Findings Of Fact James R. Gray owns Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, Clearwater Beach Park, as recorded in Plat Book 10, p. 42, of the official Records of Pinellas County. These lots are located on Clearwater Beach in an area zoned CTF-28. For the past several years beach chairs, umbrellas and cabanas have been rented for use in the vicinity of these lots and a portable 4' x 8' building standing on these lots has been used to store the chairs, umbrellas and cabanas when not rented. Gray proposes to replace the 4' x 8' building with an 8' x 10' portable aluminum shed from which to operate the business of renting beach equipment and expand it to include the sale of suntan lotion, soft drinks, and related items. The business will be operated by Roy Pearl, a co-applicant with Gray in these proceedings. Gray and Pearl applied for a building permit to erect the portable shed and their application was rejected by the City of Clearwater Building Department on the basis that the proposed use of the property was not in conformity with the Building and Zoning Regulations and did not fit the special exceptions provided by Section 131.099 of the Zoning Regulations. The latter determination was made by the Clearwater Planning Department. Gray then submitted on a City of Clearwater form an Application-- Request for Special Exception to the Clearwater Board of Adjustment and Appeal on Zoning, which, as noted above, approved the application. The area in question comprises a private beach; and businesses in the vicinity consist of motels, hotels, apartments and restaurants. An 8-unit motel occupies part of the site involved. The location of the proposed portable aluminum shed is on Lots 12 and 13, approximately 150 feet seaward of the seawall which separates the beach from the business establishment seaward of Gulf View Boulevard. Approximately 150 feet south of this proposed location is a similar storage shed operated in conjunction with a sailboat rental business. Some of the hotels and motels on Clearwater Beach rent umbrellas, chairs and cabanas, some of which are stored when not in use in storage sheds located more than 100 feet from the main building. On the public beach the City of Clearwater operates a concession which provides the same services proposed by applicant. The chairs, umbrellas, and cabanas are utilized by guests of the motels and apartments located in the vicinity and by tourists who are using this area of the beach for sunbathing or swimming.
The Issue This case concerns proposed amendments to Respondent's Rule 16N-22.009, The issues for determination are, 1) whether Petitioner has standing to challenge the proposed amendments, and 2) whether the amendments are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. More specifically, the following issues are raised by the pleadings and presentation of the parties: Whether the rule amendments exceed the agency's grant of authority by creating a "no entry" or "motorboat prohibited zone", and by extending that zone into the right of way of the Intracoastal Waterway Channel. Whether the agency materially failed to follow rulemaking procedures prescribed by Section 120.54, F.S., by substantially revising the proposed amendments after a challenge had been filed, and by preparing an inadequate economic impact statement; and Whether the amendments are arbitrary and capricious because they are unnecessary or unrelated to manatee protection.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Gerald M. Ward, is a registered engineer residing in Riviera Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. He owns a 30-foot Columbia sailboat, with motor power. He uses the boat for recreational purposes exclusively. Since 1973, the boat has been berthed at Old Ship Marina, within the slow speed zone of the existing rule, but approximately one mile outside of the proposed motorboats prohibited zone. Petitioner does not live on, nor own any real property abutting the proposed motorboat prohibited zone. Since 1979, Rule 16N-22.009, F.A.C. has provided two speed zones for operation of motor boats between November 15 and March 31 in Palm Beach County: an idle speed zone in all waters within one-half mile of the discharge of the Florida Power and Light Riviera Beach Power Plant, including the Intracoastal Waterway; and a slow speed zone for all inland waters lying between one-half mile and one and one-half miles of the power plant discharge, including the Intracoastal Waterway. These zones are within Lake Worth, the body of water between West Palm Beach and Palm Beach and extending both north and south. The changes proposed for Rule 16N-22.009, F.A.C., would create a third zone, "motorboats prohibited", in a much smaller area within the current idle speed zone, and in and immediately adjacent to the power plant discharge canal. The full text of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proposed rule was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 15, No. 38, September 22, 1989, as follows: 16N-22.009 Palm Beach County Zones Amended. For the purpose of regulating the speed and operation of motorboat traffic between the dates of November 15 and March 31 of each year, the Palm Beach County zones are amended as follows: IDLE SPEED ZONE-All waters lying within one-half mile of the discharge of the Florida Power and Light Riviera Beach Power Plant including the Intracoastal Waterway, except those waters posted as a "Motorboats Prohibited Zone" as described in paragraph (c) below. (c) MOTORBOATS PROHIBITED ZONE - All waters lying within Lake Worth, commencing at a point exactly 300 feet north of the Riviera Beach Power Plant discharge canal and easterly to within 100 feet of the westernmost boundary of the Intracoastal Waterway, lying within Township 42 South and Range 43 East, running southerly to a point exactly 300 feet south of the abovementioned discharge canal and easterly to the westernmost boundary of the Intracoastal Waterway lying within Township 43 South and Range 43 East. The precise boundaries and effective period of the zone will be posted each year between November 15 and March 31 (see accompanying map for exact locations). (Emphasis in original denotes new text). No map was published. Sometime between September 22nd and October 16, 1989, DNR staff realized that the description of the proposed zone was defective. It failed to "close", and therefore did not adequately describe the area. At the public hearing on the proposed rule amendments, on October 16, 1989, Department staff person, Karen Lewis announced the need to make a technical change to the proposed amendments; she provided the attendees a copy of the revised description and a map depicting the zone. These changes were incorporated into the record of the rulemaking proceedings. On November 3, 1989, the DNR, Division of Law Enforcement, published a "notice of change" in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 15, No. 44. The notice affected several other rules establishing zones in other counties, and the following text was published for proposed Rule 16N-22.009, F.A.C.: * * * 2. For proposed rule 16N-22.009, Palm Beach County Zones the word "amended" has been deleted from the title, and subsection (1)(c) has been corrected to read as follows: (c) MOTORBOATS PROHIBITED ZONE - All waters lying within Lake Worth, commencing at a point exactly 300 feet north of the northeast corner of the Riviera Beach Power Plant discharge canal, thence easterly to a point 100 feet west of the western boundary of the Intracoastal Waterway channel, lying within Township 42 South and Range 43 East; thence running southerly parallel to and 100 feet west of the western boundary of the Intracoastal Waterway channel for a distance of 700 feet to a point within Township 43 South and Range 43 East; thence westerly to the shoreline to a point 300 feet south of the southeast corner of the discharge canal; thence northerly 300 feet to the southeast corner of the discharge canal; thence westerly 150 feet, northerly 100 feet, and easterly 150 feet to the northeast corner of the discharge canal (inclusive of the entire waterbody comprising the Riviera Beach Power Plant discharge canal); thence northerly 300 feet to the point of origin. The precise boundaries and effective period of the zone will be posted each year between November 15 and March 31. The words "(see accompanying map for exact locations)" have been removed from subsection (1)(c). * * * A map depicting the three zones in Lake Worth was published at page 5144 of the Nov. 3rd Florida Administrative Weekly. The Intracoastal Waterway is a federal Corps of Engineers project extending the Atlantic coast length of Florida. In Palm Beach County the waterway consists of a main channel approximately 125 feet wide with 187.5 feet of right of way on each side. The waterway runs north and south in the waters of Lake Worth, hugging the mainland coast, east of Riviera Beach. The waterway is regulated by the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND). An easement for maintenance of the project was granted by Chapter 13664, Laws of Florida (1929), and by a conveyance from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to the United States, dated June 8, 1942. Petitioner has suggested, but failed to prove, that FIND has withheld necessary permission for DNR to establish its zone within a portion of the right of way. Maintenance or repair of a property owner's facilities is exempt from the prohibition of the motorboat prohibited zone. Rule 16N-22.003(3), F.A.C. The Department has received no objection nor written comment from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Coast Guard, and its comment from FIND was simply that the draft map was inconsistent with the text of the September 22, 1989 version of the proposed rule. The Department has consistently intended that the zone extend into the right of way, but not into the waters of the Florida Intracoastal Waterway channel. The revised description of the boundaries of the zone, published on November 3rd, plainly effectuates that intent. There are no marinas in the area of the proposed motorboat prohibited zone. There is an existing dock owned by the U.S. Coast Guard within the zone, but arrangements have been made with the Coast Guard regarding their non-use of the dock during the posted months. The proposed zone is a very small area within an already limited speed zone. There is ample room for motorboats to navigate east of the zone, within the right of way, in the channel of the Intracoastal Waterway, and in the wide waters of Lake Worth lying east of the waterway. The proposed motorboat prohibited zone will not interfere with navigation or boats engaged in interstate commerce. The zone will be marked by signs installed by the department during the relevant months. While the exact type of marker has not been established, they will be obvious to boaters and will be easily removed by department staff. The increase in signs will not automatically increase boating accidents. In the record there are two versions of an economic impact statement accompanying the proposed rule. They do not materially differ; the revised version simply provides an expanded narrative without altering the estimated costs or the underlying conclusions. The Department estimates the cost of signs to be approximately $125.00 each, for four; and an additional $320.00 each for the pilings, for a total quantifiable cost of $1780.00. This is for signs to be attached to a piling structure. The department is currently investigating the possibility of using buoys which would be cheaper to install and remove. The $1780.00 is a one-time cost and the department anticipates that installation and removal each year will be routinely accomplished by existing field staff who are already working in that area. The zone will be enforced by the Florida Marine Patrol who already enforces the existing zones. Any associated increase in law enforcement costs will be absorbed into the existing operating budget. No small nor minority businesses are operating in the area within the proposed zone and no evidence was presented to disprove the department's estimate of no cost to those groups or to competition and open market for employment or to persons directly affected by the proposed action. The stated purpose of the proposed rule is for ". . . regulating the speed and operation of motorboat traffic to needed protection for the Florida manatee." (Notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 15, No. 38, September 22, 1989.) The manatee is an endangered species, one of the original species identified in the Federal Endangered Species Act. Its estimated population is approximately 1,200 for the entire United States; many of whom are found in the waters of Florida. In 1978, the Florida Legislature passed the Manatee Sanctuary Act declaring the state to be a refuge and sanctuary for manatees. The act has also been amended at least three times since 1978, giving the department additional authority to protect the species. Motorboats kill, maim and disturb manatees. In the past five years there has been an 85 percent increase in the incidents of manatee deaths from collision with vessels. In 1988, 133 manatees were found dead in Florida; 43 were determined to have been killed by boats. In 1989, those figures had both been surpassed at the time of the hearing in this case. Since 1978, there have been 12 boat-related manatee deaths in Palm Beach County, including two deaths in 1988. No deaths have been observed this year. Manatees congregate in the winter months in the Florida Power and Light Riviera Beach power plant discharge canal and surrounding waters. The warm waters there are a refuge. Each year their numbers fluctuate according to the weather conditions. In warmer years fewer numbers are observed, and the totals range from a maximum one-day count of 60 in 1983-84, to 277 in 1987-88. The proposed rule is reasonably expected to fulfill the purpose of protecting the manatee. Prohibiting motorboat traffic in the limited area immediately in and surrounding the discharge canal will not only prevent deaths and harassment in that area, but will also keep the motorboats from scattering the animals into the busier, highly trafficked area further east and in the channel of the Intracoastal Waterway.
