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 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.
Findings Of Fact Vroom acquired an existing, incomplete condominium project of 96 units on the ocean side of U.S. Highway #1 at mile marker, 83.2, Islamorada, Florida. The project, now called Beacon Reef, is to be finished as a luxury facility with complete recreational facilities, including those for water-oriented sports. In February, 1980, Vroom filed a short-form application with DER for a permit to construct a private 425 foot x 6 foot pier for the condominium with four-finger piers on "T" sections, ranging in length from 335 feet to 240 feet, spaced 55 feet apart, and install 97 pilings, a maximum 450 feet seaward so as to provide one boat slip for each unit. The old existing dock will be removed (DER #3). A subsequent revision (DER #4) aligned the proposed pier with the one of Petitioner, who owns the property adjacent to the south. Following DER's appraisal (DER #1 and #2) and Vroom's agreement to use a small boat and motor to move the construction barge (DER #6), DER noticed its intent to issue the permit on May 19, 1980 on the finding that, pursuant to Sections 253.123 and 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Section 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code, "the project will not adversely impact navigation, marine resources, nor water quality, providing the following stipulations are met: Construction shall not be initiated until Department of Natural Resources' approval is received. Construction barge shall be maneuvered in position with a small fifteen foot boat with a small 50 hp or less outboard motor. There shall be no fuel nor sewage pump-out facilities. No live-aboards shall be permitted. A day marker shall be placed approximately 30 feet waterward of each end of the outward "T" section to define and mitigate destruction of adjacent shallow water areas. Vroom accepted these restrictions and at the hearing, further agreed to place channel markers from the pier to the closest navigable point about 1/2 mile away so as to eliminate one of the concerns of the South Florida Regional Planning Council (DER #7). DER's two environmental specialists' testimony and appraisal concluded that the construction and use of the pier would not adversely impact on the water quality or biological resources nor interfere with navigation. The substrata is generally hard rock with scattered turtle grass and cuban shoal- weed found seaward as the water depth increases. This type of bottom is called "flats" as it is shallow with a uniform or gradually-sloping bottom; it is the typical feeding ground for one of the popular sports fish called Bonefish. Although these fish are easily frightened by the noise of a boat engine, the record does not reveal that this is harmful to the fish. The Petitioner speculated, surmised or opined that the use of the pier would damage or have an adverse impact on the water quality and marine resources, and interfere with navigation. However, beyond the allegations, no evidence was presented in support of these contentions.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation grant the application of Vroom International, Inc. to build a pier in connection with its Beacon Reef Condominium, Islamorada, Florida, subject to the restrictions stated in the intent to issue, together with the requirement that markers be installed and maintained on either side of a channel connecting the pier and the closest and best navigable waters. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. HAROLD E. SMITHERS Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard H.M. Swann, Esq. GASTON, SNOW, ET AL. 2809 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 550 Coral Gables, FL 33134 H. Ray Allen, Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Tittle, Esq. Post Office Drawer 535 Tavernier, FL 33070 Vroom International, Inc. c/o John P. Wilson Upper Keys Marine Construction Box 18AAA Key Largo, FL 33037 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-10.041(3)(d) of the South Florida Water Management District (“the District”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Conservancy is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Naples, Florida. It has 6,200 members residing in Southwest Florida. The mission of the Conservancy is to protect the environment and natural resources of Southwest Florida. The Caloosahatchee River is an important focus of the Conservancy’s organizational activities and objectives. A substantial number of the members of the Conservancy use the Caloosahatchee River for drinking water, boating, fishing, wildlife observation, and scientific research. The proposed rules create a prospective reservation of water in the not-yet-operational Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Reservoir “for fish and wildlife.” The Conservancy’s interests would be substantially affected by the proposed reservation. The District is a regional water management agency created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2013). It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida. Proposed rule 40E-10.041(3) states: (3) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir: All surface water contained within and released, via operation, from the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is reserved from allocation. The water reserved under this paragraph will be available for fish and wildlife upon a formal determination of the Governing Board, pursuant to state and federal law, that the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is operational. The reservation contained within this subsection and the criteria contained in section 3.11.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-2.091, F.A.C., shall be revised in light of changed conditions or new information prior to the approval described in paragraph (3)(b) above. Pursuant to subsection 373.223(4), F.S., presently existing legal uses for the duration of a permit existing on [RULE ADOPTION DATE] are not contrary to the public interest. The Conservancy challenges only paragraph (3)(d), contending that it modifies or contravenes the implementing statute, section 373.223(4).
