The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection properly determined that Respondent City of Gulf Breeze was entitled to construct a concrete jetty at the mouth of Gilmore Bayou, to widen the mouth of the bayou an additional 35 feet, and to dredge sections of the bayou to a depth of minus eight feet.
Findings Of Fact On March 22, 1996, Gulf Breeze applied for a wetlands resource permit from DEP to allow the following: (a) dredging of the entrance channel to Gilmore Bayou in order to return the channel to its original width and depth; (b) construction of bulkheads on either side of the channel; and (c) construction of two jetties on the east side of the channel to slow the accretion of sediments in the channel. The proposed project is located in the waters of the state at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou where it opens into Pensacola Bay. The project is adjacent to and north of 406 Navy Cove Road, in the City of Gulf Breeze, Florida, Section 6, Township 35N, Range 29W. The Petitioner's home is located at 86 Highpoint Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida. Her residence is downstream from the project at the northeastern end of Gilmore Bayou. The channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou was originally dredged in the mid-1950s. Since that time, the channel has provided a navigable outlet to Pensacola Bay for use by property and boat owners along Gilmore Bayou. The channel has also provided for water circulation and tidal flushing within the Bayou. Maintenance dredging has been performed almost annually to keep the Gilmore Bayou channel open. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce the need for the frequent maintenance dredging and to provide for better water circulation in the bayou. A wetlands resource permit to perform maintenance dredging has not been required in the past because that activity was exempt from the permitting process. On July 28, 1997, the Department issued Gulf Breeze a Notice of Intent to Issue Draft Permit Number 572874961 to construct one seventy (70) foot long concrete jetty at the mouth of Gilmore Bayou, widen the mouth of Gilmore Bayou an additional thirty-five feet and dredge sections of the Bayou to a depth of minus eight feet. In issuing the Notice of Intent to Issue, the Department also considered Gulf Breeze's application for a five- year sovereign, submerged land easement for the location of the jetty. Gulf Breeze published the Notice of Intent to Issue in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with DEP requirements and Section 373.413(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62-343.090(2)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition requesting that the permit be denied. Petitioner has a substantial interest in the permitted activity, as she owns property and resides on Gilmore Bayou. Petitioner's request that the permit be denied is primarily based on her opinion that water quality in Gilmore Bayou has deteriorated as a result of the original and continuous dredging of the channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou. She is concerned that the permitted activity will result in further water quality degradation and result in a further movement of the spit of land which extends in front of her home out to Deadman's Island on the northern side of the Bayou. The ecosystem in Gilmore Bayou today is a healthy system which supports various marshes and fish. The ecosystem thrives despite water quality degradation resulting from development and urbanization along its shores. More specifically, septic tanks, fertilizer runoff, and stormwater discharge have caused water quality to degrade in the Bayou. The most persuasive evidence indicates that the dredging of the channel over time has not caused the water quality to degrade. The permitted activity will have a positive effect on water quality in Gilmore Bayou, as it will enhance tidal flushing through the channel. The jetty, which is a part of the permitted activity, will slow the transport of sand into the channel, allowing for better flushing and reducing the need for maintenance dredging in the channel. Construction of the jetty is recommended and supported by the hyrdographic study of Kenneth L. Echternacht, Ph.D., P.E. Gulf Breeze obtained and submitted this study to DEP to assist in evaluating the project. The permitted activity will have no significant impact on the location of the spit of land extending from Petitioner's property to Deadman's Island. The shifting of the spit of land over the years has been caused by numerous factors which are identified in a 1993 study by Dr. James P. Morgan, Ph.D. These factors include development of the area, erosion of the surrounding bluffs, the location of the Pensacola Bay bridge, and storms and sand drift into channels to the east of the spit. Without this project or frequent maintenance dredging, the channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou would fill with silt. Eventually, the silt would inhibit water circulation and result in further water quality degradation in the bayou. The permitted activity is not contrary to the public interest. Instead, it will benefit the public interest. The project will make it possible to maintain the Gilmore Bayou channel more efficiently. The project will allow for increased flushing of the bayou. The increased flushing will improve water quality in the bayou. The permitted activity will not have any adverse effect on the conservation of fish or wildlife, or any endangered species or their habitats. The permitted activity will not adversely affect navigation or flow of water or cause any harmful erosion or shoaling. It will have a positive effect on navigation and water flow and act to prevent harmful erosion or shoaling. The permitted activity will have no adverse effect on fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The permitted activity will provide for permanent jetties and bulkheads at the entrance to Gilmore Bayou. The permitted activity will have no adverse effect on historical or archeological resources on Deadman's Island or in the vicinity of the project. The permitted activity will have a positive impact on the recreational functions and use of the channel and Deadman's Island.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order determining that its Notice of Intent to Issue Permit, together with Permit No. 572874961, is final agency action. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jane Thies, Esquire Beggs and Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 Ricardo Muratti, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Patricia J. Moreland 86 Highpoint Drive Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Matt E. Dannheisser, Esquire 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Debra Flynn has submitted an application to the DER to construct a dock extending 190 feet waterward of the mean high water line of waters of the state, which would also extend 80 feet landward of the mean high water line through a transitional wetland area. The landward extent of the dock will completely span the DER's wetland jurisdiction at the project site. A raised "pad" of fill upon which the applicant's house would be constructed and a filled driveway, although originally a part of this application, has been altered in design by the applicant such that those two items have been removed from the geographical extent of the DER's jurisdiction and those two items in the proposed project are no longer at issue. The applicant's lot is approximately 300 feet deep by 100 feet wide. This lot is one of many similarly sized lots which border Niles Channel on the east and Nyles Road on the west, on Summerland Key. These lots vary in nature from tidally inundated mangrove wetlands to a combination of upland and transitional wetlands fringed by mangroves along the water's edge. The portion of the applicant's lot nearest to Nyles Road is primarily characterized by upland vegetation extending approximately 75 to 100 feet in an easterly direction from the road. The elevation gradually decreases toward the waterfront of the lot on Niles Channel, with buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta), dropseed (Sporobolus sp.), key grass (Monanthochloe littoralis), and sea daisy (Borrichia sp.) being the dominant species over most of the applicant's lot. Over the northern side of the property adjacent to adjoining lot 34, a pocket of black mangroves (Avicennia germinans) extends inland, nearly to the upland area described above. As the lot elevation drops toward the shoreline, mangrove