The Issue Whether the petition that initiated this case was timely as to Petitioner Fullman? If so, whether Petitioner Fullman has standing? Whether Petitioner Burgess has standing? Whether the record demonstrates reasonable assurances for approval of Martin County's application for a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Lease to construct and operate a public mooring field in the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve and to construct and operate a "dinghy" dock immediately south of the Jensen Beach Causeway to support the mooring field?
Findings Of Fact The County, the Lagoon and the Aquatic Preserve Martin County (the "County") is located on the Atlantic Coast in southeast Florida. The Indian River Lagoon (the "Lagoon") runs along the eastern edge of the County in a north-south direction parallel to the coast. The Lagoon is separated from the Atlantic Ocean by barrier islands except for a connection to the ocean through the St. Lucie Inlet. The Lagoon is designated an "Outstanding Florida Water" ("OFW") and its waters are classified as Class III by the Department. The portion of the Lagoon within the County's boundaries is part of the state-designated Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve (the "Aquatic Preserve"), one of three aquatic preserves in the Lagoon. The waters and submerged lands of the Aquatic Preserve are used extensively by the public for commercial, recreational, and scientific purposes consistent with statutory authority that allows uses other than preservation. Uses include commercial docking facilities, defined by rule 18-20.003(16) as "docking facilities for an activity which produces income, through rental or any other means " The Parties Martin County Board of County Commissioners The Martin County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board of County Commissioners") is the County's governing body. In the name of the Board of County Commissioners, the County applied for the permit and sovereignty submerged lands lease that is the subject of this proceeding. The Permit and Lease will allow the County to construct and operate a managed mooring field for boats (the "Mooring Field" or the "Project") to be located within a near-shore area of the Aquatic Preserve. Boats now commonly anchor in the area in a random, un-regulated manner and will continue to do so without the permit and the lease. b. The Department The Department is the state agency with responsibility to conserve, protect, and control water resources pursuant to Part IV, chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. The Department also has the authority to administer the state's program for leases of sovereignty submerged lands, unless such responsibility has been delegated by the Board of Trustees to a water management district or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services by an operating agreement. The parties agree that the Department has the authority to administer the sovereignty submerged lands lease applied for in this case. See Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order, para. 3 at 6; Martin County's Proposed Recommended Order, para. 5 at 7; and the Department's Proposed Recommended Order, para. 2 at 6. Petitioners Petitioner Joseph Burgess resides with his wife in an unincorporated area of the County known as Jensen Beach. He has a direct view of the Lagoon from the rear deck of his home, approximately six-tenths of a mile west of the Project site. Mr. Burgess's wife holds record title to the property, acquired before their marriage. He has a spousal interest in the homestead. He helped his wife to design and build their home on the property and the two have lived there for the past 14 years. They intend to live there for the foreseeable future. Mr. Burgess visits the area of the Project several times a week. He frequently takes his grandchildren and out-of- town friends to the area to appreciate the beauty of the Aquatic Preserve, watch the fishermen, and enjoy the environmental diversity of the Lagoon. When Mr. Burgess drives to the area by way of the Jensen Beach Causeway (the "Causeway") he often finds it difficult to find a parking spot. Mr. Burgess attended community meetings when the Mooring Field was proposed and discussed its impact to the area with other members of the community including Petitioner Fullman. He contacted the Department regarding the status of the Project and requested notice of permit activity. Notice, however, was not provided to him directly; he learned of the Department's intent to issue the permit from counsel. Mr. Burgess has a number of concerns about the Project. He fears it will diminish his way of life and the character of the area in which he resides. He worries that it will add congestion to a near-by rotary for vehicular traffic that he negotiates to get to and from his home nearly every day. He is concerned that the Project will destroy habitat for marine life and the birds which nest and feed in the ecosystem of the Aquatic Preserve and the Lagoon. Petitioner Thomas Fullman owns and resides in a home in Jensen Beach overlooking the Project site. He and his family have enjoyed the Lagoon and the Aquatic Preserve for the past 20 years and he has a deep appreciation for them. Mr. Fullman's concerns for the Aquatic Preserve and the Lagoon led him to challenge the issuance of a permit to construct a seawall in another administrative proceeding. The seawall was proposed to be constructed on the opposite side of the Causeway several hundred feet north of the proposed Mooring Field. The challenge was successful. See Reily Enterprises, LLC v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 990 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Mr. Fullman boated in the Lagoon frequently when his children were growing up. He now boats in the Lagoon once or twice a year. He enjoys fishing in the Lagoon. He is an avid bird-watcher who enjoys looking for osprey and hawks in particular. Mr. Fullman often walks by the site proposed for the Project and enjoys the natural scenery and wildlife that populates the Lagoon and the Aquatic Preserve. He frequently visits the Causeway Park adjacent to the Project site to observe the scenery and wildlife and to picnic with his family. In his practice as a family therapist, Mr. Fullman occasionally takes clients to the Causeway to view the Lagoon and the Aquatic Preserve because they provide a pleasant setting conducive to productive therapeutic discussion. Mr. Fullman plans to remain in his home. He is concerned that the Mooring Field, if installed, will affect his continued enjoyment of his property, cause an increase in vehicular traffic and traffic safety hazards on the route he takes to and from his home daily, limit public parking on the parkway he frequents for recreation and professional purposes, and cause harm to the Lagoon and Aquatic Preserve environmental resources important to him and his family. Mr. Fullman learned of the Department's intent to issue the permit through counsel and authorized counsel to request an extension of time to file a petition for a formal proceeding on his behalf. Mr. Burgess was "taking the lead on keeping in touch with DEP," tr. 714, but Mr. Fullman did not have a formal arrangement with Mr. Burgess regarding securing an extension of time for the filing of an administrative hearing. The Department issued an Order on April 5, 2011, that granted "a request made by the Petitioner, Joe Burgess, to grant an extension of time to file a petition for an administrative hearing." The Order extended the time for the filing to April 14, 2011. The Order did not mention Mr. Fullman. On April 14, 2011, a petition was filed with the Department on behalf of both Mr. Burgess and Mr. Fullman. Unlike Mr. Burgess, however, Mr. Fullman, had not been granted an extension of time for the filing of a petition on his behalf at the time the petition was filed. The County's Application The County submitted its application for the Permit and the Lease on December 24, 2009. The application was prepared by a consulting firm, Coastal Systems International ("CSI"), whom the County had hired to obtain the necessary approvals for the Project from the Department and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps"). The Department acknowledged receiving the County's application in a letter to the County dated January 22, 2010. Beginning with a request for additional information ("RAI") included with that letter, the Department conducted a review process that included more RAIs from the County and from other State agencies. Nearly a year later, the Department notified the County by letter dated January 26, 2011, that the application had been deemed complete. After