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondent's correctional officer's certification should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Linda S. Linton was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 27, 1988, and was issued Certificate Number 11-87- 502-04. Respondent began her employment with the Department of Corrections as a Correctional Officer I at Calhoun Correctional Institution on May 27, 1988. She has continued in that position to the present. During her years with the Department, Ms. Linton received overall achieves performance standards ratings and has been rated as exceeding her standards in several specific categories. Her performance appraisals indicate that she excelled in the following areas: supervision of inmates in her area of responsibility; adherence to Department rules, regulations, policies and procedures; completion of all written reports and assignments in an accurate, concise and neat manner within specified time limits; maintenance of control of the inmate population through counseling and appropriate disciplinary actions; and completion of other related duties as assigned within specified time frames and according to supervisors' instructions. The comments of her supervisors indicate that Ms. Linton is considered to be a conscientious, dedicated, reliable and dependable employee. However, in 1990, she was suspended 120 days for the misdemeanor conviction which is the subject of this case. Other than the discipline imposed by the Department of Corrections, the misdemeanor conviction has not affected or impaired Respondent's ability to perform her duties as a correctional officer. The misdemeanor conviction in this case occurred after her licensure. However, the facts giving rise to the conviction occurred prior to her licensure as a correctional officer. Prior to her employment with the Department of Corrections, Ms. Linton worked as a clerk in the Post Office. The Post Office was located in the Fiesta Food Store at Mexico Beach, Florida. Beginning in early 1987, Ms. Linton's duties included assisting Janis Brownell, the senior clerk at the post office, in the postal unit, putting up mail, waiting on the postal window, operating the cash register, selling postage stamps and money orders to the public and accepting items for mailing. Isaac "Ike" Duren and his brother operated the Mexico Beach Branch Post Office for a monthly fee pursuant to a contract with the United States Postal Service. Mr. Duren also was and is a real estate broker. His brokerage office was located within a block of the Post Office. Ms. Linton had known the Duren family for approximately twenty years. She worked for Ike Duren's father at the convenience store for seven years prior to being hired by Ike Duren at the Post Office. Her pay was $2.35 per hour at the Post Office. While working full-time at the Post Office, Ms. Linton attended night school at Gulf Coast Community College for four hours a night, five nights a week. Ms. Linton attended school in order to obtain the necessary educational credentials to become certified as a correctional officer. On weekends, she practiced at the firing range to achieve the level of firearm proficiency required for certification. The Post Office generally maintained an inventory valued at around $5,000.00. The safe for the Post Office was located at the back of the area Mr. Duren provided for the Post Office. Those persons having access to the safe included Linton, Judy Hendricks, Janis Brownell, Ike Duren and his wife, as well as one or two employees of Duren's real estate office, Gulfaire Realty. On more than one occasion when she reported to work, Linton found that the safe had been left open overnight. The cash/stamp drawer containing stamps and money was located at the front of the Post Office. At night, the cash/stamp drawer was removed from the front of the Post Office and placed in the safe. The key to the drawer remained in the drawer during working hours. The drawer was never locked during either the day or night. The Post Office inventory was not audited when Linton began her employment. However, the inventory was apparently short at that time by about $50.00. It was common practice for Gulfaire Real Estate employees to take sheets or rolls of stamps from the Post Office and leave slips of paper in the drawer denoting the amount taken. On several occasions Ms. Linton saw two or three slips in the drawer. She had been advised to remove the slips if a postal inspector came to the Post Office. Janis Brownell handled the slips from the real estate office, ordered stamps and other supplies, and completed the daily worksheets. The daily worksheets showed the "running totals" of cash received and expended as well as inventory items received and sold to the public. These daily worksheets were sent to the Panama City Post Office. Either Judy Hendricks or Ms. Linton ordered inventory and completed the daily worksheets when Ms. Brownell could not. When Ms. Brownell could not be at the Post Office during regular working hours because of illness or death in her family, she would sometimes come in after hours to handle the ordering and accounting matters that Ms. Linton did not know how to do. Ms. Linton and Ms. Brownell discussed the shortage in the inventory/cash several times prior to late 1987 when Ms. Brownell performed an audit. The audit verified a shortage of approximately fifty dollars. Around Christmas time of 1987 Ms. Linton and Ms. Brownell discussed the possible need to notify the postal inspectors so that they could audit the post office. Ms. Linton does not know whether Ms. Brownell discussed the shortage with Mr. Duren. Ms. Linton did not tell Mr. Duren of the shortage at that time since it was Ms. Brownell's duty to inform Mr. Duren. Eventually, however, Mr. Duren became aware of the shortage in the Post Office. In February, 1988, at Duren's request, two postal inspectors audited the Mexico Beach Post Office. The audit revealed a shortage of $2,545.69 in the $5,000 inventory for which the contract unit was accountable. Upon questioning by the postal inspectors, Ms. Linton admitted that she had occasionally taken small amounts of money from postal funds in the cash/stamp drawer to purchase cokes or cookies at the convenience store. She believed such actions to be common practice and did not intend to steal any money since she intended to pay the money back when she left employment with Mr. Duren. She did not know the total amount she had taken. The postal inspectors prepared a statement for Linton to sign which estimated $600 as the amount of money she had taken. The postal inspectors told Ms. Linton that she could avoid prosecution if she made restitution for the total shortage and signed the statement they had prepared. She voluntarily signed a statement acknowledging that she had taken approximately $600.00 from the contract Post Office for her own use, without returning same. She told the inspectors as well as Mr. Duren that she had not taken the amount they estimated or the much larger total shortage of $2,545.69. However, she agreed to pay the entire amount of the shortage to Mr. Duren in order to put the matter behind her and move on to finishing her certification requirements. Ms. Linton agreed to the settlement as stated by the postal inspectors and signed papers which she thought satisfied all matters with the Postal Service. Both Respondent and Mr. Duren understood that if Respondent repaid the amount of the shortage ($2,545.69), the Postal Service would take no further legal action against her. As the postal contractor ultimately responsible for the postal contract, Mr. Duren immediately paid the Postal Service the entire amount of the shortage. Mr. Duren withheld Ms. Linton's last paycheck and applied it to the total she owed him of $2,545.69. Additionally, on March 21, 1988, Ms. Linton paid Mr. Duren $900.00 towards repayment of the shortage. Mr. Duren had kept in contact with the Postal Service "every so often" to inform them whether Ms. Linton had made full restitution. On May 19, 1988, a postal inspector came to Ms. Linton's house, showed her his badge identifying himself as a "Postal Inspector," and told her she had to pay full restitution that day or be taken to jail. She unsuccessfully attempted to borrow the amount of the shortage remaining unpaid. 1/ Ms. Linton could borrow only $1,000.00 from her brother-in-law Johnny D. Linton. Johnny D. Linton had borrowed the $1,000.00 on his signature at Northwest Finance in Port Saint Joe. Ms. Linton told the postal inspector that she had tried to obtain the entire amount she owed but could not get all of it. She gave the inspector the $1,000 and received a receipt for the payment. The postal inspector, who had apparently been in contact with Mr. Duren, told Linton she had to "work out something" with Mr. Duren for the remainder of the shortage. Following her conversation with the postal inspector, Ms. Linton drove to the real estate office to talk with Mr. Duren about the balance she owed after the $1,000.00 payment. The postal inspector, who drove in his own car, arrived at the real estate office after Ms. Linton and gave Mr. Duren the $1,000.00 payment. Mr. Duren told Ms. Linton that the postal inspector was waiting for his acknowledgment that the matter of restitution had been settled. To settle the matter, Ms. Linton signed a promissory note in the amount of $1,161.50 that Mr. Duren had prepared. The amount of the promissory note was calculated by Mr. Duren and was purported to be the balance Linton owed on the $2,545.59 shortage, after she had paid her last paycheck and $1,900. Added to the shortage were Mr. Duren's attorney's fees. Again, the figures used by Mr. Duren, did not add up to the shortage amount plus a reasonable attorney's fee. In addition to the promissory note, Duren's attorney, Tom Gibson, had prepared a mortgage for Linton's signature. The mortgage referred to an "Exhibit A" where the property description would ordinarily have been. Exhibit A was either not attached to the mortgage or Respondent did not look at it when she signed the mortgage. Ms. Linton understood that the mortgage referred to the property on which her home was built, Lots 8, 9 and 12 in Bay View Heights. She also understood that the mortgage would not "have to come into effect" since she signed the promissory note. Unknown to Respondent, Exhibit A mortgaged Lots 8, 9 and 12; and Lots 7, 10 and 16, Block F, in Bay View Heights. All of Respondent's property was also owned by her husband as tenants by the entirety. Her husband did not sign the mortgage and the mortgage was invalid as a lien against the property and particularly invalid against the homestead property. 2/ Ms. Linton owned no property apart from the property she and her husband owned jointly. Mr. Duren knew Ms. Linton was married, knew her husband, knew where their home was built, and knew the approximate value of lots in Bay View Heights. Mr. Duren was a real estate broker but did not obtain the husband's signature or verify in any way that the husband's signature was not needed on the mortgage he obtained from Respondent. 3/ Ms. Linton and her husband had purchased Lot 16, Block F from Quality Services, Inc., in Marianna under an agreement for deed and were making monthly payments on the Lot. Lot 7, Block F had two $35,000 mortgages on it, one to AVCO Financial Services and the other to Citizens Federal. Lot 10, Block F had no mortgage on it. The Lintons built a house in 1986 on Lots 8, 9 and 12 to replace their house that had burned in 1985. On November 24, 1987, the new house was appraised at $100,000. They attempted to mortgage the house and property to AVCO Financial Services for $35,000. However, the mortgage was mistakenly placed on Lot 7. Subsequently, Citizens Federal repeated the AVCO mistake and placed a second mortgage for $35,000 on Lot 7 instead of on Lots 8, 9 and 12, as intended. The mistakes on lot identification were not discovered by the Lintons, AVCO or Citizens Federal until AVCO started to foreclose its mortgage. In an effort to clear title and place AVCO in the position it should have been in if the property description in AVCO's mortgage had been correct, the Lintons executed a quit claim deed on their home and lots 8, 9 and 12 on September 1, 1988, in lieu of foreclosure and corrected the prior mortgage error on Lot 7. On September 28, 1988, the Lintons deeded Lot 16 back to Quality Service in lieu of foreclosure. In connection with returning Lot 16 to the original owner, Respondent signed an Affidavit under oath, attesting that no mortgage or lien existed against Lot 16. At the time she signed the affidavit she believed there was no mortgage or lien existing on the property. Moreover, apart from her belief, Mr. Duren's mortgage was invalid as either a mortgage or a lien. Both legally and factually there was no mortgage or lien in existence on Lot 16 and Respondent is not guilty of any false statement or perjury. Therefore, the portions of the Administrative Complaint and amended Administrative Complaint relating to this affidavit should be dismissed. Ms. Linton had a number of financial difficulties and was unable to pay the $1,161.50 balance to Mr. Duren promptly. Mr. Duren wrote the postal inspector to encourage the Postal Service to criminally prosecute Ms. Linton and filed civil suit on the note against Ms. Linton. The civil suit resulted in a default judgment. Mr. Duren then wrote the superintendent at Calhoun Correctional Institution to tell him "what kind of employee he had" and to see if the superintendent would get Ms. Linton to make monthly payments on the default judgment he had obtained. On December 20, 1988, the Grand Jury issued an indictment charging Ms. Linton with knowingly converting to her own use public funds entrusted to the United States Postal System of a value in excess of $100.00 in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. Pursuant to this indictment, the federal court issued a warrant for her arrest. Ms. Linton was unaware of either the indictment or the warrant for her arrest until the United States Marshall's Office telephoned her and notified her that it had a felony warrant for her arrest. In response to this notice, Ms. Linton drove to Panama City to be arrested and was released. The following day Ms. Linton consulted her supervisor, Lieutenant Durham, and reported her arrest in a letter to the superintendent at Calhoun Correctional Institution. On June 29, 1989, the United States Attorney executed and filed an information that amended the charge against Ms. Linton to encompass a lesser period of time and a value of less than $100.00, thus, reducing the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor. Linton pled guilty to the charge as amended without going to trial. The United States District Court, Northern District of Florida, convicted her of violating the misdemeanor provision of Title 18, Unite States Code, Section 641, suspended her sentence and placed her on probation for a period of three years. Linton has voluntarily continued to pay restitution even though that was not a term of her sentence. Linton notified the Department of the proceedings in her case as they occurred. The evidence was neither clear nor convincing that Respondent committed any felony offense against either the U.S. Postal Service or Mr. Duren. The evidence did demonstrate that Petitioner committed the misdemeanor offense of petty theft. However, even with this conviction, given the underlying facts of this case, the evidence did not demonstrate that Respondent lacked good moral character or is dishonest or unfair. In fact, the unrebutted evidence from her peers is that she possesses good moral character and should be allowed to continue as a correctional officer. The portions of the Administrative Complaint and amended Administrative Complaint relating to this misdemeanor conviction should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the amended Administrative Complaint filed against Linda S. Linton be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1991.
