The Issue Whether petitioner has standing to request consent of use of marine bottoms? Whether the site in question lies within the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park? Whether petitioner's application for consent to dredge in two places east of Angelfish Creek should be granted, under Chapters 253 and 258, Florida Statutes (1989) and Chapters 16D and 18-21, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Angelfish Creek in Monroe County runs virtually due east from Card Sound (which opens into Biscayne Bay just north of Angelfish Creek) to Hawk Channel, which hugs the upper Florida Keys at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. The "creek" or strait separates Key Largo and Angelfish Key on the south from Palo Alto Key to the north. Three flashing red lights and other navigational aids mark a channel traversing the saltwater pass between sound and ocean. Petitioner South Florida Waterways Improvement Foundation, Inc. (SFWIF) is a non-profit corporation owing its existence chiefly to John A. Bott, a public spirited boater known in some circles as the "king of luggage racks." T.134. Mr. Bott, whose home at the Ocean Reef Club fronts on Card Sound, (T.145), owns "a 63 Ocean Sports fisherman, a 22 Mako and a 16-foot dinghy." Id. He once ran aground in his big boat in the Angelfish Creek channel. Respondents are state agencies charged with managing state lands in general, including submerged lands like those underlying Angelfish Creek and further east where petitioner proposes to dredge; and state parks in particular, including the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, a pioneering and world- renowned "underwater park," about whose northern boundary the parties are in dispute. Petitioner Named for Predecessor Boats navigated Angelfish Creek as early as March 13, 1945, the date of an aerial photograph received as petitioner's Exhibit No. 8. But Angelfish Creek was first dredged (T.154) only after the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit in the wake of approval by Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) on March 12, 1968, approval which is reflected on page 469 of Volume 36 of the official minutes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. After expiration of the original permit, a non-profit corporation, South Florida Waterways Improvement Foundation, Inc. (proto-SFWIF) applied for and received permission to dredge "190 cubic yards of material from an area [in the mouth or slightly easterly of Angelfish Creek] 350 feet long by 60 feet wide." T.159. On December 30, 1975, DER issued a dredging permit to proto- SFWIF. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. On January 22, 1976, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit to proto-SFWIF for the same project. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13. After dredging took place as authorized, proto-SFWIF "was allowed to dissolve for failure to pay or failure to file the corporate annual reports." T.164. Proto-SFWIF paid for spoil it removed to uplands (which, when deposited, ceased to belong to it) but "did not [ever otherwise] own any property." T.164. After Mr. Bott engaged Tallahassee counsel, another non-profit corporation, petitioner SFWIF, was formed, in 1990. SFWIF owns no property in Monroe County, either. Mr. Bott and twelve other members of Key Largo's Ocean Reef Club, some of whose boats draw several feet, are members of SFWIF. Two were also members of proto-SFWIF, and at least one, Mr. Bott, owns waterfront property within a few miles of the proposed site. William J. Roberts, the lawyer who formed SFWIF, together with others in his office, serve as SFWIF's corporate officers. Park Boundaries The overwhelming weight of evidence adduced at hearing establishes that the site SFWIF proposes to dredge lies within the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. When the then newly formed DER issued a dredging permit to proto- SFWIF, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, it did so on the mistaken assumption "that the project was not in an aquatic preserve, and . . . not within the boundaries of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park." T.162. (At the time, SFWIF, the petitioner in the present case, was not in existence. Nor did respondents make any representations directly to proto-SFWIF.) DER may have relied on advice from Jack W. Pierce, then an attorney for DNR, in his letter of August 18, 1975, which stated: "In my opinion, these rules would not affect the maintenance dredging on Angel Fish Creek as that is not on Key Largo." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17. But, when expressly addressing the question of park boundaries, Mr. Pierce's letter stated simply that "the boundaries . . . are those set out in the Presidential Proclamation of 1960 plus those described as set forth in the Dedication of the Trustees dated September 21, 1967, . . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17. Successive Dedications On December 3, 1959, the Trustees dedicated "for park, recreational and preservation purposes, . . . [a] portion of the outer Continental Shelf situated seaward of a line three geographic miles from Key Largo." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 23. The Presidential Proclamation of 1960 stated similar federal intentions with respect to the same "portion of the outer Continental Shelf." Known as the Key Largo Coral Reef, this offshore tract has a perimeter of some 21 miles. The northern end of its landward edge lies slightly north (and three miles east) of the northernmost point of Key Largo. In describing the offshore dedication by metes and bounds, the Trustees put the northwesternmost point at "Can Buoy '21' (approximate Latitude 25o20'06" N., Longitude 80o12'36" W.) southeast of Old Rhodes Key." Id. Can Buoy "21" has since been lost. A new day marker, No. 23, has replaced it, although possibly at a slightly different point, viz.: Latitude 25o 20' 08.58967" N., Longitude 80o 12' 34.5983" W. T.419; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 22. The current marker is 2.58967 seconds (approximately 260 feet) north and 1.4017 seconds (less than 140 feet) east of what was described as the approximate location of Can Buoy "21" in 1959. If, as a witness testified is likely, the 1959 coordinates were rounded to the nearest tenth of a minute, the apparent discrepancy may be attributable to rounding. In any event, under no analysis advanced, would a difference of 295 feet (to take the hypotenuse) prove significant, for present purposes. T.336. In the dedication of 1959, the Trustees described the southern, as well as the northern, end of the western or landward edge of the original, offshore tract with some specificity. The southern end of the landward edge of the original offshore tract, also some three miles east of the island, lies south of the northern tip of Key Largo, but well north of the island's southern tip. The southern boundary of the original, offshore tract runs approximately east-west, while its northern boundary runs more or less southeast-northwest, as it reaches the northwestern corner. By the time the Trustees dedicated additional sovereignty lands on September 21, 1967, Key Largo Coral Reef had come to be known as John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. On that day, the Trustees added: Those submerged tidal bottom lands in the Atlantic Ocean lying between [what was then] the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo including the submerged land in Largo Sound and the various inlets along the easterly coast of Key Largo. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 24. While preserving to their owners "any riparian rights and interest," the Trustees extended the park landward from the original offshore tract to the shore of Key Largo, without, however, listing coordinates of latitude and longitude for the northernmost and southernmost points on shore. Lying Between The southern boundary of the original, offshore tract is on a line approximately perpendicular to Key Largo's Atlantic shoreline. Surveyors who have considered the problem apparently agree that extending the southern boundary of the original tract to the shore of Key Largo appropriately defines the southern edge of submerged lands lying "between" the island and the original, offshore tract. But the northern boundary of the offshore tract, if extended landward, would proceed northwesterly and come ashore somewhere on Rhodes Key, well north of the northernmost point of the offshore tract, and still further north of the northern tip of Key Largo. T.532. Before the present controversy arose, DNR engaged James Weidener, a professional land surveyor "to survey basically the Pennekamp Park and to provide boundary maps . . . and then as part of that to locate and monument both the north and south boundaries." T. 528. As part of this project, Mr. Weidener and others working with him conducted mean high water surveys at points along the eastern shore of Key Largo and extrapolated a boundary between state-owned bottom lands and uplands in private ownership. In locating the northernmost point on Key Largo, however, Mr. Weidener did not rely on a mean high water study. Instead he chose the northern edge of tidally washed mangroves or "the apparent edge of vegetation" (T.537) that extended probably 40 to 60 feet north of the mean high water line. Nothing in the record raised the possibility that the point he chose was more than 100 feet north of the mean high water line. By joining this point with marker No. 23, he defined the northern boundary of the submerged lands "between" Key Largo and the original tract. Even before the Weidener survey, a sign had been erected "only 30 or 40 feet off the line," (T.533) which the surveyors ultimately decided on. The piling holding the sign stands 34.45 feet off the line. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. The north side of the sign "says entering Pennekamp State Park. On the south side it says entering Biscayne National Park." T.530-531. The line between the northernmost point on Key Largo and marker No. 23 is depicted as (A) in Appendix B to the recommended order. The site at which petitioner proposes to dredge lies south of the northerly boundary described in the Weidener survey and depicted as (A) in Appendix B. If a point 100 feet further south than the one Mr. Weidener identified as the northernmost point on Key Largo is connected to the marker, the resulting line lies well north of the proposed site. T.565. If a point 260 feet south of marker No. 23 is connected to a point 100 feet further south than the one identified by Mr. Weidener as the northern tip of Key Largo, the resulting line still lies north of the proposed site. The scaled drawing attached as Appendix B requires these inferences, although these variants of line (A) are not depicted there. Forensic Surveying In preparing for litigation in the present case, petitioner engaged a surveyor, George Cole, who assembled Petitioner's Exhibit No. 22. Citing "Hayes v. Bowman, Fla., 91 So.2d 795 and Bliss v. Kinsey, Fla. 233 So.2d 191," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 22, p. 2, Mr. Cole testified that "these cases suggest the best courses [sic] of action is one that's perpendicular to the channel out here if this indeed was a riparian rights case." T.344. But, since