growth occurs more frequently, culminating in a dense mangrove fringe bordering Niles Channel. This mangrove fringe becomes well established some 30 feet landward of the approximate mean high water line, being dominated by black and white mangroves. Waterward of the mean high water line, red mangroves dominate for a distance of approximately 30 feet out into Niles Channel. The landward portion of the dock would have only minimal environmental impacts on the transitional wetlands as established by DER's expert witness Meyer and witness Kephart. No contradictory evidence was submitted in this regard. The bottom of Niles Channel extending 65 feet waterward of the mangrove fringe area is characterized by a hard caprock substrate covered with somewhat coarse sediments and loose algaes. In addition to the loose algae, the bottom, attached marine life communities are characterized by red, brown and green algae, sponges, anemones and hard corals. Waterward of this initial 65 foot zone, a relatively narrow zone of seagrasses is encountered. This zone of seagrass extends about 15 to 20 feet in width, forming a somewhat broken, noncontinuous band extending from north to south across the front of the property. Within this seagrass band, the primary growth is turtlegrass (Thalassia testudinum). There are smaller amounts of Cuban shoalweed (Halodule wrightii). Continuing waterward of this seagrass growth, the vegetative bottom coverage decreases with sandy patches becoming larger and more frequent. The bottom profile also becomes more rough and irregular, characterized by the presence of dissolved limerock holes as well as outcroppings. These holes and outcroppings provide excellent habitat for shelter-dependent fish and invertebrate species, such as spiny lobster and stone crabs. The area constitutes-prime nursery habitat for spiny lobsters and stone crabs. Water depth where the dock, as originally proposed, would terminate, which is in the area of the lobster and crab habitat, is approximately one and one-half to two feet deep at mean low water. The dock as presently proposed would extend some 30 feet beyond that area, or about 160 feet from the waterward edge of the shoreline mangrove fringe, or 190 feet from the mean high water line. Thus, the dock as presently proposed would terminate in a flat or sandy area which is somewhat deeper or about two to two and one-half feet deep at mean low water. Termination of the dock at that point, with boat traffic involved with the dock beginning and ending at that point will result in less likelihood of damage to the lobster and crab and other more fragile marine life habitat which occurs landward of the 190 foot termination point. At this point, the dominant marine species are patchy growths of red algae (Laurencia sp.). These growths are less susceptible to damage from prop-wash and wakes of boats than are the more landward areas characterized by turtlegrass, Cuban shoalweed and the "hole and outcrop" nursery habitat area for fish, lobsters and stone crabs. The physical and biological characteristics of the water bottom at this 190 foot distance offshore are more compatible with boat usage. The bottom here is characterized by hard caprock close to the surface, with a shallow overlying layer of inorganic, coarse-grained sediment consisting primarily of pulverized rock. There are very little or no seagrasses at this point. The applicant's boat draws approximately 12 inches of water underway and 18 inches at rest, and the dock is for the private use of the applicant only. The water depth at the termination point of the dock effectively precludes the applicant from navigating to and from the proposed dock with a significantly larger, more powerful boat and thus the physical characteristics of the water depth and hard bottom existing at the dock site themselves effectively limit the likelihood of harmful prop scouring or boat grounding damage. Impacts on water quality caused by the installation and operation of the proposed dock to the extent of its use by the applicant's private boat only, will be minimal. Some turbidity and disruption of marine life will inevitably occur during construction, but this will have no serious impact on either water quality or marine resources. The dock, as it is proposed to be constructed, will be at least three feet above mean high water level. It will be sufficiently narrow in width so as to preclude significant shading of seagrasses from sunlight and resultant death or damage to the seagrass beds between the end of the dock and the mean high water line, such that no water quality violation or harm to these marine resources will ensue. The proposed construction will not eliminate valuable marine resources in Niles Channel and will have no immediate or long-term adverse impact on the quantity or quality of the State's natural marine resources through the loss of habitat in the Niles Channel area involved. Because of the varying amounts of wetlands encompassed in the lots in the Niles Channel subdivision, it is unlikely that all of the lots in the area will be developed, or that a great number of docks similar to the proposed dock will be constructed. The Petitioner's expert witness, Mr. Robertson, established that less than half of the lots in this subdivision are suitable for or likely to be developed. The Petitioner's own witness, Fahrer, also established that Monroe County is planning to restrict development in this area through their zoning power. Accordingly, there is no reasonable expectation that many similar docks will be constructed in the Niles Channel area. Further, the recent amendments to the DER's organic statutes and related rules which took effect on October 1, 1984 mandate consideration of additional restrictive criteria involving effects of such projects on wildlife habitat, which will further serve to restrict development along the shoreline in this area. The shoreline in this subdivision is essentially undeveloped, with only one other dock presently in place, which is longer and extends further into Niles Channel than does the proposed dock. Although there was testimony by witnesses for Petitioner that the proposed dock would entail bone fishermen having to navigate out and around the dock, this testimony does not establish the premise that the dock will pose a serious impediment to navigation. The proposed dock may add slightly to the disruption of some recreational fishing navigation, however, since the adjacent property has the longer dock already in place, any disruption caused by this proposed shorter dock will not be significant and will not be contrary to the public interest in terms of navigation impediment.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation grant the application of Debra Flynn for a dock construction permit in accordance with the conditions delineated above. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esq. James L. Torres, Legal Intern Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Hendricks, Esq. 317 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Joel L. Beardsley Route 2, Box 441 Summerland Key, Florida 33042 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Collier Development Corporation, Naples, Florida, owns a triangular tract of land consisting of approximately 16 acres in Naples, Florida. In 1958, the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund conveyed by quitclaim deed to Collier Development Corporation all its interests in the property. A 1958 affidavit of Collier's surveyor who prepared the legal description of the land was filed in the Collier County public records and states that the land conveyed by the quitclaim deed was "high land" erroneously shown as bay bottom land according to the original government survey, and that the deed was executed in exchange for the conveyance of certain parcels of bay bottom land in Naples Bay to the Trustees. (Exhibits 1-2) In 1976, Petitioner executed an option agreement with Collier Development Corporation to purchase the land in question, contingent upon certain conditions including a requirement to obtain any required fill permits. On December 27, 1976, Petitioner assigned the option agreement to Michael S. Spiegel and himself as joint tenants. On March 14, 1977, a "short form" application was filed by Petitioner, as authorized by Collier Development Corporation, with Respondent to fill the land above the mean high water line to building grade for future residential, multi-family, or commercial uses. The application reflected that 400 cubic yards of rock riprap would be placed at least five feet upland of the designated