The Issue The preliminary issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (District) has jurisdiction over the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) filed by the Save the Manatee Club (Club)--i.e., whether the Petition was timely or, if not, if the District has jurisdiction under principles of equitable tolling or excusable neglect.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1999, Hidden Harbor filed with the District an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to construct and operate a surface water management system serving a proposed residential development in Lee County, Florida. In January 2001, the Club sent an email to the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) stating that it was concerned about Hidden Harbor's Application No. 991011- 13, as it might impact an area the Club would like to see as a manatee sanctuary, and was requesting copies of all FWCC documents relating to the permit. FWCC forwarded a copy of this email to the District on January 19, 2001. At the time, the Club's internet website gave the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. On April 9, 2001, the Club opened a Southwest Florida regional satellite office in Estero, Florida, and installed Laura Combs as Regional Coordinator in charge of that office. Responsibility for monitoring the Hidden Harbor application was delegated to Combs and the satellite office. Nonetheless, the Club's website continued to give the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. Combs's prior work experience with the Club was as assistant director of governmental relations in Tallahassee, Florida. In that position, she tracked legislation and actions of the Governor and Cabinet that were of interest to the Club. She had no role in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of governmental agencies. Combs's education included a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in urban and regional planning. She did not have specific legal education in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of state governmental agencies. On May 30, 2001, the District mailed to the Club at its Maitland office address a letter enclosing the "District's staff report covering the [Hidden Harbor] permit application [No. 991011-13]" and notifying the Club that the "recommendations as stated in the staff report [to grant the attached draft permit] will be presented to our Governing Board for consideration on June 14, 2001." The Club also was advised: Should you wish to object to the staff recommendation or file a petition, please provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers (refer to the attached "Notice of Rights") to [the District's deputy clerk]. The "Notice of Rights" addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. You are advised, however, to be prepared to defend your position regarding the permit application when it is considered by the Governing Board for final agency action, even if you agree with the staff recommendation, as the Governing Board may take final agency action which differs materially from the proposed agency action. The Notice of Rights stated that it was intended to conform to the requirement of Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, to "inform the recipient of any administrative hearing or judicial review that is available under this section [120.569(1)], s. 120.57 or s. 120.68." It cautioned: Please note that this Notice of Rights is not intended to provide legal advice. Not all the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. The Notice of Rights included a section entitled "Petition for Administrative Proceedings," which stated in pertinent part: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action. The affected person may request either a formal or an informal hearing, as set forth below. A point of entry into administrative proceedings is governed by Rules 28-106.111 and 40E-1.511, Fla. Admin. Code, (also published as an exception to the Uniform Rules of Procedure as Rule 40E-0.109), as set forth below . . .. Formal Administrative Hearing: If a genuine issue(s) of material fact is in dispute, the affected person seeking a formal hearing on a SFWMD decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. or for mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, Fla. Stat. within 21 days . . . of either written notice through mail or posting or publication of notice that the SFWMD has or intends to take final agency action. Pertinent to this case, the Notice of Rights included a verbatim reproduction of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.201, addressing required contents of a petition to initiate proceedings involving disputed issues of material fact. Rules 28-106.111, 40E-1.5111, and 40E-0.109 were not reproduced in the Notice of Rights. It is not clear from the evidence when the letter dated May 30, 2001, with attachments (the Notice Correspondence), was received in the Club's Maitland office. It was not date-stamped, as time-sensitive correspondence normally would be. Apparently, it was decided to forward the Notice Correspondence to the new satellite office in Estero for handling. Combs received the forwarded Notice Correspondence in early June 2001. This was the "first time [Combs] had been through this type of process." Combs reviewed the Notice Correspondence, eventually focusing on paragraph 1.a. of the "Petition for Administrative Proceedings" section of the Notice of Rights. She did not read any of the cited statutes and rules except for the rules reproduced verbatim as part of the Notice of Rights. Combs made conflicting statements regarding her understanding of the District's administrative process. However, it appears that she understood that the Club could file a petition within 21 days of receipt of the Notice Correspondence, or within 21 days of the "final" action of the District's Governing Board. She testified that, because the Notice Correspondence did not bear a date-stamp, it was unclear when the first 21-day time period began or ended; as a result, she decided to wait until the District's Governing Board took "final" action and file a petition within the second 21-day time period. Combs appeared at the meeting of the District's Governing Board on June 14, 2001, and spoke in opposition to issuance of the draft permit. Notwithstanding the Club's opposition, the Governing Board decided to issue the draft permit. Combs does not have authority to file petitions for administrative hearings on District actions. She consulted with her supervisor, Patricia Thompson, and they made a recommendation to the Club's governing board, which has ultimate authority to file petitions. Prior to Combs's involvement in the Hidden Harbor application, the Club had staff legal counsel, who could be consulted with respect to the filing of petitions and would advise the Club's governing board. However, the Club did not have staff legal counsel at the time of Combs's involvement and through the time of filing of this petition. (The Club now again has staff legal counsel.) Neither Combs nor Thompson saw any need to consult an attorney. It is not clear when the recommendation of Combs and Thompson was presented to the Club's governing board or when the Club's governing board made its decision to file the Petition. Neither Thompson nor any member of the Club's governing board (nor anyone else who may have participated in the decision to file the Petition) testified. Several (according to Combs, approximately 12) times after the District's Governing Board's meeting on June 14, 2001, Combs telephoned the District's offices to obtain a copy of the District's Governing Board's "final" action when it was reduced to writing. It is not clear from the evidence why several telephone calls were required. Eventually, on June 26, 2001, Combs received a copy of the permit issued to Hidden Harbor; there was no Notice of Rights attached. On July 17, 2001, the Club filed its Petition challenging the permit issued to Hidden Harbor. In the meantime, Hidden Harbor had obtained a final development order from Lee County in reliance on the Club's failure to petition for an administrative hearing. The Club is not a newcomer to Florida's administrative process. It can be officially recognized that the Club has participated in numerous proceedings before DOAH. At least one of those cases involved issues similar to those presented for determination in this case. See Conclusion of Law 32, infra.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire Post Office Box 861118 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Martha M. Collins, Esquire 233 3rd Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3089 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc., is entitled to an environmental resource permit to construct a 516- acre residential development in Miami-Dade County known as Lakes by the Bay South Commons Project and, if so, under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact On May 18, 2001, Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc. (Lennar Homes), filed an application with Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) for an environmental resource permit (ERP) for a 516-acre residential development in Miami- Dade County known as Lakes By The Bay (Project). On June 12, 2002, Lennar Homes filed a revised ERP application for the Project. The application, as revised, is for an ERP conceptually approving the construction of a surface water management system to serve the Project and authorizing the construction to clear the site, excavate the wet retention areas, and expand an existing lake. Providing 3300 single- family residences, the Project is the last phase of a master planned residential development, which presently contains over 1500 residences north and west of the Project. The Project is bordered by Southwest 97th Avenue to the west, Southwest 87th Avenue to the east, Southwest 216th Street to the north, and Southwest 232nd Street to the south. Immediately south of the Project are a regional wastewater treatment plant and county solid waste landfill. These facilities occupy opposing banks of the C-1 Canal, which runs a short distance from the southwest corner of the Project. The Project site is drained, cleared, and infested with Brazilian pepper and melaleuca. The Project will impact 135 acres of wetlands, but these wetlands are severely degraded due to the construction of roads, berms, and canals. No evidence suggests that the site is presently used by any listed species. At present, drainage across the site is from west to east, where stormwater is intercepted by the L-31E levy and canal running along the west side of Southwest 87th Avenue. At its nearest point (the southeast corner), the Project is about one mile from the southern part of Biscayne Bay. Biscayne Bay is an Outstanding Florida Water. Much of its central and southern parts, including the area closest to the Project site, are within Biscayne National Park. In contrast to the northern part of Biscayne Bay, the central and southern parts contain significant mangrove-lined coastal wetlands. The bay bottom in southern Biscayne Bay hosts dense seagrass beds, and coral reefs within Biscayne National Park support a diverse community of marine life. The L-31E levy and canal redirect stormwater from the Project site south to the C-1 Canal, which runs, in this area, in a northwest-to-southeast direction before emptying into Biscayne Bay. The C-1 Canal drains an extensive area to the north and northwest of the Project. The landfill and water treatment plant are a short distance downstream of the Proposed Project. The parties have stipulated that the Project meets the following ERP criteria (with minor rephrasing from the stipulation): The Project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project is not located within an Outstanding Florida Water and will not result in the direct discharge of surface water into an Outstanding Florida Water. Lennar has proposed mitigation to offset the adverse impacts of the Project, and the mitigation is in the same drainage basin as the adverse impacts. Therefore, the Project will not generate unlawful cumulative impacts, in violation of Section 373.414(8)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. The Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(c), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(g), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(h), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will be conducted by an entity with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, as required by Rule 40E-4.301(j), Florida Administrative Code. No special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, Florida Administrative Code, are applicable to the Project. The Project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, as prohibited by Section 373.414(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes. The Project will be permanent, as addressed by Section 373.414(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes. The District issued its Staff Report on March 13, 2002. The Staff Report approves the proposed mitigation plan, which would enhance or create and preserve 135 acres of onsite wetlands by creating an upland buffer, emergent marsh and transitional herbaceous shrub areas, and tree island areas. Much of the proposed mitigation area will occupy the southern half of the perimeter of the Project site. As proposed in the mitigation plan, Lennar Homes will grant the District a conservation easement over the mitigation area and will be required to meet