The Issue The preliminary issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (District) has jurisdiction over the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) filed by the Save the Manatee Club (Club)--i.e., whether the Petition was timely or, if not, if the District has jurisdiction under principles of equitable tolling or excusable neglect.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1999, Hidden Harbor filed with the District an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to construct and operate a surface water management system serving a proposed residential development in Lee County, Florida. In January 2001, the Club sent an email to the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) stating that it was concerned about Hidden Harbor's Application No. 991011- 13, as it might impact an area the Club would like to see as a manatee sanctuary, and was requesting copies of all FWCC documents relating to the permit. FWCC forwarded a copy of this email to the District on January 19, 2001. At the time, the Club's internet website gave the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. On April 9, 2001, the Club opened a Southwest Florida regional satellite office in Estero, Florida, and installed Laura Combs as Regional Coordinator in charge of that office. Responsibility for monitoring the Hidden Harbor application was delegated to Combs and the satellite office. Nonetheless, the Club's website continued to give the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. Combs's prior work experience with the Club was as assistant director of governmental relations in Tallahassee, Florida. In that position, she tracked legislation and actions of the Governor and Cabinet that were of interest to the Club. She had no role in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of governmental agencies. Combs's education included a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in urban and regional planning. She did not have specific legal education in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of state governmental agencies. On May 30, 2001, the District mailed to the Club at its Maitland office address a letter enclosing the "District's staff report covering the [Hidden Harbor] permit application [No. 991011-13]" and notifying the Club that the "recommendations as stated in the staff report [to grant the attached draft permit] will be presented to our Governing Board for consideration on June 14, 2001." The Club also was advised: Should you wish to object to the staff recommendation or file a petition, please provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers (refer to the attached "Notice of Rights") to [the District's deputy clerk]. The "Notice of Rights" addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. You are advised, however, to be prepared to defend your position regarding the permit application when it is considered by the Governing Board for final agency action, even if you agree with the staff recommendation, as the Governing Board may take final agency action which differs materially from the proposed agency action. The Notice of Rights stated that it was intended to conform to the requirement of Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, to "inform the recipient of any administrative hearing or judicial review that is available under this section [120.569(1)], s. 120.57 or s. 120.68." It cautioned: Please note that this Notice of Rights is not intended to provide legal advice. Not all the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. The Notice of Rights included a section entitled "Petition for Administrative Proceedings," which stated in pertinent part: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action. The affected person may request either a formal or an informal hearing, as set forth below. A point of entry into administrative proceedings is governed by Rules 28-106.111 and 40E-1.511, Fla. Admin. Code, (also published as an exception to the Uniform Rules of Procedure as Rule 40E-0.109), as set forth below . . .. Formal Administrative Hearing: If a genuine issue(s) of material fact is in dispute, the affected person seeking a formal hearing on a SFWMD decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. or for mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, Fla. Stat. within 21 days . . . of either written notice through mail or posting or publication of notice that the SFWMD has or intends to take final agency action. Pertinent to this case, the Notice of Rights included a verbatim reproduction of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.201, addressing required contents of a petition to initiate proceedings involving disputed issues of material fact. Rules 28-106.111, 40E-1.5111, and 40E-0.109 were not reproduced in the Notice of Rights. It is not clear from the evidence when the letter dated May 30, 2001, with attachments (the Notice Correspondence), was received in the Club's Maitland office. It was not date-stamped, as time-sensitive correspondence normally would be. Apparently, it was decided to forward the Notice Correspondence to the new satellite office in Estero for handling. Combs received the forwarded Notice Correspondence in early June 2001. This was the "first time [Combs] had been through this type of process." Combs reviewed the Notice Correspondence, eventually focusing on paragraph 1.a. of the "Petition for Administrative Proceedings" section of the Notice of Rights. She did not read any of the cited statutes and rules except for the rules reproduced verbatim as part of the Notice of Rights. Combs made conflicting statements regarding her understanding of the District's administrative process. However, it appears that she understood that the Club could file a petition within 21 days of receipt of the Notice Correspondence, or within 21 days of the "final" action of the District's Governing Board. She testified that, because the Notice Correspondence did not bear a date-stamp, it was unclear when the first 21-day time period began or ended; as a result, she decided to wait until the District's Governing Board took "final" action and file a petition within the second 21-day time period. Combs appeared at the meeting of the District's Governing Board on June 14, 2001, and spoke in opposition to issuance of the draft permit. Notwithstanding the Club's opposition, the Governing Board decided to issue the draft permit. Combs does not have authority to file petitions for administrative hearings on District actions. She consulted with her supervisor, Patricia Thompson, and they made a recommendation to the Club's governing board, which has ultimate authority to file petitions. Prior to Combs's involvement in the Hidden Harbor application, the Club had staff legal counsel, who could be consulted with respect to the filing of petitions and would advise the Club's governing board. However, the Club did not have staff legal counsel at the time of Combs's involvement and through the time of filing of this petition. (The Club now again has staff legal counsel.) Neither Combs nor Thompson saw any need to consult an attorney. It is not clear when the recommendation of Combs and Thompson was presented to the Club's governing board or when the Club's governing board made its decision to file the Petition. Neither Thompson nor any member of the Club's governing board (nor anyone else who may have participated in the decision to file the Petition) testified. Several (according to Combs, approximately 12) times after the District's Governing Board's meeting on June 14, 2001, Combs telephoned the District's offices to obtain a copy of the District's Governing Board's "final" action when it was reduced to writing. It is not clear from the evidence why several telephone calls were required. Eventually, on June 26, 2001, Combs received a copy of the permit issued to Hidden Harbor; there was no Notice of Rights attached. On July 17, 2001, the Club filed its Petition challenging the permit issued to Hidden Harbor. In the meantime, Hidden Harbor had obtained a final development order from Lee County in reliance on the Club's failure to petition for an administrative hearing. The Club is not a newcomer to Florida's administrative process. It can be officially recognized that the Club has participated in numerous proceedings before DOAH. At least one of those cases involved issues similar to those presented for determination in this case. See Conclusion of Law 32, infra.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire Post Office Box 861118 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Martha M. Collins, Esquire 233 3rd Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3089 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue Whether a consumptive-use permit for the quantities of water applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Applicant, by Application No. 7500025, applied for a consumptive-use permit for an average daily withdrawal of 138,000 gallons of water from one (1) well penetrating the Florida Acquifer. This is an existing use. Exhibits were entered without objection, as follows: Original application with attachments, marked "Exhibit 1". Proof of Publication, marked "Exhibit 2". There were no written objections. The witness for permittee, George Szell, Hydrologist, was questioned at length by the staff attorney on issues to be resolved under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder by the Southwest Florida Water Management District, and particularly Rule 16J-2.11, Conditions for a Consumptive-Use Permit. A typed transcript of the testimony has been examined and made a part of the record for this hearing. The witness for the Board, Mr. Szell, objected to the granting of the permit on the grounds that the water crop was exceeded by 3.24 percent. Upon request of the Hearing Officer, the parties agreed to consider their differences and file a joint stipulation enumerating conditions upon which the parties agree. A joint stipulation signed by both parties was filed with the Division is marked "Supplement to the Record" and made a part of this recommended order. Mr. Szell recommended that the permit be granted consistent with the conditions in six (6) above.