the Trustees took care, in expanding the park, to preserve to their owners "any riparian rights and interest," the location of the northerly boundary of the tract dedicated in 1967 has nothing to do with riparian rights; and lines (C) and (D) depicted in Appendix B have no support in the record, aside from Mr. Cole's unfounded speculation. Line (B) depicted in Appendix B, also proposed by Mr. Cole, reflects the same methodology Mr. Weidener employed (in the sense of joining a point on Key Largo to marker No.23), but proceeds on the assumption that the northernmost point on Key Largo of relevance is at the mouth of an inlet known as Pumpkin Creek. Mr. Cole conceded that "Key Largo does indeed go further to the north, but . . . [testified that] this portion up here is obscured and shielded from the Atlantic Ocean by Angelfish Key and this is Pumpkin Creek and various other creeks. These are distinct, discrete islands. They have their own land mass. They are not Key Largo." T.342-3. But Angelfish Key (and Little Angelfish Key) resemble El Radabob Key in this regard. El Radabob Key is the largest of the small islands lying alongside Key Largo in the Atlantic Ocean. All witnesses testifying on the point agreed that submerged land lying between Key Largo and El Radabob Key fell within the Trustees' 1967 dedication of "submerged land in . . . [the Atlantic Ocean including] the various inlets along the easterly coast of Key Largo." Similarly, as Key Largo tapers to a northern point, Angelfish Key and Little Angelfish Key lie on its Atlantic side, separated from it (and each other) by narrow, elongated inlets of the ocean. T. 535, 537. The submerged bottoms of these elongated inlets, no less than the submerged bottom lands in Key Largo Sound, comprise part of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. Poorly Marked Although charts overstate the controlling depth, the channel in Angelfish Creek is already the best channel connecting the Atlantic Ocean to inland waters north of Snake Creek and south of Government Cut. Tavernier Creek to the south and Broad and Caesar Creeks to the north are also navigable by small craft. Of course, weather and low tides make navigation more difficult everywhere they have an effect. Depicting depths at mean low water, Respondents' Exhibit No. 2B maps the ocean bottom in the vicinity of markers Nos. 2A and 3A, including the eastern end of the channel petitioner seeks to widen. The two formations petitioner proposes to dredge aside, depths within the channel vary from 4.9 to 13 or 14 feet, at mean low water. The topographical survey features one-foot contours (between five and fifteen feet below mean low water) and reports hundreds of soundings. Respondents' Exhibit No. 2B. A shoal lies inside the channel about 15 feet from the southerly edge, some 30 feet easterly of green day marker No. 3A. In the worst spot, fossilized coral lies under only 3.5 feet of water at mean low tide. Boats run aground there as well as on another ledge of fossil coral on the other side of the channel, near marker No. 2A. At the latter site, Mr. H. R. Pender once measured the depth at five feet (T.125); and mean low water is shown at 5.4 feet. Whether dredging would actually increase boat traffic was not established, although dredging would permit the channel to handle more traffic. The narrower and more serpentine a channel becomes, the smaller the vessels it can accommodate. But traffic could be routed around these shoals by repositioning markers Nos. 2A and 3A, or by adding markers. Outside the channel opposite marker No. 2A is a deep hole; there is ample water into which to shift the channel. Opposite marker No. 3A outside the channel, depths at mean low water are as low as 5.6 feet. Although that is deeper than places in the mouth of the channel, it might be preferable simply to narrow the channel by moving marker No. 3A the few feet necessary to locate it channelward of the out-cropping of "fossil coral [or] calcium carbonate rock," (T.382) petitioner proposes to dredge. Environmental Effects The DER permit conditions specify turbidity screens, limit dredging to slack and incoming tides, and require deposition of spoil upland. Biota in the vicinity can withstand "spurts of turbidity," in any event. Tidal currents have scoured the channel, removing most fine particles, but intermittent northwesters flush slugs of particulate matter from Card Sound through Angelfish Creek. The project site is on the order of a mile from the nearest active coral reef in the park, but a few small colonies of coral, both hard and soft (gorgonian) grow where petitioner proposes to dredge, as do algae, marine grasses, and perhaps other alcyonarians. Dredging would displace these individuals but create a new and deeper hard substrate for colonization by like organisms. A representative of DER is to help pick which fossil coral to remove. Marine life, if established at a greater depth, would less likely suffer interference from boats' 60- to 100-feet long running aground. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14. Groundings entail the risk of fuel spills. Traces of presumably toxic bottom paint have been found on fossil coral near the surface. But these hazards would also be greatly reduced if markers Nos. 2A and 3A were repositioned, or additional markers placed, to mark the outcroppings, so boaters could avoid them.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended: That respondents deny petitioner's application for consent to dredge. That respondents specifically initiate relocation of markers Nos. 2A and 3A or take other steps to mark the channel appropriately. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX A TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4285 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 56, 57, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95 and 97 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 58, 59, 60 and 71 are immaterial. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 12, no causal connection between the letter and the permit was proven. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 18, the owner's testimony was largely hearsay. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 21, the shallows are a hazard on account of the markers' location. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the adequacy of the width would depend on the vessel. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 28, no fatality occurred from grounding. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact Nos. 30 and 32, see finding of fact No. 24. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 33, such an event blocked the channel for "another large vessel." T.38. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 36, Mr. Bott had only one grounding. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 37 has been adopted, in substance, but proto-SWFIF is now defunct. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 38, a new corporation was organized. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 39, at least one nonprofit corporation obtained such permits. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 40, 50, 70, 74 and 76 have been rejected. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 41, while apparently accurate, the proposed finding is not supported by the citation to the record. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 53 and 73, the evidence showed that the new marker was likely at the same spot as the old. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 54, 55, 72, 75 and 77 pertain to subordinate matters. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 79, the effect of possibly increased traffic in larger vessels was not considered. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 81, the testimony was "on the order of" a mile. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 96 so-called is actually a proposed conclusion of law. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 98 and 99, the proposed dredging is contrary to administrative rules which, at least in the absence of a rule challenge, express public policy definitively. Respondents' proposed findings of fact were not separately numbered, but have been addressed, in substance, in the findings of fact. APPENDIX B TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-4285 (From Petitioner's Exhibit No. 22) COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire P.O. Drawer 6506 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6506 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire John W. Corrigan, Esquire 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-35 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Ken Plante, General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Tom Gardner, Exec. Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd., MS-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether a statement promulgated by an employee or representative of the Respondent, Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"), by letter of April 2, 1991, and the later adoption or ratification of that opinion by the Respondent, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board"), by resolution of June 12, 1991, constitutes an unpromulgated rule or amendment of a rule and thus whether it is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has applied for a dredge and fill permit from DER. If the application is approved, the Petitioner intends to construct a 490-foot elevated driveway or timber bridge across Clam Bayou from the Sanibel-Captiva Island Road to Silver Key, on and in the vicinity of Sanibel Island in Lee County, Florida. The Petitioner proposes to construct the bridge so as to allegedly provide reasonable access to the property upon which he intends to construct residences. A number of protests to that application before DER have been filed and the petitions related to that application are now pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings in Case Nos. 91- 1320 through 91-1324. The Board is an agency of the State of Florida created pursuant to Section 253.02, Florida Statutes, and consists of the Governor and Cabinet. Generally, title to submerged lands underlying navigable waters is vested in the Board pursuant to Section 253.03, Florida Statutes. The Board is authorized to approve activities in the preserve by Section 258.42, Florida Statutes. DNR is an agency of the State of Florida and serves as the staff of the Board. When DER reviewed the Petitioner's dredge and fill permit application, it determined that Clam Bayou was not within the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, an aquatic preserve created by act of the Legislature in 1975 and codified at Subsection 258.39(22), Florida Statutes. However, on April 2, 1991, DNR, through an employee or representative in its Fort Myers district office, sent a letter to the City of Sanibel ("City"), the Petitioner in Case No. 91- 1324, advising the City that the proposed project was within the boundaries of the preserve. That letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows: To follow up our recent discussions regarding the referenced file, I requested that the department's title and land records section in Tallahassee `re-review' the project site to determine if it is actually in the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. As