mean high water line along the boundary of the property that faced the Gordon River and Rock Creek. The riprap revetment is designed to provide a method of containing upland fill material. The application contemplates that a fabric-like material "Mirafi" will be placed on the ground and wrapped over the riprap barrier. The application further provides that approximately 90,000 pounds of fill material will be trucked into the site and placed behind the riprap material to fill the land to a minimum elevation of four feet. It is also proposed to slope the fill material behind the riprap and plant grass seed thereon. In October, 1977, Petitioner filed a "long form" application which merely amplified the original application. The mean high water line was established by a survey performed under standard procedures and which utilized the existing bulkhead line as a point of reference. The survey was conducted in 1977 and 1978, and the procedures used were approved by and the survey filed in the Department of Natural Resources on June 26, 1978. (Testimony of Park, Lawson, Exhibits 4, 6, 8, 11) By letter dated January 26, 1978, Respondent provided notice of its intent to deny the permit application pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Public Law 92-500. The reasons stated for the proposed denial generally were that filling the land would destroy mangrove vegetation which provides a major input of organic material to estuarine tropic webs, and filters and assimilates pollutants from upland runoff. It was stated that the proposed project would eliminate approximately 15 acres of submerged lands and transition zones, as defined in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, which would reduce the quality and quantity of the state's marine resources adjacent to Class II waters and "tend to cause degradation of water quality conditions." Thereafter, on January 25, 1978, Petitioner submitted a petition for hearing wherein the jurisdiction of the Respondent in the matter and its grounds for the proposed denial were challenged. (Exhibit 5) The land in question is located south and adjacent to the confluence of the Gordon River and Rock Creek along the north side of U.S. Highway 41. The Gordon River and Rock Creek are tributaries of Naples Bay and all are Class II waters. The area is vegetated by red mangroves with a lesser number of white and black mangroves. A pond of about one-half acre surrounded by red mangroves is located in the southern section of the tract which occasionally overflows into a ditch running parallel to U.S. 41 located within the highway right-of- way. There is a berm alongside the ditch designed to prevent highway runoff from flowing onto Petitioner's land. During high tides, most of the land is inundated to varied depths ranging from two to eight inches. Certain marine vegetational species are present on portions of the land, such as sea grape, sea purslane, sea daisy, and button wood. Certain marine animal life is present in the mangrove area, including coffee bean snails, ribbed mussels, marsh clams, mangrove crabs, fiddler crabs, and mosquito fish. Other marine species, such as common oysters, scorched mussels, and barnacles inhabit the Rock Creek shore line. There is sparse bird population on Petitioner's land that may in part be due to the proximity of Naples Airport. (Testimony of Lawson, Park, Carroll, Fields, M. Spiegel, Exhibits 3, 7, 10) The quality of water in the Gordon River and Rock Creek is adversely effected to some degree by receipt of sewage plant effluent, discharge from nearby canals and runoff from residential and commercial areas. As a result of high bacterial count in these waters, shell fishing and swimming is not permitted. The mangrove forest on Petitioner's property is in a stressed condition as evidenced by the thinness of the canopy. It is probable that this condition was caused primarily by the introduction of fresh water from canals into the surrounding waters. (Testimony of Carroll, Fields, Erwin, Yokel) Mangrove wetlands are an important component of the estuarine ecosystem which provide nutrient stabilization and transformation in the supply of an organic base to the estuarine food chain, filtration of upland runoff, and storage of storm waters. They are a nursery for fish and invertebrate species, and a fish and wildlife habitat. The mangrove system on Petitioner's property is productive and contributing to the needs of marine life in the Naples Bay area. In this respect, most of the detritus produced by the mangrove system occurs below the mean high water line. However, the tidal flow during storm conditions at certain times of the year can release accumulated organic matter from the higher areas. This generally occurs in late summer and early fall when feeding demands of organisms are high. (Testimony of Erwin, Yokel) Although no system for containing surface water runoff was set forth in Petitioner's permit application, it is planned that such runoff will be retained on the site by a site drainage plan that would be accomplished by grading and the use of the existing pond or other means of retention, in addition to the natural percolation into the sandy fill material. (Testimony of Park) The application did not specify the precise distance from the mean high water line at which fill would be placed, but Petitioner clarified this point at the hearing. Fill material will not be placed closer than 100 feet upland of the mean high water line. The mangrove area left intact below that point will enable the ecological system to survive. However, due to the fact that the Naples Bay area does not produce sufficient organic matter to fully support animal life in the area, the loss of a substantial portion of mangroves will impact on the detrital food chain to some extent. (Testimony of Carroll, Yokel)
Recommendation That Respondent issue the requested permit to Petitioner, subject to the modification thereto made at the hearing with regard to the 100' setback as set forth in paragraph 8 of the foregoing Findings of Fact. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of February, 1979. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Ray Allen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard Horowitz, Esquire 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 402 Miami, Florida 33137 William Blackwell, Esquire 3003 North Miami Trail Naples, Florida
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Austin is the owner of real property located at 1580 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Heslin is the owner of real property located at 1530 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Lighthouse is the applicant for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit for structures and activities proposed to occur on property located adjacent to Austin’s property. Heslin’s property is located within 500 feet of the proposed project site. The property for which the CCCL permit is sought is located landward of the mean high water line (MHWL). On January 31, 2006, the Department gave notice of issuance of a CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The proposed permit authorizes activities 228 feet seaward of the CCCL, specifically, the construction of a subdivision roadway/cul-de- sac including asphalt and limerock foundation, excavation of soil, filling of soil, ornamental street lights, stormwater management swales, below grade utilities, and dune enhancement plantings. Lighthouse obtained a subdivision plat for the site from Gulf County, Florida, on June 28, 2005, which includes 12 platted lots seaward of the CCCL, each approximately one quarter acre in size. When issuing the CCCL permit, the Department did not consider the platted subdivision that will be serviced by the permitted roadway project. Austin filed a petition challenging the issuance of the CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The challenge is styled Gloria Austin v. Lighthouse Walk, LLC and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 06-1186 (hereafter “the Permit Challenge”), and is pending before Judge Alexander. Heslin sought and was granted leave to intervene in the Permit Challenge. Paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (Petition) in the Permit Challenge state as follows: 6. The proposed subdivision that is intended to be built by Lighthouse, will result in incompatible high density residential development seaward of the costal control line and seaward of the Petitioners’ homes. The incompatible and inappropriate nature of this subdivision will greatly increase the danger of Petitioners’ homes being damages by storm driven debris in the event of a major storm event such as a hurricane occurring in this area. * * * The area in question on Cape San Blas is presently developed in very low density single family home sites. The proposed development would create high density development seaward of the coastal construction control line for which construction is totally unnecessary and could easily be greatly minimized. The parcel in question could accommodate a residential subdivision without encroaching seaward of the present coastal construction and control line. In light of the above, it is clear the project violates Rule 62B- 33.