certain mitigation performance conditions. Shortly prior to the commencement of the final hearing in this case, the District decided to change the proposed permit regarding mitigation. The purpose of the change was to require Lennar Homes to allow the mitigation area to be used as a flowway between the C-1 Canal, upstream of the nutrient loads deposited by the landfill and water treatment plant, and an area to the east of the Project site. The receiving area consists of vestigial tidal creeks leading to presently remaining tidal creeks that empty into small embayments within Biscayne Bay. The general purpose of the change was to remediate the loss of freshwater flows into these tidal creeks, the embayments, and Biscayne Bay that resulted from the construction of drainage canals and levies, such as C-1 and L31-E. Accordingly, the District issued an Addendum to Staff Report on August 9, 2002. The Addendum adds an easement to the original mitigation plan by adding Special Condition #24, which states: No later than 30 days after permit issuance and prior to commencement of construction resulting in wetland impacts, the permittee shall submit two certified copies of the recorded flowage easement for the mitigation area and associated buffers and a GIS disk of the recorded easement area The recorded easement shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit 41. Any proposed modifications to the approved form must receive prior written consent from the District. The easement must be free of encumbrances or interests in the easement which the District determines are contrary to the intent of the easement. . . . Exhibit 41 (actually Exhibit 41A) is entitled, "Perpetual Flowage, Inundation, Construction, and Access Easement." Representing a grant from Lennar Homes to the District, the easement (Flowage Easement) is for any and all purposes deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, or incident to, or in connection with, the unrestricted right to regularly, or at any time, and for any length of time[,] overflow, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and through, store water on, and submerge the [encumbered property], together with the unrestricted right at any time to enter upon and access the [encumbered property], with any and all vehicles and equipment, including but not limited to the right to move, transport, store, operate, and stage equipment, materials and supplies, in order to construct, operate, and maintain any and all structures, improvements, equipment, pumps, ditches and berms upon the [encumbered property] deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, incident to or in connection with the implementation of the BBCW Project on the [encumbered property], or in connection with any project in the interest of flood control, water management, conservation, environmental restoration, water storage, or reclamation, and allied purposes, that may be conducted now or in the future by the [District], or to carry out the purposes and intent of the statutory authority of the [District], presently existing or that may be enacted in the future, together with all right, title, and interest in and to the [BBCW] Project Structures. * * * This Easement shall at no time be construed to alleviate or release [Lennar Home's] responsibilities and require [sic] under ERP Permit No. to construct and maintain an on-site mitigation area as described and authorized in the ERP Permit. Other provisions of the Flowage Easement impose all risk of loss in connection with the flowway upon Lennar Homes, which indemnifies the District from all losses, costs, damages, and liability in connection with the flowway. On September 5, 2002, after the hearing, but a few days before the taking of the post-hearing testimony, the District issued a Revised Addendum to Staff Report. The Revised Addendum restates Special Condition #24 with a few relatively minor changes and adds Special Conditions ##25 and 26. Special Condition #25 attempts to harmonize the Flowage Easement with the original mitigation plan contemplated by the Staff Report. Special Condition #25 provides that when the District exercises its rights under the Flowage Easement, other special conditions shall be deleted, so as, for example, to relieve Lennar Homes of its obligations to maintain the mitigation area (except for a 25-foot buffer) and post a mitigation-performance bond. Special Condition #26 changes the language in the conservation easement, which was contemplated by the original Staff Report and mitigation plan, to harmonize this easement with the Flowage Easement. Lennar Homes has submitted a version of the Revised Addendum to Staff Report that would satisfy its concerns. The Lennar Homes version would require the District, within 30 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes, to obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local environmental regulatory agency, although not the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which, under state law, would have to issue an ERP to the District before it could construct the flowway. The Lennar Homes version would also give the District only 90 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes within which to exercise its right to construct the flowway and would sequence events so that Lennar Homes would not spend the estimated $2 million on wetland enhancement and creation and then lose the investment due to the inundation of the mitigation site with water, as authorized by the Flowage Easement. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan plays a crucial role in this case. But for this plan, the District would not have attached the additional conditions contained in the Addendum to Staff Report and Revised Addendum to Staff Report--without which conditions, the District now contends that Lennar Homes is not entitled to the ERP. Congress initially authorized the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project in 1948. Objectives of the C&SF Project included flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, and protection of fish and wildlife. The C&SF Project attained these objectives, in part, through a primary system of 1000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water-control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Unintended consequences of the C&SF Project have included the irreversible loss of vast areas of wetlands, including half of the original Everglades; the alteration in the water storage, timing, and flow capacities of natural drainage systems; and the degradation of water quality and habitat due to over-drainage or extreme fluctuations in the timing and delivery of freshwater into the coastal wetlands and estuaries. In 1992, Congress authorized the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy). The objective of the Restudy was to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the South Florida ecosystem and provide for the other water-related needs of the region. Completed in April 1999, the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Restudy Report) notes that, among the unintended consequences of the C&SF Project, was "unsuitable freshwater flows to Florida and Biscayne bays and Lake Worth Lagoon [that] adversely impact salinity and physically alter fish and wildlife habitat." The Restudy Report states that, absent comprehensive, new restoration projects, the "overall health of the [South Florida] ecosystem will have substantially deteriorated" by 2050. The Restudy Report recommends a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Central and South Florida. This plan is known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Acknowledging the complex dynamics of the restoration goals identified in CERP, the Restudy Report establishes Project Implementation Reports to tie together CERP and the detailed design necessary for the construction of individual restoration projects and adaptive assessments to monitor the performance of individual components, incorporate new data, and refine future components. The Restudy Report is, among other things, a programmatic environmental impact statement. The Restudy Report states: "Due to the conceptual nature of [CERP] and the associated uncertainties, many subsequent site-specific environmental documents will be required for the individual separable project elements." In May 2002, the District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a draft of the Project Management Plan for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW PMP). Noting that a "major goal of [CERP] is to improve freshwater deliveries to Biscayne Bay," the BBCW PMP identifies the BBCW project as the means by which to restore some of the coastal wetlands and tributaries in south Dade County. The BBCW PMP states that the primary purpose of the BBCW project, which is one of sixty projects contained in CERP, is to "redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed into Biscayne Bay, away from the canal discharges that exist today and provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing and or improved coastal wetlands." The Cutler Wetlands subcomponent of the BBCW project encompasses the Project site. One of the objectives of the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent is to divert water from the C-1 Canal upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant to the east of the L-31E levy and canal. In connection with the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent and the possible role of the flowway identified in this case, the District retained Dr. John Meeder, a Biscayne Bay ecologist associated with the Southeast Environmental Resource Center at Florida International University, to perform an abbreviated study and issue a report concerning the conditions required for the restoration of the coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the coastal wetlands to the north of the C-1 canal and east of the Project site (Meeder Report). The Meeder Report studies two feasible freshwater delivery options and prefers a bypass flowway along Southwest 224th Street, across roughly the middle of the Project site and north of most of the proposed mitigation area, to the L-31E levy and canal. The distribution system resulting from the preferred route would use the natural grade of the land to divert the water to the coastal wetlands and tidal creeks to the east and south that are targeted for rehydration. The alternative flowway route would run along Southwest 232nd Street, in the approximate area of the Flowage Easement, but would require pumping to distribute the water north along the L-31E levy and canal for release to the targeted coastal wetlands and tidal creeks. Obviously, the District has chosen the less-preferred route to minimize the impact on the Project. The Meeder Report considers the amount of freshwater required for two rehydration options. In the first option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, which then empty into the embayments that lead to Biscayne Bay. In the second option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate the tidal creeks and the surrounding coastal wetlands. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate only the tidal creeks, the flowway would need to deliver 70 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 95 acre/feet per day in the wet season. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, the flowway would need to deliver 209 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 1139 acre/feet per day in the wet season. Several factors militate against an attempt to rehydrate the coastal wetlands surrounding the targeted tidal creeks. Potential errors in data and analysis increase in magnitude with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, and Dr. Meeder admitted that the largest value was very approximate. Potentially serious impacts upon salinity and associated vegetative communities increase in likelihood with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands. Also, the diversion of larger volumes of water from the C-1 Canal may have adverse impacts on downstream conditions. At the point of the C-1 Canal where it first enters the landfill and wastewater treatment plant (just downstream from the flowway), the average flow of the C-1 Canal is 350 acre/feet per day, but the median flow is only 160 acre/feet per day. (The average flow rate is skewed by occasional, very high daily flows of 4000 acre/feet during large storm events.) The larger volumes diverted to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands would, at times, withdraw a relatively large portion of the water from the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, the District justifiably elected to seek a flowway that would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, including the vestigial tidal creeks, but not the surrounding coastal wetlands. Petitioners and Lennar Homes have raised numerous other issues about the flowway that the District seeks to obtain. The District requires a 200-acre flowway to rehydrate adequately the vestigial tidal creeks, the presently remaining tidal creeks, the small embayment, and then the subject area of Biscayne Bay, but the mitigation area potentially available on the Project site is limited to about 135 acres, and some uncertainty exists as to whether the District can obtain control of the remaining land necessary to assemble a 200-acre flowway. Even the 200-acre flowway is probably insufficient to accommodate significant water treatment, so water quality issues remain outstanding, notwithstanding the better water quality upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant. Other issues arise from the requirement that the District obtain an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as well as one or more federal agencies, before it could construct the flowway. To the extent that this requirement delays and possibly precludes the construction of the flowway, this requirement militates against the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. To the extent that this requirement insures that the flowway will not cause flooding or adverse water quality in the tidal creeks, embayment, and ultimately Biscayne Bay, this requirement militates in favor of the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP; the absence of detailed specifications for the design and construction of the flowway precludes any assurance that the flowway would not flood or otherwise damage the upland portion of the Project site, so subsequent permit-review is essential to the present inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. It is impossible to credit the District's evidence that various transition-zone wetland species would survive inundation under unknown flow rates, of variable depths, and of unknown and possibly indefinite duration. Lennar Homes legitimately is concerned that its substantial investment in mitigation, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, would be wasted if the District constructs the flowway. As presently drafted, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions contemplate that Lennar Homes would construct the original mitigation, at a substantial cost, and the District would later construct and inundate the flowway through largely the same area. Marketing of parcels in close proximity to the flowway might be complicated by the uncertainty concerning what will occupy the area beyond a resident's backyard--a benign passive mitigation area or a flowway that may range from a intermittently wet slough or glade to a placid lake to a raging swollen river--and by the probability that the District would not construct the flowway until 2009. The District justifies the Flowage Easement and new special conditions on two grounds. First, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is harmful to the District's water resources. Second, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. The first argument misses the mark. A project that is otherwise permittable, except for the fact that it interferes with the establishment of a restoration project, does not harm the water resources of the District; such a Project interferes with the improvement of the water resources of the District. In this case, the parties have stipulated that the Project will not cause adverse impacts due to the original mitigation plan. If adverse impacts means anything, it means harm to the water resources of the District. The second argument requires the identification of the District's objectives. The Florida Legislature has declared at Section 373.1502(2)(a), Florida Statutes, that CERP implementation is "in the public interest and is necessary for restoring, preserving and protecting the South Florida ecosystem . . .." In May 2000, the Florida Legislature enacted the Everglades Restoration Investment Act, which commits Florida to contribute over $2 billion for the implementation of CERP-- Florida's share for the first ten years of implementation. The Florida Legislature has made the implementation of CERP an overall objective of the District. Several factors are important in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. These factors require consideration of the purpose of the proposed restoration project; the extent of completion of the project's design, permitting, and construction; if the project has not yet been designed or permitted, the likelihood of construction; when the project would be constructed; the impact of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions upon the proposed restoration project; and the existence of feasible alternatives to accomplish the same objectives as those achieved by the proposed restoration project. These factors generally favor the issuance of the ERP, but only with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The flowway project would rehydrate a portion of the estuarine waters of southern Biscayne Bay that are sufficiently healthy to respond vigorously to the new freshwater infusions, so the project is important. The C-1 Canal appears to be the only readily available source of sufficient volumes of freshwater to achieve the rehydration of the tidal creeks, and the proposed path through the Lennar Homes mitigation area appears to be the only readily available means by which to divert the freshwater to the targeted tidal creeks. If the flowway project is limited to the tidal creeks and does not extend to the surrounding coastal wetlands, the likely environmental impacts appear to be positive on the receiving areas and the downstream portion of the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, even though the project is at an early conceptual stage and construction would not start for six years, it seems likely to be constructed. The apparent difficulty in securing the necessary additional 65 acres may yet be overcome through property acquisition, and, if not, the District may be able to increase the capacity of the flowway without jeopardizing the adjacent uplands. For the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law below, other factors in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP require consideration of the impact upon Lennar Homes in accommodating the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. With two exceptions, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions do not impose an inordinate burden upon Lennar Homes. The flowway would occupy the portion of the Project site that would have been subject to the conservation easement that was part of the original mitigation plan. Lennar Homes' responsibility for maintenance is considerably lessened if the District constructs the flowway, whose special maintenance needs can only be met by the District or its contractors. Although Lennar Homes may experience some sales resistance due to the uncertainty of the use of the mitigation area, the assurances gained from the subsequent permitting process, during which the District will seek an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the construction of the flowway, should allay reasonable concerns about flooding and other damage to the adjacent uplands. In three respects, though, the District has abused its discretion in preparing the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. First, the District abused its discretion in requiring Lennar Homes to perform mitigation work in the mitigation area, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, to the extent that the products of such work will likely be destroyed or substantially harmed by the construction and operation of the flowway. The value of mitigation rests largely in the functions that it can support through longterm viability. The construction and operation of the surface water management system, the posting of a sufficient bond to guarantee future performance under either mitigation scenario, the execution and delivery into escrow of deeds and other legal instruments sufficient to meet the requirements of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions (subject to the two matters discussed in this and the two following paragraphs), and the construction of the portion of the original mitigation that would not be impacted by the flowway sufficiently respond to the need for mitigation, until the District finally determines the need for it to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement. Second, the District abused its discretion by omitting any timeframe for the District to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The timeframe proposed by Lennar Homes for the District to make this final determination of whether to proceed with the flowway is unreasonable and ignores the substantial period of time required to design, fund, and permit the flowway. But a timeframe may be especially important if Lennar Homes encounters more marketing resistance than might be reasonably anticipated. Therefore, the new conditions should provide that if construction of the flowway is not substantially completed by 2011, then the Flowage Easement shall be released and returned to Lennar Homes, upon its commencement, without delay, of the construction of any of the original mitigation that it did not already complete. Third, the District also abused its discretion in the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the allocation of liability for the flowway, including apparently its construction, maintenance, and operation. The District would impose this liability upon Lennar Homes, which would have to indemnify the District for construction damage or any malfunctions in the operation of the flowway, such as damage to adjacent uplands by flooding, erosion, or contamination. The District has imposed this restoration project on Lennar Homes and has done so, not to avoid harm to the District's water resources, but to achieve the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. The District and its contractors, not Lennar Homes, will construct, maintain, and operate the flowway. The District, not Lennar Homes, has the expertise in the design, construction, and operation of water-control facilities of this type. This record does not disclose a single legitimate reason to impose upon Lennar Homes the liability for any aspect of the flowway that does not result from the acts or omissions of Lennar Homes or its assignees as owners of the adjacent uplands. Although, as stated in its proposed recommended order, the District does not object to the standing of Petitioners, Respondents did not stipulate to the standing of any Petitioners. Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., offered no witnesses concerning their standing, and no exhibits address the standing of these parties. The record thus fails to demonstrate that Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., are substantially affected by the proposed agency action. Petitioner National Parks Conservation Association, Inc., (National Parks) is a not-for-profit corporation registered in Florida as a foreign corporation. The corporate purpose of National Parks is to protect and enhance America's national parks, including Biscayne National Park, for present and future generations. National Parks seeks the protection and enhancement of the Biscayne National Park through the successful implementation of CERP. National Parks has 350,000 members, including 19,900 in Florida. Members of National Parks use Biscayne National Park for recreational boating, fishing, snorkeling, fish watching, scuba diving, and camping (on the barrier islands). Members of National Parks are actively monitoring the implementation of CERP. Petitioner Florida Audubon Society, Inc. (Florida Audubon), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that was originally incorporated in Florida in 1900. The corporate purpose of Florida Audubon is to protect, conserve, and restore Florida's heritage through the preservation of the state's natural resources. Florida Audubon has adopted as its highest priority the design and implementation of CERP. Florida Audubon has 32,000 members in Florida, including over 2100 members in Dade County. Numerous of these members engage in bird watching, recreation, and scientific research in Biscayne National Park. Florida Audubon organizes membership trips to Biscayne Bay, conducts its annual Bird-athon and Christmas Bird Count in the vicinity of Biscayne Bay, and conducts various environment educational programs in and concerning Biscayne Bay. The issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would substantially impact the ability of the District to restore this part of Biscayne Bay. Without such restoration, the functions of Biscayne Bay will slowly decline until eventually the overall health of the entire South Florida ecosystem will be substantially deteriorated. Thus, National Parks and Florida Audubon would be substantially affected by the issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District issue the environmental resource permit with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions, as modified in accordance with the matters presented in paragraphs 39-41. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Richard Grosso Louise Caro, Certified Legal Intern Environmental & Land Use Law Center, Inc. Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Marcy I. LaHart Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 711 Talladaga Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Erin L. Deady Environmental Counsel 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850 Miami, Florida 33131 E. Thom Rumberger Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. 403 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Luna Ergas Phillips Douglas H. MacLaughlin Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Frank E. Matthews Gary V. Perko Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
The Issue The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should grant the application of Respondent, Leland Egland, for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), Number 44-01700257-001-ES, to fill an illegally-dredged trench or channel in mangrove wetlands between Florida Bay and what was a land-locked lake, to restore preexisting conditions.
