditch is a dead end system in which the only flushing is due to water runoff from the street. The installation of the proposed large culvert in Coconut Creek Canal would never cause the water to back up in the canal or otherwise impede the flow of water in the canal. A tube 21 inches in diameter would be sufficient to carry away the worst expected rain water conditions and the proposed culvert is, in essence, a tube with an average diameter in excess of 13 feet. The large culvert would cause no change in the volume of water flowing through the canal. It might cause a de minimis headloss, which is a change in the water level from one side of the culvert to the other. Any such headloss would be on a magnitude of approximately 1/1000th of a foot; about 1/3 of a millimeter. The installation of the large culvert in the Coconut Creek Canal would actually increase the velocity of any water flow through the culvert. In conjunction with the installation of the large culvert, the depth of Coconut Creek Canal would be increased to an average of six or six and one-half feet from its present average of approximately five or five and one-half feet. Notwithstanding the decrease in the water quality of the portion of Coconut Creek Canal that parallels N.W 11th Street which apparently resulted from the unauthorized installation of the two earthen plugs, when the water in that portion of the canal was tested by the City's export witness some eight or nine months later, the water quality was within established state standards. And while the construction activity associated with the installation of the two 36-inch culverts in the College ditch effect on the water quality in Coconut Creek Canal, there is no evidence that water quality standards would be violated on either a short or long-term basis. A small amount of habitat would be destroyed, but it is likely that there would be rapid recolonization. No rare or endangered animal species would be affected. The habitat for birds would also recolonize and the birds and fish displaced by construction would return. Any turbidity problems during construction would be controlled by the use of turbidity screens. With regard to navigability, once installed the large culvert would provide a vertical clearance from the surface of the canal of approximately six feet. This clearance would prevent larger boats from passing through the culvert. The vertical clearance of existing canal bridges in the area varies from six and one-half to eight feet. Installation of the larger culvert would not seriously impede navigation. The large culvert would not constitute a navigational hazard nor would it impede the flow of navigable water. As compared to the situation which existed prior to the installation of the two earthen plugs, installation of the two 36-inch culverts would totally stop any boat traffic through the ditch that runs through the College. Nevertheless, curtailment of boat traffic through the College ditch would not seriously impede navigation because any destination which could be reached by traveling through the College ditch could be reached via alternative canal routes which are not affected by this project. As with the larger culvert, the 36-inch culverts would not constitute navigational hazards nor would they impede the flew of navigable water. If the total project envisioned by the College is completed, the culverts will provide a new route for motor vehicle access to an expanded College parking lot. The increased volume of motor vehicle traffic would produce an increased amount of air and noise pollution in the vicinity of N.W. 39th Avenue. A study of the results of the increased motor vehicle traffic based on a "worst case" scenario reveals that even with the additional air and noise pollution generated by the increased motor vehicle traffic, the air and noise pollution levels in the area would be far below the air and noise pollution standards established by the state and federal governments. In the formulation of the foregoing findings of fact I have, of necessity, relied to a large extent on the opinions of expert witnesses who testified in the case. Where there is conflict in the testimony of the expert witnesses, I have generally credited the testimony of the expert witnesses called by the College and the Department because I have found their testimony to be more consistent with other evidence in the case and have found that there is a better factual foundation in the record for their opinions than for the opposing opinions.
Recommendation For the foregoing reasons it is Recommended that the Department issue a Final Order which would GRANT the College's application to install two 36-inch culverts in the College ditch and a 14-foot, 1-inch, by 12-foot, 10-inch, culvert in the Coconut Creek Canal, subject to the conditions set forth in the Department's Notice of Intent to Issue. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of October, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1984.
Findings Of Fact By Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed, and it is so found, that the District is a public corporation in Florida under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, F.A.C.. It exists as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach. Respondent James P. McCarthy and his wife, Rebecca, reside at 6017 Southern Road South in West Palm Beach. This property is located within Section 3, Township 44 South, Range 42 East, in Palm Beach County. On December 31, 1991, the District issued a Notice of Violation to the Respondent notifying him that his 2 inch pvc irrigation line, exposed near the top of the bank due to erosion, constituted an encroachment on the District's right-of-way adjacent to Canal 51 at the rear of his property. The line was not removed. On April 9, 1992, the District issued its Second Notice of Violation to Respondent McCarthy assessing a civil penalty in the ultimate amount of $560.00 for the same alleged encroachment, and on April 24, 1992, Mr. McCarthy filed his Petition for Formal Hearing to contest that action. Mr. McCarthy does not contest the fact that the line exists as indicated by the District but debates the allegation that it constitutes an encroachment violation requiring a permit, contending that the District has failed to properly complete the work it promised to do on his property, the completion of which is a condition precedent to the requirement for a permit. The South Florida Water Management District owns a right-of-way located on the south bank adjacent to C-51 canal in West Palm Beach, and the McCarthy's property is adjacent to that right-of-way. They have constructed a 1 1/2 inch PVC lawn irrigation line from the sprinkler system in their backyard beneath and across the District's right-of-way into the canal. According to Douglas Sykes, the District's senior engineering field representative in the area, who inspected the McCarthy's pipe line subsequent to the completion of the Corps' work, the line meets the District's standards and is permittable. All that is required is for McCarthy to make the requisite application and pay the permit fee. On April 17, 1989, the McCarthys and the District entered into a written Settlement Agreement by which both granted deeds to each other for portions of the land adjacent to the canal for the payment of the sum of $11,000.00, plus attorneys fees, to be paid to the McCarthys. This agreement did not, however, address either the slope or grade of the canal bank adjacent to the McCarthy property. The bank slope was to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with their proposed constructions plans. The agreement did, however, call for the McCarthys to obtain an irrigation permit pursuant to District criteria "after completion of construction." The Director of the District's Right-of-Way Division, responsible for the enforcement of the occupancy regulations in the right-of-way, considered the canal complete when the Corps ceased its construction activities and removed its equipment. This was done before September, 1991. The Corps notified its contractor that it accepted the C-51 project as complete on March 20, 1991. Mr. Sykes also inspected the area subsequent to the departure of the Corps' contractor. He found the work to be consistent with the District requirements, though as late as June, 1992, some additional work was being done by the District on property to the east of the McCarthy property. There is some indication that when the District sought permission to cross McCarthy's property line to access that work area, permission was denied. The District crossed McCarthy's property anyway, causing some minor damage. This work has now ceased. The District employee who negotiated the settlement agreement with the McCarthys intended for the term "completion of construction" to mean the moment when the Corps relinquished its control of the right-of-way to the District. This was done on September 4, 1991. Other landowners applied for and received permits for irrigation lines when the Corps' contractor left the site. As McCarthy tells it, in early 1990, after the settlement agreement was signed, the heavy construction was begun on the canal project and the trees were removed. A roadway was put in and the contractor began to install a large earthenware berm on the property. After some of it was done, he stopped the workers and found that the berm should go on another property. It was removed and after that, no other work was done. Mr. McCarthy contends the agreed-upon canal bank was not properly constructed by the Corps. He claims the Corps' contractor left the canal bank without the required grading and in a rough state without sod. This is, supposedly, the only parcel that was not graded properly or sodded. He was left with a 1 1/2 :1 slope - very steep, and he complained about this in writing to the District because it was not what he claims they had all agreed upon. Mr. Shattner, the District's Director of Construction Management, indicates that regardless of what drawing is examined, the slope is no more gentle than 2:1. Throughout 1990 and 1991, Mr. McCarthy alleges, he repeatedly advised the District that it had not lived up to their agreement but never got an answer. The agreement does not define the slope to be used except as it referred to a survey which was supposedly attached to the agreement. Towards the end of 1991, Mrs. McCarthy wrote to Mr. Swartz of the District about the work but received no answer. She then called the office of Mr. Creel, the District Executive Director, to complain. On December 19, 1991, someone called back and agreed to send someone out to look at the berm. No one came, however, and the next contact with the District was the violation letter of December 31, 1991. Mr. McCarthy has repeatedly taken the position with the District that it has not lived up to the terms of its agreement with him and he will not apply for a permit for the line until the construction is completed properly. The current line complained of by the District is temporary and will be destroyed by the corrective construction. The residue of the Corps' work remaining on his property is, he complains, unsafe. It does not conform to either the county code or the District's own manual which calls for a 4:1 ratio.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued dismissing the assessment of the currently assessed $560.00 civil penalty against the Respondents herein, James and Rebecca McCarthy, but requiring them to apply within 30 days from the date of that Order for a permit to construct and maintain an irrigation pipeline across the District's right-of way for Canal C-51 at the rear of their property. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Glazier, Esquire Toni M. Leidy, Esquire South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 James P. and Rebecca R. McCarthy 6017 Southern Boulevard South West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Harold F. Brown is a custom agricultural applicator, and has been in the business for approximately 27 years. He has applied the pesticide aldicarb, known under the brand name of Temik, which is manufactured and sold by Union Carbide, Inc. This pesticide is used in Florida to kill nematodes that attack the roots of plants and trees in the soil. Aldicarb (Temik) is an oxime carbamate which exhibits the neuro- transmitter enzyme cholinesterase, thereby inhibiting the transmission of neurological messages across synaptic junctions. Its effect on humans is to reduce the brain's control of body organs, resulting in neurological disorder which can ultimately cause death. Aldicarb is one of the most toxic substances made for public use. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends as a guideline a tolerance level of aldicarb residue of 10 parts per billion (ppb). In connection with its pesticide monitoring program the DACS accepts and relies upon residue tolerance levels established by the EPA. HRS also follows the guidelines of the EPA as to residue tolerance levels. Aldicarb was registered for use in Florida in 1975, and has been an effective and desirable product for the growing of citrus and potatoes. It was originally anticipated that the product, when used in accordance with the label instructions, would degrade rapidly under Florida soil and temperature conditions, would be found only in the superficial layers of the soil and would not leach into ground water supplies. The label instructions for the use of Temik on citrus directs an application of 67 pounds of 15G formulation per acre once a year in the springtime. The DER has the duty and authority to protect the waters of this State, including ground water, from pollution. It has enacted rules which prohibit discharges to ground water of substances in concentrations which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic or toxic to human beings or which pose a serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare. DER also regulates public drinking water supplies, while private drinking water supplies are regulated by HRS. Existing treatment facilities are not now required and are not equipped to remove aldicarb residues from drinking water. According to data from the United States Geological Survey, 87 percent of all public drinking water supplies in Florida comes from ground water. Ground water accounts for 94 percent of the rural water use. There are two primary sources of ground water for drinking water in Florida--the surficial aquifer, also called the water table or shallow aquifer, and the Floridan aquifer. Approximately 37 percent of the State's population obtains its water solely or primarily from the shallow or surficial aquifer. Ground water contamination occurs when rain falls on a source of pollution, such as chemicals. The rainwater dissolves the chemical and creates leachate which percolate into the water table. This leachate moves both vertically and in the direction of the ground water. Ground water generally moves in a downgradient direction, at lateral speeds varying from several inches to several feet per month. The presence of withdrawal points, such as water supply wells, creates a vacuum and accelerates the movement of leachate. Temik is highly soluble in water and would be expected to move along with the ground water. Chemicals in ground water remain much longer than in surface water because there is a smaller degree of dilution and no exposure to sunlight. On or about August 6, 1982, the Commissioner of Agriculture created a "Temik Task Force" for the purpose of testing food products, ground water and drinking water for Temik residues. This Task Force was placed under the direction of the State Chemist and included members representing the DACS, DER, HRS and the University of Florida's Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. The Temik Task Force met with the Pesticide Technical Council on various occasions and reported its findings to the Commissioner of Agriculture on a regular basis. The DACS conducted testing on 256 orange juice and grapefruit juice samples taken from retail stores. No traces of aldicarb residues were detected in these samples from the marketplace. Traces of aldicarb residue were detected in some noncommercial orange juice from fruit sampled at the Alcoma Grove near Lake Wales. This detection did not exceed the federal guideline of 10 ppb. Twenty potato samples were tested, and one of these samples showed aldicarb residues. DER instituted a testing program in various orange groves where Temik had been used to determine whether aldicarb was entering into the ground water. Trained DER personnel utilized monitoring wells and techniques designed to avoid contamination of the ground water samples from surface waters, soils or other causes. While many of the samples revealed no detectable traces of aldicarb or traces of less than 10 ppb, samples taken between August 18, 1982 and January 19, 1983 did reveal residues much greater than 10 ppb. These positive findings existed in shallow wells located in citrus groves in Martin County (Indiantown) and Polk County (Alcoma Groves near Lake Wales). Aldicarb residues in the amount of 129 ppb were found in the Indiantown well sample on August 18, 1982. This same well located at a site where the water table is about 4 to 5 feet below soil surface was retested on September 16, 1982, and found to contain aldicarb residues of 35 ppb. On September 29, 1982, aldicarb residues amounting to 81 ppb were discovered from samples from a surface pond in Volusia County. On or about December 8, 1982, aldicarb residues in amounts of 41, 93, 49 and 47 ppb were detected from four different monitoring wells located at the Alcoma Grove ground water testing site near Lake Wales. Testing conducted on or about January 19, 1983, at the Alcoma Grove site revealed aldicarb residue levels of 125, 100 and 65 from samples taken from three monitoring wells. All positive findings came from samples taken below the unsaturated zone or water table in the surficial or shallow aquifer. Although extensive testing has not been completed by DER, residue levels in excess of 10 ppb have not been detected in areas outside an actual area treated with Temik. No residues of Temik have been found in wells located outside a citrus grove. Based upon reports from the Temik Task Force indicating that the pesticide residues were being found in the ground water, the DACS promulgated Emergency Rule 5E-ER-83-1 on January 19, 1983. This rule (which is not the subject of challenge in this proceeding), placed all uses and formulations of aldicarb on the "restricted use pesticide" list and implemented a reporting procedure requiring advance notice of aldicarb use (with the exception of its use in potted plants) and other information regarding its use. HRS tested for traces of Temik residue from approximately 171 drinking water wells. On January 25, 1983, a sample from the Birdsong well in Winter Garden, Orange County revealed aldicarb residue at a level of 5 ppb. This well was located in the middle of a citrus grove and contained a broken casing. Based upon the above positive finding of Temik residue in the Birdsong drinking water well, the DACS promulgated Emergency Rule 5E-ER-83-2 on January 28, 1983. This rule (also not the subject of the instant challenge) temporarily suspended the use of the pesticide Temik statewide, with the exception of authorized experimental use and nursery use in containerized plants. Subsequent to January 28, 1983, 224 samples were taken from some 154 residential drinking water wells in the Hastings area. These wells were representative of approximately 96 percent of the total potato growing acreage in the three counties of Putnam, Flagler and St. Johns. No aldicarb residue was detected from these samples, and the DACS was so informed on February 3, 1983. Based upon the Hastings area sampling and results, coupled with the lower rate of application of Temik for potatoes (as opposed to citrus) and the localized area of intended use, the challenged Emergency Rule 5E-ER-83-3 was promulgated on February 4, 1983. This Rule replaced and superseded the two prior emergency rules concerning aldicarb. It basically provided for the classification of aldicarb as a restricted use pesticide, and temporarily suspended its use statewide with exemptions for nursery use in containerized plants, authorized experimental use and application to potato fields only in St. Johns, Putnam and Flagler Counties, with reports required for potato applications. Testing of food products, ground water and drinking water has continued since the promulgation of Emergency Rule 5E-ER-83-3 and is expected to continue on the part of DACS, DER, HRS, the IFAS, and the manufacturer, Union Carbide. While the DACS and HRS have not discovered any samples from food products or drinking water wells exceeding the EPA guideline of 10 ppb, further aldicarb residues have been discovered. One grapefruit sample taken from the Orange County Packing-house on February 8, 1983, was found to contain 10 ppb. Another private drinking water well, the Sharpe well in Orange County, revealed an aldicarb residue level of 6 ppb on February 8, 1983. This well, located within 10 feet of the Temik-treated area, was also defective in that it had been struck by a tractor and contained a broken casing. Samples from another defective drinking water well in Volusia County revealed an aldicarb residue level of 6 ppb on February 16, 1983. There are no existing statistics or other evidence concerning the number of defective private drinking water wells in Florida. Three non-drinking wells at the same site in Volusia County revealed aldicarb residue levels of 52, 15 and 130 ppb. Ground water samples taken on or about February 23, 1983, from four sandpoint wells in the Newberger Grove in Lutz, Hillsborough County, revealed aldicarb residues of 26, 30,126 and 315 ppb. These samples were taken from depths below the ground surface ranging from 6.9 to 13.2 feet. The EPA and Union Carbide had discovered similarly high levels of aldicarb residue at this Lutz site in 1979 and 1980. There was some evidence that Temik had not been applied to the Lutz grove site since 1981. There was also some indication, or at least inference, that in those areas where high levels of aldicarb residue were discovered in ground water, the application of Temik to the citrus grove had not been performed in accordance with the manufacturer's label directions. This inference was neither proven nor disproven at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact This application is a request for a consumptive use permit for two wells located in Pasco County, Florida, within the Pithlachascotee Basin. The subject wells are also located in that area wherein the Board of Governors of the Southwest Florida Water Management District declared a water shortage in Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. The application seeks an average daily withdrawal of 95,000 gallons with a maximum daily withdrawal of 360,000 gallons. The use of this water is for public supply involving effluent disposal by on-site percolation and ponding. This-use was existing prior to January 1, 1975 with am average daily withdrawal for 1974 of 74,000 gallons. The testimony presented by staff members of the Southwest Florida Water Management District establishes that the consumptive use for which a permit is sought will not violate any of the criteria set forth in Subsections 163- 2.11(2)(3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code, except that the use may significantly induce salt water encroachment. No evidence was presented showing that the sought for consumptive use will, in fact, significantly induce salt water encroachment. In the twelve month period ending October, 1975, applicant's highest average daily withdrawal was 81,000 gallons. This time frame corresponds to that time frame referred to in paragraph 1 of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District. In view of Water Shortage Order No. 76-3D, Southwest Florida Water Management District, the staff recommends granting of the permit for an average daily withdrawal of 81,000 gallons and a maximum daily withdrawal of four times that figure or 234,000 gallons. The staff further recommends imposition of the following conditions: That the permittee shall install totalizer flow meters of the propeller driven type on all withdrawal points covered by the permit with the exception of those wells which are currently ganged together using a single meter. That the permittee shall submit to the District a record of his pumpage for each meter, said pumpage to be read on a monthly basis and submitted quarterly to the District on April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar quarter. That all individual connections to the system be metered. That the permittee have water samples from all wells permitted analyzed for chloride on a monthly basis and results submitted to the District by April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15 for each preceding calendar year.