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's revocation of Respondent's modified permit, authorizing a cross- fence on Petitioner's fee owned right-of-way, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The South Florida Water Management District (District) is a public corporation in the State of Florida, existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida (1949), and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a multi-purpose water management district. The District's principal office is West Palm Beach, Florida. In executing its multi-purpose, the District, as local sponsor for the US Army Corps of Engineers' Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project, acquired canal rights-of-way. The District's rights-of-way were acquired to enable the Corps of Engineers to construct the flood control project and to maintain the system after its construction. The District operates a proprietary-based right-of-way program to manage the various property interests of the canal rights-of-way. The purpose of the District's right-of-way program is, to the extent possible, to allow uses of the rights- of-way that do not conflict with the flood control project. The rights-of way are used by both public and private concerns, including adjacent property owners, governmental entities, and utility companies. Jesus G. Quevedo is a private individual. His address is 2615 North Federal Highway, Lake Worth, Florida. The property at this address was vacant when Mr. Quevedo purchased it, and he has owned the property for approximately ten (10) years. The District has fee simple title to a strip of land on the south side of the District's C-51 Canal, immediately west of the Federal Highway/Olive Avenue bridge (C-51 Right-of-Way). Mr. Quevedo's property is located at the side of and adjacent to the C-51 Right-of-Way. The C-51 Right-of-Way is also located within the boundaries of Spillway Park as established in the agreement between the District and the City of Lake Worth. Generally described, Spillway Park includes the District's fee simple owned right-of-way on the south side of the District's C-51 Canal, beginning at the west side of the Federal Highway/Olive Avenue bridge and continuing to the east side of the Dixie Highway bridge. Mr. Quevedo has no real property interest in the C-51 Right-of-Way. Prior to purchasing his property, Mr. Quevedo was aware that the District owned the C-51 Right-of-Way. Historically, portions of Spillway Park and the C-51 Right-of-Way, in particular, have been a unique and popular location for excellent snook fishing by the public. These areas continue to be considered as such. On February 11, 1993, Mr. Quevedo was issued SFWMD Permit No. 9801 (Permit), a right-of-way occupancy permit, by the District’s Governing Board. The Permit authorized him to make use of the District’s lands and works as follows: 20’ X 50’ BOAT DOCK WITH WALKWAY, BURIED WATER AND ELECTRICAL SERVICE, POP-UP SPRINKLERS, AND SODDING WITHIN THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-51 LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE OLIVE AVENUE/FEDERAL HIGHWAY BRIDGE. During the permit application process, but prior to the issuance of the Permit, Mr. Quevedo had discussed with the District's staff the erection of a cross-fence based on allegations of improper or criminal activities by members of the public. Subsequently, in November 1995, Mr. Quevedo again discussed with the District's staff erection of a cross-fence based on the same allegations but he also included a new allegation of public safety as to the C-51 seawall. Based on the concern for public safety, the District's staff recommended that Mr. Quevedo be granted a modification to the Permit for a cross-fence. On November 14, 1996, the District's Governing Board approved, as part of its consent agenda, and issued SFWMD Permit MOD No. 9801 (MOD Permit)3 authorizing the following: CHAIN LINK CROSS FENCE WITH 16’ VEHICULAR GATE ALONG THE WEST PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-51 LOCATED AT 2615 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY. The MOD Permit, as did the Permit, provides in pertinent part on its face the following: The permittee, by acceptance of this permit, hereby agrees that he shall promptly comply with all orders of the District and shall alter, repair or remove his use solely at his expense in a timely fashion. . . . This permit is issued by the District as a license to use or occupy District works or lands. . . By acceptance of this permit, the permittee expressly acknowledges that the permittee bears all risk of loss as a result of revocation of this permit. The MOD Permit, as did the Permit, contained standard limiting conditions, as provided in Rule 40E-6.381, Florida Administrative Code, and special conditions. The limiting conditions provide in pertinent part as follows: Permittee agrees to abide by all of the terms and conditions of this permit, including any representations made on the permit application and related documents. . . . This permit does not create any vested rights, and except for governmental entities and public or private utilities, is revocable at will upon reasonable prior written notice. Permittee bears all risk of loss as to monies expended in furtherance of the permitted use. Upon revocation, the permittee shall promptly modify, relocate or remove the permitted use. In the event of failure to so comply within the specified time, the District may remove the permitted use and permittee shall be responsible for all removal costs. This permit does not convey any property rights nor any rights or privileges other than those specified herein. . . . Having been granted the MOD Permit, Mr. Quevedo erected the cross-fence within and onto the C-51 Right-of-Way. The C-51 Right-of-Way is located adjacent to Mr. Quevedo’s property, as indicated earlier, and continues westerly to the permitted cross-fence. The C-51 Right-of-Way is enclosed by the cross-fence, preventing access by the public, and is located easterly of the cross-fence. As the C-51 Right-of-Way is located within the boundaries of the Spillway Park, the cross- fence is also located within the boundaries of the Spillway Park. During the time that Mr. Quevedo has owned his home, including prior to and after erection of the cross-fence, he, his family members and/or guests have frequently fished from the C-51 seawall and used the C-51 Right-of-Way enclosed by the cross- fence. Prior to and after the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo and his family members have selectively controlled access by the public to the C-51 Right-of-Way at the C-51 seawall. Prior to the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo chased members of the public off the C-51 Right-of-Way. Mr. Quevedo and members of his family also called law enforcement officers to remove members of the public who were located on the C-51 Right-of-Way, even if the members of the public were fishing from the C-51 seawall. After the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo and his family members continued to engage in this conduct of selective access. Subsequent to the erection of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo had a member of the public arrested for trespassing. The person allegedly jumped over or went around the cross-fence to fish from the C-51 seawall in the C-51 Right-of-Way. With the existence of the cross-fence, Mr. Quevedo has prevented the general public from using the C-51 Right-of-Way, including the C-51 seawall. As a result, he has acquired the exclusive, private use of the C-51 Right-of-Way at the C-51 seawall, which is publicly owned land, and has, almost doubled the size of his adjacent property without the obligations and expense of acquisition, assuming he could acquire the property through acquisition. The District's policy is that public land should be open to the public. Contrary to this policy, Mr. Quevedo's cross-fence precludes access to the District's right-of-way (C-51 Right-of-Way), including the seawall, for passive recreational use. Similar cross-fencing, although not within the boundaries of Spillway Park, have been erected behind residences on the northeast, northwest, and southeast sides of Federal Highway, along the District’s C-51 Canal bank. The cross-fencing prevents public use of the District’s C-51 Canal bank at these locations. The City of Lake Worth made improvements within the boundaries of Spillway Park; however, it made no improvements, and does not intend to make any improvements in the future, at the C-51 Right-of-Way where Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence is located or at the other private lots west of Mr. Quevedo's property. All of the improvements made at Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence at the C-51 Right-of-Way have been made by him even though the C-51 Right-of- Way is located within Spillway Park. The original public safety rationale for authorizing Mr. Quevedo to erect the cross-fence blocking public access was revisited by the District. Additional investigation by safety experts (Risk Management staff) revealed that no unreasonable danger existed by allowing public access to the C-51 seawall at the C-51 Right-of-Way. In the absence of the public safety basis for closure of the C-51 Right-of-Way, such closure was contrary to District policy. As a consequence, the District’s staff recommended to the District’s Governing Board that the MOD Permit, authorizing Mr. Quevedo’s cross-fence, be revoked. After conducting two public meetings and receiving comments from Mr. Quevedo, members of the public, and the District’s staff as to the policy issue of pubic access to the C- 51 Right-of-Way, the District’s Governing Board determined that the C-51 Right-of-Way should be open to the public. Consequently, the Governing Board decided to revoke Mr. Quevedo's MOD Permit. Allegations of criminal activity within the general boundaries of Spillway Park and, specifically, in the C-51 Right- of-Way at the cross-fence area, were made by Mr. Quevedo as a basis to not revoke the MOD Permit and allow the cross-fence to remain. Such allegations have no bearing on the revocation of the MOD Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order revoking SFWMD Permit No. MOD 981 issued to Jesus G. Quevedo. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 8th day of March, 1999.
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.
Findings Of Fact On April 22, 1994, Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), published proposed amendments to Rule 40D-4.051 in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 20, Number 16, at page 2450. The portions which are the subject of this proceedings are as follows: * 40D-4.051 Exemptions <<(1) Exemptions are found in>> [[The following activities are exempt from permitting under this chapter: The activities specified in]] Sections 373.406, Florida Statutes. (2)-(7) No Change. * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. On May 13, 1994, Petitioner, Gerald A. Robbins, filed a Petition to Challenge Proposed Rule 40D-4.051. On May 20, 1994, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition to Challenge Proposed Rule 40D-4.051. In its rule challenge, Petitioner requests that 40D-4.051(1) be rewritten as follows: "Exemptions are as found in Sections 373.406 AND 403.927 Florida Statutes." On July 1, 1994, Respondent withdrew its proposed amendment to Subsection (1) of Rule 40D-4.051. The following Notice of Withdrawal appeared in Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 20, No. 26: Southwest Florida Water Management District RULE TITLES: RULE NOS.: Exemptions 40D-4.051(1) NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL Notice is hereby given that the above proposed rule amendment, published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 20, Number 16, on Page 2450, April 22, 1994, have (sic) been withdrawn. This is the sole subsection being withdrawn from rulemaking pursuant to Section 120.54(13)(b), Florida Statutes. The remainder of the proposed amendments to Section 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code remains subject to Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes. By Order dated June 28, 1994, the portion of Petitioner's rule challenge relating to Rule 40D-4.051(7) was dismissed. Petitioner appealed the Order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Gerald A. Robbins v. Southwest Florida Water Management District, Case No. 94-1717. The court denied Petitioner's Petition for Review of Non-Final Administrative Action by Order dated October 10, 1994.
