The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums"), are entitled to the Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single- family residential dock and associated structures.
Findings Of Fact Background The Crums are the owners of the riparian property located at 15696 Shark Road West, Jacksonville, Florida. The Crum property is adjacent to Pumpkin Hill Creek, which lies within the Nassau River-St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve. Extending from the Crum property into Pumpkin Hill Creek is an existing wood dock approximately 90 feet long and four feet wide, with a platform near the landward end of the dock. Petitioner Brooks owns the property immediately adjacent to and north of the Crum property. Petitioner Brooks has a dock and boat lift. Petitioner Cole owns the property immediately adjacent to and southeast of the Crum property. The Cole property is located on a salt marsh and has no dock. Petitioner Jones lives approximately 3,200 feet north of the Crum property, on a tributary to Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones has fished Pumpkin Hill Creek and the surrounding waters for over 25 years. Noticed General Permits are a type of environmental resource permit granted by rule for those activities which have been determined to have minimal impacts to water resources. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427 grants by rule a general permit to construct a single family pier, along with boat lifts and terminal platforms, provided certain specific criteria are met. In August 2005, the Crums applied for a Noticed General Permit to extend their existing dock into deeper water. The Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for Noticed General Permit, but later rescinded the authorization after Petitioner Brooks complained to the Department that the landward end of the existing dock is located only 21 feet from her property boundary and, therefore, did not comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(3)(d), which requires that a dock be set back a minimum of 25 feet "inside the applicant's riparian rights lines." In November 2005, the Crums re-applied for a Noticed General Permit. Their revised plans called for removal of the existing dock and construction of a new dock extending approximately 255 feet out into Pumpkin Hill Creek. The proposed dock would be located a minimum of 25 feet inside the Crums' riparian rights lines. On December 6, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Noticed General Permit for the revised dock, stating that the project satisfied the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427, as well as the conditions for authorization to perform activities on state-owned submerged lands set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21 and for activities in an aquatic preserve under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20. In April 2006, Petitioners filed three petitions for hearing with the Department alleging that the proposed dock significantly impedes navigation by restricting access to a tidal creek and extends more waterward than necessary to access a water depth of (minus) -4 feet at mean low water, which is prohibited for docks in aquatic preserves under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.005(3)(b)3. Petitioners attached to their petitions a copy of a bathymetric survey showing the elevations of the submerged lands in the vicinity of the proposed project. In response to the information contained in the survey, the Crums revised their plans to shorten the dock to its currently proposed length of 186.56 feet. A new Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Notice General Permit was then issued by the Department on October 16, 2006. The final dock project consists of: (a) removal of the existing wood dock; (b) construction of a four-foot wide, 186.56-foot long, single family residential dock consisting of an access pier, a 12-foot by 12-foot terminal platform, and a 14-foot by 20-foot open boat lift with catwalk (the “proposed dock”). The proposed dock will terminate where the water will be four feet deep at mean low water. Navigating in and Near the Tidal Creek To the south of the Crum property is a wide expanse of salt marsh. Within the salt marsh are unnamed tidal creeks. The mouth of one tidal creek that flows to Pumpkin Hill Creek is located approximately 90 feet south of the existing Crum dock. The tidal creek is shallow and is not navigable at or near low tide. Petitioner Jones owns an 18-foot flatboat which he sometimes keeps at his residence and sometimes at Petitioner Brooks' property. The boat draws about one foot of water. Petitioner Jones uses this boat to fish in the tidal creek located near the Crum property about ten times every month. No evidence was presented to show that Petitioner Brooks or Petitioner Cole ever navigate in or otherwise use this tidal creek. There are many other tidal creeks located in the marshes associated with Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones boats and fishes in most of them. Petitioner Jones said that, currently, he must wait two hours past low tide for the water depth to be sufficient for him to get into the tidal creek near the Crum property. His usual course to the creek lies just beyond the end of the existing Crum dock. He claims there is a channel there, but no channel is shown on the survey or in any of the parties' photographs. After the proposed dock is constructed, Petitioner Jones' usual course to the tidal will be obstructed. He contends that the new course he would have to take to the tidal creek will take him across shallower areas of Pumpkin Hill Creek so that he will have to wait two more hours (a total of four hours) after low tide to get into the creek. Therefore, Petitioner Jones' alleged injury is the reduction of the hours available to him to navigate in and out of the tidal creek for fishing. The existing Crum dock terminates on a broad mud flat which is exposed at mean low water. However, the bathymetric survey shows the mud flat is at a lower elevation near the end of the dock so water covers this area before it covers the rest of the mud flat. However, the bathymetric survey also shows the elevation of the bottom rising as one moves south from the existing dock. At the mouth of the tidal creek the elevation is 1.0 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, an official, surveyed reference point). Because the tidal creek drains into the main body of Pumpkin Hill Creek, a reasonable inference can be made that the bottom elevations in the creek generally become higher (and the water depths decrease) as one moves up the creek toward dry land. Prop scars in the exposed bottom at the end of the existing dock indicate that boats have traveled over this area when the water was so shallow that the engine props were striking the bottom. Prop scarring can cause turbidity and damage to benthic organisms. The bathymetric survey indicates that mean high water in this area of Pumpkin Hill Creek is 3.03 feet NGVD, and the mean low water is -1.78 feet NGVD. The mean tidal fluctuation between mean low water and mean high water is thus 4.81 feet. Randall Armstrong, who was accepted as an expert in navigation and piloting, explained that in this area, where there are two daily tides, the water elevation will generally increase by 1/12 of the mean tidal fluctuation in the first hour after mean low water, another 2/12 of the fluctuation in the second, and 3/12 in the third hour. Applying this general rule to the tidal fluctuation here of 4.81 feet results in an estimated 1.2-foot increase in water elevation two hours after low tide and a 2.4-foot increase three hours after low tide. Based on the mean low water elevation of -1.78 feet NGVD, the water elevation would usually be about -0.6 foot NGVD two hours after low tide and 0.6 foot NGVD three hours after low tide. Therefore, the tidal creek (with a bottom elevation of 1.0 foot NGVD at the mouth) would usually be "dry" two hours after low tide and would usually have less than a foot of water three hours after low tide. That evidence contradicts Petitioner Jones' statement that he now navigates into the tidal creek two hours after low tide. That might occasionally be possible, but the bathymetric survey indicates the creek would usually be too shallow at that time. In fact, the evidence suggests that the tidal creek is only reliably navigable without causing prop scars to the bottom by using boats with very shallow draft and waiting until high tide (or shortly before or after) when the water depth at the mouth of the creek would be about two feet. It was Mr. Armstrong's opinion that the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation at the mouth of the tidal creek determines when and how long the tidal creek is navigable, and those times would not be affected by the proposed dock. He described the new course that a boater would use to navigate into the tidal creek after the proposed dock is built. He used the bathymetric survey to show that when the water is deep enough to navigate into the tidal creek, the water depth is also sufficient to navigate the new course. The proposed dock might, as Petitioner Jones alleges, cause boaters to traverse a longer section of the mudflat then they do currently. However, the more persuasive testimony supports the Crums' position that the navigability of the tidal creek is controlled by its shallowest point at the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation and that the proposed dock will not interfere with navigation of the tidal creek by requiring boaters to traverse shallower areas. Petitioner Jones testified that he regularly navigates his boat close to the existing Crum dock. The evidence does not indicate that the proposed dock would cause an unreasonable risk of collision for boaters using the new course to the tidal creek.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order that grants Noticed General Permit No. 16-253057-002-EG to the Crums. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2006.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether a fence constructed by Charles and Kathleen Moorman (Moormans), as owners, and Your Local Fence, Inc. (Your Local Fence), as contractor, in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida, was contrary to the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, including Areas of Critical State Concern, and all rules promulgated thereunder. Monroe County is a local government within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern designated by Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for the implemen-tation of, and the issuance of development orders that are consistent with, the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, as approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Most of Monroe County, including the Big Pine Key Are of Critical County Concern discussed infra, is contained within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. Respondents, Charles and Kathleen Moorman (Moormans) are the owners of Lots 15, 16, and half of Lot 17, Block D, Pine Heights Subdivision, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. Such property is located within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, as well as the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, and consists of native pine lands, which are natural habitat for the Key Deer. Respondent, Your Local Fence, Inc. (Your Local Fence), is a business engaged in constructing fences in Monroe County, and is owned by Mr. Moorman. On March 20, 1991, Monroe County issued to the Moormans, as owners, and Your Local Fence, as contractor, building permit No. 9110002231 to construct a fence on the foregoing property. As permitted, the fence would be constructed of wood to a height of 6 feet and, except for a setback of 25 feet, would completely enclose the Moormans' property. So constructed, the fence would measure 125 feet along the front and rear of the property and 75 feet along the side property lines for a total of 400 linear feet. Pertinent to this case, the Moormans' permit was not effective until 45 days after it was rendered to the Department (the "appeal period"), which period accords the Department an opportunity to review the permit and decide whether to contest its issuance by filing an appeal with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC), and , if appealed, its effectiveness is stayed until after the completion of the appeal process. Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 9.5-115(a), Monroe County Land Development Regulations (MCLDR). Here, the Department, pursuant to the provisions of Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, filed a timely appeal with FLWAC to contest the issuance of such permit. Notwithstanding the Moormans' express knowledge that their permit was not effective until expiration of the Department's appeal period and, if appealed, resolution of the appeal process, the Moormans erected the fence on their property. Such action was contrary to the provisions of the Monroe County land development regulations and Chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Sections 9.5- 111(a) and 9.5-115(a), MCLDR, and Section 380.07(2), Florida Statutes. By separate recommended order to FLWAC, bearing Case No. 91-4110DRI, 91-5966DRI, 91-5968DRI, and 91-6603DRI (the "FLWAC Cases"), it was found, for reasons hereinafter discussed, that building permit No. 9110002231, issued by Monroe County for the construction of the Moormans' fence in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern was not consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Accordingly, it was recommended that FLWAC enter a final order reversing Monroe County's decision to issue such permit and to deny the Moormans' application for such permit. Consistency of the Moorman permit with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations Big Pine Key is the primary habitat of the Key Deer, an endangered species, and Monroe County has designated most of Big Pine Key, including the properties at issue in these proceedings, as an area of critical county concern. 