you know, the title and land records section initially determined that the project site was not within the aquatic preserve. In response to my request, Kathy Miklus, planner, title and land records section, provided me with information indicating that the project site is indeed within the boundaries of Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. Copies of that information are enclosed. Therefore, it would appear that the application will be subject to the applicable criteria of Section 258.42, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-20, Florida Administrative Code, regarding activities in aquatic preserves. However, as we previously discussed, the application is currently `on hold' because of the coastal island moratorium adopted in 1989 by the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, and may be subject to the pending rule amendments regarding sovereignty, submerged lands surrounding coastal islands, if those rule amendments are ultimately adopted by the Board of Trustees... DNR is the agency charged with administering the aquatic preserve program, its preserves, and with resolving issues concerning the boundaries of those preserves. Thus, the effect of the letter, if it were to become final agency action, would be to impose a more restrictive body of rules on the Petitioner concerning his entitlement to the DER permit sought from DER because if the site in question were determined to be within the preserve, it would, under the applicable rules of DER, be deemed to be within Outstanding Florida Waters. The Petitioner thus filed the petition which initiated this proceeding, contending, in essence, that the statement in the letter (as adopted by the Board) amounts to an illicit, unpromulgated rule, including the contention that it constitutes an improper repeal or amendment of the existing Rule 18- 20.002(7)(a)19., Florida Administrative Code. The questioned language in the letter at issue and under challenge reads as follows: The project site is indeed within the boundaries of the Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve. According to the Petitioner, this language enlarges upon or amends the existing rule cited above which describes the preserve as follows: Pine Island Sound Aquatic Preserve, as described in the Official Records of Lee County in Book 648, pages 732-736. The document recorded at the referenced Official Record Book and page numbers is the Board's Resolution No. 70-25, the document establishing the preserve and containing the legal description of its boundaries. The Petitioner contends that the Respondent's statement reflected in the above-quoted portion of the letter is a new statement of the boundary of the preserve, and it is materially different than the rule-adopted, recorded boundary description. Thus, the Petitioner asserts that the agency has clearly amended its rule describing the preserve. The statement in the letter, however, does not constitute a new statement of the boundaries of the preserve but rather the opinion of agency personnel, adopted by the Board, concerning what the already- adopted and recorded boundary description means in the view of the agency as to whether a specific site and project is included within those already-adopted boundaries. It was not proven in this proceeding that the agency statement referenced above evidences any intent to amend or change the legal description of the preserve as recorded in the Official Records of Lee County, Florida, and as codified in the above-cited rule. Rather, it represents an interpretation of that existing rule and its existing boundary description by DNR and, specifically, amounts to an interpretation concerning whether the Petitioner's property is located within the legal boundaries as presently codified in that rule.
Findings Of Fact Urbanek owns land in and adjacent to Town Lots 93 and 94, Highland Beach, in Section 28, Township 46 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida. The real estate in question is located on the eastern shore of the Intra-Coastal Waterway approximately 2,000 feet south of the mouth of the C-15 Canal. Urbanek seeks a permit under Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and water quality certification under Public Law 92-500, to dredge approximately 24,500 square feet of shoreline and shallow nearshore area, while installing approximately 240 linear feet of bulkhead and ten mooring piles, and constructing a marginal dock and piers for the use of future residents. The application also includes filling approximately 60,000 square feet of tidally connected ditches and wetlands to allow the construction of a high density residential development. On January 19, 1976, DER received a short form application for a permit from Urbanek pursuant to Subsection 17-4.28 (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. On March 10, 1976, Urbanek received from DER a request for additional information. This occurred 51 days after Urbanek's original application for permit. Urbanek forwarded the requested additional information to DER on April 22, 1976, and April 30, 1976. On May 12, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that the project must be submitted using standard permitting procedures along with the incorporation of certain recommendations made by DER's field inspector. On June 9, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER that his application had been forwarded to Tallahassee with a recommendation for denial on two grounds. First, that the application did not meet the criteria for short form applications and second, that the proposed project would eliminate valuable submerged and wetland habitats. On July 27, 