the application was deemed complete but before the Consolidated NOI (see, below) was issued, the County's consultant submitted additional information to the Department that included copies of documents submitted to the Corps in response to the Corps' requests for additional information. The additional information was overlooked by the Department and, therefore, was not incorporated into the Permit and Lease. During the review process, significant changes were made to the Project proposed by the application. For example, the configuration or "footprint" of the mooring field was made smaller than originally proposed and the number of buoys allowed was lowered. The dinghy dock was relocated and altered in design and materials. Additional terms and conditions were added to the operational requirements. The Project was modified to address the site specific conditions in the Preserve and the possible adverse impact of shading on seagrasses. (This included reduction and relocation of the Mooring Field, re- siting of the Dinghy Dock, and elimination of a proposed "wave attenuator.") The design of the Project considered the characteristics of the vessels that would use the Project, both in the Mooring Field and at the Dinghy Dock. On February 22, 2011, the Board of Trustees determined pursuant to rule 18-20.004(1)(b) that it is in the public interest to lease approximately 34.47 acres of sovereignty submerged lands to the County for 25 years for the Project. The amount of acreage to be leased is 25% less than what was originally proposed, consistent with the changes made to the Project during the review process. The Consolidated NOI, the Project Design and its Location On March 4, 2011, the Department issued a Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue an Environmental Resource Permit and State Lands Authorization (the "Consolidated NOI") to the County. The Consolidated NOI authorizes the County to construct and operate a public mooring field within 34.29 acres of the Aquatic Preserve just south of the Jensen Beach Causeway. The proposed site of the Mooring Field is an area that was dredged for the filling of submerged lands to create the nearby west island of the Causeway. The general area of the Project is a busy waterway that has heavy boat traffic from the north, south, east and west. It is approximately 500 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway near the Intracoastal's intersection with the Okeechobee Waterway. The Project area is close to established upland facilities such as boat ramps, fish cleaning stations, a fishing pier, restrooms, picnic shelters, and public parking for cars and boat trailers, all maintained by the County on the west island of the Jensen Beach Causeway. The Causeway on its eastern end connects the mainland to a large, populated barrier island. On the mainland shore, several hundred yards west of the Project area is SunDance Marina, a commercial facility that offers fuel, repair, docking and other services for boaters. The facilities operated by the County, the marina, the local population and the heavy boat traffic in the area contribute to the per capita boat ownership in Martin County, among the highest for counties in Florida. Amenities in or near a county park at the west island of the Jensen Beach Causeway include 140-car parking spaces, 58 car/trailer parking spaces and a wooden viewing platform adjacent to the boat ramp on the south side of the Causeway. There is currently a small dock and a sandy beach along the causeway near the boat ramp along the south portion of the Causeway enjoyed by boaters while they also use the park facilities. Boaters would lose the use of the existing dock and the beach if the Project is constructed but would gain the benefits provided by the Project. The Causeway has a vertical concrete seawall parallel to the Project area. There is a section of the Causeway that connects to the shoreline, called a relief bridge that promotes flushing and circulation otherwise impeded by the Causeway. Prevailing winds are out of the southeast. Since the Lagoon is a large, open, water body, the wind traveling across it contributes to wave height which increases turbidity. At present, in the absence of a mooring field, approximately 20 vessels anchor in and around the Jensen Beach area at any one time. Many anchor in the shallow seagrass area and remain for extended periods of time. The anchoring is haphazard and poses a risk of scarring and otherwise damaging seagrass beds. The Project area has been plagued by dilapidated and sunken vessels. The County has removed seven of them recently, plus another three from nearby waters of the Aquatic Preserve. Dilapidated vessels pose the potential to leak hazardous materials, be navigational hazards and prevent seagrass growth, all of which can damage the Aquatic Preserve. The Project Area is not currently managed or maintained by the County. The Project is proposed as a management tool to encourage boaters to utilize mooring buoys located in an area where seagrass is either sparse or barren instead of anchoring in shallow seagrass areas where the boats may damage the seagrass. Known as the Jensen Beach Managed Mooring Field, the Project is authorized for 51 buoys permanently attached to helical mooring anchors drilled into the submerged bottom lands of the Preserve and a new Dinghy Dock on the south shore of the nearby west Causeway Island. The helical mooring anchor is approximately 12 inches in diameter and will be secured to the Lagoon bottom by hydraulic methods. The anchoring system contains a shock absorber designed to provide flexibility when a vessel is moored by allowing the vessel the ability to swing with wind and wave energy. This swinging mechanism reduces potential impacts to seagrass from shading. Vessels moored in a boat slip or at a marina do not have swinging capability. The anchors are designed to provide safe mooring withstanding winds up to 80 miles per hour. Removal of vessels is mandatory in the event of a Category One hurricane (74 miles per hour) or above. The Mooring Field will accommodate vessels from 20 to 60 feet in length. The Mooring Field will be open to the general public on a first-come, first-serve basis as defined in rule 18- 21.003(27). Furthermore, as a mooring field of buoys rather than a dock or marina with fixed boat slips, the waters of the Aquatic Preserve within the Mooring Field will remain open and accessible to public use by any vessels especially in the open, buoy-free lanes (or "Fairways") 75 feet wide. The fairways will bisect the Mooring Field in north-south and east-west directions and thereby create four quadrants in which buoys will be present. Permanent markers will mark the perimeter of the Mooring Field to provide notice of its existence. The Mooring Field will be operated by the County as a not-for-profit operation. A fee will be collected from users with the proceeds to pay for the County's management by a Harbormaster and for maintenance of the buoys, the Dinghy Dock and associated upland amenities available to the users of the Mooring Field. The design of the Mooring Field was determined by bathymetric depths taking into consideration the draft of the vessels that would occupy the field to ensure that there will be at least one foot between the draft of the vessels and the submerged bottom land. The depth inside the Mooring Field varies within a foot or so of 9 feet. The anticipated draft of the vessels entering the field will be 2 to 4 1/2 feet. Vessels traversing the field should not disturb the submerged land. In addition, 34.29 acres of sovereign submerged land in the Aquatic Preserve occupied by the Mooring Field, the Dinghy Dock will be 1,832 square feet and occupy .178 acres of the Preserve. It will L-shaped, with a 5' x 163.5' "access walkway" from shore out to a 5' x 203' "terminal platform" designed to allow temporary mooring of up to 18 small vessels. The access walkway at the Dingy Dock will be constructed from Fiberglass light-transmitting grates atop pilings and elevated as high as 6 feet above the water level. The terminal platform will float on the water in order to comply with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act for access by handicapped boaters. The Dinghy Dock is designed to ensure that environmental resources will not suffer impacts. It will connect to the bulkhead and existing riprap on the uplands. The pilings of the dock will be constructed of concrete. The slips will be 13 feet wide and 20 feet long and will accommodate a vessel up to 20 feet in length. A 20-foot vessel has a maximum draft of 2 to 2 1/2 feet. The water depth below the proposed Dinghy Dock's slips ranges from 7 to 10 feet. The Dinghy Dock's terminal platform