1/ Pertinent to this case, Section 9.5-479, Monroe County Land Development Regulations (MCLDR), provides: Purpose: The purpose of the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern is to establish a focal point planning effort directed at reconciling the conflict between reasonable investment backed expectations and the habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer which is listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Focal Point Planning Program: Monroe County shall initiate a focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern that considers the following: The reasonable investment backed expec- tations of the owners of land within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical Concern; The habitat needs of the Florida Key Deer; The conflicts between human habitation and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; The role and importance of freshwater wetlands in the survival of the Florida Key Deer; Management approaches to reconciling the conflict between development and the survival of the Florida Key Deer; and Specific implementation programs for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. The focal point planning program shall be carried out by the director of planning, in cooperation with the officer in charge of the National Key Deer Refuge. The planning program shall include a public participation element, and shall provide for notice by publication of all public workshops or hearings to the owners of land within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. The focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern shall be completed within twelve (12) months of the adoption of this chapter, and the director of planning shall submit a report together with recommended amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and this chapter within thirty (30) days after the completion of the focal point planning program for the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. Interim Regulations: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no development shall be carried out on the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern prior to the completion of the focal point planning program required by subsection C of this section and the adoption of amendments to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and this chapter except in accordance with the following: No development shall be carried out in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern except for single-family detached dwellings on lots in the Improved Subdivision District or on lots having an area of one (1) acre of more. And, Section 9.5-309, MCLDR, provides: It is the purpose of this section to regulate fences and freestanding walls in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. * * * Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern: No fences shall be erected here until such time as this chapter is created to provide for the regulation of fences within this ACCC. The foregoing land development regulations were adopted by Monroe County to further and implement the standards, objectives and policies of the Monroe County comprehensive plan. Here, such regulations further the plan's "Generic Designations and Management Policies," contained within the plan's "Criteria for Designating Areas of Particular Concern," to maintain the functional integrity of habitat and, more particularly, the requirement that: Development within areas identified as Key Deer habitat shall insure that the continuity of habitat is maintained to allow deer to roam freely without impediment from fences or other development. Rule 28-20.020(8), Generic Designations, subparagraph 4, Florida Administrative Code. Over the course of the past five years, Monroe County has discussed design criteria for fences on Big Pine Key but has not yet adopted a regulation that would provide for fences within the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, as mandated by Section 9.5-309, MCLDR, nor has Monroe County amended Section 9.5-479, MCLDR, to permit, pertinent to this case, any development except single-family detached dwellings on lots in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern. Under such circumstances, it was concluded in the FLWAC Cases, and is concluded here, that the permit issued by Monroe County for the construction of the Moorman fence in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern is not consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Other considerations At hearing, Mr. Moorman offered proof that the Department had failed to appeal every fence permit issued by Monroe County in the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern, and contended, as a consequence of such failure, that the Department should be precluded from contesting the issuance of his permit, or maintaining this enforcement action. Mr. Moorman's contention was not found persuasive in the FLWAC Cases, and is not found persuasive in this case. Here, the proof demonstrates that the Department's Key West Field Office, to which Monroe County renders its permits, was established in 1983, and that from January 1, 1984 to September 15, 1986, the Monroe County land development regulations did not regulate fences on Big Pine Key and the Big Pine Key Area of Critical County Concern (BPKACCC) did not exist. Effective September 15, 1986, the Monroe County land development regulations were adopted in their current form and, among other things, created the BPKACCC and prohibited fencing within such area. Accordingly, prior to September 15, 1986, there was no prohibition against erecting fences in the BPKACCC, and no reason for the Department to question the propriety of such develop-ments. Since the effective date of the current regulations, the Department has, as contended by Mr. Moorman, failed to appeal some permits for fencing in the BPKACCC. Such failure was, however, persuasively shown to have occurred as a consequence of severe understaffing, which inhibited the Department's ability to review all permits issued by Monroe County in a timely fashion (i.e., before the appeal period expired), and the breach of a memorandum of understanding entered into between the Department and Monroe County, and not as a consequence of any position adopted by the Department that fencing in the BPKACCC was permissible. Accordingly, the Department's appeal of the Moorman permit is not inconsistent with any position it has previously taken with regard to the propriety of fencing in such area. 2/ Moreover, neither the Moormans nor Your Local Fence made any inquiry of the Department as to why some permits were appealed and others were not, or requested that the Department waive its appeal period, prior to erecting their fence. Under such circumstances, it was found in the FLWAC cases, and is so found here, that the proof fails to support the conclusion that the Department misled the Moormans or Your Local Fence so as to bar it from contesting the propriety of their permit or, here, from maintaining this enforcement action. 3/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order directing the respondents, Charles Moorman, Kathleen Moorman, and Your Local Fence, Inc., to remove the 400 linear foot fence constructed on the Moorman property, and that the respondents not construct, reconstruct, enlarge or expand a fence on the subject property unless and until such time as the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopts, and the Department of Community Affairs approves, a comprehensive plan and land development regulations which specifically authorize such development. Removal of the subject fence shall occur within thirty (30) days after the entry of the final order. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of April 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for an environmental resource permit to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill canal system should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The proposed project On March 19, 1998, Petitioner Cahill submitted a permit application to the Department to remove two canal plugs in the Cahill Pines and Palms subdivision on Big Pine key. A backhoe would be used to dredge and lower the plugs to a depth of minus five feet mean low water (-5 ft. MLW) for the purpose of providing boating access to the properties now isolated from open water. The Cahill canal system is located within class III waters of the state which open into Pine Channel, a natural waterbody designated as Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW). In 1991 and 1995 Petitioner Cahill submitted permit applications to the Department to remove the same two canal plugs. Those applications were initially denied and the denials were litigated in formal administrative hearings. Those hearings resulted in Department final orders denying both applications.3 Background4 In July, 1991, the Department received a permit application requesting the removal of two canal plugs down to a depth of minus five-and-a-half feet NGVD. A formal administrative hearing was conducted on March 3 and 4, 1994, in Key West, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer (now Administrative Law Judge) of the Division of Administrative Hearings. That initial permit application denial was based upon water quality considerations and the project's failure to meet the public interest test. On May 17, 1995, Petitioner submitted a permit application to the Department which was denied. The basis for the permit denial was that the project was substantially similar to the previously litigated project. On April 23, 1996, a second formal administrative hearing was held in Key West, Florida, before Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Kirkland. Judge Kirkland found that the 1995 permit application did not address the issues raised by the Department in the first administrative hearing. Judge Kirkland also concluded that the 1995 application should be denied on the basis of res judicata. The Department entered a Final Order on September 12, 1996, concluding that the doctrine of res judicata applied to support the denial of Petitioner's 1995 application. New facts/changed conditions In all material aspects, the proposed dredging activity in the current permit application is identical to the previously proposed dredging activity. Petitioner Cahill seeks to lower the two canal plugs to allow boat access. The documents submitted in support of the current application do not propose any significant changes to what was proposed in the two prior applications. Petitioner Cahill provided copies of provisions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan and two Monroe County Ordinances, in support of the current permit application. This information does not constitute new facts or changed conditions sufficient to characterize the proposed project as substantially different from the previously denied applications. Petitioner Cahill provided a list of "enhancements" in the current permit application seeking to provide reasonable assurance for issuance of an environmental resource permit. These proposed "enhancements" are not binding on the Petitioner Cahill's members and do not constitute such new facts or changed conditions as to make the project substantially different from the previously denied applications. The differences between the current application and the two previously denied applications are primarily cosmetic differences. The substance of the matter is unchanged in any material detail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case denying Petitioner's pending application for an environmental resource permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of March, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy began on July 9, 1990, when petitioners, David and Victoria Page, filed an application with the district office of respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing certain construction activities (including the erection of a seawall) on their residential lot located at 3108 Gulfwinds Circle, Hernando Beach, Florida. The property faces west on the Gulf of Mexico, a water body designated as a Class III water in the State. The application was eventually deemed to be complete on October 24, 1990. After conducting a review of the application and an on-site inspection of the property, on January 18, 1991, DER issued its notice of permit denial. The notice identified the reasons for the denial as being petitioners' failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated and that the project would be in the public interest. Also, DER cited expected adverse cumulative impacts if the application was granted. The notice provided further that if petitioners agreed to locate their seawall landward of the jurisdictional line, the project would be approved. In July 1991, petitioners amended their application to propose that the seawall be constructed even further seaward of the jurisdictional line. When efforts to resolve the case were unsuccessful, petitioners requested a formal hearing on January 17, 1992, to contest the agency's decision. Petitioners purchased their property in 1989. It lies within Unit 2 of Gulf Coast Retreats, a residential subdivision in Hernando Beach, Florida. The property is identified as lot 20 on Gulfwinds Circle and fronts the Little Pine Island Bay (Bay), which is a part of the Gulf of Mexico. Access to the Gulf is provided by a channel (six feet in depth) in the Bay in front of lot 20 and which eventually runs into the Gulf several miles south of petitioners' lot. It is undisputed that in 1985 Hurricane Elena passed offshore causing erosion to lot 20 and other adjacent lots. Consequently, the upland portion of the lot is now smaller than before the hurricane. However, petitioners purchased their property in that state of condition. Lots 19 and 21 are on the south and north sides of petitioners' property and are owned by the Steins and Budricks, respectively. Both neighbors have constructed vertical concrete seawalls in front of their homes. Budrick was issued a permit to construct a seawall on December 28, 1989, while Stein constructed his without a permit. However, Stein has subsequently filed an after-the-fact permit application and was recently advised by DER that the application was complete. At hearing, a DER representative expressed the view that the Stein application will probably be approved since his