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-42.100, 62-42.200, 62-42.300, and a document incorporated by reference (“the Proposed Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority; whether the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) complied with statutory requirements regarding preparation of a statement of estimated regulatory costs (“SERC”) for the Proposed Rules; and whether the approval by the Governing Board of the Suwannee River Water Management District (“SRWMD”) of a document entitled “Recovery Strategy: Lower Santa Fe River Basin” (“Recovery Strategy”) is invalid because it required rulemaking.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Alliance is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 203 Northeast First Street, Gainesville, Florida. Its mission is to ensure the restoration, preservation, and protection for future generations of the ecosystems along the Ichetucknee River, including its associated springs. The Alliance has approximately 40 members. Seventeen members appeared at the final hearing and testified that they regularly use the Ichetucknee River and its associated priority springs for recreation, wildlife observation, and other purposes. Seventeen members is a substantial number of the total membership of the Alliance. Petitioner Still is a natural person who owns 117 acres of land in Bradford County. He uses the land primarily for timber production. He does not have a consumptive (water) use permit. He has used the Lower Santa Fe River and associated springs for recreation since 1979 and continues to visit the river and springs for this purpose. Petitioner FWF is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 2545 Blairstone Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. The mission of FWF includes the preservation, management, and improvement of Florida’s water resources and wildlife habitat. In the parties’ Pre-Hearing Stipulation, FWF identified Manley Fuller, its President, as its witness for organizational standing. It also listed “standing witnesses as needed,” but did not name them. At his deposition, Mr. Fuller stated that he did not know how many FWF members use the MFL water bodies. At the beginning of the final hearing, FWF made an oral proffer that it was prepared to call “10 members who are using the water bodies.” Later, FWF stated that some members were unwilling or unable to come to Tallahassee, but suggested that 10 or 15 might (now) be talked into coming to the final hearing or testifying by video. FWF also proffered a membership list, showing the number of members by county. It shows that FWF has a total of 11,788 members. In the six counties in the vicinity of the MFL water bodies (Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Suwannee, and Union) there are 457 FWF members. Ten, 15, or 20 members is not a substantial number of FWF’s 11,788 total members, nor is it a substantial number of its 457 members who live in the vicinity of the MFL waterbodies. Respondent DEP is a state agency with powers and duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including the power and duty under section 373.042(1), which it shares with the water management districts, to establish minimum flows for surface watercourses and minimum levels for groundwater (“MFLs”) and recovery strategies when MFLs will not be achieved. Respondent/Intervenor SRWMD is a regional water management district with powers and duties under chapter 373, including powers and duties related to MFLs. The MFL waterbodies are located within SRWMD. Intervenor SJRWMD is the water management district adjacent to SRWMD. A portion of SJRWMD is included within the planning area created for the MFL waterbodies. Intervenor NFUCG is a regional trade organization representing interests of public water supply utilities in North Florida that hold consumptive use permits and are subject to the Proposed Rules. Intervenors CCUA and JEA are two members of NFUCG. Intervenors Alachua County, Gilchrist County, Suwannee County, Bradford County, and Columbia County are political subdivisions of the State in geographic proximity to the MFL water bodies. These Counties have the duty to plan for and protect the MFL water bodies as part of their local government comprehensive planning responsibilities under chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Minimum Flows and Recovery Strategies The water management districts and the DEP are required to establish minimum flows for surface water courses. § 373.042(1), Fla. Stat. Minimum flows are “the limit at which further withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.” § 373.042(1)(a), Fla. Stat. If the existing flow in a water body is below its established minimum flow, DEP or the district is required to develop a “recovery strategy” designed to “[a]chieve recovery to the established minimum flow or level as soon as practicable.” § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. MFLs and recovery strategies are required to be included in a water management district’s regional water supply plan. § 373.709(2)(c) and (g), Fla. Stat. Water management districts must develop regional water supply plans in regions where they determine existing sources of water are not adequate to supply water for all existing and future users and to sustain water resources and related natural systems. § 373.709(1), Fla. Stat. SRWMD does not have a regional water supply plan. It is working on a draft plan that is expected to be completed in late 2015. The MFL Water Bodies The Lower Santa Fe River runs for approximately 30 miles from Santa Fe River Rise Spring to its confluence with the Suwannee River. The Lower Santa Fe is fed primarily by groundwater discharge from the Upper Floridan aquifer including the baseflow provided by several major springs. The Lower Santa Fe River system, including its tributary, the Ichetucknee River (below State Road 27), is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water, a designation conferred on waters “with exceptional recreational or ecological significance.” See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(3). The Ichetucknee River runs for six miles from the Head Spring to its confluence with the Lower Santa Fe. Its flow is derived almost entirely from springflow. The ecological, recreational, and economic values of the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are widely recognized. Both rivers flow through lands preserved for public use as part of the State Park System. SRWMD published a Water Supply Assessment in 2010 to determine whether water demands could be met for the 2010-2030 planning period without adversely affecting natural resources. The North Florida Groundwater Flow Model was used to evaluate groundwater withdrawals and their effect on aquifer levels and the flows in springs and rivers. The 2010 assessment concluded that groundwater levels of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the eastern and northeastern portions of the District were in decline. The District’s analysis of river and streamflows also found declining trends. It was concluded that existing water sources would not be able to meet projected water demands over the planning period. As a result, the Lower Santa Fe River Basin (including the Ichetucknee River) was designated as a water supply planning region and SRWMD began to develop minimum flows for these water bodies. Because groundwater withdrawals within the adjacent SJRWMD were also affecting the MFL waterbodies1/, DEP, SRWMD, and SJRWMD entered into an interagency agreement in 2011 to work together on water supply issues and the development of a joint regional groundwater model. Development of the Minimum Flows The procedural difficulties faced in establishing minimum flows affected by water uses in two water management districts eventually lead to the Legislature’s creation of section 373.042(4) in 2013, which authorizes DEP to adopt relevant rules which can be applied by the water management districts without the need for their own rulemaking. In June 2013, SRWMD requested that DEP adopt minimum flows for the MFL waterbodies pursuant to the new law. A gage2/ for the Lower Santa Fe River near Fort White, and a gage for the Ichetucknee River on US 27 were selected for establishment of the respective minimum flows. The minimum flows were determined by first establishing a hydrologic baseline condition at the two gages. Then, SRWMD determined a departure from the baseline that would cause significant harm to the water resources and ecology of the area. The minimum flows are expressed as stage duration curves rather than a single number, in order to account for the changes in flow that occur naturally due to seasonal, climatic, and other factors affecting rainfall. Once the minimum flows were determined, SRWMD evaluated whether they are being met. It concluded that the minimum flows are not being met. Therefore, in accordance with section 373.0421(2), a recovery strategy had to be prepared and implemented. The Recovery Strategy A recovery strategy is a plan for achieving a return to adopted MFLs and will generally include plans for developing new water supplies and implementing conservation and efficiency measures. See § 373.0421(2), Fla. Stat. The practice of the water management districts has been to also adopt regulatory measures that are used in the review of consumptive use permits as part of a recovery strategy. See, e.g., Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-80.074. That practice was followed for the MFL water bodies. The Recovery Strategy includes planning, water conservation, water supply development, and water resource development components. These components comprise the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy, entitled “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” is the regulatory portion and is incorporated by reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(d). The Recovery Strategy is to be implemented in two phases and the objectives of each phase are described in Table 4-1 of the Recovery Strategy. Phase I includes adoption of supplemental regulatory measures, work with user groups to implement water conservation measures, completion of an improved regional groundwater model, and identification and investigation of water supply projects. In Phase II of the Recovery Strategy, DEP plans to use the new regional model to develop long-term regulatory measures to address regional impacts to the MFLs water bodies. In addition, SRWMD and SJRWMD would develop and implement additional water resource and supply projects. The Proposed Rules The Proposed Rules would create three sections in a new chapter 62-42 of the Florida Administrative Code. Rules 62- and 62-42.200 set forth the scope and definitions: 62-42.100 Scope The purpose of this chapter is to set forth Department-adopted minimum flows and levels (MFLS) and the regulatory provisions of any required recovery or prevention strategy as provided in Section 373.042(4), F.S. The Department recognizes that recovery and prevention strategies may contain both regulatory and non-regulatory provisions. The non-regulatory provisions are not included in this rule, and will be included in the applicable regional water supply plans approved by the appropriate districts pursuant to Section 373.0421(2) and Section 373.709, F.S. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] 62-42.200 Definitions When used in this chapter, the following words shall have the indicated meanings unless the rule indicates otherwise: Flow Duration Curve means a plot of magnitude of flow versus percent of time the magnitude of flow is equaled or exceeded. Flow Duration Frequency means the percentage of time that a given flow is equaled or exceeded. [Rulemaking authority and law implemented omitted.] Rule 62-42.300 is where the proposed minimum flows are set forth. The minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(a); the minimum flows for the Ichetucknee River are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(b); and the minimum flows for 16 priority springs are established in rule 62-42.300(1)(c). The minimum flows for the Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers are expressed as water flow in cubic feet per second (“cfs”) at various points on a flow duration curve. The minimum flows for ten named springs associated with the Santa Fe River and six named springs associated with the Ichetucknee River are set forth as a “percent reduction from the median baseline flow contribution of the spring to the flow” at a particular river gage. This approach, which ties spring flow to river flow, was used by DEP because there is minimal flow data for the springs. Rule 62-42.300(1)(d) adopts by reference “Supplemental Regulatory Measures,” which is Section 6.0 of the Recovery Strategy. Rule 62-42.300(1)(e) states that DEP, in coordination with SRWMD and SJRWMD, shall reevaluate these minimum flows after completion of the North Florida Southeast Georgia Regional Groundwater Flow Model, which is currently under development. The rule also states that DEP will “strike” rules 62-42.300(1)(a) through (d) and adopt new rules no later than three years after completion of the final peer review report regarding the new groundwater model, or by December 31, 2019, whichever date is earlier. The Supplemental Regulatory Measures adopted by reference in rule 62-42.300(1)(d) are intended to provide additional criteria for review of consumptive use permit applications during Phase I. These measures would be applied to water uses within the North Florida Regional Water Supply Planning Area. For the purposes of the issues raised in these consolidated cases, it is necessary to discuss three categories of permit applications and how they would be treated under the Supplemental Regulatory Measures in Phase I: (1) A new permit application that shows a “potential impact” to the MFL water bodies must eliminate or offset the potential impact; (2) An application to renew a permit, which does not seek to increase the amount of water used, would be renewed for five years no matter what impact it is having on the MFL water bodies; however, if the impact is eliminated or offset, the renewal would not be limited to five years; and (3) An application to renew a permit which seeks an increased quantity of water would have to eliminate or offset the potential impact to the MFL water bodies associated only with the increase. This category of permits is limited to a five-year renewal unless the existing impacts are also eliminated or offset. See § 6.5(a)-(d) of the Recovery Strategy. Section 6.5(e) states that existing permits that do not expire during Phase I are considered consistent with the Recovery Strategy and are not subject to modification during the term of their permits. Many permits are issued for a 20-year period, so Phase I would not capture all existing permits because they would not all expire during Phase I.3/ DEP stated that existing permits may be affected by the regulatory measures DEP plans to adopt for Phase II. Section 6.5(f) of the Supplemental Regulatory Measures states that permittees are not responsible for impacts to the MFL water bodies caused by water users in Georgia, or for more than the permittee’s “proportionate share of impacts.” The record evidence established that the effect of Georgia water users on the MFL water bodies is small. Section 6.6(b) requires permits for agricultural use in the counties surrounding the MFL water bodies to include a condition requiring participation in the Mobile Irrigation Lab (MIL) program. The purpose of SRWMD’s MIL program is to improve the efficiency of irrigation systems. SRWMD provides cost- sharing in this program. Whether DEP Must Adopt the Entire Recovery Strategy by Rule Petitioners contend that proposed rules 62-42.100(1) and (2) enlarge, modify, or contravene sections 373.042(4) and 373.0421(2) because these statutes require DEP to adopt all of a recovery strategy by rule, not just the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy. Respondents contend that it was consistent with the law for DEP to adopt only the regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy by rule and have SRWMD approve the non- regulatory portion and implement it through a regional water supply plan. It has been the practice of the water management districts to adopt by rule only the regulatory portion of a recovery strategy and to implement the non-regulatory portion as a component of their regional water supply plans. This is primarily a legal issue and is addressed in the Conclusions of Law where it is concluded that DEP is not required to adopt the entire Recovery Strategy by rule. Whether SRWMD Must Adopt the Recovery Strategy By Rule Petitioner Still challenged SRWMD’s approval of the Recovery Strategy as violating the rulemaking requirements of section 120.54. However, Petitioner Still presented no evidence in support of his claim that the Recovery Strategy contains statements that meet the definition of a rule, but were not adopted as rules. Whether the Non-Regulatory Portion of the Recovery Strategy Will Prevent Recovery The Alliance claims that there are flaws in the non- regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy that was approved by SRWMD, primarily related to the estimate of flow deficits in the MFL water bodies and the corresponding amount of water that must be returned to the system to achieve the minimum flows. There is unrefuted record evidence indicating that SRWMD did not account for consumptive use permits issued in the last three or four years. Therefore, the Recovery Strategy probably underestimates the flow deficits in the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers and the amount of water needed to achieve the minimum flows.4/ However, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Alliance cannot challenge the non-regulatory portion of the Recovery Strategy in this proceeding. The Recovery Strategy, including the non-regulatory portion approved by SRWMD, is in Phase I. SRWMD can revise the Recovery Strategy at any time, and in Phase II can do so with the improved analysis made possible with the new regional model. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the non-regulatory portion does not have to achieve recovery in Phase I. Whether the Minimum Flows are Based on the Best Information Available Petitioner Still contends that the minimum flows are not based on the best information available as required by section 373.042(1)(b). He claims that the wrong method was used to estimate streamflow, the modeling was based on a false assumption about the relationship between groundwater levels and river flows, the relationship between withdrawals and flows was not properly accounted for, withdrawals and other anthropogenic impacts were not properly distinguished, tailwater effects were not properly accounted for, and the wrong period of record was used. Petitioner Still’s arguments in this respect are based largely on his own opinions about the quality and significance of the technical data that was used and how it affects the modeling results used in establishing the minimum flows. Petitioner Still does not have the requisite expertise to express these opinions and he did not get expert witnesses at the final hearing to agree with his claims. Petitioner Still does not have an expertise in modeling to express an opinion about the ability of the model to use particular data or how the model accounts for various surface and groundwater phenomena. Petitioner Still failed to prove that the minimum flows are not based on the best available information. Whether the Proposed Rules Are Vague Petitioner Still contends the Proposed Rules are invalid because they use terms that are vague. Some of the terms which Petitioner Still objects to are the same or similar to terms commonly used in other environmental regulations, such as “best available information,” “impact,” “offset,” and “eliminate.” The term “potential impact” is not materially different than the term “impact.” The term “best available modeling tools” is not vague. It reflects the recognition that, like best available information, hydrologic models and technical information are continually being created and updated. Petitioner Still contends that the definitions of “Flow Duration Curve” and “Flow Duration Frequency” in proposed rules 62-42.200(1) and (2), respectively, are vague because they do not state whether “synthetic” data may be used in the production of the flow duration curve, or that they are based on a specific period of record. Synthetic data are numeric inputs used to account for missing data and are created by extrapolating from existing data. As an example, they can be used to satisfy a model’s need to have a water flow entry for every month in a multi-year period being analyzed when there is no actual data available for some of the months. The use of synthetic data is a regular and accepted practice in modeling and does not have to be mentioned in the rule. Flow duration curves and flow duration frequencies are calculated from data covering specific periods of record. Although the definitions of these two terms in proposed rule 62-42.200 could contain more information than is provided, the proposed definitions are not inaccurate. They are not vague. Petitioner Still contends that proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is vague because it establishes the minimum flows for the Santa Fe River at a location without precisely identifying the location. The record shows that the reference in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” is the actual name of the United States Geological Survey flow gage that has been in use for many years. Furthermore, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(c), which establishes the minimum flows for the priority springs, refers to “the respective river gages listed in paragraphs 62-42.300(1)(a) and (b).” Therefore, it is made clear that the reference to “the Santa Fe River near Ft. White, FL” in proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a) is a reference to a river gage. The rule is not vague. Petitioner Still asserts that the minimum flows in proposed 62-42.300(1) are vague because they do not identify the period of record that was used in deriving the flow duration curves which are used in the rule. He compared the wording in the proposed rule to SRWMD’s existing rule 40B-8.061(1), which identifies the technical report from which the flow duration curve in that rule was derived. A general description of flow duration curves is found in “Minimum Flows and Levels for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee River and Priority Springs” dated November 22, 2013 (“MFL Technical Document”), at page 3-6: They show the percent of time specified discharges were equaled or exceeded for a continuous record in a given period. For example, during the period 1932 to 2010, the daily mean flow of the Santa Fe River near Fort White (Figure 3-2) was at least 767 cfs, 90 percent of the time. The curves are influenced by the period of record used in their creation, but for comparison purposes between different scenarios over a fixed time period they are extremely useful. [Emphasis added.] However, proposed rule 62-42.300(1) does not give the period of record for the flow duration curves that will be used to determine compliance with the minimum flows for the Lower Santa Fe and Ichetucknee Rivers. Respondents argued that identifying the period of record is unnecessary because anyone interested in knowing the period of record or anything else pertaining to how the flow duration curves were produced could refer to the MFL Technical Document. This is not a situation where a specific number and unit, such as 100 cfs, has been established as a criterion based on technical analyses that can be found in documents. In such a case, the technical documents are not needed to determine compliance with the criterion; they simply explain why the criterion was selected. In the case of a flow duration curve, however, the period of record for the data to be used must be known to determine compliance. For example, proposed rule 62-42.300(1)(a)1. would establish the following criterion: “3,101 cubic feet per second (cfs) for a flow duration frequency of five percent.” Five percent of what? Five percent of what data set? Data from what