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. * * * 18. The proposed permit would create a high density subdivision which would create a multitude of small single family lots on this site. By granting the permit for this site development, the Department is condoning the intended construction of a multitude of single family residences which are totally inappropriate for the beach dune system in this area. The combined effect of the construction of single family residences on the proposed plat seaward of the coastal construction control line will maximize impacts to the beach dune system, not minimize the impact as required by the Department’s rules in Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code. Lighthouse moved to dismiss the Petition in the Permit Challenge, to strike certain allegations, and for an Order in limine in that case. The Department filed a memorandum of law in support of Lighthouse’s motion, stating, in part: Contrary to Petitioner’s argument in paragraph 2(b), the Department’s rule contains a standard for determination of “cumulative effects.” Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., provides that “[I]n assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell.” The Department’s rules also contain a regulatory definition of “impacts” (not “cumulative impacts” as argued by the Petitioner). Therefore, consideration of future applications not yet pending with the Department is outside the scope of the Department’s permitting jurisdiction under the rule. Contrary to the arguments made by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) and (d) construction of a “residential subdivision” is not a foregone conclusion. First, in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., it states that “[e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision; therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Second, use by an applicant of the single family home general permit authorized by Section 161.053(19), F.S., and existing in Rule 62B-34.070, F.A.C., is not governed by the principle that a general permit is authorized without additional agency action. The concept of a general permit adopted by rule exists in many different permitting programs of the Department. The different permitting programs are created and governed by their organic statutes, and only those statutes (and rules promulgated under them) should be looked to for the legal principles that apply in the permitting program. (See paragraph 4. above). The case law cited by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) of her response refers to general permits established under Chapter 403, F.S., specifically authorized by Section 408.814, F.S. Section 403.814(1) provides for use of a general permit 30 days after giving notice to the department “without any agency action by the department.” See § 403.814(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). No similar provision appears in Section 161.053(19), F.S. In addition, Section 403.814, F.S. provides for administrative review of the use of a general permit where the Department publishes or requires the applicant to publish notice of its intent to use a general permit. See § 403.814(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); Hamilton County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 587 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and City of Jacksonville v. Department of Environmental Protection, 24 F.A.L.R. 938 (Fla. DEP 2001). By Order dated May 23, 2006, Judge Alexander struck paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition in the Permit Challenge, holding, in part: Second, the Motion to Strike is granted in part, and paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 are stricken. The Motion to Strike paragraphs 9 and 19 is denied since paragraph 9 simply tracks the language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), and neither paragraph makes specific reference to impacts from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Although paragraphs 5 and 13 refer to alleged impacts to “wildlife habitat,” “drainage,” and “wind and water borne missiles during a storm,” which might arguably include matters unrelated to this action, the granting of the Motion in Limine below precludes Petitioner from introducing evidence regarding impacts to habitat other than sea turtles, the stormwater exemption, and wind and water borne missiles caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Finally, the Motion in Limine is granted, and Petitioner (and Intervenor) shall be precluded from introducing evidence in support of allegations relating to cumulative impacts caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, debris and wind and water borne missiles from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, the exemption of swales from stormwater discharge permit requirements, and any habitat impacts unrelated to sea turtles. See § 161.053, Fla. Stat. (2005); Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.005, 62B-33.007, and 62-25.030(1)(c). Petitioners have alleged in this case that Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Lighthouse has disputed that allegation in its Motion for Summary Final Order, which is fully supported by the Department. Section 161.053(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was first adopted by the Legislature in 1983. The statute was amended without any substantive changes to its text in 1987. Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2005),2 currently states in pertinent part: Except in those areas where local zoning and building codes have been established pursuant to subsection (4), a permit to alter, excavate, or construct on property seaward of established coastal construction control lines may be granted by the department as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location as described in subsection (1) upon receipt of an application from a property and/or riparian owner and upon the consideration of facts and circumstances, including: * * * 3. Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 1996 as follows: (3) After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: (a) Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other activities proposed within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. * * * (7) An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site, however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. An exception to this policy may be made with regard to those activities undertaken pursuant to Subsections 16B-33.005(3)(d) and 16B- 33.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 2000, as follows: After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: * * * Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) currently appears as set forth in the preceding paragraph, but without the underlining. One of the provisions in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases states that the Department shall: [d]eny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. It was amended on August 27, 2000. The other provision in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases is the requirement that: [e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. Rule 62B-33.005 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the statute. Rule 62B-41.002 was first developed on August 23, 1992, as part of the newly enacted Rule Chapter 16B-41, which was later designated as Rule Chapter 62B-41. Rule 62B-41.002(28), first developed in 1992, is the precursor to Rules 62B-41.002(19)(a) and (b), which were added on October 23, 2001. Rule 62B-41.002 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.041, Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-41.002(19)(b) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.041(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the Statute. The current language of Section 161.041(2), Florida Statutes, was adopted by the Legislature in 