wall is landward of the DER jurisdictional line. It is noted that the Stein and Budrick seawalls sit back from the original property lines because of the erosion suffered during the 1985 hurricane and correspond to the jurisdictional line established by DER on their property. Another application for a permit to construct a seawall was filed by the owner of lot 18 in March 1992. Like Stein and Budrick, that owner proposed to construct his wall on the landward side of the jurisdictional line. Petitioners, who live in Kansas, desire to construct a home on their lot. They have proposed to place one hundred cubic yards of fill (limerock) on 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands on the western end of their lot and construct a 110-foot vertical seawall up to thirty feet seaward of the jurisdictional line. Thus, there will be dredge and filling activities in the Gulf of Mexico, a class III water of the state, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of DER. By law, DER is required to establish a jurisdictional line to show the landward extent of waters of this state, including the Gulf of Mexico. Such extent is normally defined by species of plants or soils which are characteristic of those areas subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters of the state. As a general practice, using a prescribed plant or species indicator list, DER makes an on-site inspection of the property to determine what vegetation, if any, is found on the property and is subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters. In this case, the dominant vegetation found on lot 20 was paspalum distichum, a plant on the species list subject to regular and periodic inundation by the Gulf waters. Accordingly, DER observed where the vegetation ended and used that point for the placement of the jurisdictional line. As a cross check, DER also noted the rack line, which is indicative of the landward extent to which the high tides rise, and found it to correspond to the vegetation line. It should be noted that the jurisdictional line established on petitioners' property corresponds with the line drawn on lots 18, 19 and 21, and if that line is used to construct the seawall on lot 20, the seawalls on all four lots would run in a straight line. Although petitioners objected to the jurisdictional line as established by DER, they offered no credible evidence to show that it was improper or should have been placed at a different location. On January 9 and 15, 1991, Richard W. Pugh, a DER field environmental specialist, conducted an on-site inspection of the property and adjacent waters. He also was responsible for establishing the jurisdictional line. Finding numerous adverse environmental effects that would occur if the permit was granted as proposed, Pugh recommended that the application be denied. This recommendation was accepted by the deputy assistant secretary for DER's Southwest District Office and a notice of permit denial was accordingly issued. The bases for the denial were that (a) reasonable assurances had not been given by petitioners that water quality standards would be satisfied; (b) a cumulative adverse impact on the area would occur if the permit was approved, and (c) petitioners had failed to give reasonable assurances that the project was in the public interest. In order to prove entitlement to a permit, petitioners must give reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is in the public interest. In this respect, they offered no evidence to provide these assurances. This in itself supports a finding that no entitlement to a permit has been shown. Even so, the agency elected to present evidence on these issues after petitioners' case-in-chief was concluded. Findings of fact drawn from that evidence are set forth below. On April 6, 1992, a DER marine biologist, Dr. George H. Farrell, visited the site and conducted a biological evaluation of the composition of the benthic community in the intertidal and subtidal wetlands which would be impacted by the project. Based on his tests and observations, Dr. Farrell concluded that the project as proposed would have an adverse impact on marine and wildlife resources in the area. This is because the area has very good water quality, contains a high species diversity, performs an integral part in the food web, and serves a valuable nursery function for estuarine dependent juvenile fish species and a corridor function for migrating estuarine dependent fish species. This testimony was not challenged by petitioners and is hereby accepted. 1/ In granting or denying a water resource permit, DER is also required to consider certain statutory criteria found in Subsection 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, to determine whether a project is in the public interest. Although petitioners did not address these criteria, and thus failed to give any assurances that the project is in the public interest as required by law, testimony adduced by DER established that under petitioners' proposal, there will be a permanent loss of 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands due to filling activities. These wetlands are now used by fish and wildlife habitat and will no longer be available for use. In addition, the same area is used as a nursery area by a variety of fish species. As such, the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats and will adversely affect the fishing values and marine productivity in the vicinity. Second, because petitioners' proposed seawall will jut out from their neighbors' walls by as much as thirty feet, and the corners of the seawall in that configuration will result in erosion or shoaling depending on whether the waters are moving north or south, the project will cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Third, because the wall is being constructed of concrete and steel and is not temporary, the project will be of a permanent nature and thus have a permanent adverse impact. Finally, the ecological functions being performed in the immediate vicinity of the project are extremely important and the elimination of this zone will significantly impair those functions. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the project is not in the public interest. DER has a policy of not granting a permit if adverse cumulative impacts may be expected as a result of granting that permit. This policy is derived from a statute (s. 403.919, F.S.) requiring such impacts to be considered in the permitting process. In the case at bar, DER reasonably predicts that if it granted petitioners' application and authorized them to construct a seawall which jutted out up to thirty feet beyond their neighbors' walls, it would be obligated to grant similar permits to property owners on adjacent lots. Because petitioners' application will have an adverse impact on the water quality and is contrary to the public interest, the granting of additional permits would exacerbate those impacts. When an applicant proposes to fill (destroy) wetlands, and the applicant is unable to meet the public interest criteria set forth in subsection 403.918(2), DER shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. In this case, no mitigative measures were proposed by petitioners. At hearing, petitioners' representative asserted that in June 1991, the Cabinet (presumably sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) implemented a new "policy" which allows property owners to "recover and bulkhead" land previously lost due to avulsion and erosion. He further represented that such requests were to be filed within five years after the event (hurricane). Although petitioners were not the property owners when the event occurred, and more than five years has elapsed, in July 1991 petitioners filed a request with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reclaim and bulkhead their property and that request remained pending as of the date of hearing. A copy of the policy itself (or rule, if any, implementing the policy) was not made a part of this record. Even so, there was no evidence to establish that the granting of that application would require DER to grant a water resource permit, and DER takes the position that the request has no bearing on the issue of whether a water resource permit should be issued to petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioners' application for a water resource permit. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Intervenors filed an Application for Dredge and Fill Permit with the Department of Environmental Regulation. The Department entered a notice of its intent to issue a permit. Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The Department forwarded the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was given Case No. 82-3155. A Recommended Order which includes Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law has been entered in Case No. 82-3155. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set out in the Recommended Order are hereby incorporated into this Final Order and constitute a part of this Final Order. The Petitioner is an association of home owners within a residential development known as "Caloosa." Intervenors are seeking to develop an industrial park on land adjacent to the Caloosa development. Surface and ground waters from the proposed industrial park would drain toward Caloosa. Prior to the Department's entry of the notice of intent to issue a permit to Intervenors, the Department's personnel evaluated the application in free-form proceedings. An environmental specialist who works with the Department as a permit processor proposed to deny the application on account of the fact that Intervenors proposed to fill approximately 70 acres of wetlands, 24 of which were within the Department's permitting authority under Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. The administrator of the Department's Dredge and Fill Permitting Section came to the conclusion that denial of the application could not be justified. He felt that the wetlands to be filled served only marginally to preserve water quality in the area. The Intervenors had proposed to artificially create wetland areas in order to compensate for the loss of filled wetland areas. The program administrator suggested to the permit processor that they negotiate to get the Intervenors to create additional artificial wetlands in order to mitigate against any possible adverse effect from the loss of natural wetland areas. These negotiations occurred, and the Intervenors agreed to increase artificially created wetland areas. The Department of Environmental Regulation does not have a rule which provides that its personnel can engage in negotiations respecting a permit application. Negotiations are, however, an inherent part of a permitting process. The Department does not have any written or unwritten policy whereby it accepts such mitigating factors as artificially created wetlands as justifying the filling of natural wetlands. It does not appear that the Department has any rule or nonrule policy concerning mitigation or trade-offs, and it does not appear that the Department has ever had such a rule or policy. The Department does not have a policy of accepting concessions, trade-offs, or mitigating factors so as to allow an applicant to violate the Department's water quality standards. Since there has been a permitting process, such factors as artificially created wetlands have been considered by the Department in determining whether an application meets the Department's criteria for issuance of a permit. The Department's policy is to consider whether an applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the short-term and long-term effects of proposed activities will not result in violations of water quality standards, as required under Rule 17- 4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code. If an applicant has proposed to construct artificial wetlands, the Department would logically consider it in making determinations about granting the permit. There is no evidence in the record of this proceeding from which it could be concluded that the Department has any unpromulgated "mitigation" policy which has the effect of a rule.