Findings Of Fact Since 1988, Applicant, Leland Egland, has resided in a home built on property he purchased in Buccaneer Point Estates in Key Largo, Florida, in 1986--namely, Lots 14 and 15, Block 2, plus the "southerly contiguous 50 feet." A 1975 plat of Buccaneer Point shows this "southerly contiguous 50 feet" as a channel between Florida Bay to the west and a lake or pond to the east; it also shows a 800-foot linear canal extending from the lake or pond to the north. Egland's Lot 14 borders Florida Bay to the west; his lot 15 borders the lake or pond to the east; the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" is between Egland's lots 14 and 15 and property farther south owned by another developer. See Finding 10, infra. Buccaneer Point lots in Blocks 1 (to the east) and 2 (to the west) surround the lake or pond and canal. The developer of Buccaneer Point applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1977 for a permit to dredge a channel, characterized as a flushing channel for the lake or pond, which was characterized as a tidal pond with replanted red mangroves. (There was no evidence as to the character of this pond before the 1977 permit application or if it even existed.) DER denied the permit application because the: proposal . . . to open a pond to Florida Bay . . . will connect an 800 linear foot dead-end canal. The pond and canal will act as a sink for marl and organic debris which will increase Biological Oxygen Demand and lower Dissolved Oxygen. The project is expected to result in substances which settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge deposits and floating debris, oil scum, and other materials, in amounts sufficient to be deleterious. Based on the above, degradation of local water quality is expected. * * * Furthermore, your project will result in the following effects to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest and the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes: Interference with the conservation of fish, marine life and wildlife, and other natural resources. Destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life. Reduction in the capability of habitat to support a well-balanced fish and wildlife population. Impairment of the management or feasibility of management of fish and wildlife resources. As a result, the proposed channel to Florida Bay was not dredged (although some of the lake side of the proposed channel apparently was dredged before the project was abandoned); the building lots surrounding the lake or pond (now known as South Lake) and canal were sold as waterfront lots on a land-locked lake without access to Florida Bay; and the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" was included with the conveyance to Egland, along with the Lots 14 and 15 of Block 2. The evidence was not clear as to the characteristics of the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" in 1977, or earlier. When Egland purchased his property in 1986, it was a mature mangrove slough with some tidal exchange between the lake and Florida Bay, especially during high tides and stormy weather. Some witnesses characterized the area of mangroves as a shallow creek in that general time frame (from about 1984 through 1988). According to Vince Easevoli, at least under certain conditions, a rowboat could be maneuvered between the lake and Florida Bay using a pole "like a gondola effect." But Egland testified to seeing Easevoli drag a shallow-draft boat through this area in this general time frame, and the greater weight of the evidence was that the mangrove slough was not regularly navigable channel at the time. During this general time frame (the mid-to-late 1980's) several Petitioners (namely, Stanley Dominick, John and Katherine Easevoli, and their son, Vince Easevoli) purchased property on South Lake. All but Vince built homes and resided there; Vince did not reside there until after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but he sometimes stayed at the residence on his parents' property during this general time frame. In the early 1990's, the slough or creek became somewhat deeper, making it increasingly more easily passable by boat. Large storms such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the "storm of the century" in 1993 may have contributed to these changes, but human intervention seems to have been primarily responsible. In 1994, Egland added a swimming pool south of the residence on his lots. During construction, some illegal filling took place. Several witnesses testified that the illegal fill occurred to the north of the creek, which was not affected. Vince Easevoli's lay interpretation of several surveys in evidence led him to maintain that illegal fill was placed in the mangrove slough and that the creek became narrower by approximately four feet and, eventually, deeper. But no surveyor testified to explain the surveys in evidence, which do not seem to clearly support Easevoli's position, and the greater weight of the evidence was that illegal fill was not added to the creek in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." At some point in time, hand tools were used to deepen the slough or creek and trim mangroves without a permit to enable a small boat to get through more easily. As boats were maneuvered through, the creek got deeper. Eventually, propeller-driven boats of increasing size were used to "prop- dredge" the creek even deeper. According to Petitioner, Tom Hodges, when he and his wife purchased their lot on the lake in 1994, it was possible to navigate the creek in a 22-foot Mako boat (at least under certain conditions), and their lot was sold to them as having limited access to Florida Bay. (There was evidence that access to Florida Bay could increase the price of these lots by a factor of three.) Petitioners Martha Scott and Marianne Delfino also purchased their property on the lake in 1994. Tom Hodges claimed to have seen manatees in the lake as early as 1994, but no other witnesses claimed sightings earlier than 1997, and the accuracy of this estimate is questionable. Even if manatees were in the lake during this time frame or earlier, it is possible that they used an access point other than the creek. At the southeast corner of South Lake in Buccaneer Point, there is a possible connection to a body of water farther south, which is part of a condominium development called Landings of Largo and leads still farther south to access to Florida Bay near a dock owned by Landings of Largo. While this connection is shallow, it may have been deep enough under certain conditions to allow manatees to pass through. Apparently not with manatees but rather with boaters from the lake in Buccaneer Point in mind, Landings of Largo has attempted to close this access point by placement of rebar; Landings of Largo also has placed rip-rap under its dock farther south to prevent boats from passing under the dock. However, there are gaps in the rip-rap, some possibly large enough for manatees to pass. In approximately 1995 or 1996, Egland observed Vince Easevoli and his father, John Easevoli, digging a trench through the mangrove slough with a shovel and cutting mangrove trees with a saw in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." Others were standing by, watching. Egland told them to stop and leave.6 These actions made the creek even deeper and more easily navigable by boat, which continued to further excavate the trench by such methods as "prop dredging." In 1997 Hany Haroun purchased property adjacent to South Lake where he lives with his wife, Christine. By this time, Florida Bay was easily accessible by boat from the lake, and Haroun paid $260,000 for the property. He estimated that his property would be worth about $150,000 less without boat access to Florida Bay. In approximately 1997, manatees began to appear in South Lake year round from time to time, especially in the winter months. In 1997, the Hodgeses saw one they thought may have been in distress and telephoned the Save Our Manatee Club and Dolphin Research for advice. Following the advice given, they used lettuce to coax the manatee over to their dock to check its condition and videotape the event. The manatee appeared healthy and eventually departed the lake. On subsequent visits, manatees have been seen and videotaped resting and cavorting with and without calves and possibly mating in the lake. Groups of as many as seven to eight manatees have been seen at one time in the lake. Tom Hodges, Vince Easevoli, and Hany Haroun testified that they have enjoyed watching manatees in the lake since 1997. It can be inferred from the evidence that Elaine Hodges also has enjoyed watching manatees in the lake. There was no evidence as to the extent to which other Petitioners enjoy watching manatees in the lake. In 1997, the ACOE began an investigation of the illegal dredging of Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." According to Egland, he was in communication with ACOE; presumably, he told ACOE what he knew about the illegal dredging on his property. According to Egland, ACOE advised him to place posts in the dredged channel to keep boats out. When he did so, Tom Hodges removed the posts. Egland replaced the posts, and Hodges removed them again. When Egland told ACOE what was happening, ACOE asked him to try reinstalling the posts and screwing plywood to the posts to achieve a stronger, fence-like barrier. Hodges also removed these barriers, and Egland did not replace the posts or plywood barrier again. In 1998, ACOE mailed Egland a Cease and Desist Order accusing him of illegal dredging in his "southerly contiguous 50 feet" and demanding that he restore the mangrove slough to its previous conditions. Egland was angry at being blamed for the dredging and initially disputed ACOE's charges and demands. But ACOE and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which accepted the role of lead federal enforcement agency on December 18, 1998, was seeking monetary civil penalties. In addition, Egland received legal advice that, if restoration were delayed, he could be sued for damages by someone purchasing property on the lake or canal in the meantime upon the mistaken belief that there was boat access to Florida Bay. For these reasons, Egland agreed to comply with the Cease and Desist Order. However, ACOE and EPA informed Egland that he might have to obtain a permit from DEP to fill the dredged channel in compliance with the Cease and Desist Order. On May 22, 2000, Egland applied to DEP for an ERP to restore a trench about 100 feet long varying from seven to ten feet in width that was illegally dredged on his property. He estimated that a total of 160 cubic yards of fill would be required, to be spread over approximately 900 square feet. He assured DEP that rip-rap would be used to contain the fill and that turbidity screens would be used during construction. During processing of Egland's application, DEP requested additional information, which Egland provided, and DEP's Environmental Manager, Edward Barham, visited the project site in October 2000. Based on all the evidence available to him at that point in time, Barham viewed Egland's proposed fill project as a simple restoration project to correct illegal dredging and return the mangrove slough to its preexisting condition. For that reason, Barham recommended that DEP process the application as a de minimis exemption and not charge a permit application fee. Subsequently, some Petitioners brought it to DEP's attention that manatees were accessing South Lake through the channel Egland wanted to fill. DEP saw no need to verify the accuracy of Petitioners' information or obtain additional information about the manatees use of the lake because DEP still viewed it as a restoration project. However, DEP decided that it would be necessary to include specific conditions in any ERP issued to Egland to ensure that no manatees would be trapped in the lake or otherwise injured as a result of filling the channel. Primarily due to the need for these conditions, and also because of anticipated opposition from Petitioners, DEP decided to charge Egland a permit application fee and not process the application as a de minimis exemption. DEP staff visited the mangrove slough on numerous occasions between October 2000, and final hearing and observed that the trench continued to get deeper over time as a result of continued prop-dredging and digging. In early August 2001, Tom Hodges observed a man walking back and forth with a wheel barrow between a storage shed on Egland's property and the channel. (Hodges was on his property across South Lake but use of binoculars enabled him to see this.) The next day, Hany Haroun discovered a poured- concrete slab forming a plug or dam in the channel on the lake side. Haroun reported his discovery to Tom Hodges, who investigated with his wife, who took photographs of the structure. At some point, the Hodgeses realized that a manatee was trapped in the lake. The manatee did not, and appeared unable to, use the other possible access point towards Landings of Largo to escape. See Finding 10, supra. The Hodgeses telephoned Barham at DEP to report the situation and complain. Tom Hodges then proceeded to break up the concrete, remove the resulting rubble, and place it on the path to the storage shed, freeing the manatee. The incident was reported in the newspaper the next day and prompted Petitioners to file their Motion to Dismiss and for Other Relief on August 9, 2001. See Preliminary Statement. The evidence was inconclusive as to who poured the concrete, or had it poured, and why. Egland testified that he was in Egypt on an extended trip at the time and denied any knowledge of the concrete plug until he saw the rubble on his property upon his return from Egypt. Egland testified that he saw no "aggregate" in the concrete, which would make it relatively easy to break up, and he suspected that Petitioners were responsible for pouring the concrete in order to publicly make false accusations against Egland. Petitioners denied Egland's accusation. Vince testified that the concrete contained rebar for strength. The evidence was inconclusive as to who was responsible for this incident. As pointed out by Petitioners, DEP did not investigate and does not know whether there is any freshwater upwelling in the lake, whether manatees have mated in the lake, or whether calves have been birthed in the lake. DEP also did not investigate and does not know whether South Lake is unlike other manatee habitat in the area. DEP did not investigate or obtain any information as to how many manatees use the lake, or what manatees use the lake for, in addition to the information provided by Petitioners. Carol Knox, an Environmental Specialist III with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, testified as a manatee expert based on her knowledge of manatees and manatee habitat in the area, as well as the information known to DEP. It was her opinion that, regardless what South Lake might offer manatees in the way of habitat, closing the channel (with the specific conditions required by DEP to protect manatees during the filling itself) would have no adverse impact on manatees because it did not appear that manatees made use of the lake before the channel was dug in 1996 or 1997, and ample other manatee habitat of various kinds continued to be available in the area.7 Based on the testimony of Knox and Barham, and the totality of the evidence in this case, it is found that Egland provided reasonable assurance that his proposed restoration project will not harm or adversely affect manatees or their habitats. Petitioners also questioned Egland's assurances as to water quality. Vince Easevoli, Stanley Dominick, and Hany Haroun testified to their concerns that water quality in the lake will decline if the channel is closed. As Petitioners point out, DEP did not require Egland to provide any water quality measurements. This was because the proposal is reasonably expected to reverse the effects of the illegal dredging on water quality and to return both the water in the lake and canal and the water in Florida Bay to the quality that existed prior to the illegal dredging. Without requiring any water quality measurements, it is reasonably expected that the water quality in Florida Bay would not decline in any respect; to the contrary, if anything, Florida Bay's water quality would be expected to improve by reduction of contributions from the lake and canal. Conversely, water quality in the lake and canal would be expected to decline but not below what it was before the illegal dredging. Petitioners also question DEP's failure to require Egland to provide a survey or stake the area to be filled, so as to ensure against filling too much of the mangrove slough. But the proposed ERP contains a specific condition: "The final fill elevation of the fill shall be at the elevation of the substrate within the adjacent mangrove wetlands." Barham testified persuasively that this specific condition is adequate to provide reasonable assurance. Compliance can be ascertained by simply viewing the site after completion of the restoration project, and compliance can be enforced by requiring removal of excess fill as necessary. The proposed ERP also contains a general condition that the permit does not convey or create any property right, or any interest in real property, or authorize any entrances upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by Egland.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, enter a final order granting the application of Leland Egland and issuing ERP Number 44- 01700257-001-ES. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2002.