The Issue The issue is whether an application by Petitioner, Hancock Bridge Marina, LLC (Petitioner or Hancock), for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and sovereign submerged lands lease to expand an existing docking facility on Hancock Creek near the Caloosahatchee River in unincorporated Lee County (County), Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Background Hancock is a limited liability corporation with two shareholders: Donald Epler and Stefen Heinke. After conducting a feasibility study, on April 26, 2004, Hancock purchased a 5.51-acre parcel of property in the County with the expectation of constructing and operating a 400-slip marina and a 5,000- square-foot building housing a restaurant, ship's store, and other sundry items needed for operation. (Hancock has subsequently revised its plan by reducing the number of slips requested from 400 to 352.) The cost of the property was around $2.5 million. The property is located in an unincorporated part of the County on the north side of the Caloosahatchee River (River), a Class III water, south of Hancock Bridge Parkway, east of the City of Cape Coral, and west of U.S. Highway 41 and the City of North Fort Myers. The property currently contains a 30-wet slip marina with 13 finger piers and a 4-slip T-dock. The remainder of the parcel is essentially vacant. The parcel borders a River tributary named Hancock Creek, which is a man- altered tidal creek branching off of the River in a northwestern direction, and the North Key Canal, which extends east from Hancock Creek for approximately one-half mile. Access to the River, which is no more than a hundred yards or so south of the parcel, is by traversing North Key Canal and Hancock Creek. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to issue an ERP. In addition, the Department has authority from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to review and take final agency action on requests to authorize activities in sovereign submerged lands. See § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The Commission is the agency with constitutional regulatory authority over "wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life." See Art. IV, § 9, Fla. Const. The Commission's authority for the regulation of manatees is derived from the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, which is codified in Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes. Under Sections 373.428 and 380.23, Florida Statutes, it also has authority to review ERP applications for federal consistency purposes pursuant to the federally approved Florida Coastal Management Program. On September 12, 2005, Petitioner filed an application for an ERP (a regulatory approval) and a lease to use sovereign submerged lands (a proprietary approval) with the Department's South District Office in Fort Myers, Florida. (For unknown reasons, the application was resubmitted to the Department on August 14, 2006.) The two requests are linked, and the Department cannot approve one without approving the other. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-343.075(2). The application seeks authority to expand in two phases the existing 30-slip facility. The first phase would generally authorize the construction of a 198-slip upland dry storage facility and reconfiguration of the existing docks. In phase 2, Hancock would add 154 dry slips and construct a 5,000-square-foot marina building. Because the docks are constructed on and over sovereign submerged lands, a proprietary authorization is necessary. Before making a decision on the application, the Department forwarded a copy to the Commission for its recommendation. After receiving the Commission's comments, which consist of 89 pages, including transmittal letters, on December 10, 2007, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to deny the ERP and proprietary authorization on the grounds the project area is sited in an area of very high level of manatee use and the project will increase local boat traffic, resulting in significant adverse effects on the manatee, which is listed by the state and federal governments as an endangered species. A more detailed description of the reasons for denial is found in the Notice of Intent. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6, pages 4 through 9; Department's Exhibit 1.b., pages 4 through 9. The Department acknowledges that its decision was based wholly upon the Commission's determination that the project, as proposed, would have an adverse impact on manatees. The DRI and Estoppel In its Petition, Hancock contends that the Department is "estopped to deny a permit for Phase 1 of the marina in light of its acquiescence to the approval of DRI 2-8990-99." By way of background, in 1990, Hancock's predecessor in interest (Waterway Group, Inc.) applied with the County for a DRI which included, among other things, 400 dry boat spaces on the property. DRI 2-8990-99 was approved by the County on July 8, 1991, and has been amended three times. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The original terms of approval contained several conditions that specifically addressed manatee protection. One separated the project into two phases of 200 spaces, the first of which was authorized without additional studies, while the second was subject to additional study and review by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR). When the DRI was approved, the State's manatee protection program was under the jurisdiction of the DNR. That agency reviewed the DRI and recommended manatee protection conditions. The conditions in the final approval were consistent with the program's recommendation. On June 29, 2004, the County adopted a resolution approving a MPP for the County. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. It was not adopted as an ordinance, and individual notice was not provided to interested property owners, including Hancock's principals. After adoption, the County incorporated the MPP into its Comprehensive Plan. The MPP is a planning document that provides a comprehensive review of manatee and boating data on a county-wide basis. It is developed, reviewed, and approved by local, state, and federal governments and is used for guidance when considering appropriate levels of slip densities within a county. The County is one of thirteen counties directed to adopt a MPP. On October 20, 2004, Hancock filed with the County an application to amend its DRI. The application included requests to extend the DRI approval a third time and to revise the site plan. The site plan changes included a reduction in the total number of dry spaces from 400 to 352. On June 20, 2005, the County approved the DRI amendment. The Development Order included a finding of fact that the marina was exempt from the requirements of the MPP because Section 8.4 of the MPP "exempts existing projects with valid permits and Chapter 380 vested status for the construction of slips (wet or dry) that have not been constructed at the time the MPP was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners." See Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Third Development Order Amendment for Hancock Bridge Marina, page 4, paragraph H. Hancock then filed the instant application on September 12, 2005. To date, Hancock has expended $1,731,000.00 in its permitting efforts, including the DRI extension and ERP application. There is no evidence that during the DRI process, the Department or Commission made any representations to Hancock about its ability to obtain an ERP or sovereign submerged lands authorization. Also, neither agency was consulted during that period of time, presumably because the DRI and ERP processes are separate and independent of one another. Permitting Criteria Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, contains the standards and criteria governing the approval of an ERP. Subsection (1) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the regulated activity is "not contrary to the public interest." In determining whether this test is met, paragraph (1)(a) requires that the Department consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. These same factors are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302, an ERP rule adopted by the South Florida Water Management District. This rule has been adopted by reference by the Department to be used when it considers ERP applications within the geographical jurisdiction of that water management district. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-330.200(4). An additional requirement in the rule is that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302(1)(b). Besides the foregoing requirements, additional conditions for the issuance of an ERP are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301, also adopted by reference by the Department. Relevant here are requirements that the applicant give reasonable assurances that the proposed activity (a) will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and (b) will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(d) and (f). Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that if an applicant is unable to meet the above criteria, the Department shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity. In this case, mitigation measures have been proposed by Hancock and are discussed below. Finally, Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes, requires that the Department evaluate applications for dry storage facilities for ten or more vessels in the same manner as any other ERP application, including that the applicant demonstrate that the facility will not be harmful to the water resources, provides reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and surface waters, and meets the public interest test in Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes. There are no rules or statutes which require that the Department consider the status of, or otherwise take into account, a DRI in evaluating an application for an ERP or proprietary authorization. Impacts on Manatees After reviewing the application for an ERP, the Department determined that the project, as proposed, should be denied because of direct, secondary, and cumulative effects it would have on manatees. The Department further determined that the applicant had not met the applicable requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. In making these determinations, the Department considered not only potential deaths of manatees, but also potential impacts such as harassment, disturbance, and sub-lethal boat strikes. The latter strikes may cause permanent injury and can affect reproduction and behavior. The State is a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee. See § 379.2431(2), Fla. Stat. The manatee is a marine mammal that can live as long as sixty years. It is unable to tolerate prolonged exposure to temperatures below around sixty-one degrees, which makes it susceptible to cold-related stress and death. Consequently, the manatees typically seek warm water when temperatures drop below sixty-eight degrees, migrating seasonally over extensive geographic areas. Hancock's marina is located just off the River. The River is one of the most studied and significant habitats for manatees on the west coast of Florida. The County's water bodies, including the River, provide manatees with submerged aquatic vegetation for foraging, fresh water sources, and several warm-water sites to use as refuges during colder weather. Hancock Creek, which is used to access the River from the marina, is an area used by manatees because it provides fresh water and a quiet environment. Manatees also use the River as a major travel corridor between the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) power plant on the Orange River, a tributary of the River located around