Findings Of Fact Twelve-acre Lake Tresca lies at an elevation of approximately 8 feet on the northern edge of sand dunes that stretch some 250 yards south to the Gulf of Mexico in Walton County, Florida, just east of Eastern Lake. According to one of petitioners' witnesses, this group of freshwater lakes in a dune system may be unique. Lake Tresca is a source of freshwater for migrating birds, at the gulf's edge. White, great blue, and Louisiana herons feed in the lake's shallows. Purple martins are present in numbers. The eastern lobe of Lake Tresca is in excellent place for birds to feed and nest. The lake has a balanced fish population. Game fish as big as the ten-pound bass spotted by Douglas B. Bailey of the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission have smaller fish on which to feed, including gambusia and other minnows that feed, in turn, on mosquito larvae. Lake Tresca is oligotrophic. There are no aquatic weeds, but there are fragrant water lilies, bladder wort, yellow-eyed grass, and other plant species valuable to wildlife. Most of the lake bottom is bare of vegetation, but the shallow, littoral portions support various plants, including significant colonies of rooted macrophytes, and furnish a suitable habitat for bedding fish. This vegetation removes some nutrients, makes others more usable, filters runoff from the surrounding yards, and stabilizes the shoreline. Bacteria and algae, primary constituents of the lake's "food web," also flourish in Lake Tresca. A shallow area of Lake Tresca stretches across part of Mr. Copelan's half-acre lot onto the Pettengills' lot. The application for permit uses this diagram to represent the configuration: * NOTE: A map of the pond is on the Recommended Order on file with DOAH and is not available in this ACCESS document. Lake Tresca Copelan Property Pettengill Property Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9. (Legend supplied.) The Pettengills have built a house on their lot for occasional, seasonal use and with a view toward his retirement. Their septic tank is about 80 feet from the lake. The house was built to take advantage of the prevailing southwesterlies and has a porch facing Lake Tresca and the causeway. The house has no air conditioning. Except for the causeway, Mr. Copelan's lot is unimproved. There are about 14 other riparian owners many of whom have built houses and put in septic tanks. After discussions between Mr. Copelan and Mr. Pettengill about an easement across the Pettengill property, to provide access overland to the Copelan property, had faltered, Mr. Copelan indicated that he might place fill dirt across the lake so as to block the Pettengills' access to the main body of the lake and to create a roadbed for travel across the lake to and from his lot. As a result, on April 20, 1980, Mr. Pettengill wrote Mr. Copelan a letter in which he stated: Any dredging, filling or other manmade changes may be accomplished only if proper permits are obtained in advance for them. I have taken the liberty of attaching copies of relevant sections of Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code regarding the required procedures for these activities. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 8. Because, as he testified, Mr. Copelan had no faith in Mr. Pettengill's legal expertise, Mr. Copelan asked Marge Crawford, the real estate agent from whom he had purchased the land-locked lot, to inquire as to permits. At Ms. Crawford's instance, she and Curtis Larry Taylor, an environmental specialist employed by DER in Panama City, visited Lake Tresca on June 16, 1980. In a contemporaneous memorandum, Mr. Taylor recorded his impression that a DER permit "under the authority of Chapter 403 F.S. Section 17-4.28(2)(d) [Florida Administrative Code," DER's Exhibit No. 1, would be necessary for construction of the causeway Mr. Copelan had in mind. He furnished Ms. Crawford an application form to forward to Mr. Copelan. On June 19, 1980, Ms. Crawford wrote Mr. Copelan: I met with Mr. Taylor, of the Department of Natural Resources, Dredging and Fill Department and inspected the site at which you would like to put in a drive way. Mr. Taylor said he saw little inpact [sic] on the invironment [sic] and would recom- mend a permit be given. This would take 6 to 8 weeks with out any protests. The DNR will contact property owners around that portion of the lake. If there is a protest there will be a delay'. I think you can expect a protest from at least two owners. Fill out the application as soon as possible and mail it to the location indicated on the form. If I can be of help with he applica- tion let me know. I asked Mr. Taylor what would happen if you just went ahead and fill[ed] in that portion of the lake. He said nothing unless some- one files a complaint and then it could be costly, attorney fees. I also got another price on a road in for the long way, $8/per foot. Joint Exhibit No. 7. Mr. Copelan received and read the letters from Mr. Pettengill and Ms. Crawford, and read highlighted portions of the dredge and fill rules Mr. Pettengill sent him. In early August, without having applied for a permit, Mr. Copelan contracted with James A. Madden for the construction of a causeway across the eastern lobe of Lake Tresca. Work began in early August of 1980 and continued for four working days, a weekend intervening. Mr. Madden and his son used dump trucks and a bulldozer to haul sand from a borrow pit Mr. Madden has leased and to build a causeway 162 feet long with a top surface approximately 12 feet wide. About midway they placed a culvert with a 12-inch diameter to join Lake Tresca to the pool on the Pettengills' property severed by the causeway from the rest of the lake. On either side of the causeway, waiter lily and bladder wort are the predominant plant species. On August 11, 1980, Mr. Pettengill told DER's Mr. Taylor that work on the causeway had begun. The following day Mr. Taylor visited the site, and found yellow sand fill about 18 to 24 inches deep covering an area approximately 15 feet by 45 feet. Joint Exhibit No. 8. He found no telephone number listed for George Copelan but telephoned Marge Crawford on August 12 or 13, 1980, to ask her to tell Mr. Copelan to stop work. Joint Exhibit No. 8. On August 19, 1980, DER's Northwest District Enforcement Officer, George E. Hoffman, Jr., wrote Mr. Copelan advising him "to cease and desist from any further unauthorized filling." Joint Exhibit No. 5. By the time this letter reached Mr. Copelan, the causeway had been completed. On October 6, 1980, Mr. Copelan wrote Mr. Hoffman saying that he owned the land under the road and in general to the effect that he thought he was within his rights. Joint Exhibit No. 4. Mr. Hoffman responded with a letter to Mr. Copelan on December 23, 1980, in which Mr. Hoffman "requested that [Copelan] voluntarily agree to remove the fill and restore the area to its original contour. Joint Exhibit No. 6. This letter stated that, "Otherwise, the Department will have no alternative but to initiate a formal administrative enforcement proceeding . . . seeking the restoration." Joint Exhibit No. 6. On February 27, 1981, DER filed its notice of violation, No. DF-010- 81-NW, finding that the filling accomplished before August 12, 1980, had been accomplished without a permit, and that it "will have a detrimental [e]ffect on the water quality and may be potentially harmful . . . to the aquatic life of the lake" and that it had "created pollution violating Section 403.161(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and the rules of the Department." Joint Exhibit No. 1. Orders for corrective action contained in the same document proposed to require Mr. Copelan to reimburse DER for its expenses "in tracing, controlling and abating the source of pollution," to "cease aid desist from further unauthorized filling," and to remove the fill and restore the area to its original contours (even though by this time the causeway had been completed). Joint Exhibit No. 1. DER inspected on March 2, 1981, and learned that the causeway had been completed. Thereafter, the parties agreed to a consent order dated May 5, 1981, which provided, in part: Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order, the Respon- dent shall submit an after-the-fact permit application for the construction and/or filling project described in this Order [the causeway] In the event the application is determined to be incomplete, the Respondent shall provide the requested additional information within a fifteen (15) day period. * * * In the event the application is denied, the Respondent agrees to remove the fill material and restore the area to its preproject contours within forty-five (45) days of the receipt of final agency action. Respondent does not waive his right to claim that the aforementioned fill project is exempt from the Department's permitting requirements and that this defense may be asserted by the Respondent in any future pleadings of proceedings. The Department, for and in consid- eration of the complete and timely perfor- mance by the Respondent of the obligations contained in this Consent Order, hereby agrees to waive its right to seek the judi- cial imposition of damages or civil penalties or to seek criminal penalties for the alleged violations outlined in this Consent Order. * * * 9. This Consent Order shall be a final agency action of the Department and may be enforced pursuant to Sections 120.69 and 403.121, Florida Statutes. The Respondent hereby waives any right to a hearing or administrative or judicial review of the provisions of this Consent Order provided however that the Respondent does not waive the right to assert defenses available pur- suant to Section 120.69(5), Florida Statutes, should the Department seek judicial enforce- ment of the Consent Order. The Respondent's failure to comply with the terms of this Consent Order shall constitute a violation of Section 403.161, Florida Statutes. Joint Exhibit No. 2. In accordance with the consent order, Mr. Copelan filed an application for an after-the-fact permit, which DER received on June 8, 1981. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9. At DER's request, on August 17, 1981, James R. Webb, Esquire, counsel for Mr. Copelan, sent DER copies of a survey including a plan view and a cross- sectional view of the causeway, Applicant's Exhibit No. 2; Petitioners' Exhibit No. 10, and, on November 2, 1981, copies of a survey showing the approximate ordinary high water line. Applicant's Exhibit No. 2. Neither the application nor the supplemental information was prepared by a professional engineer. DER determined the application to be complete on November 3, 1981, and, on January 7, 1982, issued its intent to issue a permit to partially after-the-fact construct a road- way approximately 80' long by 20' wide by 3' high, in accordance with the attached drawing labelled "Fill Road" Sheet 1, Revi- sion No. 1 by R.E.P. 13 August, 1981; located in Section 19, Township 3 South, Range 18 West. Joint Exhibit No. 10. According to the case file, DER received the Pettengills' administrative petition for section 120.57 hearing on January 21, 1982; but a permit was nevertheless inadvertently mailed to Mr. Copelan on January 29, 1982. On receipt of the permit, Mr. Copelan caused oyster shells to be placed on the roadbed and sod to be planted along the sides of the causeway. The permit was followed by a letter from DER instructing Mr. Copelan to disregard it. APPLICATION INACCURATE In describing the causeway, the application gives its dimensions as "approximately 10 feet wide by 30 feet in length." Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9. In fact, the top surface of the (causeway is 12 feet wide and the causeway is broader at the base. It is 20 feet across at one point, according to Petitioners' Exhibit No. 10. From a surveyor's drawing subsequently furnished at DER.'s request, Petitioners' Exhibit No. 10, DER inferred that the road was 80 feet long, even though this drawing was not accompanied by an amendment to the written description of the project. In fact, the causeway is 162 feet long, and not 30 or 80 feet long. The application states that the culvert has a diameter of 19 inches. In fact, the culvert had a diameter of 12 inches, so that the application overstates the area of the cross-section by more than 150 percent. Under the "Remarks" section of Mr. Copelan's application appears the following: Applicant was under the belief that no permit was necessary at the time of commencement and completion of the project. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9. In fact, Mr. Copelan had been informed twice in writing that he needed a permit to place fill in the lake and had even been furnished an application form, but went ahead anyway, without seeking legal advice, or contacting DER. Lake Tresca is not a man-made lake as stated on the application. Construction of a causeway was completed by mid-August and did not occur on September 1 and 2, 1980, as stated in the application. In what was apparently a typographical error, the township is stated as 35, rather than 3 South, on the application originally filed, Petitioners' Exhibit No. 9, but this error is rectified in a later submission. Petitioners' Exhibit No. 10. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS Since the fill was originally placed, it has spread out along the bottom or "migrated." Along its southern extent, the causeway now overlaps the Pettengills' property. The road has the effect of blocking access to Lake Tresca for the Pettengills. They have, indeed, sold their boat now that they can no longer make their wonted use of it on the lake. DISSOLVED OXYGEN, TRANSPARENCY, HEAVY METALS The water in Lake Tresca Is very clear, except for an iridescent sheen in the vicinity of the causeway, and an organic scum on the water restricted by the causeway. Analysis of water samples taken at four locations in Lake Tresca by Petitioners' own expert revealed no violations of the dissolved oxygen standards. There was speculation but no hard evidence that lead and other heavy metals associated with automobile pollution may have made their way into Lake Tresca as a result of the causeway. OILS AND GREASES Mr. Madden, the contractor, did not add oil or grease to the fill he used to build a causeway through Lake Tresca. He has used fill from the same borrow pit on other projects and has had no complaints that it was oily or greasy. But there was no oil or grease on the lake before Mr. Copelan had the road put in. When the fill was originally placed, in the fall of 1980, there was a distinct petroleum odor, for the first time, particularly in humid weather. Mr. Ryan detected a strong petroleum odor as recently as February of this year, but the odor has abated over time somewhat. Oils and greases have coated the water's surface with an iridescent film, on either side of the southern stretch of the causeway, since it was built. Nowhere else in the lake can oils and greases be detected visually. Three water samples taken near the causeway on February 6, 1982, were analyzed and found to con-tain 3.2, 4.1, and 5.4 milligrams per liter (or parts per million) of oils and greases. A water sample taken elsewhere in the lake on the same day, although at another well-vegetated location, was found to contain less than one part per 100 million (.01 mg. per liter) oils and greases. Mr. Taylor is one of three DER employees who has seen a sheen on the water near the causeway, even after the sod and oyster shells were added. Another DER employee, Lynn Griffin, testifying as an expert in general biology with a special emphasis on oil pollution, concluded that the oil and grease she saw in Lake Tresca came from the causeway, because she discovered no other possible source. Her uncontroverted testimomy specifically rejected the theory that this greasy film could be traced to septic tanks, because the bacteria in septic tanks produce a milky liquid, not an oil sheen. DER's John B. Outland testified unequivocally that the oil and grease on the surface of Lake Tresca either leached out of the fill or came from equipment operated on the fill road. Petitioners' chemist would have had to use another test in addition to the Soxhlet extraction method he did use, in order to establish to a scientific certainty that the oils and greases he identified in samples taken from Lake Tresca were petroleum hydrocarbons. But with convincing testimony that what looked like petroleum also smelt like petroleum, other evidence did establish that the oils and greases were petroleum derivatives. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS Placement of fill on the lake bottom eliminated benthic organisms that have not reestablished themselves on the submerged causeway surface, nor on dry land above water, subject to the disturbances of automobile traffic. Habitat, shelter, and forage for fishes and invertebrates have been destroyed; bacterial and algal processes have been eliminated. No animals live on top of the submerged fill even though certain larvae may be found less than a meter away, and several animals thrive in the vegetated areas of Lake Tresca. Although the filled area covers no more than 2,000 square feet, the oils and greases spread out over a larger area, with dimensions not established by the evidence. The iridescent oily film decreases the amount of light penetrating to plants underneath and so reduces photosynthesis in benthic plants. In the short term, oils and greases obstruct gas and nutrient exchanges necessary to plant life and may cause acute toxicity or death. In the long term, oils and greases can cause neoplasia and affect the reproductive capacity and so the growth rate of animals. They can be taken into lipid-rich eggs and other tissues, contaminating the food web. The untoward effects of oils and grease are more critical in the part of the lake cut off and restricted by the causeway, because of the lack of adequate circulation. There is at present plant and animal life in this part of the lake, nevertheless, and similar fauna and flora in the shallow area of the lake stretching 300 to 400 feet toward open water on the other side of the causeway. The causeway has eliminated a narrow strip from this biologically productive area, an area that also serves to filter pollutants from upland runoff. The full extent of the deleterious effects of the oils and greases is not yet known. In preparing the foregoing findings of fact, the hearing officer has had the benefit of petitioners' proposed recommended order and the department's proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, proposed recommended order, and memorandum, all adopted by the applicant. To the extent proposed findings of fact have not been adopted, they have been rejected as unsupported by the evidence or irrelevant to the issues.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER deny the application for an after-the-fact permit to create a fill road across Lake Tresca, and order respondent George Copelan to restore the area to its preproject contours within forty-five (45) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1982 COPIES FURNISHED: Randall E. Denker, Esquire 103 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gordon D. Cherr, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Webb, Esquire Post Office Box 385 Destin, Florida 32541 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION DWYNAL and IONA PETTENGILL, Petitioners, vs. CASE NO. 82-294 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and GEORGE COPLAN, Respondents. /
The Issue Did the Respondent, Charles W. Coxwell, Sr., excavate in statutorily- protected waters of the State of Florida in March of 1992, as alleged in the Department's Notice of Violation (NOV).
Findings Of Fact 1. In back of Respondent's house, on property owned by the Respondent, is a spring system where underground streams of water flow to the surface and out into an area formerly dominated by wetland plant species, to include: Fetterbush (Lyonia Iucida), Sweet Gallberry (Ilex Corjacea), and Sweet Bay Magnolia (Magnolia Virginiana). The stream continues over property owned by other persons, ultimately flowing into Grassy Lake which connects to Choctawhatchee Bay. All of this water is statutorily protected and within the regulatory jurisdiction created and assigned to the Department by the Legislature. In 1990, Respondent applied for a permit from the Department to construct a small impoundment where the springs flow out, on his property (and before the waters flow onto the property of other downstream landowners). The application form for the permit sought by Respondent in 1990 required him to list the adjoining landowner, who was, in fact, a Mr. Finch. Mr. Finch expressed his concern that an improperly built impoundment might be unsafe. The Department made a number of requests to Respondent for specific design specifications and drawings of the impoundment and its outfall structure. Respondent had discussions with Department staff in which he acknowledged that a permit was required; however, he declined to respond satisfactorily to the Department's "incompleteness requests" for additional information. Ultimately, the permit application was denied on May 16, 1991. Respondent did not pursue administrative remedies in the matter of the permit denial. In approximately March of 1992, Respondent caused 0.3 acres of the statutorily-protected waters and wetlands where the springs emerge behind his house to be excavated without the permit required by Florida law. Respondent knew that permits for such excavation were required by Florida law. The NOV assessed $404.51 (four hundred and four dollars and fifty-one cents) in enforcement costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the findings of the Department's Notice of Violation were proven by substantial and competent evidence, and it is RECOMMENDED that the Orders for Corrective Action set out in the Notice of Violation and restated below be made final: Respondent shall immediately cease and desist from either dredging and/or filling within waters of the State as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rules 17-4.022 and 17-312 prior to receiving the necessary permit form the Department or notice that the proposed activity is exempt from the permitting requirements of the Department. Within 30 days of the effective date of the Final order, Respondent shall reimburse the Department for expenses incurred in investigating the violation in the sum of $404.51. Payment shall be made by certified check, cashiers' check or money order submitted to the Department's Northwest District Office, 160 Governmental Center, Pensacola, Florida 32501-5794. See Exhibit 3 Attached. Within 60 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall restore the excavated area as identified on the drawings attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The excavated material shall be regraded so as to re-establish pre-existing contours and elevations as indicated by the adjacent undisturbed areas. Respondent shall revegetate the restored site as identified in paragraph d below. Respondent shall stabilize the site as needed to retain sediment on- site during restoration. Respondent shall utilize turbidity control devices throughout the restoration including the use of staked filter cloths in the vegetated wetlands and floating screens where needed in the open waters. Within 15 days of the effective date of the Final Order, Respondent shall submit a planting plan and schedule to the Department for approval prior to revegetating the regraded site as identified in Exhibit 2. No work to revegetate the site shall be undertaken until the plan is approved by the Department. Respondent's plan shall address and institute measures necessary to insure successful revegetation. The restoration area shall be planted with indigenous tree species of no less than 2 feet in height, such as Fetterbush (Lyonia Iucida), Sweet Gallberry (Ilex Corjacea), and Sweet Bay Magnolia (Magnolia Virginiana). The trees shall be planted on ten (10) foot centers. Respondent shall implement the restoration plan within 10 days of Department approval. Upon completion of the restoration work required by paragraph c above, Respondent shall maintain the restored area as follows: the revegetation effort shall be considered successful if, after one year or one growing season - whichever is less, 80% of the revegetation effort yield values of less than 80%, then the unsuccessful areas shall be replanted to meet, at a minimum, the required percentage. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Richard L. Windsor, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles W. Coxwell, Sr. 1133 White Point Road Niceville, FL 32578
Findings Of Fact The dredge/fill project sought to be permitted involves a proposed residential lot located on Lake Padgett in Pasco County. The tract is also adjacent to a canal dug by the Applicant and his father. The Applicant, Michael Millen, acquired this property from his father, Otis Millen, who continues to own other property in this area. Petitioner is an adjoining landowner, and also acquired his property from Otis Millen. DER prematurely issued the proposed permit 1/ on August 9, 1984. If reissued, this permit would allow the Applicant to develop a residential lot by filling a portion of a cypress swamp and creating compensating wetland elsewhere on his property. Additionally, the Applicant agrees to dedicate a three acre "conservation easement" and to install a culvert to improve drainage. The advantages of this project include the creation of a homesite where none is available now, acquisition by the State of three acres of dedicated wetland (conservation easement) and improved drainage through the culvert installation. There would be no net loss in cypress swamp area. The disadvantages include temporary turbidity in surrounding waters and some tree removal in the construction area. The Applicant would replace any trees removed through replanting. The Applicant also seeks permits to build a "summer kitchen" over jurisdictional wetlands and to fill the lakefront area with white sand. These "add-on" permit requests are not properly a part of this proceeding, however, and were not contemplated in the application at issue here. DER's expert witness gave only limited testimony on their feasibility during the rebuttal phase of this hearing. Petitioner has raised numerous objections to all the proposed projects, but principally to the one at issue here. He was not notified of DER's intent to grant the dredge and fill permit, and became aware of the project only after he observed construction activity. It was determined that DER had failed to notify him through an oversight of that agency or the Applicant. Petitioner points out that lot development is not being done in accordance with the (proposed) permit. He noted that trees have been cut down, fill was dumped in the canal and work on canal banks was taking place, all in contravention of permit conditions. Petitioner believes DER has acted improperly in tolerating the Applicant's unpermitted construction activity. To support this charge, he called as a witness a neighbor who had placed white sand on his lakefront property, but was required to remove it by DER enforcement personnel. The Applicant, on the other hand, has placed white sand on his beachfront property without a permit, and DER is assisting him in obtaining an after the-fact permit. Petitioner proved, through a series of aerial photographs, and the testimony of both expert and lay witnesses, that the canal which separates his lot from the Millen properties was constructed between 1976 and 1977. DER had jurisdiction at that time, 2/ but no permit was ever sought or obtained. The canal was dug as a "joint venture" of the Applicant and his father. It connects Lake Padgett with a drainage pond several hundred feet behind the lake. This canal has changed area drainage causing one nearby resident to experience periodic property flooding as a result. Prior to the canal's construction, a small drainage ditch with an earthen or cement dam did exist in the general area. However, the canal construction removed the dam and greatly enlarged the size and capacity of the previous ditch. Expert interpretation of aerial photographs revealed that a substantial number of mature cypress trees were removed in conjunction with the Millens' canal project. Some cypress trees were also cut for the recent (unpermitted) construction of the "summer kitchen" by the Applicant. He also constructed a dock which was later determined to be exempt by DER. Again, the Applicant had not obtained DER approval for the dock and had, in fact, been advised to stop construction until a determination of permitting requirements, if any, was made. Petitioner attempted to show a conflict of interest within DER. However, the fact that one DER field representative knew Otis Millen did not demonstrate such a conflict. Rather, DER's enforcement policies have been lax or inconsistent primarily due to a shortage of field personnel.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation reissue Permit No. 510852383 to Michael A. Millen. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Mosquito Ditch Exemption of Section 373.4211(25), Florida Statutes, applies so as to exclude Petitioners' property adjacent to Miguel Bay in Manatee County from the permitting authority of the Department of Environmental Protection? If not, whether Petitioners are entitled to an Environmental Resources Permit from the Department?