The Issue Is the City of Mexico Beach (the City or Applicant) entitled to the issuance of a joint coastal permit and consent to use of sovereign submerged land for the Mexico Beach Canal (Main Canal) and a municipal flushing outlet adjacent to 8th Street (8th Street outlet)? Those permits would be issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in response to DEP Application File No.: 0124938-001JC and DEP Application File No.: 0129039- 001JC, respectively.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Edmond Blount, Sr.; Edmond Blount, Jr.; and Robert Davenport are residents of the City of Mexico Beach, Florida. As residents they have access to the Main Canal, the public beaches adjacent to the Main Canal, and beaches adjacent to the 8th Street outlet. Edmond Blount, Jr., and Robert Davenport oppose the issuance of any permits by DEP which would allow the City to conduct dredging and the placement of dredge materials associated with the Main Canal. Those Petitioners and Edmond Blount, Sr., oppose the grant of necessary permits by DEP upon the application by the City to conduct occasional maintenance excavation at the 8th Street outlet to alleviate potential damage through erosion to properties adjacent to the 8th Street outlet. The City of Mexico Beach is a municipality in Florida which serves as the local government for that community. The City owns the Main Canal and 8th Street outlet. DEP is an environmental regulator with authority to issue or deny joint coastal permits and to grant or deny consent to use sovereign submerged lands belonging to the State of Florida. The joint coastal permitting authority and right to grant consent to use is pursuant to Chapters 161, 253, and 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 18-21 and 62B-49, Florida Administrative Code. In particular, DEP has joint coastal permitting authority upon sovereignty lands in the State of Florida below the mean high waterline (MHWL) of any tidal water of the State. The reference to sovereign land is an association with lands below MHWL held in trust by the State of Florida. The term tidal waters refers to waters in which there is an astronomical effect on the elevation of that water. The Gulf of Mexico which fronts the City is a tidal water of the State of Florida. The MHWL is established along the coastal regions in Florida, to include the Gulf coast that fronts the City. The MHWL is set based upon charting information concerning the local mean high tide, the average height of the high waters, and where this average intersects the land. PERMIT APPLICATION FOR MAIN CANAL On June 30, 1997, the City applied to DEP for a ten-year permit/water quality certification and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (the Trustees), which would allow the City to maintenance dredge the Main Canal entrance and place the dredge material on the beach east of the canal below the water's edge. This task would be accomplished by the use of hydraulic dredging device. In the course of these activities, approximately 660 cubic yards of material would be removed approximately four times a week. The application file number for the requested permit in the Main Canal project was: 0124938-001 JC. The City, through its application, provided a complete and appropriate application with adequate engineering data to support the proposed project. The Main Canal is located in the western part of the City and is partially located in sovereign submerged lands of the State of Florida where the canal intersects the Gulf of Mexico below the MHWL. On January 13, 1998, DEP gave notice of its intent to issue necessary permits for the activities to allow dredging and the placement of fill in association with the Main Canal. More specifically, the hydraulic dredge the City intends to use in the maintenance dredging of the Main Canal is a floating device which excavates the sand from the bottom of the entrance of the Main Canal and pipes the material onto the beach immediately east of the dredge site. The dredging activities may only be conducted in a manner designed to protect the beach-dune system, water quality and habitat for marine turtles. These restrictions in the conduct of the dredging are in accordance with the proposed joint coastal permit. The dredging activity is to remove and deposit clean beach sand that has been transported by coastal processes and deposited in the lee of the jetty within the Main Canal. There is no intent, nor permission under the proposed permit, that would allow disturbance of any sediments more landward of the extent of the canal. The dredging is necessitated because the entrance of the Main Canal slowly fills with sand being transported from west to east along the shoreline. The Main Canal is stabilized on both sides by jetties. The western-most jetty extends further out than the eastern-most jetty. The Main Canal has seawalls along its inside. A recreational area is located on the western side of the Main Canal. The Main Canal is highly utilized for purposes of commerce and recreation. The Main Canal constitutes an economic support for many residents of the City. The Main Canal in proximity to the Gulf and the Gulf itself are not considered outstanding Florida waters or aquatic preserves. The waters in the Main Canal and Gulf are Class III marine waters when considering the parameters for water quality under DEP statutes and rules. Competent evidence was presented concerning water quality sampling and results in the analysis of those samples for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria in relation to the Main Canal at its entrance where dredging would take place under the terms of the permit. Some values for fecal coliform and total coliform exceeded the allowable limits for those parameters as envisioned by Section 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, as preexisting conditions. However, the dredge operations will not lead to further degradation of the existing Class III marine waters in the Main Canal and degradation of the Gulf. The relatively clean sand being excavated does not contain fines or organics, which, through the dredging and placement of the sand on the beach following the dredging, would contribute to degradation of water quality standards. The activity associated with the dredging and placement of those materials on the beach will not cause a significant adverse impact to the beach-dune system, nor will the transport of sand from west to east along the beach as it presently exists be interrupted by the dredging and placement of the sand. The dredged material is being placed immediately east of the dredge operation avoiding a disruption of the natural processes of transport. The proposed disposal area is located on the beach at least 100 feet east of the canal below the waters edge at approximately minus 0.5NGVD. Finally, the deposit of the sand on the beach contributes to beach stabilization as opposed to depriving the beach of sand. The proposed permit requires that the dredge pipeline be retracted upon a daily basis during marine turtle nesting season from May 1 until October 31 each year. By this limitation in the operation of the dredge pipeline, marine turtles are not hindered in their behavior nor is their habitat unduly disturbed. The placement of the dredged sand on the beach would not be in the dry upland where the turtles would typically nest. The DEP Bureau of Protected Species Management reviewed the permit application for any significant adverse impact on nesting sea turtles and recommends the approval subject to specific conditions such as have been described. The dredging of the sand from the Main Canal and placement of that material on the beach will not cause significant adverse impact to the property of others. The Main Canal project will not create any significant erosion or turbidity. Given the small volume and coarseness of the dredged sand, elevated turbidity levels are not expected. The dredging of material from the mouth of the Main Canal and placement on the adjacent beach does not block lateral access to the beach, because the hydraulic dredge pipeline is placed at the water's edge with a discharge of dredge material being made at the water's edge in the area of the intertidal zone where water comes up to the beach. The exact discharge point is seaward of the area described as the intertidal zone. Given that the project associated with the Main Canal is located in Class III marine waters, it must not be contrary to the public interest. The project is not contrary to the public interest. PERMIT APPLICATION FOR 8TH STREET OUTLET On June 13, 1997, the City applied to DEP for a ten- year permit/water quality certification and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees. This would allow the City to conduct occasional excavation of the 8th Street municipal flushing outlet which connects to the Gulf, having in mind the alleviation of potential damage to adjacent beachfront properties. That potential damage would be expected to occur in the instance where there was an uncontrolled breach of the berm surrounding the 8th Street outlet due to high incidence of rainfall, thus eroding adjacent beachfront properties. With the advent of scheduled maintenance, excavation of the outlet that erosion is expected to be deterred. The application file number for the requested permit in the 8th Street outlet project was File No.: 0129039-001 JC. The City, in its application for necessary permits to conduct excavation at the 8th Street outlet, submitted a complete and appropriate application setting forth adequate engineering details. More specifically, the permit application contemplates the removal of approximately 20 to 40 yards of beach sand per excavation, with the material excavated being placed on the beach near the water's edge. The excavation would be approximately 4 to 5 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 2 to 3 feet deep. Ordinarily, the frequency of excavation would be one to two times per month. The excavation practices would be by the use of a backhoe other than in the sea turtle nesting season. While sea turtles are nesting, the plans contemplate excavation by hand by use of a shovel or similar tool. In addition, during the turtle nesting season the application contemplates that the excavation would be done during daylight hours, only twice a month, to reduce potential flooding of marine turtle nests due to a meandering outflow from the outlet. Other than in the marine turtle nesting season the excavation would be done on an "as needed" basis. On March 16, 1998, the DEP gave notice of its intent to issue a permit for the dredging at the 8th Street outlet. The conditions associated with the intended permit for dredging of the 8th Street outlet deter any significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system. In the area of the 8th Street outlet, a large box culvert runs underneath U.S. 98, the main highway in the city. That highway runs parallel to the beach. Once the water flows through the culvert, it accumulates in the outlet south of the road. In the instance where rainfall is diminished, the flushing outlet does not flow to the Gulf and the beach berm, which accretes seaward of the outlet, traps the water that is being released via the culvert. By contrast, in instances where heavy rainfall occurs, the water in the outlet collects to a point that it begins to flow away from the culvert in the direction of the Gulf. If the beach berm has built up over time, the path of that flow in high incidence of rainfall can encroach on buildings that are adjacent to the culvert on the south side of U.S. 98. When the rainfall is sufficient, and the water begins to flow, it reaches a sufficient velocity to move sand as a bed load. Under those circumstances, when the water strikes a ridged object, like a house foundation, the local water velocity will act to carry away the sand more readily from that location where the house foundation is found, by scouring out the sand near the foundation, undermining the building and risking the collapse of the building onto the beach. In the course of this process the water breaches the beach berm and flows towards the Gulf. In the instance where the berm on the beach has been breached, the water that has been released begins to scour the beach and establish a pattern that can run down the beach roughly parallel to the Gulf for a distance before flowing into the Gulf. By contrast, the controlled release of water from the outlet would cause less of an impact, in that it would create an immediate access through the beach berm to the Gulf without creating the potential for harm to upland property or causing erosion or scouring of dunes and vegetation in beach areas, some of which might contain turtle nests. Unlike the circumstances with high incidence of rainfall where adjacent property is eroded and damaged, the use of controlled maintenance excavation to relieve the outlet would not cause significant and adverse impact to adjacent property owners. The controlled release of the water in the outlet, unlike the natural release of that water in high incidence of rainfall, is more in the interest of the public when considering adverse impacts to property. The introduction of the water in the outlet, and its constituents, onto the beach and its consequences, is no more a problem whether based upon the natural event of high incidence of rainfall or the routine release contemplated by the project. Therefore, the alternative method of releasing the water by use of scheduled excavation is not contrary to the public interest. If anything, the use of periodic excavation to relieve the outlet would limit the breadth of discharge and the amount of discharge. The 8th Street outlet and the Gulf area adjacent to that outlet are not within outstanding Florida waters or aquatic preserves. The project site for the 8th Street outlet and the Gulf are within Class III marine waters. The existing Class III marine water quality parameters for fecal coliform and total coliform when considered in accordance with Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, have been exceeded in the 8th Street outlet. This is borne out by test results from samples gathered at the 8th Street outlet presented at hearing. However, as with the circumstance with the Main Canal, the effect of periodic excavation to relieve the outlet will not further degrade state waters found in the outlet. The results of water quality tests performed following sampling that relate to the amount of fecal coliform and total coliform in the Gulf that could be expected at the entrance of the Main Canal and as the discharge of water within the 8th Street outlet enters the Gulf show low values for those parameters. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the release of the water from the 8th Street outlet to the Gulf under controlled conditions contemplated by the permit application would cause a violation of the parameters for fecal coliform and total coliform in the Gulf, the receiving body of water, especially when compared to the existing release of water from the 8th Street outlet to the Gulf in high incidence of rainfall. This finding is also influenced by the fact that the most excessive values for total coliform and fecal coliform in the 8th Street outlet system were found 600 to 800 feet up the water course described as the 8th Street outlet. Similar to the Main Canal, the project contemplated at the 8th Street outlet would not require mitigation before being permitted by DEP. The 8th Street outlet project would not create significant adverse impacts on coastal sediment transport. The DEP Bureau of Protective Species Management reviewed the 8th Street outlet application and recommended approval with specific conditions. Those conditions offer adequate protection to marine turtles and their habitat. The conditions include project excavation that does not create parallel trenches in the sand that inhibit movement on the beach by sea turtles. The 8th Street outlet project will not create significant erosion concerns or turbidity concerns. The 8th Street outlet project does not block lateral beach access to the public, in that the excavation to relieve the outlet on a periodic basis is temporary, that is to say only in effect when the water is being released from the outlet to the Gulf. CONSENT TO USE SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS The 8th Street outlet project, as well as the Main Canal project, involves sovereignty submerged lands below the MHWL constituted of the beach and ocean bottom. The facts show that the City is entitled to consent of use to work on sovereign submerged lands in the Main Canal and 8th Street outlet projects.