will be located over an area with no seagrass or other submerged aquatic resources. Publication of Consolidated NOI On March 17, 2011, the County published the Department's Consolidated NOI in the Stuart News. Resources Located at the Site In the summer of 2010, Coastal Systems International, Inc. ("Coastal Systems") performed an inspection of the existing upland structures on the Jensen Beach Causeway west island and the submerged lands located southwest of the Causeway. "The surveyed area is the site of the proposed Jensen Beach Managed Mooring Field Project . . . ." MC Ex. 11. Three prior surveys had been conducted by Coastal Systems in the general Project area. In each of the surveys, in 2005, 2008 and 2009, "seagrass was observed along the mainland shoreline of Jensen Beach, west of the proposed Project area, and in the nearshore shoreline region of Jensen Beach Causeway, just north of the proposed mooring field." Id. at 2. Four species of seagrass were observed in the nearshore area: Manatee Grass, Shoal Grass, Paddle Grass and Johnson's Seagrass. Seagrass beds serve several functions important to the Aquatic Preserve. They stabilize sediments; entrap silt; recycle nutrients; provide shelter, habitat and substrate for animals and other plant life forms; are nursery grounds for fish and shellfish; and are important direct food sources for various species, including the endangered manatee. Many commercially important fishes spend at least part of their lives in seagrass beds. Coastal Systems submitted its Field Observation Report (the "Report") to the Department on July 16, 2010. The Report describes its purpose as follows: Id. The purpose of this inspection was to verify the previous marine resource survey of the submerged lands conducted in 2009 by Coastal Systems and to confirm the location, composition and density of marine resources, including the federally listed species Johnson's Seagrass (Halophila johnsonii . . .) . The Report concluded that consistent with the previous marine resource survey conducted in 2009, seagrasses were found in shallower portions of the survey area. The most extensive areas of seagrass "were observed in the immediate nearshore area along the southwest portion of the Causeway, the southwest quadrant of the survey area [different from the quadrants into which the Mooring Field is divided] and the southeast quadrant of the survey area (See sheet 5 in attachment 1)." MC Ex. 11, "Conclusion" at 3. Sheet 5 in Attachment 1 to the Report is entitled "Resources and Proposed Work" for the "Jensen Beach Mooring Field." It shows seagrass patches consistent with the description in the Report's Conclusion. Depicting the proposed Mooring Field divided by Fairways into four quadrants, Sheet 5 shows the two eastern quadrants to be barren of seagrass. Portions of the two western quadrants are shown to be sparsely inhabited by seagrass at a level of 1 percent or below. The northwest quadrant and the southwest quadrant are inhabited by seagrass at the 1 percent or below level. The area of sparse seagrass is no more than 10 percent of the northwest quadrant. In contrast, most of the southwest quadrant, at least 75 percent of its area, is shown to be inhabited by seagrass. The 2009 survey was confirmed in 2010 when the Report was prepared. Field work done both in 2009 and the next year in 2010 were done during the growing season when the seagrass, including federally-listed Johnson Seagrass, would be most prevalent and easily observed. The seagrass that was observed in the footprint of the Mooring Field was "paddle grass decipiens." Tr. 73. No Johnson Seagrass was observed within the footprint of the Mooring Field in either the 2009 survey or the field work done in July of 2010 during the growing season in advance of the Report. Fish and manatees feed in seagrass areas. They would likely feed in the areas of dense seagrass in the Project Area found outside the Mooring Field where the sediments consisted of shelly, sandy materials and where Paddle, Manatee and Johnson's Seagrass were identified. Macroalgae was present throughout the Project area in varying densities. The types observed included Common Caulerpa, Graceful Red Weed, Green Feather Algae, Hooked Red Weed, Spiny Seaweed, and Y Branched Algae. Macroalgae is a leafy algae and important marine resource. It provides habitat, shelter and food for various species in the Aquatic Preserve including the manatee and different fish species. Fish observed included Atlantic Spadefish, Gray Snapper, Gulf Pipefish, Leopard Sea Robin, Sheepshead, Southern Puffer and other unidentified juvenile fish. Other marine fauna observed during one field inspection included Amber Penshell, Blue Crab, Caribbean Spiny Lobster, Feather Duster Worms, Hermit Crabs, Horseshoe Crab, Hydroids, Lightning Whelk, Spaghetti Worms, Spider Crab and Sponges. The Project area is also habitat for various endangered and threatened species and species of special concern such as birds, reptiles and mammals, including the wood stork, manatee, Atlantic green turtles, and the saltmarsh snake. Wading birds such as the great blue heron and roseate spoonbill inhabit the area. The Florida Manatee uses the area and is known to feed on the types of seagrasses found there. Fish and manatees are unlikely to feed within the footprint of the Mooring Field because seagrass is either not present or extremely sparse. The Mooring Field's Footprint: Seagrass Opportunity The sediments within the mooring field are silty and muddy. Dependent on sunlight for growth, seagrass grows best in shallow areas of good water clarity that allows for sunlight penetration. Silty bottoms interfere with sunlight penetration whenever there is turbidity in the area that kicks up the silt. Seagrass is also more prone to grow in sandy sediments as opposed to silty or muddy sediments. Seagrass root systems hold fast in sandy sediments; they do not adhere well in silty sediments. The Mooring Field's sediment explains why its footprint is either barren of seagrass or inhabited by seagrass at such a sparse level. Nonetheless, the presence of seagrass within the Mooring Field indicates that seagrass has the opportunity to grow there, that is, at least in the parts of the two western quadrants of the Mooring Field which constitute seagrass habitat. Mr. Egan elaborated at hearing: [S]ince the footprint of the mooring area already contains sparse seagrass, that area which is within the footprint of the mooring field itself, though quite sparse now, could easily rebound in much thicker growth were water quality conditions to be good for it . . . . [T]o put a source of water quality impacts in close proximity to . . . the sparse seagrass fields . . . [eliminates] the opportunity for these seagrass beds to expand in an area where we have evidence to see that seagrass beds have been expanding. Tr. 859-60 (emphasis added). The impacts referred to by Mr. Egan are from shading caused by vessels moored in the four quadrants of the Mooring Field and the bioaccumulation in plants of toxic substances and biocides, like copper and zinc, that typically leach from the bottom paint of vessels. While Mr. Egan did not predict with certainty the impact of substances leaching from the bottoms of vessels in the Mooring Field, he was able to opine that in areas where circulation is reduced like the Project area because of the nearby Causeway, the levels of the toxic substances will increase and the plants and animals in the area can be expected to accumulate the substances to a degree that produces "a certain level of concern." Tr. 850. That seagrass beds are expanding in the Project area is evident from a comparison of images provided by the South Florida Water Management District between 2006 and 2009. They show a doubling of the seagrass beds on the side of the channel opposite the Mooring Field site. Whether such expansion will, in fact, occur in the Mooring Field footprint, however, were the footprint free of shading and toxic substances leached from boat bottoms, is speculative. The sediment would still remain silty and unlikely to provide a good basis for seagrass root structure. The Dinghy Dock The types of vessels that will most likely use the Dinghy Dock include johnboats, dinghies, and sailboats. The Project allows sufficient distance for boats to traverse the Mooring Field and gain access to the Dinghy Dock without encroaching on seagrass beds. The edge of the Dinghy Dock slip closest to the seagrass beds is approximately 25 feet away from the beds. Boater can avoid traversing marine resources whether seeking ingress or egress from their slips. Seagrass, moreover, is not likely to suffer impacts from vessels at the Dinghy Dock because there is a 7 to 10-foot depth