Findings Of Fact The Property Not far from the southern terminus of the Sunshine Skyway Bridge spanning the waters where Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico meet is a subdivision known as San Miguel Estates. On the western shore of Terra Ceia Island in Manatee County, it takes its name from an adjacent body of water: Miguel Bay. Miguel Bay is classified by rule of the Department of Environmental Protection as Class II surface waters meaning it has been designated usable for "Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting," Rule 62.302-400(1), Florida Administrative Code. The classification is the highest available to surface waters which are not fresh. As a part of the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve, Miguel Bay also enjoys the status of an Outstanding Florida Water, so designated by the Environmental Regulation Commission to confirm its worthiness to receive special protection because of natural attributes. See Rules 62- 302.200(17) and 62-302.700(9)(h)39., Florida Administrative Code. The bay surrounds the subdivision together with two bayous, Custer to the northwest and Tillette to the southeast. The mouth of Tillette Bayou is formed by Boots Point, also a part of Terra Ceia Island and the subdivision jutting into the bay directly north of the point. The bay surrounds or washes onto the shores of a number of keys: Sister, Skeet, Ed's, and Rattlesnake. Through the middle of the subdivision runs a county- maintained road: Miguel Bay Drive. It provides access to a cul- de-sac containing seven lots. Lots 2, 6, 7, and 8 are fully improved with residential structures, boat docks and elevated walkways. Lots 3 and 4 are undeveloped. An application for a permit to construct a house on Lot 3 was denied in the early part of this decade. It is uncertain whether Lot 4 is permitted for a residential structure but an application for a permit to construct a boardwalk on the property is pending. The lot owned by the petitioner and his wife, also undeveloped, is Lot 5. Consisting of approximately 5.5 acres on the south side of Miguel Bay Drive, Lot 5 is within the geographical jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. It contains wetlands contiguous to the bay. The wetlands have suffered various disruptions over the years. In addition, to mosquito ditches dug more than 30 years ago, a dike was built around the same time to prevent the gulf tide from flowing onto the property. Furthermore, part of the property was cleared at one time as part of an agricultural venture. On its northern side, adjacent to Miguel Bay Drive, is the property’s approximate 0.9 acres of uplands. On the opposite side of the lot, where the wetlands meet the bay, the Petitioners plan a boat basin. A section of the proposed boat channel serving the basin, where it connects to the bay, is located within the Outstanding Florida Waters boundary of the bay. The boat basin will be part of a residential project planned by Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis. In addition to an access drive and the boat basin and channel, the Petitioners plan to build a house in the middle of the lot. In the mid-1960’s, Lot 5 was ditched for mosquito control. The mosquito control ditches transect the property along two lines running roughly east-west: one, just to the south of the uplands, not too far from the road; the other, just to the north of the dike and a mean high-water line approximated by Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis’ engineer, John Benson. Valuable Mangroves Mangroves cover the bulk of the property south of the uplands. Most are normal-sized. For example, “[a]ll the mangroves up . . . at the mosquito ditch going toward the . . . street [are] huge, . . . 10, 15, 20 feet.” (Tr. 41.) The mangroves closer to San Miguel Bay, too, are normal-sized. But in a basin in the center of the property there is an acre or so of “stunted mangroves that [are] only . . . three to four feet tall." (Tr. 39.) "And that [is] very unusual . . . there [is] obviously something wrong with them.” (Tr. 40-41.) The problem for the stunted mangroves is stress in their root zone due to "anoxia in the soil, that is, lack of oxygen." (Tr. 318). The anoxia is most likely a function of location: the stunted mangroves are in a basin surrounded by the mosquito ditches. The normal-sized mangroves are not experiencing anoxia because they are better irrigated. Those alongside or in the mosquito ditches are irrigated by the water which collects in the ditches while those in the southernmost part of the property are irrigated by tidal froth from the bay. Although the property has been ditched, diked and bermed (and may have even been tilled at one time for agricultural purposes after it was cleared), the mangroves on the property serve a valuable ecological function, particularly to the bay. The height of the mangroves does not alter their ecological value because the value is largely in their root system. The entire root system of the mangroves covering over four-fifths of the property serves as a filtration base for water running off the uplands. It provides, moreover, critical habitat for commercially important species such as redfish and snook. Building a residence in the middle of this mangrove swamp, even were it to disrupt only the stunted mangroves, would cause adverse ecological impact. The adverse impact would fall heavily on the bay because it needs the natural flushing action allowed by the uninterrupted tangle of mangroves covering more than four acres of the five and one-half acre plot. At the same time, wildlife enjoy orderly habitat in the mangroves on the property. The presence of a residence and the alterations to the property, particularly the loss of well over an acre of a mangrove root-system caused by dredging and filling to support the residence, would render the remaining mangrove wetlands on the property much less supportive of the wildlife inhabiting it now and the wildlife that would otherwise inhabit it in the future. The Parties Petitioners moved to Florida from Illinois in 1991. Mel McGinnis is a double above-the-knee amputee who walks with the aid of prosthetic devices. Pamela McGinnis is a licensed real estate broker. Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis live in Palmetto where Mrs. McGinnis conducts her real estate business. The Department of Environmental Protection is the state administrative agency with permitting authority under Part IV of the Florida Water Resources Act of 1972, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes and Chapters 62-330, 62-341 and 62-343, Florida Administrative Code, as well as Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Pursuant to operating agreements executed between the Department and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) via the authority of Chapter 62-113, Florida Administrative Code, the Department is responsible in this case for reviewing the permit application of the Petitioners. Manasota-88, Inc., filed a petition to intervene which was granted subject to proof of standing at hearing. No proof of standing was offered, however; Manasota-88's status as an Intervenor has been rescinded and it has been dismissed as a party to the proceeding. See Paragraphs 78 - 81, below in the Conclusions of Law section of this order. Acquisition of the Property In 1993, Mel and Pamela McGinnis purchased Lot 5 in San Miguel Estates. They were attracted to the lot because of the more than 500 feet of waterfront it enjoyed on Miguel Bay. The seller of the property was the federal government. The sale was arranged through the United States Marshall’s office as part of a forfeiture proceeding. The property had been seized by federal authorities because of the illegal involvement in drug activity of its owner at the time of the seizure. Prior to a decision to make the purchase, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis were concerned about clear title because of the property's shadowy history. They researched the matter at the county offices. Their concerns were allayed when they found no liens and discovered the property was part of a platted subdivision. They inquired whether there would be water or sewer services provided by local government. The county reported plans to put water lines in soon, a promise made good in 1994. In testimony, Mrs. McGinnis summed up the results of the pre- purchase investigation: “We really didn’t perceive [there] to be a problem.” (Tr. 22.) Plans to Develop and an Application for an ERP In 1995, the McGinnises began planning the construction of the residential structure and boat dock on Lot 5. Accompanied by their engineer, John Benson, they met on the site in August of 1995 with Ken Huntington, an environmental manager in the Environmental Resources Permitting Section of the Department. Before the meeting, the McGinnises believed the mosquito ditches to be creeks. After John Benson corrected the misimpression, Mr. Huntington indicated there was a possibility the property might qualify for a mosquito ditch exemption from environmental resource permitting. Mr. Huntington did not make a commitment, however, at this early stage of the case's development that the Department would determine the exemption applied. In fact, the Department insisted that an application for an Environmental Resources Permit be filed before a decision could be made on the exemption. Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis, on October 5, 1995, applied for the Environmental Resource Permit. The application sought authority to dredge and fill in waters of the state for the purpose of constructing a single-family residence, driveway, swimming pool and boat channel and basin. It showed the construction to have impact upon approximately 1.61 acres of wetlands. About 1.39 acres of the affected area would be cleared and filled for the construction of the home, pool, and driveway. The remainder of the area under impact (about .22 acres) would be excavated for the construction of the boat basin and channel. Two months later, in December of 1995, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis submitted additional application materials. The submission consisted of several parts: a written statement from Larry Rhodes, the Mosquito Control Director for Manatee County from 1961-94; a proposed work order of the mosquito control district from 1966; information from their engineers; and, aerial photographs from 1960 and 1965. These materials were intended to support the assertion that Lot 5 was eligible for a mosquito control exemption from Environmental Resource Permitting. Preliminary DEP Action On April 1, 1996, a Preliminary Evaluation Letter was sent to Petitioners by the Department. The letter stated that based on site inspection, "it appears that the project cannot be recommended for approval." Petitioners' Exhibit 1-h. Cautioning that the preliminary evaluation did not represent final agency action, the letter went on to provide modifications which would reduce or compensate for the project's negative impacts. Among them, was "relocation of the proposed structure to a more landward location." Id. The letter was not preliminary in one way. It explained the Department’s final position that the project site did not qualify for the mosquito ditch exemption: As indicated in previous Department correspondence of January 19, 1996, the Department does not believe that the project meets the . . . exemption. Pursuant to 40D- 4.051(14), Florida Administrative Code, the subject exemption applies only to 'lands that have become surface waters or wetlands solely because of a mosquito control program, and which lands were neither wetlands nor other surface waters before such activities . . .' Historical aerial photographs do not support that the parcel was not previously wetlands. Id., at pg. 2. Ten days later, Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis, through their attorneys, requested a one-week extension to submit revised plans "which attempt[] to reduce the impacts in response to the issues . . . raised [by the April 1 correspondence]." Petitioners' Exhibit 1-i. In a letter dated April 17, 1996, Mr. McGinnis submitted the revised plans in the form of proposals designed by Benson Engineering and CCI Environmental Services. As a prelude to the proposed modifications it had designed, Benson Engineering wrote, We have spent considerable effort to reduce the negative impacts with out (sic) placing the development in the unacceptable upland. The location of the residence has been chosen due to the nature of the stressed mangroves. This area (approximately 1.6 acres) is characterized in a report by H. Clayton Roberson, Environmental Scientist with CCI Environmental Services, Inc. dated 29 January, 1996. The majority of the mangroves to be impacted are less than 3 feet in height, with atypical stunted growth. The current proposal reduces the impacts to only 45% of the stressed area, and only 24% impact to the total site. This 24% development ratio is also being mitigated with enhanced water circulation to the entire site, . . . Petitioners' Exhibit 1-j. In the cover letter submitting the proposed modifications, Mr. McGinnis' frustration at this point with the process was evident. At least two of the items in the letter demonstrate its depth: Property was purchased by us from the government with no disclosure by anyone or any recorded documentation that would have given us even a hint that building our home would become such a nightmare. This property is in a long established recorded subdivision, and all adjacent property owners are either built, under construction or permitted to build. Our property as submitted to you under the revised design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Placement of any dwelling on the road will have a major negative impact on this parcel. I cannot stress enough the negative economic impact that would be incurred by this action. Petitioners' Exhibit 1-j. Denial On May 1, 1996, the Department issued its Notice of Denial. The notice contained five parts: I. Description of the Proposed Activity; II. Authority for Review; III. Reasons for Denial; IV. Proposed Changes; and V. Rights of Affected Parties. Part III of the notice (Reasons for Denial) cited a June 1995 site inspection. It included a description of the site: 5.5 acres, the majority of which, according to a 1952 Soil Conservation Service survey, is Tidal Swamp, and according to a 1983 Soil Survey is classified as Wulfert-Kesson Association soils. The site had been found during the inspection to be dominated by mangroves, red, black and white. Other vegetation associated with wetlands had been observed "within the subject system at the time of inspection" (Petitioners' Exhibit 1-k) as well as Marsh periwinkle, Fiddler crabs, tricolered heron, greenback heron, and snowy egret. The project was found, moreover, to result in 1.61 acres of impact to a mangrove community with wetlands in a Class II waterbody directly contiguous to an aquatic preserve. After detailing the value and significance of mangroves to habitat and water quality functions and the applicant's failure to provide reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, would comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373 and the rules adopted thereunder, Part III of the notice recited two primary bases for the denial. First, the immediate and long-term impacts of the activity were expected to cause violations of water