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On March 26, 1991 Venice applied to the Department for a CCCL permit to construct a 475 foot wooden retaining wall seaward of the coastal construction control line and to place a shell road immediately adjacent to, and landward of, the retaining wall from approximately 100 feet south of Granada Avenue to approximately 50 feet south of Ocala Street on Venice's right-of-way of The Esplanade in Venice, Florida. The Petitioners Roy B. and Patricia B. Olsen are residents of Venice, Florida and reside at 304 Ocala Street. They own Lot 1, The Esplanade, which is immediately east and south of the southern terminus of the proposed retaining wall. Petitioner, Nina Howard is a resident of Venice, Florida and resides at 721 Ocala Street. Ms. Howard's residence is located to the south and across Ocala Street from the site of the proposed retaining wall. Intervenors, Roger and Irene Fraley are residents of Venice, Florida and reside at 221 The Esplanade South, which is immediately landward (east) of the site of the proposed retaining wall. Intervenors, Howard and Evelyn Barbig are residents of Milton, Florida but are owners of lot 4, The Esplanade South, located north of the Fraleys' property and immediately landward (east) of the site of the proposed retaining wall. The Petitioners oppose the granting of the CCCL permit. The Petitioners have expressed their opposition to the granting of the CCCL permit based upon their belief that the construction of the proposed retaining wall will have adverse impacts to the beach dune areas and to the adjacent properties. Specifically, it is their belief that the construction of the proposed retaining wall will accelerate the erosion of the beach dune areas and the adjacent properties. The Petitioners disagree with the conclusion reached by the Department in the final order that, "the activities indicated in the project description are of such a nature that they will result in no significant adverse impacts to the beach dune areas or to the adjacent properties." Intervenors, Fraley and Barbig are in favor of the issuance of the CCCL permit because it will prevent seasonal erosion which results in exposure of, and damage to, the sewer line along The Esplanade, and will provide public access over the shell road within the right-of-way of The Esplanade for those properties between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street that do not have public access from time to time due to the seasonal erosion. On April 17, 1991 the Department advised Venice that the CCCL permit application was determined to be incomplete, and advised Venice of those things needed to make the application complete. Subsequent to this letter, the Department determined that, although the application was not an emergency, it did deserve "fast tracking", and assisted Venice in bringing the application to a "complete" status. On April 25, 1991 the Department issued a Final Order administratively approving CCCL permit number ST-820 for the construction of a wooden retaining wall and shell access road as described in Venice's application. On April 26, 1991 the Department issued a Notice to Proceed Withheld to Venice, which advised Venice not commence construction of the project authorized by the permit until certain permit conditions had been met. This notice also gave notice to those whose substantial interests would be affected by the proposed project of their right to a formal hearing. An engineering assessment was made for this project, and although not a formal written engineering assessment, the engineering assessment did consider all conditions of adverse impacts. In making this assessment, the Department considered and reviewed available aerial photographs, photographs taken of the area of the proposed project site and erosion tables concerning the area. A formal written engineering assessment is not required by statute, rule or Department policy. This assessment also indicated that there are severe impacts due to winter storm events which contribute to the seasonal profile changes. The seasonal beach profile is depicted by the build up of the beach (sand) during the summer months and the removal (erosion) of beach (sand) during the winter months. However, due to an inlet, a major rock-out cropping and the rock grain structures located in the vicinity of the proposed site, there is a limitation on the natural movement of sand along the coast which prevents natural renourishment and results in severe erosion in the area of the proposed site during the winter months. This erosion during the winter months causes the sewer pipes along The Esplanade to be exposed and sometimes broken, and prevents access over the right-of-way of The Esplanade to certain properties located along The Esplanade between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street. The wooden retaining wall is designed to retain sand just landward of the wall and allow a shell access road to be placed on the