under the slips. There is sufficient room between the Dinghy Dock and the Johnson's Seagrass. A small portion of the Dinghy Dock's walkway from the Causeway Island traverses a narrow band of nearshore seagrass. The access walkway is constructed of fiberglass grated decking material and is elevated 6 feet above high water to minimize the impact of shading. The grated decking allows sunlight to reach the seagrass when the sun is directly overhead. Keeping the walkway at a 6-foot elevation above high water allows light to penetrate under the walkway as the sun moves from east to west. The potential for impacts to seagrass from shading by the walkway is not significant. FWC and Archaeological/Historical Resources Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FWC") recommended approval of the Project if two manatee conditions are added to the permit. The Department relies on FWC for its expertise related to impacts to endangered or threatened species and their habitats, including impacts to manatees or seagrass habitat. There are no archaeological or historical resources in the area. Resource Protection Areas Resource Protection Areas ("RPAs") are divided into three categories. The three categories are defined in rule 18- as follows: "Resource Protection Area (RPA) 1" - areas within the aquatic preserves which have resources of the highest quality and condition for that area. These resources may include, but are not limited to, corals; marine grassbeds; mangrove swamps; salt- water marsh; oyster bars; archaeological and historical sites; endangered or threatened species habitat; and, colonial water bird nesting sites. "Resource Protection Area 2" - Area within the aquatic preserves which are in transition with either declining resource protection are 1 resources or new pioneering resources within resource protection area 3. "Resource Protection Area 3" - Areas within the aquatic preserve that are characterized by the absence of any significant natural resource attributes. The existence of sparse seagrass in the footprint of the Mooring Field, the Johnson's Seagrass, and the dense seagrass beds nearby are indicia that the Project area is within a Resource Protection Area 2. Water Quality and the Management Plan Adverse impacts to water quality caused by haphazard anchoring will be eliminated when boaters instead use the Mooring Field. The Mooring Field will enable boaters to secure their vessels to mooring buoys instead of dropping anchors into the substrate. Anchors hitting bottom cause turbidity. Vessels anchored to the substrate are a continual source of turbidity because the anchor can move back and forth with the wind or water current. Impacts of turbidity from prop dredging when boats anchor in shallow areas would also be reduced because the Mooring Field is in deeper water. The Project will enhance water quality in the Jensen Beach area through the implementation of the Jensen Beach Management Plan (the "Management Plan"). The Management Plan is a list of best management practices. The provisions most significant to water quality enhancement include: 1) all vessels must pump out their septic tank waste within 24 hours of entering the Mooring Field and every three days thereafter; 2) all major repairs are prohibited; 3) the scraping of a vessel's hull is prohibited; 4) throwing trash overboard is prohibited; 5) cleaning a vessel is prohibited; 6) throwing anchor in the leased area is prohibited; and 7) all vessels are required to be operational. The Mooring Field and the Dinghy Dock will be regulated and managed by a harbor master under the plan. The harbor master is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Mooring Field under the Management Plan. For example, if there is an illegal discharge, the harbor master is charged with notifying FWC so that it can conduct enforcement. The Board of Trustees proposed a lease condition that requires vessels to contain their graywater in onboard holding tanks so that it will not be discharged into the Aquatic Preserve. (Graywater is not potable and not contaminated with sewage but has been used, for example, dishwashing water.) Tierra Consulting Group, Inc. performed the water quality analysis at the Project site. Its findings indicate that water quality in the area meets water quality standards. Flushing in the area is adequate due to strong currents and the relief bridge which assist in offsetting the effects of the Causeway's presence. The Permit addresses water quality during the construction phase by implementing a turbidity management plan. The turbidity plan requires a curtain to be deployed during construction. The curtain will prevent water quality violations from occurring outside the curtained area during construction. The curtain will protect seagrass and microalgae outside the curtain from the effects of turbidity. The County has also agreed to conduct post-construction water quality monitoring to confirm that water quality in the Project area has not been impaired by construction. Navigation The Project is located a safe distance from the Intracoastal, existing boat ramps, and the Sundance Marina. The Mooring Field design provides adequate distance between buoys to ensure that vessels will be properly spaced. The Fairways provide safe corridors for two vessels to pass each other in the Fairways. Board of Trustees Authorization The Project requires a lease because it involves placing mooring buoys over sovereignty submerged lands. The lease is required to be approved by the Board of Trustees and could not be delegated to the Department for two reasons: 1) it was deemed to be a matter of "heightened public concern"; and 2) it would result in the addition of 50 slips. The Board's approval was unanimous. The upland portion adjacent to the Project is owned by the Board of Trustees. The public interest benefits from the Project include enhancement to water quality in the Aquatic Preserve; the first- come, first-serve basis on which it is open to the public; accessibility to the upland public amenities for patrons; protection of seagrass beds; and removal of dilapidated vessels in the area. The Board of Trustees agreed to waive lease fees because all of the revenue the County collects associated with the Project will be used to operate and maintain the facility. There are approximately 19 mooring fields currently in operation on lands owned by the Board of Trustees. None is located in an aquatic preserve. Two are located in the National Marine Sanctuary in the Florida Keys. The Aquatic Preserve Management Plan that applies to the Project area is the 1985 Indian River Lagoon Management Plan. The Conceptual State Lands Management Plan also applies to the Project area. The Conceptual State Lands Management Plan emphasizes balancing the resources of aquatic preserves with public use and benefit of the preserves. Most Current Permit Drawing and Management Plan The Department's Consolidated NOI does not contain the most current permit drawings or the most current management plan. Changes to the drawings and the plan occurred after the Department deemed the application complete. The changes were submitted by County with the intention that they be included. The most current drawings were attached to a Response to an Army Corps RAI. These drawings should have been included in the Department's Consolidated NOI but were overlooked. The changes clarify the dimensions of the Mooring Field boundary and elevated the dinghy dock from 5 feet to 6 feet to allow for more light penetration for the benefit of the seagrass. The most current management plan (also attached to the Response to the Army Corp RAI and submitted by the County to the Department in a timely fashion) includes two revisions. First, it revises section 2.5.1 to require the harbor master to fill Mooring Field Quadrants 1, 2 or 3 ahead of quadrant 4. Quadrant 4 is the quadrant with the seagrass. The order of filling was prescribed to protect the sparse seagrass observed by Coastal Systems in Quadrant 4. Second, the Management Plan was revised to address waste management and marine pollution by adding section 2.7. It provides a schedule for Martin County's waste management vessel to pump out the septic tanks of vessels that use the facility. It specifies how often vessels should be pumped out and requires that information be provided to each patron on arrival. If authorized, the changes to the drawings and the Management Plan not included in the Consolidated NOI will not have to be reviewed by the Board of Trustees because the Department regards them to be "minor modifications." See Fla. Admin. Code. R. 62-343.100(1)(a). The County's Aspiration and Past Department Action The County seeks authorization for the Project in hopes for less adverse impacts from boaters anchoring in seagrass, traversing seagrass, and discharging wastewater, graywater and waste materials into the Aquatic Preserve. Prior to this case, the Department has not authorized a Mooring Field within an Aquatic Preserve.