1987, as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location upon receipt of an application from a property or riparian owner and upon consideration of facts and circumstances, including: Adequate engineering data concerning inlet and shoreline stability and storm tides related to shoreline topography; Design features of the proposed structures or activities; and Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system or coastal inlet, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-41.002(19) was amended to its current form in 2001, as follows: Renumbered as (19) * * * “Adverse Impacts” are those impacts to the active portion of the coastal system resulting from coastal construction. Such impacts are caused by coastal construction which has a reasonable potential of causing a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system. The active portion of the coastal system extends offshore to the seaward limit of sediment transport and includes ebb tidal shoals and offshore bars. "Cumulative Impacts" are impacts resulting from the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell individual coastal construction which, if permitted as a general practice on other coastal properties in the same general area, or if added to the adverse impacts from existing coastal construction are expected to result in an adverse impact. The scope of the "cumulative impact" review under the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program is described in the “Basis of Review” used by the South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management. Under the “Basis of Review,” cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities, would result in a violation of state water quality standards or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The cumulative impact evaluation is conducted using an assumption that reasonably expected future applications with like impacts will be sought, thus necessitating equitable distribution of acceptable impacts among future applications. In reviewing impacts of a current ERP project application, the agency will review impacts from pending projects and extrapolate from those impacts to see what impacts future projects could contribute, using objective criteria, such as comprehensive plans, plats on file with local governments, or applicable land use restrictions and regulations. Tony McNeal, the administrator of the Department’s CCCL permitting program, acknowledged in his deposition testimony that the last sentence of Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) “is a way of saying that the Department is not going to be bound by its prior actions in similar cases.” However, he also explained that the sentence does not allow the Department to act inconsistently because the Department “consistently applies the same rules” to each project that comes before it and “[t]he only thing that changes are the facts surrounding the project.”
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: Petitioner and his wife own residential property on the northwest side of Key Thargo in Monroe County, Florida. The property is situated on Florida Bay, a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. The area surrounding the Depkins' property is predominately residential, but there is some nearby commercial development, including a motel which is located on an adjoining parcel. A seawall runs the entire length of the shoreline of the Depkins' property. An L-shaped dock and a covered dock extend out into the water from opposite ends of the seawall forming a cove. The Depkins, who live in Key Thargo only a portion of the year, have a boat which they currently moor alongside the L-shaped dock in that area of the cove where the depth of the water is the greatest. The operation of the boat in this area of the cove has not caused any obvious damage to the bay bottom. Two of the Depkins' boats have sunk in stormy weather while moored alongside the L-shaped dock. Therefore, they now dock their boat at a marina when they are away from Key Largo. The Depkins propose to dredge a relatively small 600 square foot area of bay bottom, which they own, in the cove immediately waterward of the seawall. The depth of the water in this area of the cove now ranges from six inches to a foot and a half. The proposed dredging project would increase the depth of the water by two feet and thereby enable the Depkins to dock their boat alongside the seawall, a location they consider safer than the one they presently use for this purpose. The bay bottom which the Depkins propose to dredge consists primarily of bedrock which is irregularly shaped. Most of the bedrock is exposed, however, some of the depressions in the bedrock are filled with sediment. The remaining portion of the bay bottom is covered with sand which is inhabited by various living organisms. Approximately 50% to 75% of the proposed dredging site is covered with vegetation. The dominant vegetation is live algae attached to the exposed bedrock. Various species of algae are present, including red algae, which is the preferred habitat for juvenile lobster. A small portion of the site is covered by live turtlegrass. These few patches of turtlegrass are found in the depressions in the bedrock that are filled with sediment. Without sediment turtlegrass cannot grow. Algae and turtlegrass play significant roles in the production and sustenance of marine life. They have considerable value as a habitat and as a source of food for other living organisms. In addition, they help reduce turbidity and water pollution. If the Depkins dredged the proposed project site, all existing biota within the boundaries of the site would be eliminated and it is unlikely that the area would experience a complete or significant recovery. About twelve to fourteen years ago the Depkins dredged sand from the bay bottom near their L-shaped dock. Almost 30 years ago the owners of the motel situated on the parcel of land adjoining the Depkins' property undertook a similar sand dredging project in the bay. Neither of these prior dredging projects resulted in the long-term loss of any vegetation. If anything, the vegetation in these areas has increased. Unlike these previous projects, the project which the Depkins now propose to undertake involves the dredging of primarily bedrock, not sand. 1/ Revegetation typically does not occur following such dredging activity. It is the exception rather than the rule. Therefore, more likely than not, the Depkins' proposed dredging project, if permitted, will result in the permanent loss of vegetation and consequently will have a long-term adverse effect on ambient water quality, the conservation of fish and other aquatic wildlife, and marine productivity. Furthermore, if the project was completed and the Depkins were to begin docking their boat alongside the seawall, there would be an increase in conflict turbidity attributable to the movement of the boat in and out of this area of shallow water. 2/ No measures to mitigate these adverse consequences have been proposed or suggested. 3/ There are many other owners of bayfront property in the Florida Keys who, like the Depkins, are desirous of dredging an access channel to the landward extent of their property. The Department's current practice is to deny these property owners permission to engage in such dredging activity. Although in the past year the Department has processed only about a half dozen permit applications for dredging projects similar in size and scope to that proposed by the Depkins, there would likely be a substantial increase in the number of permit applications were the Department to announce, through its disposition of the Depkins' permit application, that it was henceforth allowing such projects. If the Depkins and these other property owners were permitted to undertake such projects, the resulting damage to the marine environment would be widespread. The impact would extend far beyond the relatively small area of bay bottom that the Depkins propose to dredge. The Department has proposed the following reasonable alternative to the proposed dredging project which would also provide the Depkins with improved access to their residence by boat: Extend the existing [L-shaped] dock offshore to a terminal platform located at a water depth of at least four (4) feet MLW and elevate the intermediate portion of the dock to at least five (5) feet above MHW to prevent boat mooring in shallower areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a final order denying the Depkins' permit application. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of August, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division f Administrative Hearings this of 8th day of August, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Respondent/applicant, James L. Carpenter (applicant or Carpenter), is the owner of upland property bordering on and contiguous to a man-made lagoon in Vaca Key near Marathon, Florida. The property is also adjacent to an artificial man-made canal which connects the lagoon to the open waters of Florida Bay. The lagoon and canal are classified as Class III waters of the State while Florida Bay is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water. A more precise location of the property is Section 9, Township 66 South, Range 32 East, Monroe County, Florida. By application dated June 23, 1987 applicant sought the issuance of a dredge and fill permit from respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), authorizing the construction of an "L" shaped 125'x8' commercial dock with a 10'x8' access walkway waterward of mean high water (MHW) in the canal. The dock and walkway will be located on the property described in finding of fact 1. According to the application, Carpenter owns several "landlocked residences" in the vicinity of the proposed dock and desires to provide dockage for residents who rent his houses. Because of DER concerns that shading might affect photosynthetic capabilities in the vicinity of the project, applicant agreed to revise his application. This revision was made on December 21, 1987 and reduced the dock size to 102'x6' while the access walkway was increased slightly to 12'x8'. Thus, the dock will extend eight feet into the canal beyond the MHW. On January 5, 1988 DER's district office issued an Intent to Issue a permit subject to seven specific conditions incorporated in the permit. This prompted the filing of a petition by petitioner, Lillian Berdeal (Berdeal), who owns upland property bordering on and contiguous to the lagoon, canal and Florida Bay. She operates a commercial seafood business directly across the canal from Carpenter. According to her petition, Berdeal asserts that Carpenter's dock would adversely affect navigation in the canal and the health, safety and welfare or the property of others. The water body in question is a man-made canal facing to the north and providing an outlet for the lagoon to Florida Bay. The lagoon, which measures approximately 150'x100', is fairly well developed. On the east and southeast side of the lagoon lie an outdoor restaurant and Carpenter's boat rental business. Petitioner's seafood processing operation lies on the west and southwest sides of the lagoon and lagoon entrance. Photographs of the area have been received in evidence as DER exhibits 1 and 2 and petitioner's exhibit 1. Presently, there are five finger piers (docks) in front of Berdeal's property at the narrowest point of the canal. These piers are directly across the canal from Carpenter's proposed dock addition. They extend out eight feet perpendicular to the shoreline and are now used by commercial fishermen for docking purposes while using Berdeal's facility. Approximately thirty or forty boats use the finger piers during fishing season (August - May) while up to twenty may use them in the off-season (June - July). Berdeal described those boats as ranging from thirty to forty-five feet in length and having beams up to, but not exceeding, sixteen feet. However, vessels at petitioner's facility on the day of DER's inspection had an average beam of ten feet. The evidence is conflicting as to the canal's width at its most narrow point. According to DER's expert, the minimum width is seventy-six feet, and this figure is accepted as being more credible than Berdeal's own measurement of sixty-three feet. If the project is constructed, Carpenter's dock, together with a boat having a ten foot beam, would use around eighteen feet of the channel at its most narrow width while Berdeal's facility, if used by the largest boat, would take up another twenty-three feet. This would still leave around thirty-five feet of channel for navigation purposes between the two docks at the canal's most narrow point. According to applicant's expert in navigation, James J. Morrison, who has piloted boats in the area for over thirty years, a boat may safely operate in the canal if it has five feet of water on each side. This margin of safety is sufficient in all weather conditions up to and including a small craft warning. If the project is approved, the necessary margin of safety would be available. It is noted also that there are no significant currents in the canal that would adversely affect navigation, and under normal weather conditions, the canal and basin are easily navigable. Petitioner presented the testimony of a commercial fisherman, Leonard Quasney, who expressed concerns that northerly winds periodically drive aquatic weeds and grasses into the lagoon and canal thereby impairing the ability of a boat to safely operate. These weeds are shown in photographs received as petitioner's exhibit 1. It was Quasney's contention that, coupled with the periodic influx of weeds, the addition of a dock at the canal's most narrow point will make navigation more hazardous. However, this theory was discounted by expert witness Morrison who pointed out that, while it is true that floating mats of weeds affect the ability of a person to handle a boat by making the boat's rudder and propeller action less responsive, they do not affect the ability to navigate the canal. In other words, as long as the margin of safety is available in the canal, the presence of the weeds would not hinder a ship's ability to enter and exit the lagoon. This testimony is accepted as being more credible on the issue, and it is found that the new dock will not create a navigational hazard as a result of the weeds. Berdeal is concerned also that the new dock would make it more difficult for fishermen to access her property and therefore cause economic harm to both her and the fishermen. However, this contention was not substantiated. The parties have stipulated that, with the following special conditions proposed by DER at hearing regarding limitations on commercial use, liveaboards and scraping boat bottoms, all water quality standards will be met: All temporary and permanent use of liveaboard or liveaboard type vessels for residential use is prohibited. All on site fueling activities are prohibited. All major vessel repair, such as hull scraping and painting, with the boat in the water is prohibited. Only private use of the dock is permitted. All double parking or rafting of boats along the dock is prohibited. General conditions common to all dredge and fill permits. The parties have stipulated that the "public interest" criteria in Subsection 403.918(2)(a)2. and 4.-7., Florida Statutes (1987), have been satisfied. In addition, a registered engineer has certified that the dock's construction and use will not have an adverse effect on the public health, safety and welfare or the property of others. Petitioner has applied for the issuance of a permit allowing the construction of additional docks at her facility. If the application is approved, these docks will be used for commercial purposes. The proposed impact of this project, and its cumulative impact on the area, was considered by DER in its evaluation of Carpenter's application. However, conditions to be included in Berdeal's permit will minimize any water quality or navigation impacts of the project, even on a cumulative basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of James L. Carpenter for a dredge and fill permit be granted subject to those specific, special and general conditions imposed by the agency. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1988.