right-of-way of The Esplanade. The wooden retaining wall will be constructed as follows: (a) 8" x 20' wooden piling will be placed on 6' center and driven to an approximate depth of -14.00 (NGVD); (b) 2" x 8" planking will be attached to the landward side of the piling from the top of the piling (+7.0 NGVD) to a depth of appropriate 7 feet (0.00 NGVD); (c) with a filter "x" cloth covering the planking on the landward side. At the time of the application, the existing beach was +5.0 (NGVD) which would leave approximately 2 feet of the retaining wall exposed on the seaward side. The purpose of the retaining wall is to protect the shoreline in the immediate vicinity of The Esplanade and thereby protect the sewer line and access road which are landward of the seaward (west) right-of-way line of The Esplanade. The proposed wooden retaining wall is to be located as far landward as possible, and will be the minimum size and configuration to protect the sewer line and the shell access road along The Esplanade right-of-way. The retaining wall is designed to be temporary in nature in that its design will not allow it to survive under a major storm event. In that regard, the retaining wall comes within the definition of a minor structure as defined by rule and does not require a formal written review. The access road will enable Venice to establish a public road on public right-of-way for ordinary and emergency utilization by the residents and Venice. Previous attempts by Venice to protect the sewer line by "shoring up" the area with sand bags have proven unsuccessful. A wooden retaining such as the one proposed would be the next logical step to prevent the exposure and damage to the sewer line and still be consistent with the coastal armoring policy adopted by the Governor and Cabinet in December 1990. Dr. Al Deveraux, Bureau Chief, Control Engineering, personally viewed the site prior to approval of the project and waived compliances with certain provisions of the application. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that: erosion is occurring in the area of the proposed site without the presence of the proposed retaining wall; without the proposed retaining wall, Venice will be unable to prevent that erosion, particularly during the winter storm events, which will result in exposure and damage to the sewer line and lack of public access to certain properties located along The Esplanade between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street; and upon construction of the retaining wall, the beach dune area and the adjacent properties to the south of the proposed project will experience some increase in erosion above that presently occurring, but it will be minimal and will not have a significant impact on the area. The application submitted by Venice was processed and approved in accordance with statutes, rules and Department policy. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that granting CCCL permit number ST-820 and constructing the retaining wall and access road as set forth in Venice's application would be in the best public interest. The Petitioners' expert witness on coastal engineering concluded that there would be substantial erosion of the beach dune area and adjacent properties south of the proposed retaining wall as a result of constructing the retaining wall. However, this conclusion was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Special permit condition 1 requires Venice to provide the Department with a Sea Turtle Protection Plan approved by the Florida Marine Research Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida. This special condition takes into account the Department's policy for the protection of sea turtles as described in Rule 16B-33.005(9), Florida Administrative Code. The project is consistent with the thirty-year erosion projection and is not located seaward of that line.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, accordingly recommended that the Department enter a Final Order issuing CCCL permit number ST-820 to the City of Venice, Florida subject to all the special conditions contained therein, and adding one other special condition requiring the City of Venice, Florida to monitor the beach dune system and adjacent properties south of the project site on a semi-annual basis for a period deemed necessary by the Department, and report any accelerated erosion that might occur in that area to the Department for review and action. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 27th day of December, 1991.
The Issue Does a statement by an agency that its regulatory authority is limited by Section 161.58, Florida Statute, constitute a non- rule policy? Does a statement by an agency that fees levied under authority of Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, by county governments for beach driving do not constitute revenue for purposes of invoking its regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.005 (Rule 18-21.005) constitute a non-rule policy?