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order issuing Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Lease, Department File No. 43-0298844-001 and Lease No. 430345996, to the County. It is also recommended that the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Submerged Lands Lease incorporate the current drawings and revised management plan submitted by the County after the application was deemed complete. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 7th day of November, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia P. Sherlock, Esquire Howard K. Heims, Esquire Littman, Sherlock & Heims, P.A. Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995-1197 Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, III, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David A. Acton, Esquire Martin County 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996-3322 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The site of the revetment that is the subject of this litigation is located near the northerly coast of Pine Island in Charlotte Harbor. The property fronts on Pine Island Sound which is inside the barrier islands westward of Pine Island. Pine Island Sound is as an Outstanding Florida Water and Charlotte Harbor at this location is classified as Class II waters. Petitioner's property abuts the property owned by Meister Development Group. On Petitioner's property is located a two-story residence and two rental units. On Meister's property a four unit residential development has been erected. Sometime around 1970 a vertical seawall was erected to protect both Petitioner's property and Respondent's property. Since that time the beach has accreted to the point that by 1989 the sand beach extended an average of approximately twenty-five feet seaward of the seawall in front of Petitioner's property. However, this seawall ended near the middle of Respondents property and erosion of the beach became serious at the four unit residential development building located thereon in 1984. In 1984 the beach at this location had eroded to the point that the high water mark had passed the northern most portion of the building foundation and was threatening to undermine the structure. At this time this shoreline was devoid of aquatic vegetation. Meister employed an engineering firm to prepare a solution to the erosion problem. That firm concluded a revetment was needed and the application for the dredge and fill permit that is here contested was filed in July 1984. Since the application involved use of land seaward of the mean high water, permission of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was required before the application could receive final approval. To obtain the approval of DNR Meister agreed to provide a conservation easement to DNR and a public easement to allow the public access to cross the property seaward of the residential development. Additionally Meister conferred with Outstanding Florida Water Group to obtain their acquiescence to the project and agreed to provide navigational aids to mark the Jug Creek Channel across form the Meister property. Before a dredge and fill permit can be granted involving an Outstanding Florida Water the applicant must show the project to be in the public interest. In consulting with DER the applicant proposed a sloping revetment which is generally considered to better tolerate wave action than does a vertical wall. To enhance the public interest concept the applicant agreed to place toe stones at the foot of the revetment and plant mangroves. The toe stones would serve to hold sand in which the mangroves could grow and serve as a habitat for aquatic organisms. The applicant also agreed to place an artificial reef of rocks on the sand shoal which sits about one half mile north of applicant's and petitioner's property. Although the mangroves planted did not survive due to heavy wave action and the permit did not require survivability of these mangroves, at the hearing Meister agreed to a provision in the permit's next renewal that will include a requirement that a percentage of these mangroves planted in the toe stones survive. Landward of the residential development is a stormwater retention area that serves to keep contaminants out Pine Islands Sound. The erosion of the beach at the Meister property was threatening to extend further inland and allow contaminants to leach from the water retention area into Pine Island Sound and contaminate that body of water. Approval of the project would serve to remove that threat and be in the public interest. Finally consideration was given to the fact that the foundation of the condominium was being threatened which affected the dwelling of the residents. Protecting these residences is also considered to be in the public interest. The project was completed during a two weeks period in August 1986. The revetment generally takes off in the same line as the Vertical seawall on petitioner's property and is basically convex to fit the existing building and meet the zoning setback requirement of twenty-five feet from the building. To construct the revetment the existing vertical seawall on Meister's Property had to be removed. During construction turbidity screens were installed and construction was restricted to periods of low water to reduce turbidity. Any excess turbidity caused by the construction would settle out within twenty-four hours. Dr. O'Malley left Pine Island in March and returned in October 1986. At the time he left the beach in front of his seawall extended an average of twenty-five feet from the seawall. When he returned in October the revetment had been completed and approximately fifty-percent of Petitioner's beach had eroded. In October 1986 the beach on O'Malley's property extended two to twenty feet from the seawall. O'Malley was aware that prior to his departure the Meister property had suffered severe erosion. Believing that the construction of the revetment was the cause of the erosion of his beach Petitioner instituted this action. This was the only issue seriously contested. Petitioner's expert witness opined that the revetment acted like a groin east of Petitioner's property and caused a littoral drift, which is basically from east to west in this area, to take the sand from Petitioner's property. Further this witness opined that the longer fetch (area of open water to the north-east of Meister property) was the primary cause of the erosion of the Meister property. Historically beaches erode and accrete. Gentle waves have the tendency to cause accretion while storm waves result in seaward migration of beach sand. Photographs (exhibit 3) of Petitioner's property show typically storm wave generated erosion. The expert opinion of Respondents' witnesses that the erosion of Petitioner's property was caused by storm driven waves and was not caused by the revetment is deemed the more credible explanation of the erosion of Petitioner's beach.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, JOHN C. GROSS, a citizen and resident of Edgewater, Florida, owns approximately 114 acres of submerged and semisubmerged land, which at times extends from 3 to 9 feet above the water and which lies in the near vicinity of Ponce de Leon Inlet, New Smyrna Beach. His property is located due southwest of the inlet and west of the Intracoastal Waterway. The Intervenor, FRANCES TURNER PRICE, is the owner of an oceanfront house and lot located at 2113 Ocean Drive, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, which is directly adjacent to and west of a portion of the proposed spoil disposal area referenced herein. The Ponce de Leon Inlet was first dredged by the COE in 1968, pursuant to a 1965 Act of Congress, and has been dredged periodically since that time. No dredging has taken place there since March, 1978. During the past several years, numerous complaints have been received by the COE from users of the waterway concerning the increased clogging of the inlet channel. These users include operators of relatively large boats, such as commercial fishermen and shrimpers, large yacht owners, and the United States Coast Guard, which maintains and operates a station in the area. Based on these complaints, Mr. Aston, COE Navigation Branch, caused an investigation to be made which revealed an extensive and worsening shoaling which, if not corrected, would further reduce the channel opening. This investigation included several hydrographic surveys using Fathometers (accomplished in November, 1952, and subsequently thereto). The channel, which runs basically east and west from the Intracoastal Waterway to the Atlantic Ocean, is currently navigable (but not safely) by larger draft vessels such as are described above. Because of the prevailing winds from the northeast, larger vessels come in from the northeast; have to come around the jetty, which juts into the ocean north of the channel; and then have to stay close to the jetty to avoid the heavy shoaling in the dredged channel originally in the center of the inlet. 