Findings Of Fact The applicant proposes, on the west shore of the Indian River to: (1) Dredge an access channel 3' deep, 801 wide, and 1,500' long, Construct a vertical seawall of 600 linear feet along the waterward side of the proposed fill area, and Disposit some 4,000 cubic yards of spoil in a 200' x 400' area enclosed by the seawall. This proposed seawall will be in line with and connect to an existing seawall along the adjacent north property. A hydraulic dredge and a silt screen will be used during dredging operation. Petitioner acquired the submerged lands fronting his property on the west bank of the Indian River at Melbourne, Florida to the bulkhead line, by purchase from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (IITF) in 1963 and 1964. The submerged land just north of Petitioner's property was likewise acquired from the Trustees, bulkheaded and filled, circa 1963 where a commercial marina is now operated by one Rathman. Indian River in the vicinity of Melbourne has become in the nature of a basin by reason of the Eau Gallie Causeway to the north and the Melbourne Causeway to the south. These causeways have materially reduced the flushing of this stretch of the Indian River and increased the turbidity of the water. Normal turbidity of the Indian River in the vicinity of the lands here involved is such that the bottom cannot be seen at depths greater than 1.5 to 2 feet. Surface drainage from U.S. 1, which runs just west of Shablowski`s property, and an area of some 5 square miles just west of U.S. 1 runs into the Indian River through culverts just north and south of Petitioner's property. No evidence was submitted that this surface runoff goes through debris or settling traps before being discharged into the Indian River. Rathman's marina and the area there filled is bounded on the south by a bulkhead normal to the shoreline of Indian River and extending into the river some 200 feet. This creates a pocket where some debris accumulates on the north end of Petitioner's property. Granting the applied for permit would result in moving this pocket 400 feet to the south. Although the Indian River, between the causeways above noted, is in an ecologically stressed condition due primarily to the effects of the causeways and the surface water drainage into Indian River, it is not dead. Cuban Shoalweed grows in the shallow water areas of the Indian River (less than 3 feet deep) and provides a source of food to the marine life in the area. The submerged lands owned by Petitioner are sparsely covered (10 percent to 25 percent) with patches of Cuban Shoalweed. The area proposed for filling has an average depth of approximately 1.5 feet with some areas near the eastern edge of the property having depths of up to 3.5 feet. However, these are primarily holes or former channels. A significant amount of animal life exists on the property in question. These consist of blue crabs and numerous small fishes such as silversides, mojarra, needlefish, mullet, sheepshead, leather jack and snook. Benthic samples collected include polychaetes, amphipods, sphaeromid isopods, cumaceans, small shrimp, gem clams, paper mussels, gobies and pipe fish. Petitioner's proposal to dredge an access channel 3 feet deep, 80 feet wide, and 1500 feet long from the eastern edge of the property riverward will not have a significant adverse impact on marine biological resources or water quality. (Exhibit 3). Silt screens will be used in connection with the hydraulic dredging and the shallow depths to which Petitioner proposes to dredge will not cause permanent damage to the bottom grasses, if any, in the dredged area. The vertical bulkhead proposed by Petitioner would increase the possibility of scouring in the areas; however Petitioner agreed at the hearing to install rip rap along this bulkhead. This will eliminate scouring and promote the propagation of marine life. Granting the application will result in the loss of approximately 2 acres of moderately productive bottom land in the Indian River, or approximately 0.1 percent of the total area of the Indian River in the basin between the two causeways. Respondent generally acknowledges that filling of the area in question will not have a significant effect upon the ecology of the area; however, if others also fill productive bottom lands the cumulative effect could be significant. Petitioner has not determined the use to which the property will be put if the application is granted. At such time as construction is instituted DER can establish requirements for surface water runoff containment to protect the receiving waters.
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Clifford O. Hunter, is the owner of real property located at Dekle Beach, Taylor County, Florida. Mr. Hunter's property is located at lot 53, Front Street, Dekle Beach, within section 22, township 7 south, range 7 east, Taylor County. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, dredge and fill permits involving Florida waters. Mr. Hunter lived in a home on his Dekle Beach property until a storm in March of 1993 destroyed the home. Mr. Hunter's Application for Permit. On or about June 2, 1993, Mr. Hunter applied for a wetland resource permit to rebuild his home, construct a bulkhead and fill 1750 square feet of salt marsh. The permit was designated No. 62-232123-2 by the Department. Mr. Hunter also sought approval for the construction of a dock. The dock, however, is exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule 17- 312.050(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. On July 21, 1993, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter. On August 13, 1993, Mr. Hunter filed a Request for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department contesting the denial of his permit application. The Department's Jurisdiction Over the Proposed Project. The proposed project involves dredging and filling in the waters of the State of Florida. A wetland resource permit is, therefore, required. Wetland jurisdiction of the State of Florida extends to the eastern edge of an existing concrete slab on Mr. Hunter's property from a canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's northern boundary. The canal connects with the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico surrounding Dekle Beach, except for an area extending 500 feet outward from the town limits of Dekle Beach, is within the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. The preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water (hereinafter referred to as an "OFW"). The evidence presented by the Department to support findings of fact 9, 10 and 11 was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Impact on Water Quality Standards. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Mr. Hunter has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not lower the existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department concerning adverse impacts of the proposed project on water quality standards was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Approval of Mr. Hunter's proposed project would allow the placing of fill in an intertidal area and the elimination of the portion of the intertidal area filled. Intertidal areas help maintain water quality by acting as a filter for water bodies. Mr. Hunter has obtained a variance from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which will allow him to place a septic tank on his property if the permit is granted. The septic tank will leach pollutants. Those pollutants will include nutrients, viruses and bacteria. Because the soil around the septic tank is very saturated, filtering of the pollutants will be low. Pollutants will, therefore, leach into the waters of the State of Florida and adversely impact water quality standards of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Under such circumstances, Mr. Hunter has failed to demonstrate that the project will not lower existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. Public Interest Test. Mr. Hunter failed to present evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed project will not be adverse to the public interest. Rather, the unrebutted evidence presented by the Department supports a finding that Mr. Hunter's proposed project will not be in the public interest, especially when the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, discussed, infra, are considered. Possible adverse impacts to the public interest include the following: The septic tank which Mr. Hunter will place in the 1750 square feet of filled area will allow fecal coliform, viruses and pathogens to leach into the waters of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Anyone who enters the canal could be infected from bacteria and viruses leaching from the septic tank. The conservation of fish and wildlife would also be adversely affected by the adverse impact on water quality and by the elimination of intertidal area. Recreational value of the canal would be reduced because of the adverse impact on water quality. The proposed project is for a permanent structure. Cumulative Impact. There are a number of applications for permits similar to the application filed by Mr. Hunter which have been filed by property owners of Dekle Beach whose homes were also destroyed by the March 1993 storm. If Mr. Hunter's permit application is granted, the Department will have to also grant most, if not all, of the other similar permit