eight miles upstream from the project site, and the estuaries found downstream where foraging resources are abundant. Hundreds of manatees go up and down the River throughout the year, and those traveling to and from the warm water around the FPL plant must travel past Hancock Creek. Manatee deaths have occurred within a five mile radius of the project site. Also, the number of manatee watercraft- related deaths in the River has steadily increased over the years. According to a 1998 study of boating activity in the County, vessels use the River more as a travel corridor to the bays and estuaries outside of the River than as a destination itself, and that on weekends there is almost constant traffic with vessels leaving or entering the mouth of the River every thirty-five seconds. The majority of the boats leaving the project site are expected to travel downstream through the mouth of the River, an area with substantial vessel congestion. This travel pattern, in conjunction with the typical travel patterns of manatees, indicates that there is a great potential for boat/manatee overlap in the River, increasing the likelihood of impacts to manatees. Besides manatee deaths, there are sub-lethal effects of increased boat traffic in the area. Increased traffic in important manatee areas may create disturbances which will alter behaviors such as feeding, suckling, or resting, or it may separate mothers from their calves. Also, vessel traffic may cause them to leave preferred habitats. Finally, as noted above, vessel collisions with manatees produce non-lethal injuries as well, causing pain and extreme scarring, which can alter natural behaviors and affect reproduction. The single biggest known cause of death to manatees is impacts from boats. The project would increase the risk of watercraft collisions with manatees in this region. As the level of boat traffic increases, the probability of boat and manatee collisions is also likely to increase. Because the project is located along the travel corridor between the largest wintering aggregation of manatees on Florida's west coast and their local foraging habitat, the expected secondary impacts from increased vessel traffic associated with the project is expected to reduce the value of the functions of the River as a travel corridor. Therefore, the secondary impacts of vessel traffic from the expansion of the marina are expected to result in adverse impacts to manatees. In 1990, the DNR reviewed the proposed DRI for this site under the state manatee program. It found that during the preceding thirteen years (1976-February 1990), thirty-six manatees had died from water-related injuries in the County. Within a five-mile radius of the site, four manatees had died from watercraft-related injuries. DNR concluded that since the manatee protection speed zones for the River had just been established, they were expected to offset the impact of the additional 198 slips. From March 1990 until September 2006, however, twenty-five additional manatees have died from watercraft-related injuries within a five-mile radius of the site. Therefore, the number of deaths had increased without the additional 198 slips. The logical inference is that if the new slips are allowed, boat traffic and the associated adverse impacts on manatees will likewise increase. The fact that dry slips will be used does not change the Department and Commission's evaluation of the project. A boat has the same risk to a manatee whether stored in a wet or dry facility. Marine industry groups suggest that an average usage rate is between ten and fifteen percent at any time, and that usage is likely to increase on the weekends. Thus, as density increases so does the risk. In addition to its own analysis, the Commission reviewed the County MPP, which indicated that nine additional slips at this location would be acceptable, for a total of thirty-nine. This number was calculated by using a slip density of three slips for every one hundred feet of shoreline owned. (The actual linear feet of shoreline owned by Hancock is unclear. The Commission concedes that Hancock "may own a total of 1,214 linear feet of shoreline.") A MPP typically allows for higher boat densities in areas that pose less risk to manatees and lower boat densities in higher risk locations. Had the MPP not been considered, the number of allowable slips would remain at thirty since the MPP provides for a countywide strategy instead of a case-by-case review. To date, the Commission has never recommended approval of a marina application in the County that would authorize more docks than the MPP would authorize. The Commission initially makes an independent assessment of the application without regard to the MPP. In this case, based upon mortality data, aerial surveys, telemetry data, rescue data, and boat studies, the Commission determined that no further slips are appropriate. Therefore, even if the County's MPP is based upon outdated data and analysis, as Hancock contends, approval of the application would not be warranted. Petitioner's expert posited that the proposed project would only result in one manatee death over the next twenty years, which would amount to no more than a de minimus impact on the overall population. Assuming this to be true, manatees are nonetheless an endangered species, and there is no minimal amount of death that is considered acceptable. The witness also opined that Hancock is entitled to an unlimited number of slips under the MPP due to flawed data and analysis underpinning that document. In formulating his recommendations, however, Hancock's expert relied on mathematical models and statistics while ignoring the principles of manatee behavior and biology. Finally, the expert agreed that the greater the number of boats in the water, the greater the likelihood that a manatee could be accidentally crushed. On the issue of impacts to manatees, the testimony of the Commission witnesses is deemed to be the most credible and persuasive. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the marina will be located in an area adjacent to the River, that large numbers of manatees use the River, and that the project is expected to increase boat traffic. This in turn will lead to a higher incidence of boating-related manatee casualties in the area. Therefore, the proposed activity adversely affects the conservation of wildlife and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; it adversely affects the marine productivity in the area; it is permanent in nature; and it diminishes the current condition and relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the activity. On balance, then, the project is contrary to the public interest. Based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f). Similarly, based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b). By failing to provide reasonable assurances that the facility will not be harmful to water resources, that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters, and that the project meets the public interest test, Hancock has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes. Mitigation If an applicant cannot meet the requirements of Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the Department "shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity." As noted in Finding of Fact 27, supra, the Department is willing to approve an additional nine slips that would be allowed under the County MPP, for a total of thirty- nine. According to Hancock, this number is not acceptable because more slips are needed to make the project financially feasible. Although a copy of the application is not a part of this record, the testimony suggests that in its application, Hancock proposed certain measures to mitigate the impacts on manatees. In a letter to the Department dated November 8, 2007, however, the Commission stated that "[i]f the Applicant propose[s] changes to the project to minimize fish and wildlife resource impacts that are consistent with the Lee County MPP, such a project would be consistent with Chapter 370.12(2), F.S." (The Legislature has subsequently consolidated this statute into Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes.) Despite this lack of clarity in the record, sometime during the application process, and presumably before the Notice of Intent was issued, the Commission staff discussed with Hancock whether the following mitigation measures would offset or adequately reduce the impacts: placing a size restriction on boats docking at its facility; providing boater education; installing speed zone marking and making it a requirement for all boats at the marina to be equipped with a speed zone map or a Global Positioning Satellite unit with speed zone mapping; implementing a volunteer watch program to enforce speed limits; making a cash donation to study manatee population dynamics; and installing sonar avoidance technology on vessels. The Commission established that these measures, even if implemented, would not offset the impacts from 198 slips expected with phase 1 of the project. For example, the research associated with sonar technology is not yet completed, and devices are not available for boaters. Also, given the location of the project, even with additional law enforcement and boater education, the impacts would not be offset due to the level of traffic already existing on the River at that site, and the importance of the area to manatees. The middle of the River is a high-speed corridor (with a twenty-five miles per hour speed limit) and even with one hundred percent compliance in that zone, a small boat can still hit and kill a manatee. The Proprietary Authorization Because denial of the ERP is being recommended, the proprietary authorization must likewise be denied. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-373.075(2). Even so, for the purpose of addressing all issues in this Recommended Order, a discussion of the application for proprietary authorization is set forth below. Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 contains the rules that implement the administrative and management responsibilities of the Department in authorizing activities in sovereignty submerged lands. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004 establishes the specific standards and criteria to be applied by the Department in determining whether Hancock should be allowed to use sovereign submerged lands. Paragraph (1)(a) provides that "[f]or approval, all activities on sovereignty lands must be not contrary to the public interest." The public interest is defined as "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(43). The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, on balance, the project is contrary to the public interest based upon the standards in the rules. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) provides that "[a]ll sovereignty lands shall be considered single use lands and shall be managed primarily for the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Compatible secondary purposes and uses which will not detract from or interfere with the primary purpose may be allowed." The evidence does not show that Hancock's proposed marina expansion constitutes a secondary use not interfering with the propagation of wildlife. Therefore, the project is not consistent with this rule. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(b) provides that "unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate mitigation is proposed," activities which result in significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources shall not be approved. As previously found, the mitigation measures proposed by Hancock are not adequate. Paragraph (2)(i) of the rule further provides that activities in submerged lands "shall be designed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural or cultural resources. Special attention and consideration shall be given to endangered and threatened species habitat." Because Hancock failed to prove that the project would not result in unmitigated adverse impacts to manatees, it fails to meet this criterion. Paragraphs (7)(d) and (e) of the rule are general conditions for authorization and provide that activities "shall be constructed and used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources" and "shall not adversely affect any species which is endangered, threatened, or of special concern." Here the more persuasive evidence shows that neither condition has been met.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an ERP and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands to expand an existing marina on Hancock Creek in Lee County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2009.