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Petitioner Shirley Reynolds (Reynolds) resides and owns beachfront property overlooking the Atlantic Ocean in New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Reynolds does not own to the mean high water line, and her property is not adjacent to the sovereign submerged lands held by the Trustees. Reynolds “shares riparian rights with the public.” Reynolds has owned her oceanfront home since 1981. She has observed beach driving by the general public on the beach and in the shallow water in the vicinity of her home. She enjoys the beachfront for “regular recreational, traditional recreational purposes.” Petitioner Diann Bowman (Bowman) resides and owns property that extends to and adjoins the mean high water line of the Atlantic Ocean in New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Bowman has observed the general public driving on the beach and in shallow waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of her property. Bowman goes swimming in the ocean, builds sand castles by the edge of the water with her grandchildren, and walks on the beach with friends. Petitioners did not have any requests for leases or applications for action pending before the BOT, and Volusia County had not made an application to the Trustees for any activity permit or lease. Petitioner Bowman was not even aware of Reecy's e- mail, and could not articulate how she was affected by it. Although Reynolds testified at length about the impacts of beach driving and beach concessions between her home and the ocean, she failed to show how she was affected by Reecy's statements that the BOT does not regulate beach driving. In response to counsel’s question of what personal interest she has in whether or not the Trustees require authorization to use state land for motor vehicle traffic in front of her home, she responded, “[I]f and when they ever deal with it, it will certainly raise the consciousness of the human safety element.” Petitioners testified regarding the adverse impacts of beach driving on their property and their enjoyment of their property. Beach driving has an adverse impact upon the property values and upon their enjoyment of their property. Respondents The BOT is an agency of the State of Florida, consisting of the Governor and Cabinet. (Art. IV, s. 4 (f), Fla. Const.) The BOT holds the title to the State’s sovereign submerged lands acquired at statehood “for the use and benefit of the people of the state,” pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. (§§ 253.001, 253.03, and 253.12, Fla. Stat.) Private use of such lands generally requires consent of the BOT and must not be contrary to the public interest. The BOT is required to manage and conserve state-owned lands, including sovereignty lands, by law and is granted rulemaking authority to that end. The Department functions as the staff for the BOT, and issues leases and other authorizations for private parties to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21, Florida Administrative Code. In carrying out its duties with relationship to the BOT, the Department implements policy as determined by the BOT, to include taking some final agency actions. The Department would be the agency through which the BOT would initiate rulemaking. The Department does not have delegated authority to adopt rules for the BOT. Ken Reecy (Reecy) is a Senior Management Analyst Supervisor in the Department’s Division of State Lands. One of Reecy’s job duties is to provide responses to requests for BOT’s public records housed in the Division of State Lands of the Department. On August 5, 2003, Ross Burnaman e-mailed Eva Armstrong of the Department the following public records request: Hi Eva-I am hoping that you can assist me with this inquiry for public records. I'm looking for any Trustees authorization for the use of state lands (including uplands and submerged lands) for beach driving by the general public or commercial vendors. While I'm aware of Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, I'm of the opinion that Trustees' authorization is still required for beach driving on state lands. Most local governments that allow beach driving (e.g. Gulf County, Volusia County) charge a fee for that activity. That would appear to trigger, Rule 18-21.005(b)(2), FAC, and the requirement for a lease. As I understand it, public beach driving is allowed in parts of the following counties: Nassau, Duval, Flagler, St. Johns, Volusia, Gulf and Walton counties. Thanks in advance for you assistance. Best regards, Ross Burnaman (phone number deleted) Ms. Armstrong passed this request to Ken Reecy of the Department who replied to Mr. Burnaman with the following e-mail message: Mr. Burnaman Concerning your request as to any authorization by the Board of Trustees for beach driving and fees triggering Rule 18- 21.005(b)(2)[sic]: We are unaware of any instance in which the issue of beach driving has been brought before the Board of Trustees for