1976, Urbanek was notified by DER's Tallahassee office that his application was received on January 1976, and that the application was incomplete. The notification requested additional information. On September 22, 1976, DER notified Urbanek that processing of his application was discontinued because required data was not sent by Urbanek to DER. Urbanek was further advised that processing of the application," would be continued upon receipt of the necessary information. On January 20, 1977, Urbanek submitted another modified permit application to DER. On February 28, 1977, DER sent Urbanek notice of receipt of the application once again requesting additional information be submitted. On March 4, 1977, Urbanek forwarded the requested information to DER. On April 1, -1977, DER forwarded to Urbanek its notice of intent to deny and the proposed order of denial of the permit application. On April 15, 1977, Urbanek petitioned DER for a hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The area of the project, prior to the turn of the century, was a fresh water wetland. However, salt water intrusion from the permanent opening of the Boca Inlet in south Palm Beach County in the early 1900's paved the way for colonization of mangroves in the Spanish River Basin, now the Intra-Coastal Waterway. As the human population increased in Palm Beach County, the mangroves were destroyed in order to afford living spaces. As a result, approximately 77 percent of the mangroves in Palm Beach County have been removed. One of the last remaining mangrove areas in southern Palm Beach County is located on a strip of land which borders the eastern side of the Intra-Coastal Waterway. The applicant's project site represents a portion of that strip. The project site fronts 230 feet-of the Intra-Coastal Waterway and extends approximately 670 feet eastward to State Road A1A. The property is intersected by three mosquito control ditches which run perpendicular to the Intra-Coastal Waterway but do not connect with it, and by six lateral ditches which extend from north to south and adjoin the property to the south. The project site is thus divided into eighteen parcels of land or "islands" and a fringing shoreline area. A survey conducted on October 13, 1977, and October 18, 1977, revealed the emergent areas between the ditches to be vegetated by mostly white mangroves, with canopies ranging from fifteen to forty-five feet in height. Numerous white and red mangrove seedlings plus a few scattered black mangrove seedlings indicate that the area may be changing from a predominantly white mangrove to a mixed mangrove community throughout the project site. Batis and Sesuvium were found and Australian Pines and Brazilian Pepper were observed only in areas where spoil from dredging activities was placed on the emergent area. There are approximately seven to eight thousand trees, including seedlings, in the project area. The mangrove system at the project site was characterized as a very productive system by Dr. G. Alex Marsh, an expert in Estuarine Ecology, who testified for DER. Dr. Arnold Banner of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with Dr. Marsh that the eradication of the productive system would result in the removal of a significant source of food and habitat. The evidence shows that a wetland habitat such as the project site affords approximately 535 pounds of fishing products per year with a dollar value of $8,000 per acre to the public. Petitioner argues that it would be in the public interest to bulkhead and fill the subject property because rodents would be eliminated, trash and debris would no longer collect on the property and that further erosion of the property would be prevented. However, Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that there actually exists a rodent problem on the subject property. The evidence does establish that trash and debris collect among the root system of the vegetation and that severe erosion has occurred on the property from wave action created by vessels moving through the Intra- Coastal Waterway. Urbanek has failed to establish with substantial competent evidence that the proposed project will not degrade water quality, cause violation of water quality standards or criteria or cause pollution. In fact, no evidence was submitted whatsoever by Urbanek which would tend to prove any of these three preconditions to the granting of the requested permit. Nonetheless, DER's failure to act on the permit application within the time limits prescribed by Subsection 120.60 (2), Florida Statutes, as amended in 1976, mandates the issuance of the requested permit.
The Issue The issues to be decided in this case are whether Respondents are liable for the violations charged in the NOV, whether Respondents should pay the penalties assessed in the NOV, and whether Respondents should be required to take the corrective actions demanded in the NOV.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency with powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands and surface waters, including filling in wetlands. Respondents are individuals who own real property on Bayshore Road in North Fort Myers, Florida. Some confusion exists in the record about the street number for the property. It is alternately described as 11590, 11620, 11650, and 11850. This is partly due to the fact that the property consists of at least two recorded parcels. The actual location of the filled area is not disputed, nor is it disputed that Respondents own the property where the fill was placed. The property is adjacent to the Caloosahatchee River. It contains freshwater marsh wetlands dominated by Leather Fern. The Department conducted a site inspection of Respondents’ property and determined that Respondents had filled 0.96 acres of wetlands. The Department produced evidence that it incurred costs of $1,824.50 in this case. The corrective actions ordered in the NOV, which are designed to restore the wetlands that were filled, are reasonable.