quality standards. Second, the project was found to be contrary to the public interest for those portions of the activity located in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters. With regard to water quality, the Department found the project did not meet standards applicable to biological integrity, transparency, and turbidity. The project was expected, furthermore, to cause: adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; adverse impacts to the value of functions provided fish, wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters; and adverse secondary impacts to water resources. With regard to the public interest test for those portions of the activity located in, on or over wetlands or other surface waters, the Department expected the project to adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species and their habitats; adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project, among other adverse impacts; and fail to meet standards imposed by law. Despite the existence in the Department's opinion of numerous substantial bases for denial, the Department offered hope to Petitioners that they might yet be able to build a residential structure on Lot 5. The first of changes to the project listed in the notice that might "enable the Department to grant a permit," Petitioners' Exhibit 1-k, was for Petitioners to "[r]elocate the proposed residence to a landward location-in proximity to the existing road which would result in a significantly minimized wetland impacts." Id. Other modifications included submission of an acceptable mitigation plan and addressing cumulative impacts, perhaps by way of granting a conservation easement. In response, the McGinnises modified their proposal. But the modifications did not include moving the residence into the uplands at the northern end of the property. The Department considered the changes to the proposal but the changes did not, in the Department's view, make the project permittable. (See Tr. 155). Environmental Dispute Resolution On May 15, 1996, a few weeks from the issuance of the Department's Notice of Denial, Mel and Pamela McGinnis filed a Request for Relief under the Florida Land Use and Environmental Resolution Act, Section 70.51, et seq., Florida Statutes. The Department filed a response to the request and parties participated in a hearing and mediation in accordance with the Act. A hearing was held on September 18 and 19, 1996, before Special Master Raymond M. McLarney who referred to the event as the "first Special Master Proceeding in Property Rights with the FDEP and a landowner." Petitioners' No. 4, Special Master Summary Report, Ex. 1a, p. 1. 36. Paragraph 4 of the Report Summary, bearing the heading, "Special Master's Initial Observation," states: Following completion of the hearings . . ., the Special Master concluded and communicated to the parties that the FDEP's Notice of Denial unreasonably and/or unfairly burdens use of the McGinnises['] real property. The Special Master's initial observation and conclusion was provided to the parties to serve as an indication of sufficient hardship to support modification, variances or special exceptions to applicable statutes, rules, regulations or ordinances of FDEP as applicable to the subject property, all as authorized by Section 70.51(25) of the Florida Statutes. The Special Master encouraged the parties to mediate their differences and attempt to seek a mutually- acceptable solution through the process of mediation. The parties agreed. Id., at 4. The Special Master's Report Summary reports that the result of the mediation was that "the McGinnises and FDEP reached a mutually-acceptable solution evidenced by an [attached] agreement . . . incorporated herein. The . . . solution . . . was initialed/signed on each page by authorized representatives of the parties and was accomplished in accordance with Section 70.51(19)(c) of the Act." Id., at 5. The “Initial Observation” section of the Report Summary appears to contain what would have been the Special Master’s Recommendation (that is, the conclusion that the Department’s actions “unfairly burdened the Petitioners’ use of the property”) had the Special Master not thought that the Department and the McGinnises had reached a mediated agreement. Whatever the appropriate characterization of this section of the report, the Department treated it as a recommendation. It did so when it declared the Special Master’s Report Summary null and void several months after receiving it. Null and Void On January 29, 1997, the Department received the Special Master's Report Summary. By order dated March 14, 1997, the Department rejected its "recommendations." Petitioners' Exhibit 4, Order, p. 1. Under an overarching declaration that the report summary was null and void (amounting to a declaration that the entire proceeding was null and void) the order detailed essentially four bases for the rejection: a. the hearing that led to it was not open to the public as required by the Act; the report was not timely submitted; c. the proceeding had not satisfied other requirements of the Act besides public openness and therefore was inadequate; and d. the report incorrectly concluded that the Department and the McGinnises had reached a mutually-acceptable solution. Allegations of the Petition In the body of the petition which initiated this case, Petitioners refer to the Special Master proceeding as one which led to a mediated agreement. They also make reference to the Department’s rejection of the Special Master’s recommendation. See Petition, paragraph 11, p. 3. But although they seek “[s]uch other relief as may be just and appropriate under the circumstances [of the case],” Petition, paragraph 12.c., p. 5, they do not plead in the petition that the rejection was either wrong as matter of law or action for which they specifically seek relief. Instead of challenging the Department’s rejection of a recommendation by the Special Master or the Department’s declaration that his Report Summary was null and void, the petition challenges only two decisions of the department. One is the Notice of Denial determining the Petitioners not entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit. The other is the decision that the project is not exempt from permitting because of effects caused by the mosquito control ditches. The Days of Mosquito Ditching Long before the Legislature enacted the Florida Land Use and Environmental Dispute Resolution Act to address unreasonable burdens placed on land owners by governmental regulation, local governments were confronted by issues less abstruse. The Manatee County Commission, for example, was striving to eradicate mosquito infestation along its coastline. One of the tools the county used in its efforts was ditching. Mosquito ditches were installed in uplands and fresh waters throughout Manatee County but they were excavated mainly in the salt marshes along the county’s coastline because "the biggest [mosquito] problem in Florida is coastal mosquitoes." (Tr. 105). Larry Rhodes, presently a resident of Terra Ceia and a long-time resident of the area, was the Director of Manatee County Mosquito Control at the time the mosquito ditches were dug across the McGinnis property. His tenure as director ended in 1994. It spanned a period of more than 33 years, having begun in 1961. Shortly after the commencement of Mr. Rhodes’ tenure, but prior to some of the canal construction by the developers of nearby Terra Ceia Estates, the McGinnis property was cleared almost entirely. Except for a small wet area of black mangroves, the property had been dominated by wax myrtle, guava and Brazilian Pepper, an invasive exotic in the process of pushing out the other dominant species. The clearing by the developers of Terra Ceia Estates, personally observed by Mr. Rhodes, was done at the time of installation of a system of canals. Around the canals a waterward dike was placed in order to keep the tides from Miguel Bay from inundating the property. The clearing shows up in an aerial photograph taken in 1965. Soon after the aerial was taken and developed, the mosquito ditches were excavated. Approved by the State Board of Health in 1966, the ditches were dug through the McGinnis property during that year or the next, when the mosquito ditch system in the area of San Miguel Estates was completed in 1967. As the result of the ditching, with the exception of the spoil banks where Brazilian Pepper took over, mangroves proliferated over the formerly-cleared land. Red mangroves grew "up [in] all the ditches and then black and white mangroves in other areas." (Tr.122). Maps, Aerial Photographs, and Soil Surveys The status of the property as cleared thirty-odd years ago and the subsequent generation of mangroves produced in the intervening years over most of the property, including alongside and in the mosquito ditches, did not mean necessarily that the cleared area had not been wetlands prior to the clearing activity. The Department, therefore, confronted with the Petitioners’ claim of a mosquito control exemption, set out to investigate. The investigation was necessary because entitlement to the exemption turns on whether the nature of the property as wetlands after the clearing was due solely to the excavation of the ditches. The investigation consisted of reviewing aerial photographs, maps and soil surveys and later required resort to expert opinion from outside the department. After an initial review conducted by Ken Huntington and Rose Poyner, another Department staff member, the Department contacted GIS analyst Robert P. Evans of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. As a GIS analyst, Mr. Evans’ primary functions (conducted for more than 25 years for the district) are GIS mapping and interpretation of aerial photographs. Mr. Evans reviewed a series of aerial photographs beginning with 1940 black and white photographs and ending with infrared photos from 1990. A 1940 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) photograph showed that the site of the McGinnis' proposed project consisted of mangroves that year. A copy of a 1951 NRCS aerial photo showed mangroves on the site as did a copy of a 1957 aerial photo. After review of the photos, Mr. Evans was of the opinion that the site of the proposed project was wetlands and had been so historically, that is, before the ditches approved and excavated in the mid-sixties. Rick Cantrell, the Administrator of the Wetlands Evaluation and Delineation Section of the Department, the "Administrator [of wetlands delineation] for the whole Department in the whole State of Florida," (Tr. 306), and an expert in aerial photo interpretation for purposes of wetlands delineation, also reviewed aerial photos of the site. Mr. Cantrell reached the opinion that the property had been historical wetlands, just as had Mr. Evans. In the meantime, Mr. Evans was hard at work seeking independent confirmation of his opinion. First, he reviewed United States geological surveys of the site. The 1969 revision of the 1964 edition of the Palmetto USGS Quad map of the area, based on an aerial photograph taken in 1951, shows the McGinnis project site was wetlands prior to the ditching. Not content to rely on the authoritative evidence of aerials and official federal geological survey maps, Mr. Evans sought out another source: soil surveys. These, too, confirmed the historic existence of wetlands on the site. Favored with Mr. Evans’ opinion, the Department contacted Juan Vega, a soil scientist, and asked him to use his expertise in both soil survey review and site testing to assist the inquiry. Mr. Vega agreed to look into the issues. He examined two soil surveys: a survey of Manatee County soils issued in December of 1958 by the United States Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with a Florida Agricultural Experiment Station (Respondent's Exhibit 8) and a subsequent Soil Survey of Manatee County conducted by the federal Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of Florida and other state entities (Petitioner's No. 9). The second survey, "done in '79 or '80," (Tr. 286) was a recorrelation of the first. The first survey shows the site to be tidal swamp as is all of Lot 5 with the exception of the less than one acre of uplands on the property's northern border. Vegetation in tidal swamps is usually mangroves in abundance. As one would expect from their denomination, tidal swamps are influenced by salt water tides, contain tidal soils and are generally wet. The 1979-80 survey indicated that the soil found on the site is Wulfert-Kesson Association. This soil is characterized by an accumulation of organic materials and ore black minerals on the surface, a process known as gleying. Gleying is caused by saltwater inundation and tidal effects and therefore, of course, is indicative of the presence of hydric soils in a wet area. The soil surveys led Mr. Vega to conclude that the site of the project was composed of historic wetlands. Field Testing The Department's interest in having Mr. Vega conduct soil testing on the site of the project was not fruitful. Access to the site was denied. In lieu of on-site testing, therefore, Mr. Vega conducted soil analysis nearby, a few hundred feet to the east of the proposed site. In March of 1996, he dug several holes, one near the road and others adjacent to the mangrove area of Lot 5. The soil near the road was Bradenton, "pretty much natural native soil." (Tr. 289). The soil from the other areas, buried under approximately two feet of fill, was Wulfert and Kesson, both hydric soils. There was also present a layer of muck, that is, decomposed organic material. It indicated that the soil had not been converted from uplands to wetlands but rather that the soil had been wetlands historically. The field testing conducted by Mr. Vega on the adjacent site confirmed his opinion that the site of the proposed McGinnis project was wetlands and had been so historically. Historic Wetlands The evidence on the issue of the property's status is summarized as follows: United States Geographical Survey maps indicate the area of Lot 5 in San Miguel Estates to be historic wetlands; federal soil surveys confirmed by nearby soil testing and conducted with the cooperation of the State of Florida indicate the presence of hydric soils on the lot; and aerial