authorization. Further, in discussions with staff from our legal department, it is felt that s. 161.58 sufficiently covers the issue and that authorization from the Board is not necessary. We are also of the opinion that fees counties charge for beach driving would not trigger Rule 18-21.005(b)(2)[sic]. If you have any further questions on this issue, please contact Suzanne Brantley in EIP's Office of General Counsel (phone number deleted) The e-mail above contains two potential policy statements; one concerning a statute and the other concerning a rule. The analysis of each differs slightly. The BOT was authorized at one time to regulate all the uses of state sovereignty lands, to include regulation of driving on the state's beaches, i.e., that portion of land seaward of the mean high water line (hereafter: beach.) The BOT restricted the operation of private vehicles on the beaches via rule. The Legislature of the State of Florida enacted Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, which authorized those counties which had traditionally permitted driving on the beach to regulate the operation of privately owned vehicles on the beaches in their counties. Several of the counties which had traditionally permitted driving on the beach permitted privately owned vehicles to be operated on the beach in their counties and charged a small fee to defray the costs of providing parking, life guards, and traffic direction on the beaches. The BOT attempted to intervene in those counties which charged fees for beach driving on the basis that the fees being charged were "revenue" producing. The Legislature of the State of Florida amended Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, to specifically authorize the counties to collect reasonable fees to defray their costs of regulating beach driving. The statements that are challenged have not been adopted as a rule. Reecy testified at the hearing. Reecy only intended to give Burnaman information related to his public records request. The portion of Reecy's e-mail that is being challenged was intended to explain why no records were found. Reecy responded because Burnaman had sent follow-up e-mails to Reecy’s supervisor, Armstrong, the Director of the Division of State Lands. Reecy knew that Armstrong had a practice of providing information to the public when it was requested. Reecy is not charged with implementing or interpreting Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21 and does not process applications for leases or other authorizations from the BOT. Reecy's statement that no records were found is not a policy statement and has not been alleged to be one by Petitioners. Reecy conferred with Department legal staff before issuing his statement about Section 161.58, Florida Statutes. Reecy did not state that Section 161.58 exempted counties from getting BOT authorization for beach driving, as Petitioners state in their Petition, for several reasons: first, Reecy is not the person on the BOT’s staff who makes such determinations; second, there was no factual determination pending, i.e., no request for declaratory statement or request for an exemption or authorization; and third, the statute cited and its history indicate that the Legislature has vested the exclusive authority to regulate beach driving in those counties in which it traditionally occurred to county government in those counties. James W. Stoutamire (Stoutamire) is the principal Department employee who is charged with interpreting and applying the BOT’s rules. Stoutamire was the person to whom authority had been delegated to make such policy determinations. Burnaman's request was not presented to Stoutamire, and Reecy did not consult with Stoutamire. Although it is a statement concerning general law, Reecy's first statement regarding Section 161.58, Florida Statutes, does not assert agency jurisdiction or exempt a specific factual predicate from agency jurisdiction. Reecy also discussed Burnaman’s reference to Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.005(1)(b)2. with the Department's legal staff. Reecy's references to the section mistakenly cites it as Rule 18-21.005(b)2. Regardless of Reecy's intent, his answer constitutes an interpretation of the rule as applied to the fees charged by counties for beach driving. The BOT's rules provide what types of private activities must have consent prior to their being undertaken on sovereign submerged lands. They do not contain a list of all of the many public activities that occur on Florida’s beaches, shores, and waters that do not require consent. The BOT's rules in Chapter 18-21 are not intended to prevent air or noise pollution, promote public safety, protect property values, provide peace and quiet, or protect quality of life. These are the concerns about which Petitioners testified as diminishing their peaceful enjoyment of their property rights. Beach concessions above the mean high water line do not fall within the Trustees jurisdiction or control.