time period? Must the same synthetic data be used? The rule does not inform persons subject to the rule what data SRWMD will use to determine compliance. They would not know how to calculate flow duration frequencies without reviewing the MFL Technical Document. Because the minimum flows are not completely identified in the rule, they are vague. Whether a Minimum Flow Should be Established for Each Priority Spring Petitioner Still contends that the Proposed Rules are invalid because minimum flows are not established for each priority spring, which causes them to be unprotected. He claims that each spring needs its own minimum flow “that takes into account the surface and ground water inputs to its flow.” DEP and SRWMD presented evidence that establishing minimum flows for each spring was impracticable because there were insufficient data for the springs. Petitioner Still did not refute this evidence. Whether the Proposed Rules Allow Further Degradation of the MFL Water Bodies The Alliance contends that the Proposed Rules must reduce permitted withdrawals in Phase I and must require monitoring of water use by agricultural water users, but it did not present evidence that these alternative regulatory measures are practicable in SRWMD in Phase I. The Alliance did not show there are permitting mechanisms that have been used by other water management districts as part of the first phase of a recovery strategy that are practicable for use in SRWMD and would be more effective. The only evidence presented on the subject of what regulatory measures other water management districts have adopted as part of a recovery strategy pertained to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”). That evidence showed that SWFWMD took a similar approach of allowing existing permitted uses to continue their water withdrawals while new water supplies and conservation mechanisms were developed. The Alliance contends that the Supplemental Regulatory Measures do not prevent further degradation because there are projected to be numerous, new agricultural water uses in Phase I. However, under section 6.5(b), new water uses will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. The Alliance makes a similar argument regarding existing agricultural water users who will request an increase in water. Under section 6.5(c), increases in water use will not be allowed to adversely impact the MFL water bodies. Whether the SERC and Revised SERC are Good Faith Estimates and Whether the Proposed Rules Impose the Lowest Cost Regulatory Alternatives Petitioner Still failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that DEP’s original SERC or the revised SERC were not good faith estimates of regulatory costs associated with the Proposed Rules. The record evidence shows they are good faith estimates. He also failed to meet his burden under section 120.56(2) of going forward with evidence to support his allegations that the objectives of the law being implemented could be substantially accomplished by a less costly regulatory alternative.
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands (Letter of Consent) should be issued to Respondent, Palm Beach County (County), authorizing it to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands for a restoration project in Lake Worth Lagoon.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are determined: The Parties Trump is the owner association for a two-towered residential and commercial condominium building located at 525 South Flagler Drive in downtown West Palm Beach, upland and west of the project site in the Lagoon. Each tower rises thirty floors and together they have of two hundred twenty units. The first five floors are common areas including a lobby on the first floor, while a pool and patio are located on the fifth floor of the north tower. The property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive, a four-lane divided road with landscaping and sidewalks which runs adjacent to, and on the western side of, the Lagoon. There is no dispute that Trump has standing to initiate this action. Flagler owns, manages, and leases two multi-story office buildings located at 501 Flagler Drive on the upland real property directly west of the project location. Like the Trump property, the Flagler property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive. There is no dispute that Flagler has standing to participate in this matter. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the applicant in this proceeding. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes,2 to issue to the County an ERP for the project, as well as authority as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to authorize activities on sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21. Background On October 29, 2007, the County submitted to the Department its Joint Application for an ERP and Letter of Consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in the Lagoon owned by the Board of Trustees. The application was assigned File No. 50- 0283929-00. After an extensive review process, including three requests for additional information, on August 12, 2008, the Department issued its Notice of Intent authorizing the County to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands in the Lagoon with approximately 172,931 cubic yards of sand and rock material to create the following: (a) approximately 1.75 acres of red mangrove habitat including 1.52 acres of mangrove islands and 0.23 acres of red mangrove planters; (b) approximately 0.22 acres of cordgrass habitat; (c) approximately 0.90 acres of oyster habitat; (d) approximately 3.44 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat; and (e) a 10-foot by 556-foot (5,560 square feet) public boardwalk with two 3-foot by 16-foot (48 square feet) educational kiosk areas and a 16-foot by 16-foot (256 square feet) observation deck for a total square footage of approximately 5,912 square feet. The Notice of Intent also included a number of general and specific conditions particular to this project. Trump (by timely Petition) and Flagler (by intervention) then challenged the Notice of Intent. They contend generally that the project unreasonably infringes upon or restricts their riparian rights and fails to meet the permitting and consent to use criteria set forth in Chapters 18-21 and 40E-4, as well as Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Section 253.141, Florida Statutes. Conflicting evidence on these issues was presented at the hearing. The conflicts have been resolved in favor of the County and the Department, who presented the more persuasive evidence. The Project The project area is a cove in the Lagoon, a Class III water body which extends within the County from North Palm Beach to Manalapan. The western side of the water body in the project area is lined with a vertical concrete seawall approximately 6.64 feet above the mean low water line. The waters immediately adjacent to the Trump and Flagler upland property are generally two to five feet deep along the seawall. To the east lies the island of Palm Beach, to the south is the Royal Park Bridge, which connects West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, while to the north is the Flagler Memorial drawbridge. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet from shore to shore. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) runs roughly through the middle of the Lagoon in a north-south direction. Currently, there is an artificial dredge hole in the project area around four hundred feet from the western seawall. The dredge hole, which descends to approximately twenty feet at its deepest location, is filled with muck, which can be re- suspended by wave energy into the water, blocking the sunlight necessary for the support of biotic life. The muck covers the natural hard bottom, consumes oxygen, and presents an unsuitable environment for benthic organisms. The dredge hole is too deep to support seagrasses. The project calls for filling the dredge hole to intertidal elevations, i.e., between the high and low tide elevations, for mangroves and elevations suitable for seagrass. In all, approximately 173,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed in and around the hole to build up three separate islands within the project footprint, on which the County will plant 10,000 red mangroves, which naturally grow between fifteen and twenty-five feet in height. (The County estimates that eighty to ninety percent of the mangroves will survive and grow to a height of at least fifteen feet.) The top of the islands, not including mangroves, will be just below the mean high water mark. The County also proposes locating planters along the seawall and oyster reefs along the southern end of the project. The planters are designed to extend out approximately twenty feet from the seawall and will be placed on sovereign submerged lands. The last five feet will consist of limestone rock. Mangrove, spartina, and seagrass habitats will provide a biodiverse source of food and habitat for other species, and occurs naturally within the Lagoon but has been lost over time. Oyster habitat is proposed for additional bio-diversity and to provide a natural water filtration function. From the County's perspective, the restoration project would be incomplete without all the habitats proposed. The planters will be at an intertidal elevation, planted with red mangroves and spartina, and faced with rock to reduce wave energy in the area. The oyster reefs are rock structures designed to rise one foot above mean high water line for visibility to boaters. The project also includes a boardwalk and attached educational kiosks on the south side of the project to bring the public in contact with the habitats. The County will maintain the boardwalk, empty the trash daily, and open/close the gates at sunrise/sunset. The County proposes a minimum ten-foot buffer between seagrass beds and the fill area. The project is part of the County's Lagoon Management Plan, which outlines the County's restoration goals within the Lagoon. The County has performed numerous other restoration projects within the Lagoon to re-introduce mangrove and seagrass habitat, such as Snook Island, which consisted of filling a 100- acre dredge hole, installing mangrove islands, seagrass flats, and oyster reefs. The Snook Island project restored mangrove habitat and recruited fish and bird species, including endangered and threatened species. Snook Island has remained stable, with no sediment deposition or erosion. The County intends to fill the dredge hole with native lagoon bottom sediment. A clam-shell machine will deposit the sediment below the water line to reduce turbidity. Sediment will be placed around the edges of the dredge hole, reducing the velocity of the fill as it settles to the bottom and encapsulates the muck, as required by Draft Permit Special Condition No. 19. The County will use turbidity curtains, monitor conditions hourly, and stop work if turbidity levels rise beyond acceptable standards. These precautions are included in Draft Permit Conditions 12, 13, and 14. The County will use construction barges with a four- foot draft to avoid propeller dredge or rutting and will place buoys along the project boundary to guide the construction barges, precautions integrated into the Draft Permit conditions. The County's vendor contracts require maintenance of construction equipment to prevent leakage. A similar condition is found in the Draft Permit. Both the intertidal and seagrass flats elevations at the top of the islands will be built at a 4:1 slope; elevations subject to wind and wave energy will be reinforced with a rock revetment constructed of filter cloth and rock boulders. Seagrass elevations will have no reinforcing rock because they are deep enough to avoid significant currents. Proposed drawings were signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The ERP Criteria To secure regulatory approval for an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in current Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. The latter rule requires that a public interest balancing test be made, and that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered. Also, the BOR, which implements the rule criteria, must be taken into account. a. Rule 40E-4.301 21. Paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(g), (1)(h), and (1)(k) and subsections (2) and (3) of the rule do not apply. Although Trump and Flagler have focused primarily on paragraphs (1)(d), (f), and (i) in their joint Proposed Recommended Order, all remaining criteria will be addressed. Paragraph (1)(d) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity "will not adversely affect the value of the functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." Based on the project design, the filling of the dredge hole and capping of muck, the restoration of seagrass habitat, and the creation of mangrove habitat, the project will have no adverse impacts but rather will be beneficial to the value of functions for fish and wildlife. Paragraph (1)(e) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The County will be required to manage turbidity that may be generated from the project. In part, the turbidity will be contained by the proposed construction method for filling the dredge hole. As noted earlier, the native sand will be deposited using a clamshell-type arm to dump the sand under the water around the periphery of the edge of the downward slope of the dredge hole. This will continue around the periphery of the hole, building up a lip and letting it slide down towards the bottom of the hole, squeezing the muck into the center of the hole and beginning to encapsulate it. Once there are several feet of native sand over the muck to encapsulate it, the County will resume the filling at the target rate. Subsection 4.2.4.1 of the BOR requires that the County address stabilizing newly created slopes of surfaces. To satisfy this requirement, the County will place the fill at a 4:1 slope. The outer edge of the mangrove islands slope back to a 4:1 slope and use rock rip-rap to stabilize that slope. Also, filter cloth, bedding stones, and boulders will be used. Because water currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de-stabilize. There will be turbidity curtains around the project area. Those are floating tops and weighted bottoms that reach to the bottom and are intended to contain any turbidity that may be generated by the project. Specific Conditions 12, 13, and 14 require extensive monitoring of turbidity. The County proposes to use a barge with a draft no greater than four feet. This aspect of the project will require a pre-construction meeting and extensive monitoring throughout the project. As a part of the application review, the County performed a hydrographic analysis which was coordinated with and reviewed by the Department staff. There are no expected debris or siltation concerns as a result of the project. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that over the long term, the project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By filling the dredge hole and providing habitat for seagrass, mangroves, and oysters, the project will provide net improvement to water quality. The requirements of the rule have been met. Paragraph (1)(f) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the activities will not "cause secondary impacts to the water resources." More detailed criteria for consideration are found in BOR Subsection 4.2.7. The County has provided reasonable assurance that through best management practices, it will control turbidity. Also, Specific Conditions in the proposed permit require that water quality monitoring be conducted throughout the process. There will be no impacts to upland habitat for aquatic or wetland dependent species. This is because a vertical seawall is located upland of the project site, and no surrounding uplands are available for nesting or denning by aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. A secondary impact evaluation also includes an evaluation of any related activities that might impact historical and archaeological resources. There are, however, no historical or archaeological resources in the area. If resources are uncovered during the project, Draft Permit conditions require notification to the Department of State. Finally, there are no anticipated future activities or future phases on the project to be considered. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project "will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Trump and Flagler contend that the project cannot be constructed and successfully operated as proposed. Trump's expert witness, Joseph Pike, testified that there were ambiguities and conflicts within the plan drawings that would require changes upon build-out; either fill will be placed outside of the fill area, or the mangrove islands will be smaller than depicted. Mr. Pike also voiced concerns that a 4:1 slope would not be stable and might cause fill to migrate to existing seagrass beds. He further stated that the Snook Island project included 18:1 slopes, and he thought providing rock revetment only at the intertidal zone was insufficient. Mr. Pike acknowledged that he had used 4:1 slopes in lake projects; however, in a tidal project involving fill placement, he opined that a 4:1 slope was likely to "relax." He did not do calculations about what slope might hold and admitted that prior experience using similar slopes with the same type of fill might change his opinion. Finally, Mr. Pike noted that a portion of the dredge hole would not be filled and concluded that the project would not fully cap the muck. Trump's biologist, James Goldasitch, speculated that the water flow changes would cause sediment deposition on existing seagrass beds, possibly causing the seagrasses to die. He admitted, however, that the County's plans called for the creation of 3.44 acres of seagrass and did not know the amount of habitat created compared to the amount of habitat he anticipated being affected. The Department's engineer, Jack Wu, approved the hydrologic aspects of the County's plan, but Mr. Goldasitch speculated that Mr. Wu was more focused on shoreline stability than on depositional forces. Mr. Goldasitch never actually spoke to Mr. Wu regarding his analysis, and Mr. Wu's memorandum refers not only to engineering and construction aspects of the proposal but also to the criteria in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Mr. Goldasitch believed the County's boardwalk will impact the seagrass beds by blocking sunlight, but acknowledged that the Draft Permit required the boardwalk to be elevated and portions to be grated. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department's expert witness concluded that the permit conditions for constructing the boardwalk, which are common, eliminated impacts to seagrass. Mr. Goldasitch further opined that the 4:1 slope might slump, but then deferred to the opinion of a registered engineer on this type of engineering matter. The County presented its professional engineer, Clint Thomas, who worked on the project design. Mr. Thomas explained that permit drawings are not intended to be construction-level in detail, but are merely intended to provide sufficient detail for the regulator to understand the project within the 8 and 1/2 by 11-inch paper format required by the Department. The County will ultimately prepare permit-level, construction-level, and as-built drawings. Permit conditions also require a pre-construction meeting. No fill will be placed outside the area designated for fill, and the 4:1 slope will start at the outer boundary of the designated fill area until it reaches the specified elevation. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the plan view drawings depict a mangrove island too close to the western project boundary, but stated that the mangrove island would simply be placed farther to the east during the construction-level plan process. Islands will become smaller islands, but will not be relocated, and in no event will the fill area expand; the fill boundary is a very strict limit. There is no evidence that the County has ever violated a fill boundary established in a permit. The 4:1 slope was based on the type of fill proposed for the project and to maximize project features. Mr. Thomas has successfully used 4:1 slopes with non-compacted fill in the Lagoon, both at Snook Island in its as-built state and at other projects. The islands at Snook Island are similar to those proposed. Other areas in the Lagoon have held slopes steeper than 4:1 with the same type of fill. Therefore, Mr. Thomas opined the 4:1 slope would hold. In rendering this opinion, he explained that the currents in the project vicinity are only around 1.2 knots. Because currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de- stabilize. Mr. Thomas addressed the contention that a change in water flow velocity would cause sediment to deposit on existing seagrass. The oyster reefs are rubble structures that allow the water to flow through. If any sediment flows through, it will deposit on the north side of the oyster bar, rather than on the seagrass beds. Given these considerations, the evidence supports a finding that the project will function as proposed. Finally, paragraph (1)(j) requires that the County provide reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that the County has complied with this requirement. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301. b. Rule 40E-4.302 In addition to the conditions of Rule 40E-4.301, the County must provide reasonable assurance that the construction of the proposed project will not be contrary to the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Trump first contends that the project will increase the mosquito population. The evidence shows, however, that the mangroves will be placed below the mean high water mark and therefore no increase in mosquitoes should occur. Also, the design of the project, coupled with the local mosquito control program, should ensure that there will be no increase in mosquito population or a risk to the public health. Trump also raised the issue of an increase in trash along the boardwalk area or in the newly-created mangrove islands. The County presented evidence that there will be appropriate trash receptacles in the area as well as regular garbage collection. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as a part of the project for safe boating by the public. The County consulted with the United States Coast Guard regarding navigation issues. Further, the project will not cause flooding on the property of others or cause an environmental impact on other property. Although a number of Trump residents expressed sincere and well-intended concerns about the project impacting the value of their condominiums (mainly due to a loss of view), BOR Subsection 4.2.3.1(d) provides that the "[Department] will not consider impacts to property values or taxes." Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)2. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Subparagraph 4. of the same rule requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The proposed activity is a restoration project for the creation of seagrass and mangrove habitats. As such, it is beneficial to the conservation of fish and wildlife and is expected to increase the biotic life in the project area. Besides providing additional habitat for fish and wildlife, the project will add to the marine productivity in the area. In terms of recreational opportunities, the project is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and birdwatching. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has also recommended issuance of the permit with the standard manatee condition for in-water work. This recommendation has been incorporated as Specific Conditions 23 through 25 Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)3. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect navigation and the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The nearest navigation channel is the ICW. The project is located outside of that area. Subsection 4.2.3.3 of the BOR provides additional guidance on the evaluation of impacts of this nature. Paragraph (a) of that subsection provides that, in evaluating a proposed activity, the Department "will consider the current navigational uses of the surface waters and will not speculate on uses which may occur in the future." Trump residents indicated that in the project area persons are now picked up off the seawall and then travel to the ICW. Access to the seawall is possible from the east and south, although existing shoals currently limit the approach from the south. Large boats do not use the area because of shoals. In general, "[t]here's not a whole lot of boating activity in the project area." The parties agree that if the project is constructed as designed, boats will not be able to travel directly out from the seawall in front on Trump or Flagler to the ICW, as they now do. However, navigation in the area will still be available, although not as convenient as before. As to water flow, shoaling, and erosion, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 4:1 slope will be stable and will not cause fill to migrate outside of the boundaries of the project into existing seagrass beds. The tidal flow will continue through the area after construction without sediment deposition into existing seagrass beds or destabilizing the 4:1 slope. There will be no shoaling or erosion. Finally, the project will be permanent and there are no significant historical and archaeological resources in the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)5. and 6. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County's proposal is neutral as to whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others; that the County's proposal is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the County's proposal is positive with respect to the conservation of fish and wildlife, recreational values and marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When these factors are weighed and balanced, the project is not contrary to the public interest and qualifies for an ERP. D. Proprietary Authorization Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. In making its review, the Department reviews the rule in its entirety; it also looks at the forms of authorization (e.g., letters of consent, leases, deeds, or easement) to determine the most appropriate form of authorization for an activity. Trump and Flagler have raised contentions regarding the proprietary authorization, including whether the application should have been treated as one of heightened public concern, whether the proper form of authorization has been used, and whether their riparian rights are unreasonably infringed upon by the project. Heightened Public Concern Rule 18-21.0051 provides for the delegation of review and decision-making authority to the Department for the use of sovereign submerged lands, with the following exception found in subsection (4) of the rule: (4) The delegations set forth in subsection (2) are not applicable to a specific application for a request to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253 or 258, F.S., where one or more members of the Board, the Department, or the appropriate water management district determines that such application is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern, because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. On March 13, 2008, the Department's West Palm Beach District Office sent a "heightened public concern [HPC]) memo" to the Department's review panel in Tallahassee,3 seeking guidance as to whether the project required review by the Board of Trustees under the above-cited rule. The Department emailed the County on March 14, 2008, stating that the project would be elevated to the Board of Trustees for review to approve the entire Lagoon Management Plan. The County asked for reconsideration, concerned over timing restraints on grant opportunities. This concern is based on the fact that the County will receive grant monies to assist in the construction of the project and must have regulatory approval by a date certain in order to secure those funds. A second HPC memorandum was sent to the review panel on April 22, 2008. Part of the interim decision to elevate the application to the Board of Trustees concerned the boardwalk connection to the City of West Palm Beach's existing seawall. The City of West Palm Beach is the upland owner of the seawall, sidewalk, and Flagler Drive. On June 9, 2008, the Mayor of West Palm Beach sent a letter to the Department stating that the City "fully supports" the proposed activity, and that the County and the City collaborated on the design of the project, held joint public meetings, and produced a project video. See Department Exhibit Trump and Flagler argue that under the City Charter, the Mayor cannot unilaterally bind the local government to allow structures to be built on City property. Assuming this is true, one of the remaining conditions for the County to initiate the project is to obtain a "letter of concurrence" from the City of West Palm Beach authorizing the County to connect the boardwalk to the seawall. Therefore, the review panel ultimately concluded that the application could be reviewed at the staff level and did not require Board of Trustees review. The evidence at hearing did not establish that the application was one of heightened public concern, given the limited size of the project, its location, and the net benefit to both environmental and natural resources. Compare Brown, et al. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., et al., DOAH Case No. 04-0476, 2004 Fla. ENV LEXIS 112 (DOAH Aug. 2, 2004, SFWMD Sept. 8, 2004). Therefore, review by the Board of Trustees was not required. Form of Authorization Trump and Flagler contend that an easement is required by the County, rather than a consent of use. The standard for obtaining an easement is more stringent than a consent of use, and an easement offers a greater interest in sovereign lands. Rule 18-21.005(1) provides the general policy direction for determining the appropriate form of authorization and reads in relevant part as follows: It is the intent of the Board that the form of authorization shall grant the least amount of interest in the sovereignty submerged lands necessary for the activity. For activities not specifically listed, the Board will consider the extent of interest needed and the nature of the proposed activity to determine which form of authorization is appropriate. This rule requires that the Department should apply the lowest and least restrictive form of authorization. Trump and Flagler argue that the County's project constitutes a spoil disposal site under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)8., a public water management project other than public channels under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)10., or a management activity which includes "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," as described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)11. Each of these activities requires an easement rather than a letter of consent in order to use sovereign submerged lands. The evidence shows that the County's project is not a spoil disposal site. Also, it is not primarily a public water management project as there is no evidence that the project relates in any way to flood control, water storage or supply, or conservation of water. Likewise, there is no evidence indicating that the activities will prevent access by the public by exclusion. Even though many of the features (structures) of the project will be permanent, the project is intended to generally increase public access to water resources, as well as the islands, boardwalk, and kiosks. Besides raising the issue of heightened public concern, the second HPC Memorandum dated April 22, 2008, sought guidance as to whether the project required a consent of use or an easement. The review panel concluded that the project qualified for a consent of use, rather than an easement under Rule 18- 21.005(1)(f), because the County's project most closely fits the definition in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. That rule provides that if the proposed activity involves "[h]abitat restoration, enhancement, or permitted mitigation activities without permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," an applicant may use sovereign submerged lands with a consent of use. Because the County's project increases public access not only to water resources in the Lagoon but also to the permanent structures being built, it more closely falls within the type of activity described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. Notably, all of the County's restoration projects in the Lagoon have been previously authorized through a consent of use. Finally, the review panel concluded that the project did not fall under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)16., which requires an easement for environmental management activities that include "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public" because of the rule's focus on the exclusion of the general public. Riparian Rights The parties have stipulated, for the purpose of this proceeding, that Trump and Flagler have riparian rights, including view, ingress/egress, fishing, boating, swimming, and the qualified right to apply for a dock, that should be considered. Trump and Flagler contend that their right to wharf out (build a dock) from the seawall, ingress/egress from navigable water, and view will be unreasonably infringed upon if the application is approved. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.004(3)(a)("[n]one of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law riparian rights, as defined in Section 253.141, F.S., of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands"). For the reasons given below, the greater weight of evidence establishes that none of these riparian rights will be unreasonably infringed upon. Currently, while access is possible from the east and the southern approaches, existing shoals limit the southern approach. The boardwalk will further limit boat traffic on the south end, and boats would not be able to cross over the islands. Boat traffic will still be able to access the cove from the north end, and the restoration project will create a boating destination. Trump witness Pike opined that the County's project would negatively affect navigation between the upland parcels and the ICW because the project would eliminate the eastern and southern approaches and leave only the northern approach, which could not be used by both parcels fully. The County's expert, Dr. Nicholas De Gennarro, testified that, during his site visits, he observed boat traffic waiting for the drawbridges using the east side of the ICW away from the project site. Dr. De Gennarro noted that several existing structures are closer to the ICW than the proposed County project, which lies 220 feet away from the ICW. Thus, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the project would not impact navigation in the ICW. With respect to ingress/egress, Dr. De Gennarro acknowledged that access to the Trump and Flagler properties would not be available from the southern and eastern approaches, but concluded that the restriction represented nothing more than an inconvenience. He noted that the southern approach was already a less preferable approach due to existing shoals. At present, there is very little boating in the area outside of special events. While the project would limit the use of boats directly over the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands, the project will provide a boating destination. Further, both the City docks to the north of the site and the temporary docks in front of Flagler's property –- both used for special events –- will still be available under the County's proposal. There is no swimming and very little fishing in the area because of the degraded conditions caused by the dredge hole. Accordingly, while the project will fill a small portion of water currently available, but not used, for swimming, it will greatly enhance swimming by providing a destination for swimmers. The mangroves planned for the intertidal islands are likely to reach a height of fifteen feet and will be interspersed with spartina. The seawall is located six feet above the water line, making a person's view at eye level already several feet above the water. Trump and Flagler's buildings are built at even higher elevations. Therefore, the mangroves will not substantially obscure the view from either property, even at street level where the view is already partially obscured by existing landscaping. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet across. From north to south around one hundred acres of water can now be viewed from the vicinity. Since the intertidal islands only comprise one and one-half acres, the overall impact to the view of the water body is very small. The mangroves in the planters extending out from the seawall will be trimmed to one foot above the seawall; the County requested the condition and committed at hearing to trimming the mangroves if the City of West Palm Beach does not. County photographs show Trump and Flagler's present view of the water body and demonstrate the comparatively small percentage of the view affected by the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands. See County Exhibits 133a-e and 134a-d. The photographs also demonstrated that sizeable palm trees are already part of the existing view. Additionally, the County photographs depicted the small impact that trimmed mangrove planters would have on the view. The area obstructed by the mangrove islands and seagrass is negligible compared to the expanse of the existing view. Trump and Flagler offered no evidence to contradict the County's analysis regarding the scope of the impact on the view. Trump residents Dale McNulty, Dean Goodman, and Charles Lemoine testified that they personally would not want to view mangrove islands regardless of tree size or the size of the islands. Understandably, after years of unfettered view and an open expanse of water, they are opposed to any type of project in this area of the Lagoon. However, Mr. Goodman acknowledged that he would still be able to see the Town of Palm Beach from his unit. The evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from both Trump and Flagler's property, the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights. Mr. Lemoine stated that he had a forty-foot trawler that he would like to dock in front of his property. He currently docks the boat at a marina twenty miles north of the Trump property. He prefers to bring his boat in stern first and enter slips oriented north to south. He indicated that he can drive his boat in five feet of water, but prefers six feet; however, he also testified that he has brought his boat directly up to the bulkhead in front of Trump, which is approximately a two- or three-foot depth. The witness has seen sailboats and other boats moored near the bulkhead over extended timeframes. Mr. Lemoine speculated that Trump might seek a dock, either alone or in conjunction with Flagler, but admitted that Trump has never applied for a dock permit. He stated that Trump has had discussions about the possibility of a dock over the last fifteen years and speculated that a dock plan might include anything from the purchase/lease of the City docks to a lease of Trump's riparian interests to a third party. By contrast, Trump resident and former Board member Dean Goodman indicated "the idea was to provide an amenity [for] a number of people that are in the building that are boaters." Mr. Goodman stated that he hoped to be able to have a boat in front of the building someday, but did not own a boat in Florida. Association president Dale McNulty explained that, while informal discussions have occurred regarding the possibility of a dock, no official action had been taken. Mr. McNulty characterized the dock plans as being "sort of in the land of wishful thinking." Mr. Pike, while acknowledging that both parcels would still be able to design a dock for their property, opined that the County's project unreasonably limited the size and configuration of the docks possible. Mr. Pike initially admitted that a safe navigation depth for a forty-foot boat, or even a sailboat, was four feet below mean low water (MLW), but stated that he would prefer to design a dock with an additional two-to- three feet of water below the four-foot draft to avoid propeller damage. However, Mr. Pike conceded that he has designed docks for boats in four feet below MLW and ultimately based his own calculations on an assumption of a four-foot draft and one-foot cushion, or five feet below MLW. Mr. Pike also opined that a north-south alignment for boat slips was a preferred slip orientation. Given the bathymetry in the area and the documented seagrasses, Mr. Pike estimated that twenty slips could be designed for the Flagler property, rather than the thirty-four slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. He thought that a design might accommodate thirty to thirty-two slips for Trump, rather than the forty-slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. Based on the limitation on number of slips and configurations, the witness opined that the County's project would unreasonably interfere with Trump and Flagler's ability to design a dock. He admitted, though, that the numbers derived from the County Manatee Protection Plan represent a maximum number, rather than a specified or guaranteed number. He further admitted that other agency limitations may further restrict Trump and Flagler's right to dockage. Without a permit application or plan from Trump or Flagler, County witness Robbins concluded that the most reasonable assumption was an owner-oriented facility designed for the building owners/tenants. The County introduced a graphic illustrating areas available for dock construction, with sufficient depth for 35- to 40-foot boats (-6 feet NGVD) and with no seagrasses present. Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2. limits ownership-oriented facilities generally to forty square feet for each foot of riparian shoreline, giving Trump the ability to apply for a dock that preempted a maximum of 16,000 square feet, and Flagler a maximum of 14,000 square feet. Under the County Manatee Protection Plan, Trump would be limited to forty slips; Flagler would have the potential for thirty-four slips. Mr. Robbins testified that, in his experience, a minus five MLW is a common depth for docks, but that elevations as shallow as a minus four MLW could be used depending on the type of boats and the dock configuration. Mr. Robbins explained that, even with the County's project in place and factoring in the other limitations, Trump would still have 61,842 square feet of potential space within which to design a dock. Flagler would still have 41,481 square feet of potential space, even considering the need to retain a path for ingress and egress from the Trump parcel. A more detailed analysis of the seagrasses might make more square footage available for dock construction. Dr. De Gennarro also evaluated whether a dock could be designed to serve Trump and Flagler's parcels. The vessel owner statistics for the County indicate that at least ninety-five percent of the boats registered in the County are thirty-nine feet or less; consequently, Dr. De Gennarro focused on boats forty feet or less. Dr. De Gennarro considered the water depths and the existence of subaquatic vegetations and concluded that the graphic presented by Mr. Robbins was conservative, but still provided adequate space for both Trump and Flagler to construct appropriate dockage, allowing thirty-eight boats for Trump and thirty-two for Flagler of varying size. However, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that a dock design of forty slips for each would also be possible, depending on the size of the boats. Dr. De Gennarro proposed that a single, double-loaded parallel dock design would be a good layout for a potential docking facility in front of both Trump and Flagler's property that would be protected by the County's proposed islands, provide sufficient water depths, and provide an attractive facility. He specified, however, that the single, double-loaded parallel dock design was simply one of "many" that might work in the given space. Dr. De Gennarro explained that the existing dredge hole would not be a preferable location for either a mooring field or a dock because the deep muck-bottom would drive up the costs for either type of facility. Accordingly, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the County's project would not foreclose or even substantially restrict the ability to locate a dock in front of Trump and Flagler’s property. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that neither the right of ingress/egress nor the right to boat in the vicinity is unreasonably infringed upon by the County's project. Trump and Flagler will continue to have reasonable access to navigation. The northerly approach preserved by the County's project will allow for boat traffic to safely navigate in the area. While the southerly and easterly approaches are eliminated by the County's plan, the evidence indicates that the two approaches were less preferable than the northerly approach because of the presence of shoals. Based on the above considerations, the County's project will not unreasonably infringe upon Trump or Flagler's qualified right to a dock. The fact that the project might preclude the design and permitting of a dock that would host very large vessels does not mean that Trump and Flagler's rights regarding docking have been unreasonably infringed. The evidence shows that substantial docking facilities of multiple configurations are still possible even if the County's project is approved. In summary, the County's application for proprietary authorization should be approved. Other Contentions All other contentions raised by Trump and Flagler have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the County's application for a consolidated ERP and consent to use sovereignty submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Ed Smith is the President of Riverside Village Mobile Home Park, Inc., which in turn is the owner of the mobile home park in question in this case. The mobile home park is located in Ruskin, Hillsborough County, Florida. Petitioner was served with an Administrative Complaint alleging that the chlorine residual in the park water supply distribution system was inadequate and that this constituted a violation of Chapter 513 and Section 386.041(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as well as Rule 10D-26.67(1), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint alleges violations occurring between July 16, 1986 and July 29, 1986, and seeks the imposition of a civil penalty in the amount of $500 per day which "shall be calculated when this complaint is received by the (Petitioner), and will run until the violation has been corrected." Petitioner requested a hearing to contest these allegations, and his request was filed with Respondent's Clerk on October 8, 1986. It was not established by competent substantial evidence when Petitioner "received" the Administrative Complaint which is the subject of this action. The only evidence of any violation occurring between July 16 and July 29, 1986 was the testimony of Harry Messick who signed an Official Notice and Notice of Intended Action which were both dated July 16, 1986, and which alleged that "chlorine reading found at time of inspection (was) between 0.1 ppm and (a) trace." However, Messick did not perform any test to either produce or confirm this result. He testified that someone else performed the field test, but there was no testimony from anyone else who may have actually conducted a test on Petitioner's water supply system on July 16, 1986. Therefore, it has not been established by competent substantial evidence that Petitioner's water supply system on July 16, 1986, was in violation of the requirement that .2 mg/1 of free chlorine residual be maintained. Testimony from Respondent's other witnesses, Norman Vik and Neil R. Schobert, indicates Vik was not even at Petitioner's mobile home park between July 16 and 29, 1986, and the only test conducted by Schobert found that Petitioner's water supply system was in compliance on July 24, 1986. Design modifications in Petitioner's water supply distribution system were approved by the Hillsborough County Health Department on July 9, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 19th day of February 1987. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 86-4094) Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2-3. Rejected in Findings of Fact 4, 5. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sheehan, Esquire Florida Federal Building One Fourth Street North Suite 800 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Carol M. Dittmar, Esquire 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Suite 520 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