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if a Petition for Relief is referred to the DOAH for formal hearing based on a Notice of Determination: No Jurisdiction issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR resume jurisdiction of the matter and complete the investigation of the Charge of Discrimination, pursuant to Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, or permit Petitioner to make her election of remedies pursuant to Section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William R. Amlong, Esquire Amlong & Amlong, P.A. 500 Northeast Fourth Street Second Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1154 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et. al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and a Letter of Consent to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands (Letter of Consent) should be issued to Respondent, Palm Beach County (County), authorizing it to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands for a restoration project in Lake Worth Lagoon.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings are determined: The Parties Trump is the owner association for a two-towered residential and commercial condominium building located at 525 South Flagler Drive in downtown West Palm Beach, upland and west of the project site in the Lagoon. Each tower rises thirty floors and together they have of two hundred twenty units. The first five floors are common areas including a lobby on the first floor, while a pool and patio are located on the fifth floor of the north tower. The property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive, a four-lane divided road with landscaping and sidewalks which runs adjacent to, and on the western side of, the Lagoon. There is no dispute that Trump has standing to initiate this action. Flagler owns, manages, and leases two multi-story office buildings located at 501 Flagler Drive on the upland real property directly west of the project location. Like the Trump property, the Flagler property is separated from the Lagoon by Flagler Drive. There is no dispute that Flagler has standing to participate in this matter. The County is a political subdivision of the State and is the applicant in this proceeding. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes,2 to issue to the County an ERP for the project, as well as authority as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) to authorize activities on sovereign submerged lands pursuant to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21. Background On October 29, 2007, the County submitted to the Department its Joint Application for an ERP and Letter of Consent to use sovereignty submerged lands in the Lagoon owned by the Board of Trustees. The application was assigned File No. 50- 0283929-00. After an extensive review process, including three requests for additional information, on August 12, 2008, the Department issued its Notice of Intent authorizing the County to fill 7.97 acres of submerged lands in the Lagoon with approximately 172,931 cubic yards of sand and rock material to create the following: (a) approximately 1.75 acres of red mangrove habitat including 1.52 acres of mangrove islands and 0.23 acres of red mangrove planters; (b) approximately 0.22 acres of cordgrass habitat; (c) approximately 0.90 acres of oyster habitat; (d) approximately 3.44 acres of submerged aquatic vegetation habitat; and (e) a 10-foot by 556-foot (5,560 square feet) public boardwalk with two 3-foot by 16-foot (48 square feet) educational kiosk areas and a 16-foot by 16-foot (256 square feet) observation deck for a total square footage of approximately 5,912 square feet. The Notice of Intent also included a number of general and specific conditions particular to this project. Trump (by timely Petition) and Flagler (by intervention) then challenged the Notice of Intent. They contend generally that the project unreasonably infringes upon or restricts their riparian rights and fails to meet the permitting and consent to use criteria set forth in Chapters 18-21 and 40E-4, as well as Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Section 253.141, Florida Statutes. Conflicting evidence on these issues was presented at the hearing. The conflicts have been resolved in favor of the County and the Department, who presented the more persuasive evidence. The Project The project area is a cove in the Lagoon, a Class III water body which extends within the County from North Palm Beach to Manalapan. The western side of the water body in the project area is lined with a vertical concrete seawall approximately 6.64 feet above the mean low water line. The waters immediately adjacent to the Trump and Flagler upland property are generally two to five feet deep along the seawall. To the east lies the island of Palm Beach, to the south is the Royal Park Bridge, which connects West Palm Beach and the Town of Palm Beach, while to the north is the Flagler Memorial drawbridge. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet from shore to shore. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) runs roughly through the middle of the Lagoon in a north-south direction. Currently, there is an artificial dredge hole in the project area around four hundred feet from the western seawall. The dredge hole, which descends to approximately twenty feet at its deepest location, is filled with muck, which can be re- suspended by wave energy into the water, blocking the sunlight necessary for the support of biotic life. The muck covers the natural hard bottom, consumes oxygen, and presents an unsuitable environment for benthic organisms. The dredge hole is too deep to support seagrasses. The project calls for filling the dredge hole to intertidal elevations, i.e., between the high and low tide elevations, for mangroves and elevations suitable for seagrass. In all, approximately 173,000 cubic yards of fill will be placed in and around the hole to build up three separate islands within the project footprint, on which the County will plant 10,000 red mangroves, which naturally grow between fifteen and twenty-five feet in height. (The County estimates that eighty to ninety percent of the mangroves will survive and grow to a height of at least fifteen feet.) The top of the islands, not including mangroves, will be just below the mean high water mark. The County also proposes locating planters along the seawall and oyster reefs along the southern end of the project. The planters are designed to extend out approximately twenty feet from the seawall and will be placed on sovereign submerged lands. The last five feet will consist of limestone rock. Mangrove, spartina, and seagrass habitats will provide a biodiverse source of food and habitat for other species, and occurs naturally within the Lagoon but has been lost over time. Oyster habitat is proposed for additional bio-diversity and to provide a natural water filtration function. From the County's perspective, the restoration project would be incomplete without all the habitats proposed. The planters will be at an intertidal elevation, planted with red mangroves and spartina, and faced with rock to reduce wave energy in the area. The oyster reefs are rock structures designed to rise one foot above mean high water line for visibility to boaters. The project also includes a boardwalk and attached educational kiosks on the south side of the project to bring the public in contact with the habitats. The County will maintain the boardwalk, empty the trash daily, and open/close the gates at sunrise/sunset. The County proposes a minimum ten-foot buffer between seagrass beds and the fill area. The project is part of the County's Lagoon Management Plan, which outlines the County's restoration goals within the Lagoon. The County has performed numerous other restoration projects within the Lagoon to re-introduce mangrove and seagrass habitat, such as Snook Island, which consisted of filling a 100- acre dredge hole, installing mangrove islands, seagrass flats, and oyster reefs. The Snook Island project restored mangrove habitat and recruited fish and bird species, including endangered and threatened species. Snook Island has remained stable, with no sediment deposition or erosion. The County intends to fill the dredge hole with native lagoon bottom sediment. A clam-shell machine will deposit the sediment below the water line to reduce turbidity. Sediment will be placed around the edges of the dredge hole, reducing the velocity of the fill as it settles to the bottom and encapsulates the muck, as required by Draft Permit Special Condition No. 19. The County will use turbidity curtains, monitor conditions hourly, and stop work if turbidity levels rise beyond acceptable standards. These precautions are included in Draft Permit Conditions 12, 13, and 14. The County will use construction barges with a four- foot draft to avoid propeller dredge or rutting and will place buoys along the project boundary to guide the construction barges, precautions integrated into the Draft Permit conditions. The County's vendor contracts require maintenance of construction equipment to prevent leakage. A similar condition is found in the Draft Permit. Both the intertidal and seagrass flats elevations at the top of the islands will be built at a 4:1 slope; elevations subject to wind and wave energy will be reinforced with a rock revetment constructed of filter cloth and rock boulders. Seagrass elevations will have no reinforcing rock because they are deep enough to avoid significant currents. Proposed drawings were signed and sealed by a professional engineer. The ERP Criteria To secure regulatory approval for an ERP, an applicant must satisfy the conditions in current Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E- 4.302. The first rule focuses primarily on water quantity, environmental impacts, and water quality. The latter rule requires that a public interest balancing test be made, and that cumulative impacts, if any, be considered. Also, the BOR, which implements the rule criteria, must be taken into account. a. Rule 40E-4.301 21. Paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c), (1)(g), (1)(h), and (1)(k) and subsections (2) and (3) of the rule do not apply. Although Trump and Flagler have focused primarily on paragraphs (1)(d), (f), and (i) in their joint Proposed Recommended Order, all remaining criteria will be addressed. Paragraph (1)(d) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity "will not adversely affect the value of the functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters." Based on the project design, the filling of the dredge hole and capping of muck, the restoration of seagrass habitat, and the creation of mangrove habitat, the project will have no adverse impacts but rather will be beneficial to the value of functions for fish and wildlife. Paragraph (1)(e) requires that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The County will be required to manage turbidity that may be generated from the project. In part, the turbidity will be contained by the proposed construction method for filling the dredge hole. As noted earlier, the native sand will be deposited using a clamshell-type arm to dump the sand under the water around the periphery of the edge of the downward slope of the dredge hole. This will continue around the periphery of the hole, building up a lip and letting it slide down towards the bottom of the hole, squeezing the muck into the center of the hole and beginning to encapsulate it. Once there are several feet of native sand over the muck to encapsulate it, the County will resume the filling at the target rate. Subsection 4.2.4.1 of the BOR requires that the County address stabilizing newly created slopes of surfaces. To satisfy this requirement, the County will place the fill at a 4:1 slope. The outer edge of the mangrove islands slope back to a 4:1 slope and use rock rip-rap to stabilize that slope. Also, filter cloth, bedding stones, and boulders will be used. Because water currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de-stabilize. There will be turbidity curtains around the project area. Those are floating tops and weighted bottoms that reach to the bottom and are intended to contain any turbidity that may be generated by the project. Specific Conditions 12, 13, and 14 require extensive monitoring of turbidity. The County proposes to use a barge with a draft no greater than four feet. This aspect of the project will require a pre-construction meeting and extensive monitoring throughout the project. As a part of the application review, the County performed a hydrographic analysis which was coordinated with and reviewed by the Department staff. There are no expected debris or siltation concerns as a result of the project. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that over the long term, the project is expected to have a beneficial effect on water quality. By filling the dredge hole and providing habitat for seagrass, mangroves, and oysters, the project will provide net improvement to water quality. The requirements of the rule have been met. Paragraph (1)(f) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the activities will not "cause secondary impacts to the water resources." More detailed criteria for consideration are found in BOR Subsection 4.2.7. The County has provided reasonable assurance that through best management practices, it will control turbidity. Also, Specific Conditions in the proposed permit require that water quality monitoring be conducted throughout the process. There will be no impacts to upland habitat for aquatic or wetland dependent species. This is because a vertical seawall is located upland of the project site, and no surrounding uplands are available for nesting or denning by aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. A secondary impact evaluation also includes an evaluation of any related activities that might impact historical and archaeological resources. There are, however, no historical or archaeological resources in the area. If resources are uncovered during the project, Draft Permit conditions require notification to the Department of State. Finally, there are no anticipated future activities or future phases on the project to be considered. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the project "will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed." Trump and Flagler contend that the project cannot be constructed and successfully operated as proposed. Trump's expert witness, Joseph Pike, testified that there were ambiguities and conflicts within the plan drawings that would require changes upon build-out; either fill will be placed outside of the fill area, or the mangrove islands will be smaller than depicted. Mr. Pike also voiced concerns that a 4:1 slope would not be stable and might cause fill to migrate to existing seagrass beds. He further stated that the Snook Island project included 18:1 slopes, and he thought providing rock revetment only at the intertidal zone was insufficient. Mr. Pike acknowledged that he had used 4:1 slopes in lake projects; however, in a tidal project involving fill placement, he opined that a 4:1 slope was likely to "relax." He did not do calculations about what slope might hold and admitted that prior experience using similar slopes with the same type of fill might change his opinion. Finally, Mr. Pike noted that a portion of the dredge hole would not be filled and concluded that the project would not fully cap the muck. Trump's biologist, James Goldasitch, speculated that the water flow changes would cause sediment deposition on existing seagrass beds, possibly causing the seagrasses to die. He admitted, however, that the County's plans called for the creation of 3.44 acres of seagrass and did not know the amount of habitat created compared to the amount of habitat he anticipated being affected. The Department's engineer, Jack Wu, approved the hydrologic aspects of the County's plan, but Mr. Goldasitch speculated that Mr. Wu was more focused on shoreline stability than on depositional forces. Mr. Goldasitch never actually spoke to Mr. Wu regarding his analysis, and Mr. Wu's memorandum refers not only to engineering and construction aspects of the proposal but also to the criteria in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Mr. Goldasitch believed the County's boardwalk will impact the seagrass beds by blocking sunlight, but acknowledged that the Draft Permit required the boardwalk to be elevated and portions to be grated. Both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department's expert witness concluded that the permit conditions for constructing the boardwalk, which are common, eliminated impacts to seagrass. Mr. Goldasitch further opined that the 4:1 slope might slump, but then deferred to the opinion of a registered engineer on this type of engineering matter. The County presented its professional engineer, Clint Thomas, who worked on the project design. Mr. Thomas explained that permit drawings are not intended to be construction-level in detail, but are merely intended to provide sufficient detail for the regulator to understand the project within the 8 and 1/2 by 11-inch paper format required by the Department. The County will ultimately prepare permit-level, construction-level, and as-built drawings. Permit conditions also require a pre-construction meeting. No fill will be placed outside the area designated for fill, and the 4:1 slope will start at the outer boundary of the designated fill area until it reaches the specified elevation. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the plan view drawings depict a mangrove island too close to the western project boundary, but stated that the mangrove island would simply be placed farther to the east during the construction-level plan process. Islands will become smaller islands, but will not be relocated, and in no event will the fill area expand; the fill boundary is a very strict limit. There is no evidence that the County has ever violated a fill boundary established in a permit. The 4:1 slope was based on the type of fill proposed for the project and to maximize project features. Mr. Thomas has successfully used 4:1 slopes with non-compacted fill in the Lagoon, both at Snook Island in its as-built state and at other projects. The islands at Snook Island are similar to those proposed. Other areas in the Lagoon have held slopes steeper than 4:1 with the same type of fill. Therefore, Mr. Thomas opined the 4:1 slope would hold. In rendering this opinion, he explained that the currents in the project vicinity are only around 1.2 knots. Because currents slow near the bottom, the 4:1 slope for the seagrass elevations on the bottom will not de- stabilize. Mr. Thomas addressed the contention that a change in water flow velocity would cause sediment to deposit on existing seagrass. The oyster reefs are rubble structures that allow the water to flow through. If any sediment flows through, it will deposit on the north side of the oyster bar, rather than on the seagrass beds. Given these considerations, the evidence supports a finding that the project will function as proposed. Finally, paragraph (1)(j) requires that the County provide reasonable assurance that it has the financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. The evidence supports a finding that the County has complied with this requirement. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County has given reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the criteria in Rule 40E-4.301. b. Rule 40E-4.302 In addition to the conditions of Rule 40E-4.301, the County must provide reasonable assurance that the construction of the proposed project will not be contrary to the public interest. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)1.-7. Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)1. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Trump first contends that the project will increase the mosquito population. The evidence shows, however, that the mangroves will be placed below the mean high water mark and therefore no increase in mosquitoes should occur. Also, the design of the project, coupled with the local mosquito control program, should ensure that there will be no increase in mosquito population or a risk to the public health. Trump also raised the issue of an increase in trash along the boardwalk area or in the newly-created mangrove islands. The County presented evidence that there will be appropriate trash receptacles in the area as well as regular garbage collection. In terms of safety, navigation markers are included as a part of the project for safe boating by the public. The County consulted with the United States Coast Guard regarding navigation issues. Further, the project will not cause flooding on the property of others or cause an environmental impact on other property. Although a number of Trump residents expressed sincere and well-intended concerns about the project impacting the value of their condominiums (mainly due to a loss of view), BOR Subsection 4.2.3.1(d) provides that the "[Department] will not consider impacts to property values or taxes." Rule 40E-4.302(1)(a)2. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Subparagraph 4. of the same rule requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The proposed activity is a restoration project for the creation of seagrass and mangrove habitats. As such, it is beneficial to the conservation of fish and wildlife and is expected to increase the biotic life in the project area. Besides providing additional habitat for fish and wildlife, the project will add to the marine productivity in the area. In terms of recreational opportunities, the project is expected to be a destination for boating, kayaking, fishing, and birdwatching. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has also recommended issuance of the permit with the standard manatee condition for in-water work. This recommendation has been incorporated as Specific Conditions 23 through 25 Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)3. requires that the Department consider whether the activity will adversely affect navigation and the flow of water, or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The nearest navigation channel is the ICW. The project is located outside of that area. Subsection 4.2.3.3 of the BOR provides additional guidance on the evaluation of impacts of this nature. Paragraph (a) of that subsection provides that, in evaluating a proposed activity, the Department "will consider the current navigational uses of the surface waters and will not speculate on uses which may occur in the future." Trump residents indicated that in the project area persons are now picked up off the seawall and then travel to the ICW. Access to the seawall is possible from the east and south, although existing shoals currently limit the approach from the south. Large boats do not use the area because of shoals. In general, "[t]here's not a whole lot of boating activity in the project area." The parties agree that if the project is constructed as designed, boats will not be able to travel directly out from the seawall in front on Trump or Flagler to the ICW, as they now do. However, navigation in the area will still be available, although not as convenient as before. As to water flow, shoaling, and erosion, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the 4:1 slope will be stable and will not cause fill to migrate outside of the boundaries of the project into existing seagrass beds. The tidal flow will continue through the area after construction without sediment deposition into existing seagrass beds or destabilizing the 4:1 slope. There will be no shoaling or erosion. Finally, the project will be permanent and there are no significant historical and archaeological resources in the area. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.302(1)(a)5. and 6. In summary, the evidence supports a finding that the County's proposal is neutral as to whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others; that the County's proposal is neutral with respect to navigation, erosion and shoaling, and water flow, as well as to historical and archaeological concerns; and that the County's proposal is positive with respect to the conservation of fish and wildlife, recreational values and marine productivity, permanency, and current values and functions. When these factors are weighed and balanced, the project is not contrary to the public interest and qualifies for an ERP. D. Proprietary Authorization Chapter 18-21 applies to requests for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. The management policies, standards, and criteria used to determine whether to approve or deny a request are found in Rule 18-21.004. In making its review, the Department reviews the rule in its entirety; it also looks at the forms of authorization (e.g., letters of consent, leases, deeds, or easement) to determine the most appropriate form of authorization for an activity. Trump and Flagler have raised contentions regarding the proprietary authorization, including whether the application should have been treated as one of heightened public concern, whether the proper form of authorization has been used, and whether their riparian rights are unreasonably infringed upon by the project. Heightened Public Concern Rule 18-21.0051 provides for the delegation of review and decision-making authority to the Department for the use of sovereign submerged lands, with the following exception found in subsection (4) of the rule: (4) The delegations set forth in subsection (2) are not applicable to a specific application for a request to use sovereign submerged lands under Chapter 253 or 258, F.S., where one or more members of the Board, the Department, or the appropriate water management district determines that such application is reasonably expected to result in a heightened public concern, because of its potential effect on the environment, natural resources, or controversial nature or location. On March 13, 2008, the Department's West Palm Beach District Office sent a "heightened public concern [HPC]) memo" to the Department's review panel in Tallahassee,3 seeking guidance as to whether the project required review by the Board of Trustees under the above-cited rule. The Department emailed the County on March 14, 2008, stating that the project would be elevated to the Board of Trustees for review to approve the entire Lagoon Management Plan. The County asked for reconsideration, concerned over timing restraints on grant opportunities. This concern is based on the fact that the County will receive grant monies to assist in the construction of the project and must have regulatory approval by a date certain in order to secure those funds. A second HPC memorandum was sent to the review panel on April 22, 2008. Part of the interim decision to elevate the application to the Board of Trustees concerned the boardwalk connection to the City of West Palm Beach's existing seawall. The City of West Palm Beach is the upland owner of the seawall, sidewalk, and Flagler Drive. On June 9, 2008, the Mayor of West Palm Beach sent a letter to the Department stating that the City "fully supports" the proposed activity, and that the County and the City collaborated on the design of the project, held joint public meetings, and produced a project video. See Department Exhibit Trump and Flagler argue that under the City Charter, the Mayor cannot unilaterally bind the local government to allow structures to be built on City property. Assuming this is true, one of the remaining conditions for the County to initiate the project is to obtain a "letter of concurrence" from the City of West Palm Beach authorizing the County to connect the boardwalk to the seawall. Therefore, the review panel ultimately concluded that the application could be reviewed at the staff level and did not require Board of Trustees review. The evidence at hearing did not establish that the application was one of heightened public concern, given the limited size of the project, its location, and the net benefit to both environmental and natural resources. Compare Brown, et al. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., et al., DOAH Case No. 04-0476, 2004 Fla. ENV LEXIS 112 (DOAH Aug. 2, 2004, SFWMD Sept. 8, 2004). Therefore, review by the Board of Trustees was not required. Form of Authorization Trump and Flagler contend that an easement is required by the County, rather than a consent of use. The standard for obtaining an easement is more stringent than a consent of use, and an easement offers a greater interest in sovereign lands. Rule 18-21.005(1) provides the general policy direction for determining the appropriate form of authorization and reads in relevant part as follows: It is the intent of the Board that the form of authorization shall grant the least amount of interest in the sovereignty submerged lands necessary for the activity. For activities not specifically listed, the Board will consider the extent of interest needed and the nature of the proposed activity to determine which form of authorization is appropriate. This rule requires that the Department should apply the lowest and least restrictive form of authorization. Trump and Flagler argue that the County's project constitutes a spoil disposal site under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)8., a public water management project other than public channels under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)10., or a management activity which includes "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," as described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)11. Each of these activities requires an easement rather than a letter of consent in order to use sovereign submerged lands. The evidence shows that the County's project is not a spoil disposal site. Also, it is not primarily a public water management project as there is no evidence that the project relates in any way to flood control, water storage or supply, or conservation of water. Likewise, there is no evidence indicating that the activities will prevent access by the public by exclusion. Even though many of the features (structures) of the project will be permanent, the project is intended to generally increase public access to water resources, as well as the islands, boardwalk, and kiosks. Besides raising the issue of heightened public concern, the second HPC Memorandum dated April 22, 2008, sought guidance as to whether the project required a consent of use or an easement. The review panel concluded that the project qualified for a consent of use, rather than an easement under Rule 18- 21.005(1)(f), because the County's project most closely fits the definition in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. That rule provides that if the proposed activity involves "[h]abitat restoration, enhancement, or permitted mitigation activities without permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public," an applicant may use sovereign submerged lands with a consent of use. Because the County's project increases public access not only to water resources in the Lagoon but also to the permanent structures being built, it more closely falls within the type of activity described in Rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15. Notably, all of the County's restoration projects in the Lagoon have been previously authorized through a consent of use. Finally, the review panel concluded that the project did not fall under Rule 18-21.005(1)(f)16., which requires an easement for environmental management activities that include "permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public" because of the rule's focus on the exclusion of the general public. Riparian Rights The parties have stipulated, for the purpose of this proceeding, that Trump and Flagler have riparian rights, including view, ingress/egress, fishing, boating, swimming, and the qualified right to apply for a dock, that should be considered. Trump and Flagler contend that their right to wharf out (build a dock) from the seawall, ingress/egress from navigable water, and view will be unreasonably infringed upon if the application is approved. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18- 21.004(3)(a)("[n]one of the provisions of this rule shall be implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe upon the traditional, common law riparian rights, as defined in Section 253.141, F.S., of upland property owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands"). For the reasons given below, the greater weight of evidence establishes that none of these riparian rights will be unreasonably infringed upon. Currently, while access is possible from the east and the southern approaches, existing shoals limit the southern approach. The boardwalk will further limit boat traffic on the south end, and boats would not be able to cross over the islands. Boat traffic will still be able to access the cove from the north end, and the restoration project will create a boating destination. Trump witness Pike opined that the County's project would negatively affect navigation between the upland parcels and the ICW because the project would eliminate the eastern and southern approaches and leave only the northern approach, which could not be used by both parcels fully. The County's expert, Dr. Nicholas De Gennarro, testified that, during his site visits, he observed boat traffic waiting for the drawbridges using the east side of the ICW away from the project site. Dr. De Gennarro noted that several existing structures are closer to the ICW than the proposed County project, which lies 220 feet away from the ICW. Thus, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the project would not impact navigation in the ICW. With respect to ingress/egress, Dr. De Gennarro acknowledged that access to the Trump and Flagler properties would not be available from the southern and eastern approaches, but concluded that the restriction represented nothing more than an inconvenience. He noted that the southern approach was already a less preferable approach due to existing shoals. At present, there is very little boating in the area outside of special events. While the project would limit the use of boats directly over the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands, the project will provide a boating destination. Further, both the City docks to the north of the site and the temporary docks in front of Flagler's property –- both used for special events –- will still be available under the County's proposal. There is no swimming and very little fishing in the area because of the degraded conditions caused by the dredge hole. Accordingly, while the project will fill a small portion of water currently available, but not used, for swimming, it will greatly enhance swimming by providing a destination for swimmers. The mangroves planned for the intertidal islands are likely to reach a height of fifteen feet and will be interspersed with spartina. The seawall is located six feet above the water line, making a person's view at eye level already several feet above the water. Trump and Flagler's buildings are built at even higher elevations. Therefore, the mangroves will not substantially obscure the view from either property, even at street level where the view is already partially obscured by existing landscaping. The Lagoon is approximately 2,000 feet across. From north to south around one hundred acres of water can now be viewed from the vicinity. Since the intertidal islands only comprise one and one-half acres, the overall impact to the view of the water body is very small. The mangroves in the planters extending out from the seawall will be trimmed to one foot above the seawall; the County requested the condition and committed at hearing to trimming the mangroves if the City of West Palm Beach does not. County photographs show Trump and Flagler's present view of the water body and demonstrate the comparatively small percentage of the view affected by the one and one-half acres of mangrove islands. See County Exhibits 133a-e and 134a-d. The photographs also demonstrated that sizeable palm trees are already part of the existing view. Additionally, the County photographs depicted the small impact that trimmed mangrove planters would have on the view. The area obstructed by the mangrove islands and seagrass is negligible compared to the expanse of the existing view. Trump and Flagler offered no evidence to contradict the County's analysis regarding the scope of the impact on the view. Trump residents Dale McNulty, Dean Goodman, and Charles Lemoine testified that they personally would not want to view mangrove islands regardless of tree size or the size of the islands. Understandably, after years of unfettered view and an open expanse of water, they are opposed to any type of project in this area of the Lagoon. However, Mr. Goodman acknowledged that he would still be able to see the Town of Palm Beach from his unit. The evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from both Trump and Flagler's property, the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights. Mr. Lemoine stated that he had a forty-foot trawler that he would like to dock in front of his property. He currently docks the boat at a marina twenty miles north of the Trump property. He prefers to bring his boat in stern first and enter slips oriented north to south. He indicated that he can drive his boat in five feet of water, but prefers six feet; however, he also testified that he has brought his boat directly up to the bulkhead in front of Trump, which is approximately a two- or three-foot depth. The witness has seen sailboats and other boats moored near the bulkhead over extended timeframes. Mr. Lemoine speculated that Trump might seek a dock, either alone or in conjunction with Flagler, but admitted that Trump has never applied for a dock permit. He stated that Trump has had discussions about the possibility of a dock over the last fifteen years and speculated that a dock plan might include anything from the purchase/lease of the City docks to a lease of Trump's riparian interests to a third party. By contrast, Trump resident and former Board member Dean Goodman indicated "the idea was to provide an amenity [for] a number of people that are in the building that are boaters." Mr. Goodman stated that he hoped to be able to have a boat in front of the building someday, but did not own a boat in Florida. Association president Dale McNulty explained that, while informal discussions have occurred regarding the possibility of a dock, no official action had been taken. Mr. McNulty characterized the dock plans as being "sort of in the land of wishful thinking." Mr. Pike, while acknowledging that both parcels would still be able to design a dock for their property, opined that the County's project unreasonably limited the size and configuration of the docks possible. Mr. Pike initially admitted that a safe navigation depth for a forty-foot boat, or even a sailboat, was four feet below mean low water (MLW), but stated that he would prefer to design a dock with an additional two-to- three feet of water below the four-foot draft to avoid propeller damage. However, Mr. Pike conceded that he has designed docks for boats in four feet below MLW and ultimately based his own calculations on an assumption of a four-foot draft and one-foot cushion, or five feet below MLW. Mr. Pike also opined that a north-south alignment for boat slips was a preferred slip orientation. Given the bathymetry in the area and the documented seagrasses, Mr. Pike estimated that twenty slips could be designed for the Flagler property, rather than the thirty-four slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. He thought that a design might accommodate thirty to thirty-two slips for Trump, rather than the forty-slips provided for by the County Manatee Protection Plan. Based on the limitation on number of slips and configurations, the witness opined that the County's project would unreasonably interfere with Trump and Flagler's ability to design a dock. He admitted, though, that the numbers derived from the County Manatee Protection Plan represent a maximum number, rather than a specified or guaranteed number. He further admitted that other agency limitations may further restrict Trump and Flagler's right to dockage. Without a permit application or plan from Trump or Flagler, County witness Robbins concluded that the most reasonable assumption was an owner-oriented facility designed for the building owners/tenants. The County introduced a graphic illustrating areas available for dock construction, with sufficient depth for 35- to 40-foot boats (-6 feet NGVD) and with no seagrasses present. Rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2. limits ownership-oriented facilities generally to forty square feet for each foot of riparian shoreline, giving Trump the ability to apply for a dock that preempted a maximum of 16,000 square feet, and Flagler a maximum of 14,000 square feet. Under the County Manatee Protection Plan, Trump would be limited to forty slips; Flagler would have the potential for thirty-four slips. Mr. Robbins testified that, in his experience, a minus five MLW is a common depth for docks, but that elevations as shallow as a minus four MLW could be used depending on the type of boats and the dock configuration. Mr. Robbins explained that, even with the County's project in place and factoring in the other limitations, Trump would still have 61,842 square feet of potential space within which to design a dock. Flagler would still have 41,481 square feet of potential space, even considering the need to retain a path for ingress and egress from the Trump parcel. A more detailed analysis of the seagrasses might make more square footage available for dock construction. Dr. De Gennarro also evaluated whether a dock could be designed to serve Trump and Flagler's parcels. The vessel owner statistics for the County indicate that at least ninety-five percent of the boats registered in the County are thirty-nine feet or less; consequently, Dr. De Gennarro focused on boats forty feet or less. Dr. De Gennarro considered the water depths and the existence of subaquatic vegetations and concluded that the graphic presented by Mr. Robbins was conservative, but still provided adequate space for both Trump and Flagler to construct appropriate dockage, allowing thirty-eight boats for Trump and thirty-two for Flagler of varying size. However, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that a dock design of forty slips for each would also be possible, depending on the size of the boats. Dr. De Gennarro proposed that a single, double-loaded parallel dock design would be a good layout for a potential docking facility in front of both Trump and Flagler's property that would be protected by the County's proposed islands, provide sufficient water depths, and provide an attractive facility. He specified, however, that the single, double-loaded parallel dock design was simply one of "many" that might work in the given space. Dr. De Gennarro explained that the existing dredge hole would not be a preferable location for either a mooring field or a dock because the deep muck-bottom would drive up the costs for either type of facility. Accordingly, Dr. De Gennarro concluded that the County's project would not foreclose or even substantially restrict the ability to locate a dock in front of Trump and Flagler’s property. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that neither the right of ingress/egress nor the right to boat in the vicinity is unreasonably infringed upon by the County's project. Trump and Flagler will continue to have reasonable access to navigation. The northerly approach preserved by the County's project will allow for boat traffic to safely navigate in the area. While the southerly and easterly approaches are eliminated by the County's plan, the evidence indicates that the two approaches were less preferable than the northerly approach because of the presence of shoals. Based on the above considerations, the County's project will not unreasonably infringe upon Trump or Flagler's qualified right to a dock. The fact that the project might preclude the design and permitting of a dock that would host very large vessels does not mean that Trump and Flagler's rights regarding docking have been unreasonably infringed. The evidence shows that substantial docking facilities of multiple configurations are still possible even if the County's project is approved. In summary, the County's application for proprietary authorization should be approved. Other Contentions All other contentions raised by Trump and Flagler have been considered and are found to be without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving the County's application for a consolidated ERP and consent to use sovereignty submerged lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2009.