applications. Approximately 20 to 30 other applications involve similar requests which will allow the placement of fill and the installation of septic tanks. The resulting fill and use of septic tanks will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on the waters of the State of Florida. The cumulative impact from leaching effluent from the septic tanks on the waters of the State could be substantial. In addition to the impact on the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property, there will a cumulative negative impact on the ambient water quality of approximately 20 septic tanks on the canals and on the OFW. Errors in the Department's Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial issued by the Department contained the following errors: An incorrect description of Mr. Hunter's lot number and section number; An incorrect statement that the amount of Mr. Hunter's proposed fill would eliminate 3,200 square feet of marsh; An incorrect statement that Mr. Hunter proposed to fill his lot for a distance of 64 feet waterward. The errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial did not form any basis for the Department's denial of Mr. Hunter's application. The errors were typographical/word-processing errors. Several notices were being prepared at the same time as the Notice of Permit Denial pertaining to Mr. Hunter. The incorrect information contained in Mr. Hunter's Notice of Permit Denial was information which applied to the other notices. Other than the errors set out in finding of fact 23, the Notice of Permit Denial was accurate. Among other things, it was properly addressed to Mr. Hunter, it contained the project number assigned by the Department to Mr. Hunter's proposed project and it accurately reflected the Department's decision to deny Mr. Hunter's permit application. Mr. Hunter responded to the Notice of Permit Denial by requesting a formal administrative hearing to contest the Department's denial of his application. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Hunter received a letter from the Department which corrected the errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial. The corrections were also contained in a Notice of Correction filed in this case by the Department on December 20, 1993. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter within 90 days after his application was filed. The corrections to the Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter more than 90 days after his application was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and denying the issuance of permit number 62-232123-2 to Clifford O. Hunter. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Hunter's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 4. Although Ernest Frey, Director of District Management, Northeast District Office of the Department, did ask Mr. Hunter whether he wanted to sell his property to the State, the evidence failed to prove why Mr. Frey asked this question, that Mr. Frey asked the question in his official capacity with the Department, or that Mr. Frey made the inquiry at the direction or on behalf of the Department or the State. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that the Department denied the permit sought by Mr. Hunter because of any interest the State may have in purchasing Mr. Hunter's property. See 4. 6-8 No relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 6, 23, 28 and 30. Not a proposed finding of fact. See 8. The "aerial photo, Petitioner's exhibit 6, does not show "No vegetation behind the slab, nearly to the Mean High Water Line . . . ." Respondent's exhibit 3 does, however, show vegetation as testified to by Department witnesses. 13-14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not a proposed finding of fact. Generally correct. Mr. Hunter was not properly put on notice of "alternatives" by the Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, issued by the Department. Summation: Mr. Hunter's Summation was considered argument and was considered in this case. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 1 and 4-5. Accepted 6-7. Accepted in 8. 6-9 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 19. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 15. 17-18 Accepted in 15 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 15 and 20-21. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 22. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 15-16. Accepted in 17 and 21. 27-28 Accepted in 17. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 16. 32-33 The Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, did not put Mr. Hunter on notice that the alternatives raised by the Department at the final hearing would be an issue in this case. Those alternatives should not, therefore, form any basis for the Department's final decision. Accepted in 24-25. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 24 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford O. Hunter 1410 Ruby Street Live Oak, Florida 32060 Beth Gammie Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9730 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, my observation of the witnesses and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: On November 17, 1988, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for a permit to fill submerged areas waterward of the mean high water line abutting certain property Petitioner owns on Big Pine Key. Petitioner also proposed to place a riprap revetment over seagrass in the submerged area, and pilings for a stilted structure in the submerged areas. Petitioner purchased the lot in question on September 8, 1988. There is no habitable structure currently on the property and Petitioner wishes to build a cottage on the lot. The intended purpose of the filling is to enlarge the existing lot so that Petitioner will have adequate area to build a cottage upon, and to stop any erosion that might be occurring. The area to be filled is within the Florida Keys Special Waters, and is classified as Outstanding Florida Water by the Department of Environmental Regulation pursuant to Rule 17.3041(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The area is located within the National Key Deer Wildlife Refuge. The area proposed to be filled is further classified as Class III Waters. Although Petitioner contends that he is simply trying to reclaim a portion of his lot which has eroded, the evidence of erosion was very slight and only found in a small area where the property adjoins the vertical seawall of the adjacent property. This particular section is very different from the rest of the shoreline. There is not much vegetation in this area. Aerial photography taken of the property in 1959 and 1972 demonstrates that there has been not been a significant change in the size of the lot in the last thirty years. This conclusion is supported by the physical evidence at the property site. Petitioner has not affirmatively demonstrated that vegetative stabilization would not prevent any erosion that might be occurring. Along the shoreline of the area to be filled are buttonwoods and sea daisy and mangrove seedlings. The submerged area proposed to be filled is very diverse and productive. It includes seagrasses, several types of algae, several macroinvertibrates, and forage fish. The area to be filled is currently very healthy and there are no signs of heavy boat usage in the area. The algae that exists in the area proposed to be filled serves as a food source for fish, and as a helpful filter of floating particles. The dense, constant growth of seagrass in this area provides food for fish, stabilizes sediments, absorbs pollutants from the water, and provides shelter to fish. Any filling of this area would result in the direct elimination of dense, healthy seagrass beds. The proposed filling will result in a drop in the diversity of organisms existing in the filled area. This will cause a violation of the DER's standards for biological integrity. The proposed construction and filling is expected to violate the DER's Class III standards for turbidity. By directly eliminating an area of productive habitat, this project would adversely affect fish and other aquatic wildlife. The loss of the algae and seagrass vegetation will lead to a decrease in fishery production and marine productivity. The filling proposal does not include any measures designed to mitigate for or offset these expected adverse impacts. The residential structure proposed to be built over the fill is expected to cause additional adverse environmental impacts due to nutrient input from the residence.