1/ This is dangerous because sport fishermen are frequently anchored in the water just south of the jetty, in the way of the boats going in and out. This danger is compounded by the fact that boats going in and out cannot see each other, because of the jetty to the north and the land to the south, until they both are committed to the channel. Therefore, once in and committed, they are in danger of collision because of the narrowness of the passage and the need to avoid the small fishing boats anchored therein. As a result, the original channel, which provides safer passage, needs to be dredged again immediately to prevent more groundings and collisions with resultant loss of life and property damage such as the 50 which have already occurred there within the past 15 months. In the opinion of Mr. Aston, the situation in the Ponce de Leon Inlet, as it pertains to shoaling, is the worst he has seen in any federal channel in 19 years. It is for these reasons that during the 1982-83 time frame, the COE decided to seek permission to proceed with a dredging project. Initially, three different areas were considered for disposal of the 800,000 or so cubic yards of spoil which would result from the dredging. These were: off the beach north of the north jetty; just south of the weir to which the north jetty is attached; and the beach area approximately one mile south of the inlet. For various reasons, Options (a) and (b) were rejected, and Option (c) was the area then intended for the spoil disposal. The initial application, submitted on November 10, 1982, called for the spoil to be transported by pipe over easements down the beach to the disposal area, where it would then be dumped on the beach to fill in the area of beach eroded and eroding. However, because of public objection to that plan, the COE agreed with the local beach advisory board to move the spoil 1,000 feet offshore to an area approximately 800 feet by one mile long, adjacent to the beach approximately one mile south of the inlet. In any event, both the original application and the amendment thereto (to change the location of the spoil disposal area) called for only one procedure--not multiple dredgings and disposals. This proposed permit, which is objected to by Petitioner and Intervenor, indicated permission for more than one procedure. Intervenor protests this even if permission is to be given for the initial dredging. However, Dr. Collins, from DER, indicated that since a determination was made that the action would have no adverse impact on the environment, there was nothing wrong with giving permission for multiple dumpings. In fact, the Notice of Intent to Issue contains Provisions for monitoring the turbidity caused by the operation and also provides for DER modifications to the conditions or other provisions of the permit as necessary, and recognizes COE's assurances that the immediate and long-term effects of the project will not violate state water quality standards. The spoil, which consists almost exclusively of beach quality sand and which is highly valuable, will be laid down in a berm-shaped deposit the top of which will, at low tide, be no less than 6 feet below the surface of the water. In that configuration, it could not be seen from shore and would in no way impede navigation. The decision to dispose of the spoil in this fashion was made partially on the basis that it would tend to put sand back on the eroded beach in the area. Intervenor theorizes that the spoil (sand and water) will not form this neat berm, but will spread out when it comes out of the dredge pipe below the surface of the water. COE indicates that the contractor on this project will use some sort of a buffer to contain the spread upon discharge. It is anticipated that this project will have to be repeated again and again to keen the channel clear. Though the 800,000 cubic yards anticipated for removal on this occasion is great, so much has never been taken out here at one time before. This is because, as was stated previously, the last dredging was in March 1978, and COE estimated that dredging should take place every 16 months or so. If done on that schedule, succeeding dredgings will be of a far less significant amount. Petitioner, whose profession is as a real estate developer, but whose avocation is as a conservationist of marine life, contends he has been involved in environmental research and protection all his life (he is at least 70). He has, he states, developed several environmental concepts which have, he contends, never been disproved. They are not, however, enjoying widespread acceptance, either, though he contends the Rosenstiel School at the University of Miami has said his environmental concepts are sound. This well may be so; however, Mr. Gross neglected to produce any evidence as to what these concepts are or indications of their soundness. Though he admits to having no formal training in any of the sciences or in engineering, and his research consists of bathing and fishing in the area (he uses a device to gather bait which results in his picking up a part of the sea bottom) he has published. The Petitioner's publication introduced into evidence consists of the reward notice reproduced herein. $2,000 REWARD To make the public aware of hypocritical groups who mislead and misinform the public about environmental protection, I will donate $1,000 to the first organization, agency, student or individual who produces evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that excessive nutrients consisting of mangrove leaves and pods, algae, slime, scum, silt and bacteria, and decaying bodies of all types of insects and creatures emanating from mangrove swamp area DOES NOT cause destruction of shellfish and all forms of marine plant life when infused in excessive amounts into rivers and estuaries by extremely high tides and heavy rainstorms. $1,000 to the first organization, individual, or student who provides evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that recent high tides caused by full moon and heavy rains washing through mangrove swamps DID NOT cause most of the crabs, shrimp, and fish to be destroyed or leave this area when the river became polluted with all types of slime, scum, silt, sludge, and mangreve debris, and droppings of birds and animals and all types of decaying material from the mangrove swamps carried into the river by the tide. John C. Gross PO Box 596 New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32069 Though Petitioner was offered the opportunity by the Hearing Officer to submit additional publications when he indicated he had many and was reminded of this later in the hearing by the Hearing Officer, none were forthcoming. Petitioner professes to be very familiar with the area where the dredging and disposal are to take place, and no doubt he is. He contends the area is in a constant state of change, differing from month to month, and populated by a sea life consisting primarily of shellfish, shrimp, and fish. The beach in the area proposed for disposal, he contends, has already built out some 400 to 500 feet since the jetty was built and has naturally built up dunes which, in his opinion, are due to the COE dredging in the past. This beach buildup is a concern of the Intervenor, as well, who indicated that she can no longer see the ocean from her "oceanfront" house due to the large dunes that have built up between her house and the ocean during the years since the construction of the jetty. She is also fearful that the spoil dumped offshore of her property will come ashore there and add to the already expanded beach. Her concerns and those of her neighbors, including Mrs. Speer, who testified in support of Intervenor's position, include the blocked view already mentioned, the fact that the higher dunes are difficult for older people to climb, the fact that it is further to the water with the new sand, and the concern over who will own the new land built up seaward of the vegetation line. 2/ People are already building closer to the water than she did, blocking her lateral view; and all of this will have, she fears, a negative impact on the value of her property. It is without question that