photographs show that mangroves existed on the site both before the clearing in the sixties and after the mosquito ditches were excavated in 1966-67. Although the proposed site contains mangroves stunted and suffering from the stress of anoxia today, and there are mangroves in and alongside the mosquito ditches dug as part of a governmental program in the 1960s which grew after the land had been cleared, Lot 5 in San Miguel Estates, with the exception of the approximate .9 of an acre alongside the road at the north end of the property, is comprised of wetlands that existed prior to the mosquito ditching activity. In short, Lot 5 is comprised of historic wetlands. The Permit Application Sovereign submerged lands would be affected by the project, a project permanent in nature. "[D]irect impact would be the excavation of the access channel from the boat basin to the water. So that last [scoop] of dirt, if you will, or piece of land separating the basin from Miguel Bay, that cut would be into the bottom of Miguel Bay, [an Outstanding Florida Water and part of the Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve]." (Tr. 156). The proposed project would cause adverse impact to the quality of the receiving waters. The filtration function of the mangrove forest would be diminished and the boat basin would cut into the bottom of the bay within the aquatic preserve. Petitioners offered no evidence that water quality standards listed in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, including those for biological integrity, transparency and turbidity would be met, all concerns listed by the Department in its Notice of Denial as a basis for its action on the permit application. Nor did Petitioners demonstrate that the dredging of the boat access channel in Miguel Bay would not violate ambient water quality standards, another basis for the Department's notice of denial. Any mitigation offered by Petitioners for the impacts of fill associated with construction of the access road and fill pad for the house were not adequate. "That fill will eliminate over half an acre . . . of mangroves and wetlands that are crucial to the eco system (sic) in Miguel Bay." (Tr. 157). In addition to the filtration these lost mangroves would have provided, "mangrove wetlands are vital for habitat, for fish and wildlife services." Id. Petitioners have not provided reasonable assurance that the boat basin would not create water quality violations, including dissolved oxygen concentrations falling below standards. Petitioners have not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts that result from construction activities on the site. Secondary impacts include the establishment of nuisance species in disturbed areas. The property contains sufficient uplands upon which to construct the residential structure or at least enough of it to greatly minimize impact to wetlands. Siting a dock on the bay would obviate the need for the boat basin and channel. An associated boardwalk would eliminate the need to dredge wetlands populated by mangroves. Utilizing a dock and a boardwalk would save almost a quarter of an acre of wetlands from dredging. Mr. McGinnis' status as a double above-the-knee amputee may certainly be expected to create special needs, but other than to mention his disability, Petitioners made no showing that such a modification was not practicable in light of his condition. The proposed project would also present cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. There is significant development already in San Miguel Estates and there are other applications for development pending: for example, a permit application for construction of a boardwalk through wetlands submitted for the adjacent Lot 4. In sum, the project will have adverse water quality impacts, impacts to sovereignty submerged lands, secondary impacts, and cumulative impacts. Ways proposed by the Department of dramatically minimizing, reducing or preventing these impacts have not been accepted by Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying both the mosquito ditch exemption and the Environmental Resource Permit applied for by Petitioners, Mel and Pamela McGinnis, for the project in DEP Permit File No. 412783533. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank E. Matthews, Esquire Kimberly A. Grippa, Esquire Hopping, Green, Sams and Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6526 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire T. Andrew Zodrow, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing Chapter 253, Florida Statutes on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board). The Board holds title to submerged sovereign lands pursuant to Sections 253.03 and 253.12, Florida Statutes, and Article X, Section 11, Florida Constitution. Fraraccio, together with his wife, owns a parcel of real property located in section 13, township 38 south, range 41 east which is commonly known as 26 High Point Road and which is located in Martin County, Florida. The southern boundary of the Fraraccio's property (subject property) borders the St. Lucie and Indian Rivers. In June, 1987, Fraraccio filed an application for permission to alter mangroves which grow along the shoreline of the subject property. It was Fraraccio's intention to cut the tops of the trees in order to promote horizontal growth. This application was filed with and processed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). On September 1, 1987, DER issued a permit for the mangrove alteration. Pertinent to this proceeding is the following specific condition of the Fraraccio permit: 4. "No person shall commence mangrove alteration or other activity involving the use of sovereign or other lands of the state, title to which is vested in the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources under Chapter 253, until such person has received from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund the required lease, license, easement, or other form of consent authorizing the proposed use. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 16Q-14, if such work is done without consent, or if a person otherwise damages state land or products of state land, the Board of Trustees may levy administrative fines of up to $10,000 per offense. In October, 1987, the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping was asked to survey the west line of the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve (Preserve) at the confluence of the St. Lucie River. Terry Wilkinson, chief surveyor for the bureau, conducted the field survey on October 14-16, 1987. Mr. Wilkinson placed a metal rebar with a cap designating "D.N.R." at a point on the mean high water (MHW) line at the Fraraccio's property. Mr. Wilkinson also staked three points with lathe markers on a line northerly along the MHW line from the rebar monument. It was Mr. Wilkinson's opinion that the Preserve abutted the Fraraccio property from the point marked by the rebar monument northward along the coast. That portion of the Fraraccio property which was south and west of the rebar did not abut the Preserve. Fraraccio disputed the findings regarding the Preserve boundary reached by Wilkinson and did not concede that his property abuts the Preserve. On December 15, 1987, the issue of the Preserve boundary was taken before the Governor and Cabinet sitting as the Board at the request of the Department, Division of State Lands. Fraraccio was represented before the Board by counsel who argued against the staff recommendation. Mr. Wilkinson's interpretation of the boundary line for the Preserve was approved. That area waterward of the MHW line from the rebar monument northerly along the Fraraccio shoreline was, therefore, deemed to be part of the Preserve and sovereign submerged land. Prior to cutting any mangrove trees, Fraraccio telephoned Casey Fitzgerald, chief of the Department's Bureau of State Lands Management, to inquire as to whether Department permission was required to trim mangroves located above the MHW line. Fitzgerald's letter advised Fraraccio "that trimming mangroves located above the MHW line would not be within the purview of this department." Fitzgerald further recommended that Fraraccio "employ the services of a registered land surveyor to specifically identify the individual trees which are so located." Fraraccio did not obtain an independent survey. Instead, he relied upon the rebar monument and the lathe markers placed by Wilkinson, and contracted to have the mangroves landward of that line trimmed. One of difficulties encountered in determining the location of a mangrove in relation to the MHW line is the fact that one tree may have several trunks and prop roots which emanate from the center of the tree. Consequently, there is some uncertainty regarding how to locate the tree. One method used locates the centermost trunk and considers that point the tree location. Another method calculates the greatest percentage of tree mass and considers that point the center of the tree. This calculated center is then matched against the MHW line. Either method results in a judgment based upon visual inspection. This judgment may differ among reasonable men. In January, 1988, Fraraccio supervised the cutting of mangroves based upon the MHW line as established by the Wilkinson survey. Fraraccio did not intend to cut trees waterward of the MHW line. No trees were cut waterward of the Wilkinson line. A number of trees were trimmed landward of the Wilkinson line. There is no evidence that either the rebar monument or the lathe markers placed by Wilkinson were moved either prior to or after the mangrove alteration. Fraraccio was responsible for the direct supervision of the workmen who completed the mangrove trim. No work was done without Fraraccio's authorization. On March 22, 1988, Kalani Cairns, inspected the Fraraccio property. Cairns took field notes of the inspection. One of comments made at that time was that it was "difficult to determine if MHWL stakes have been moved." Based upon his review of the area, Cairns determined approximately 20 mangrove trees below the MHW line had been topped. Subsequently, the Department issued the Notice of Violation and Order for corrective action. Since Fraraccio did not believe he had cut waterward of the MHW line, no corrective measures were taken. Subsequent to the Notice, additional mangroves were not cut. Fraraccio timely sought review of the notice. In preparation for the formal hearing in this cause, the Department contracted with Greg Fleming to prepare a survey of a portion of the Fraraccio property. The purpose of this second survey was to locate the MHW line along the Fraraccio shoreline and to plot mangrove trees which had been trimmed and which were waterward of the line. Approximately 24 trimmed mangrove trees were located waterward of the MHW line as determined by the Fleming survey. The Fleming survey resulted in a MHW line which was upland of the line established by the Wilkinson survey. The trimmed trees in dispute are located between the two lines, as marked on the ground, by the lathes placed by the two surveyors. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify and no credible explanation was given for why the lines, as marked in the field, differ. At the time of the cutting, however Fraraccio believed the Wilkinson lathes marked the MHW line. This belief was based upon the representations that the Department had made regarding the rebar monument marked "D.N.R." and the fact that the placement of the lathe stakes had coincided with placement of the rebar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Violation against Charles A. Fraraccio. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 23rd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4309 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted Wilkinson put down three lathes and that there is no evidence that those lathes were moved. Otherwise, the paragraph is rejected. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify and, therefore, no evidence was presented on the issue of the lathes. It is clear Fraraccio believed the lathes to be the MHW line. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The MHW line was correctly depicted on the ground and on paper by the Fleming survey which was done after-the-fact. Pertinent to this case is the fact that Fraraccio and DNR treated the Wilkinson survey on the ground (as shown by-the rebar and the three lathes) as the MHW line prior to the cutting. Paragraph 9 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, the record shows Fleming was contacted to perform the second survey in December, 1988, and that it was dated February, 1989. With that modification and clarification, paragraph 10, in substance, is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted to the extent that the two surveys differed on the ground (as opposed to on paper). Paragraphs 12, 13, and 14 accepted but are irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that the workmen were instructed not to cut waterward of the MHW line. The remainder is irrelevant to this proceeding. Paragraphs 16 through 18 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted Fraraccio cut or trimmed the trees based upon the Wilkinson survey as depicted by the rebar and 3 lathe markers. Otherwise, paragraph 19, is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 20 is accepted. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department. Paragraphs 1 through 16 are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 17 is accepted since both surveys coincided at the point of the rebar marked "D.N.R.;" otherwise, the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence since the surveys differed as plotted on the ground. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 23 is rejected as irrelevant. The number of trees cut waterward of the MHW line as established by the Fleming survey was approximately The size of the trees is irrelevant. Paragraph 24 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are accepted. Paragraph 27 is rejected as irrelevant to this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Contole McManus, Wiitala & Contole, P.A. O. Box 14125 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 Ross S. Burnaman Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