Findings Of Fact On March 30, 1978, Lee County applied to the Department for permits pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, to improve the existing Daniels Road in Lee County, Florida, from a two lane unimproved facility to a two lane paved road. The project site is located in southeastern Lee County, Florida, and crosses Six Mile Cypress Swamp. The proposed improvement would require excavation of material from submerged lands of waters of the state to remove a part of the existing dirt roadbed, placing of fill material onto submerged lands of waters of the state to widen the existing roadbed, and construction of two concrete bridges and two variable crest weirs. After receipt of the application, the Department reviewed the application, and, after consultation with Lee County officials, recommended issuance of the requested permit subject to the following conditions: Elimination of a proposed bicycle path; Deletion of a proposed spreader ditch and the dredging necessary for that ditch; Formulation and submission to the Depart- ment by Lee County of an acceptable management plan and schedule for maintaining water levels and indigenous swamp communities within the swamp; Organization of a Melaleuca Control Committee, together with preparation and implementation of a program to eradicate melaleuca within the right- of-way; and Revegetation of willows in the construction area. In their Amended Petition, Petitioners contest the proposed issuance of the requested permit on grounds that the permit condition requiring development of an acceptable water management plan should be accomplished prior to issuance of the permit; that the long range environmental impact of the proposed project has not been assessed; that the application does not contain information sufficient to give reasonable assurances that it will no result in deterioration of water quality; that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the project will not have an adverse long-range impact on the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife, or other natural resources; that the aquifer recharge area adjacent to the proposed project will be substantially reduced; that sheet flow of overland water will be irretrievably altered; that land uses surrounding the Six Mile Cypress Swamp will contribute to deteriorating water quality; that elimination of the proposed bicycle path would deny Petitioners the right to utilize pedestrian, energy conserving and/or non-polluting transportation; and that the health and welfare of the Florida panther will be threatened by construction in the Six Mile Cypress Swamp which serves as habitat for this endangered species. Petitioners allege in their Amended Petition that their substantial interests would be affected ". . . in that Petitioner Joseph H. Burgess, a resident of Daniels Road, may suffer from downstream flooding as a result of issuing this permit." The Amended Petition alleged that Petitioner, Sierra Club - Calusa Group would be substantially affected by the proposed agency action in that they would ". . . be deprived of an area utilized for nature study . . .," in that the project would ". . . seriously impair the group's ability to study bird life and enjoy the natural scenic beauty of a presently relatively undisturbed area. . . ." The Amended Petition also alleged that Petitioners, Mary Ann Wallace and Joseph H. Burgess, would be substantially affected ". . . as nearby residents, who will be denied the right to enjoy a proposed regional park on the south side of Daniels Road in the Six Mile Cypress Swamp as a direct result of issuing this permit." Neither Joseph H. Burgess, Ellen Peterson, nor any representative testifying on behalf of Sierra Club - Calusa Group appeared or testified at the final hearing in this cause. The only named petitioners appearing and testifying at the final hearing were Mary Ann Wallace and Thomas Geary. Neither of these petitioners offered any testimony to establish that they owned property in Lee County, Florida, that they used any of the waters or other natural resources in the area of the Six Mile Cypress Swamp for nature study, recreation or other purpose, or that they would personally be injured or otherwise affected by issuance of the requested permit or the alleged environmental impacts arising therefrom. At the conclusion of Petitioners' case, the Department and Lee County moved to dismiss the Amended petition on grounds that Petitioners had failed to establish that their substantial interests would be affected by the proposed agency action as required by Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, which motions were granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, dismissing the Amended Petition in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February 1979 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of February 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Isaac Anderson, Esquire 2115 Main Street Suites A and B Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Ray Allen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas M. Brondstetter, Esquire Assistant Lee County Attorney Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ELLEN PETERSON, et al., Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 78-1467 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and LEE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondents. /