dunes have built up and beach area has accreted since the jetties were put in. This is explained by Dr. Dean as a relatively temporary situation resulting from the movement ashore of a preexisting tidal shoal, formerly located outside the entrance to the Ponce de Leon Inlet, which was destroyed by the interruption of the wave action when the jetty was built. The sand from this shoal came ashore at and around the Intervenor's property, as well as north and south of it, adding to the beach and building the dunes. This accretion has stopped, however, and even reversed, and a beach erosion has begun. In any case, according to Dr. Collins of DER, accretion is not usually a consideration in the decision-making process regarding a permit of this nature. Petitioner indicated his understanding that the spoil was to be deposited 3 feet deep over the bottom in the disposal area and believes this will destroy marine life. As will be seen later, competent expert testimony clearly disproves this one theory. He also does not believe anyone can predict where the spoil will settle, but wherever that is, in his opinion, it will have a devastating effect both on the marine life in the area and on the adjacent beaches. He questions the COE's representation that because of the literal drift's prevailing direction from north to south, the spoil will ultimately settle south of the spoil dumping area. Expert testimony, discussed in detail below, will indicate the correctness of the COE's representations. Petitioner further contends that insufficient surveys have been made of the area. In his opinion, the two or three borings that have been done (in actuality, there were more) are not sufficiently extensive since the area in question is too broad and the bottom is not uniform. Therefore, many more borings are needed, he urges, to accurately determine the makeup of the sea bottom. This bottom makeup has an effect on water quality. Sludge, slime, and silt adversely affect water quality. Clean sand is acceptable. However, Petitioner feels that the dredging proposed may, if the bottom where they dredge is of peer quality, be very bad for the bottom in the deposit area. In that regard, it has been shown that the tests done already indicate that the material to be dredged out of the channel is beach quality sand. Other evidence, in the form of samples of the bottom taken in the disposal area, show it is made up of sand with small shells. In neither location is there any evidence of silt, sludge, or slime. In fact, the expert testimony indicates clearly there would be no damage to water quality in either area. A more comprehensive discussion of this subject will be presented below. Petitioner also fears for the manatees and the sea turtles which sometimes come into the area. The expert testimony to be discussed further below readily shows these fears are groundless. It would appear that there may be some reason for Petitioner's interest in this project other than the stated environmental and ecological concerns stated above. By his own testimony, he revealed he had offered to buy this highly valuable 3/ spoil for $400,000. Mr. Aston, of COE, further testified that as late as one week prior to this hearing, Petitioner called him and indicated the matter could be disposed of quite easily if the COE would put the spoil on his property. The Notice of Intent to Issue and the permit to which it relates are not for a one-time dredge. The permit will be for 5 years, but it 15 subject to extension by letter for an additional 5 years. In the analysis of the application, the environmental concerns and the concerns of the public were not taken lightly. The DNR, by letters dated March 9 and June 28, 1983, expressed its lack of objection to the proposal and granted the authority required under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. The contract is to begin in September, 1984, and be completed by April, 1985. These months were chosen because (a) they take advantage of the northeast winds prevailing then; and (b) there is no sea turtle nesting during this period. Consequently, there would be no risk of harm to the sea turtles. In addition, the risk of harm to the manatees is minimal. They, as a rule, do not frequent these waters, preferring the quiet backwaters of the rivers and bays to the fast moving waters of the channel or the ocean, and they are generally fast enough to avoid both the dredge and the dump. To be doubly safe, however, the contract calls for a "manatee watch" to be conducted and a log kept of all manatees sighted. Another area covered in the contract is water turbidity. Turbidity will be monitored and actions taken to maintain state water quality standards outside the mixing zone--that area inside of which the water temporarily does not meet state standards and outside of which it must. In this case, this zone would extend not more than 150 meters from each point of interest. COE's application contained reasonable assurances that the state's turbidity standards would not be exceeded more than 150 meters from both the dredge and spoil areas. Tests already run on anticipated turbidity show a rapid (4-minute) settlement out due to the fact that the substance being dredged is heavy sand, not light silt. Continuing with an analysis of the impacts of the project which cannot be avoided, on life in both the dredge and the fill areas, it is seen that: Some nonmobile animal life attached to the sea bottom (worms, etc.) in the spoil area which cannot escape being covered by the spoil will be killed. Some sea life sucked up by the dredge and moved will be killed even though they are dumped back into the water in the spill area. However, wherever some death occurs, it will be individuals, not entire populations, and the dump area will be quickly repopulated by sea life from the surrounding area in addition to the live population brought through the pipeline. Full repopulation can be expected within six months. In a more detailed discussion of the disposal site, it is clear that because of the wave action and the hard bottom, one would expect no grass beds, and there are none, nor are there any natural reefs. A survey of the bottom in the disposal area was done by utilizing loran to accurately locate 12 stations throughout the spoil disposal area with three samples to be taken at each site. At seven of the twelve stations, the scientists found the bottom hard and no sample was produced. At only one of the stations, Station 6, some samples were gathered, and what was acquired was very similar to the surf area near the shore. Dr. Atmar admits that the dumping will create some damage to the bottom life and repeated dumping may have a cumulative effect. However, since, as was stated above, complete repopulation can be expected within six months, the damage caused by dredging and dumping every 16 months, even of large amounts of spoil, will be, in his words, "inconceivably insignificant," and that which does occur will be short-lived. Turning then to the question of the impact of the spoil disposal on the beach property adjacent to the disposal area, Dr. Dean explained the prospective results, as well. In conjunction with other experts in sediment transport and based on at least 20 years of accumulated documentation, he developed a model which, when applied to a given situation with variables, can generally permit accurate predictions of what will happen. Applying this model to the dredging area, it is seen that the primary factor which leads to sediment transport here is the wave action which primarily comes from the northeast. This will transport sediment from the north to the south. When the present channel was dug, it interrupted the normal cycle, which, in an attempt to return to the natural flow, fills up the channel. This necessitates new dredging. Applying the model to the disposal area, again the waves play an important part. Based on all available pertinent information, the spoil deposited would generally transport to the south with a very minor amount, + 5 percent going west and another + 5 percent going north. Both the westward and the northward movement would be very slow. The remaining 90 percent of the spoil would move to the south and would reach the shore a mile or two south of the southern boundary of the proposed disposal area. Of this 90 percent, 50 percent would reach the beach within three to four years--the remainder would take longer. The amount of deposited spoil that would go due west to the adjacent beach would be less than would accrete during the normal seasonal accretien. What is more, the proposed disposal activity would have an imperceptible effect on the elevation of the dunes which already exist. The difference between Dr. Dean's estimate of 10 Percent drift to the north and west and COE's estimate of 20 percent sand drift in those two directions is not significant. Both are estimates, and not specifics. As was stated previously, the spoil in question here is a highly valuable beach quality sand with no evidence of muck, slime or silt. If it were to be deposited further out to sea than is proposed here, where the wave action could not get to it, it would be lost to the littoral transport action and would never come to the beach. This would result in the loss of a high quality resource to the beach in an area to the south where the beach is in need of replenishment, and further beach erosion to the south where the existing dunes are eroding due to the effect of the building of the previously mentioned jetty and because of the worldwide rise in the sea level. Admitting he was hired to testify by the COE after the decision was made as to where to deposit the spoil, Dr. Dean contends that had he been asked where to put it before the decision was made, he would have recommended a site closer to shore, but at the same latitude.