Recommendation Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That DEP issue a final order granting the City the joint coastal permits and consent to use sovereign submerged lands in accordance with application File Nos.: 0124938-001JC and 0129039-001JC respectively, subject to specific conditions contained therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 10th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Edmond Blount, Sr. Post Office Box 13855 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Edmond Blount, Jr. Post Office Box 13854 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Robert Davenport Post Office Box 13926 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Gerard Murnan Post Office Box 13378 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Paul G. Komarek, Esquire Daniel and Komarek, Chartered Post Office Box 2547 Panama City, Florida 32402 Ricardo Muratti, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John McInnis, City Manager City of Mexico Beach Post Office Box 13425 Mexico Beach, Florida 32410 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue here concerns the entitlement of the Petitioner, Hernstadt Broadcasting Corporation to be granted certain environmental permits from the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, which would allow the Petitioner to construct a radio transmitter tower and access dock within the Biscayne Bay which is located in Dade County Florida. 1/
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action, Hernstadt Broadcasting Corporation, owns and operates radio station WKAT, which is located in Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The Petitioner is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to pursue this enterprise. On April 30, 1980, the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation received an application from the Petitioner, which application requested permission to construct a radio transmitter tower and access dock in Biscayne Bay, Dade County, Florida. (The tower end dock are part of a proposed station complex in which the radio station building is to be constructed upland from the Bay.) The project, if allowed, would be located off the north side of the Julia Tuttle Causeway which connects the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach via the Biscayne Bay. The tower and access dock, if constructed, would be located in submerged lands owned by the State of Florida. In view of the location of this apparatus in Biscayne Bay, it would be subject to the provisions of the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Act found in Chapter 258, Florida Statutes, together with other provisions of statute and rule. To place the access dock in the Bay, the Petitioner proposes to drive pilings into the Bay bottom to support the access dock which is 200 feet long and four (4) feet wide. The support mechanism for the radio tower would also be constructed by the driving of pilings into the Bay bottom and the radio transmitting tower, once built, would be 400 feet tall and would have attached stabilizing guy wires connected to anchors driven into the Bay bottom. As the pilings are driven into the floor of the Bay, the displaced soils will be compressed into lower elevations or redistributed against the pilings. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15, admitted into evidence, is a copy of the original application for permit, which was modified by site plans and sketches depicted in Respondent's Exhibit No. 16, admitted into evidence, shortening certain dimensions related to the access dock. (These modifications came about subsequent to the Department of Environmental Regulation's permit application appraisal found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10, which is dated June 23, 1980.) After review of the project, in the face of the aforementioned modifications, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued a letter of intent to deny the permit request. This letter of intent was dated September 9, 1980, a copy of which may be found as petitioner's Exhibit No. 11, admitted into evidence. The authority stated for such denial are these provisions of Subsection 258.165(3)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1980), and Rule 17-4.242(1), Florida Administrative Code. Subsequent to the issuance of the letter of intent to deny, a further modification was made on the project increasing the length of the proposed access dock to the presently requested 200 feet. This modification is depicted in petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, admitted into evidence, which shows site plans and other pertinent information related to the project. Another modification to the project which the Petitioner claims is not subject to permit review by the Department of Environmental Regulation, and for which the Department of Environmental Regulation takes a contrary point of view, concerns the use of a grid of nickel-plated copper straps, approximately 40 feet by 40 feet, constituted of a mesh of approximately 1/4 inch in diameter by 1 inch sections to be placed underneath the tower and on the Bay bottom for purposes of grounding the tower. This item was not made known to the Respondent until September 30, 1980, at a time subsequent to the letter of intent to deny. The Petitioner in this action pursues the project on the basis of a joint use agreement entered into with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, in which the Department of Transportation, in return for the ability to use the radio tower for communications in connection with a surveillance and traffic control system for Interstate Highway-95 and for the ability of the City of Miami, Florida, to use the facility for a tactical communication repeater installation, would grant to the Petitioner the Department of Transportation's rights and opportunities as easement holder in the area where the subject project would be constructed. See Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. The Department of Transportation's rights stem from an easement grant from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13, admitted into evidence. The rights of the Petitioner, by assignment from the Department of Transportation, do not relieve Petitioner of the obligation to gain the necessary approval of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund in the person of the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for permission to use those submerged lands over which the access walkway and tower would be constructed, notwithstanding any rights and privileges assigned to the Petitioner by the Department of Transportation as easement from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. This is true because the perpetual easement granted from the Trustees to the Department of Transportation for right-of-way and dredging purposes related to the roadway which is constituted of the Julia Tuttle Causeway and to the adjacent Bay bottoms related to construction and maintenance of that roadway, does not envision assignment of the submerged lands to an entity in the position of the Petitioner, which entity does not have as its purpose the construction or maintenance of the roadway; hence, the necessity to gain permission from the Department of Natural Resources if the access dock and tower are to be constructed on the submerged land of the State. The easement held by the Department of Transportation is specific in nature and does not contemplate the construction of a radio station. (It is not necessary to comment on the question of whether a joint use agreement between the Department of Transportation and Hernstadt as that Department's assignee for rights and privileges bestowed upon the Department from the Trustees based on the easement rights granted on October 2, 1941, would allow the construction of the building of the radio station building which would be at the upland terminus of the access dock which also adjoins the radio tower, the Department of Environmental Regulation having offered no claim for permitting jurisdiction over the radio station building.) The Petitioner proposes to move its radio station from the existing location in Miami Beach because buildings in the general area of the radio station interfere with the radio signal and, in addition, there is interference caused by radio transmissions from Cuba. The terms of the license held by Petitioner on issuance from the Federal Communications Commission limit the movement of the station's transmitter tower to a location no more than four (4) miles from the current location. At the time of the hearing, the Petitioner had not located an alternative tower site, other than the proposed site. As stated before, if the tower were constructed, the State of Florida, Department of Transportation would utilize the tower in its communications network and the City of Miami Fire and Police Departments would likewise desire to use the tower. The Florida Marine Patrol and the Florida Highway Patrol would also be interested in using the proposed tower for communications purposes. The City of Miami Planning and Advisory Board and the City Commission of that municipality would be in favor of the construction of the proposed radio tower. Dade County, Florida, has adopted a Comprehensive Master Plan, copies of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 19, admitted into evidence. Within that document is a discussion of environmental concerns within the county to include Biscayne Bay and, in particular, concern for protection of environmentally sensitive areas such as Biscayne Bay and an interest by the County to provide a wide range of public water oriented opportunities for the populace. Subsequent to the time of the submission of the permit application, and specifically, in October, 1980, Dade County, through its Metropolitan Planning Department and in conjunction with the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management Department prepared a proposed Biscayne Bay Management Plan, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's Exhibit No. 17, admitted into evidence. This plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, by an Ordinance, a copy of which may be found as the Respondent's Exhibit No. 18, admitted into evidence. The Biscayne Bay Management Plan encourages the enhancement of public access to the Bay for uses such as fishing, boating, shoreline wading and view in and the preservation and enhancement of the environmental, chemical and aesthetic qualities of the Bay. Furthermore, if the necessary permission could be obtained, Dade County, has future plans to use the subject Julia Tuttle Causeway as a public access to the Bay. The location of the radio tower and associated facilities would interfere with the proposed use by Dade County. The Department of Environmental Regulation, in keeping with Section 403.0615, Florida Statutes, 2/ through a program in conjunction with Dade County is attempting the restoration of the biological and chemical characteristics of the Biscayne Bay. Some of the items included in this program would be enhancement of aquatic vegetation, including seagrasses and mangroves and the promotion of aesthetics and public access to Biscayne Bay, to include the area of the Julia Tuttle Causeway. Radio station WKAT presents public service programs; is a part of the Emergency Broadcasting System and broadcasts emergency information in times of natural disaster. On the question of environmental implications of this project, the placement of the pilings would cause the destruction of certain seagrasses in that area, while at the same time promoting the introduction of marine life along the surfaces of the tower and dock supports. Seagrasses in the area where the grounding system would be placed may be destroyed and although the copper to be used would be nickel plated, thereby inhibiting the release of the toxic properties of the coated copper, eventually the nickel plating would break down and the marine life communities adjacent to the mesh would be harmed by the copper. The loss of seagrasses under the grid could cause a reduction in fish population. The installation of the radio tower and access dock in the Biscayne Bay is an impediment to navigation; however, the Petitioner intends to place channel markers to divert boat traffic away from the tower and its environs. There is no expected difficulty with run-off, discharges or other forms of pollution related to the construction or operation of the tower facility, although there will be some turbidity caused in the construction phases of the project. The project would be located in a State Aquatic Preserve within the meaning of Chapter 258, Florida Statutes; would be located in waters of the State within the meaning of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes; would be in navigable water within the meaning of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, end would be in an Outstanding Florida Water within the meaning of Rule 17-4.242(1), Florida Administrative Code.