Findings Of Fact The Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve (the Preserve) is state-owned property. Title is held by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. It includes some 13 miles of Atlantic Ocean beach within St. Johns County. Within the boundaries of the Preserve is included the Guana River State Park (the Park). It, too, is state-owned. It is managed and operated by the Division of Recreation and Parks (the DRP) of the Department of Environmental Protection (the DEP). Some of the Preserve's Atlantic Ocean beaches are included within the boundaries of the Park. The "wet sand," or "hard sand," area of the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve is the area of the beach between mean high water and mean low water. The mean high water line is essentially the landward extent of the ocean at mean high tide; the mean low water line is essentially the landward extent of the ocean at mean low tide. When the tide is low, this entire area of the beach is exposed. It remains wet and, generally, relatively hard-packed during the time it is exposed. However, there are beds of "red shell" in this part of the beach that are softer. In the summer, this part of the beach averages approximately 50 feet in width. In the winter, when the waves and tides generally are higher, it is narrower. In the Preserve, the mean high water line usually is indicated both by debris washed up during the highest tides and left on the beach and by a "shelf." This "shelf," made by the erosive action of the ocean waves during the highest tides and during storms, rises at an angle of approximately 45 degrees and can be from one to four or five feet high. Landward of this shelf is the "dry sand" or "soft sand" beach, also sometimes referred to as the "upper beach." It extends landward from the mean high water line to the vegetation line, where the dunes start. Usually, some pioneer vegetation is found in the uppermost reaches of this part of the beach, forming what is called the "foredune" area of the beach. The tides along the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve are semi- diurnal, i.e., there usually are two high tides and two low tides a day. These high and low tides last approximately one hour, and each day they occur approximately an hour later than they did the day before. There are five beach access points with motor vehicle parking areas located along U.S. Highway A1A within the Preserve. Three are within the Park. There is parking for approximately 120, 68, 79, 42 and 25 vehicles in these five parking areas. There also is a current proposal for the addition of three more access points in the Park, with parking for a total of 340 vehicles, five beach bathhouses, and five pedestrian overpasses. There are many other places where pedestrians can walk from A1A to the beaches, including 30 County-controlled access points. But there are no lawful parking areas adjacent to any of these other access points at this time, and parking on the right-of-way of A1A is prohibited. Currently, the only lawful motor vehicle access to the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve is to the south of the Preserve. Prior to the agency action challenged in these proceedings, motor vehicles lawfully could be driven onto the beach at this access point and be driven north into the Preserve, so long as they remained below the mean high water line. A former access near the north end of the Preserve has been cordoned off. To leave the Preserve, motor vehicles would have to be turned around and driven back south to the same motor vehicle access point. Due to the restricted access to the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve, not much use is made of those beaches. In comparison, beaches to the south are used much more heavily. Of the relatively few who use the motor vehicle access to the south and drive on the beach north through the Preserve, some ultimately use the beaches to picnic, swim, surf, beach-comb and similar activities; some probably just drive on the beach. There was no evidence quantifying the uses currently being made of the beaches in the Preserve. In the past, homemade motor vehicles called "skeeters" were built with a light-weight chassis and over-sized wheels. They were used for driving on both the hard and soft areas of the beaches, as well as illegally in the dunes. This practice has been curtailed due to better enforcement of the prohibitions against driving in the dunes, a generally heightened environmental consciousness among the public, and prohibitions against driving the "skeeters" on public highways. Generally, there has been less driving on the beaches of the Preserve in recent years, although the practice persists at a reduced level. At all times of the year, it sometimes is impossible to drive along the entire length of the beaches in the Preserve without driving on the soft sand area. This is especially true during the winter months when the waves and tides are higher and storms are more frequent. But even in the summer months, there are times when "red shell beds" in the "wet sand" part of the beach must be circumvented to avoid getting stuck. Especially when the tide is not at its lowest, the only way to avoid some of these "red shell" beds is to drive over the "shelf" and onto the "soft sand." Depending on the tides, this may also be necessary in order to turn a vehicle around on the beach. In many places, the "soft sand" area is not very wide, and it would be necessary under those circumstances to drive in the "foredune" area. The times of the daily high and low tides can be obtained relatively easily by members of the public. But there is no assurance that all persons who would drive on the beaches would know the times of the tides. Nor is there any assurance that persons who drive the "wet sand" or "hard sand" part of the beaches at low tide also would plan to both start their beach drive and their return trip during low enough tides to be able to avoid driving on the "soft sand" part of the beach. For these and other reasons, it would be difficult, if not practically impossible, to effectively monitor beach driving throughout the Preserve and consistently enforce a restriction to driving only on the "wet sand" or "hard sand" areas of the beach. In the summer months, sea turtles lay eggs in nests dug in the sand of the foredune and dune areas of the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve. After a period of incubation in the nests, the turtle hatchlings dig themselves out of the nests and crawl to the ocean to begin their lives in the sea. Driving motor vehicles over nests on those parts of the beaches in the summer months could crush eggs in their nests or pack the sand hard enough to reduce the number of hatchlings that emerge from the nest alive. In addition, driving motor vehicles in these area, even in other parts of the year, can leave ruts in the beach that disorient hatchlings that leave the nests in summer so that fewer reach the ocean alive. Sea turtles crawl out of the ocean to their nest sites at night. Artificial lighting can disturb their nesting and egg-laying activities. However, it seems that moving lights, or lights that turn on and off (in the manner of car lights), create more of a disturbance than stationary lights, such as those more often found at residences along the beaches in the Preserve. The Management Plan does not prohibit artificial lighting along the beaches in the Preserve, but it recommends that further attention be given to this problem and that ways to address the problem be explored and pursued in cooperation with the County. Various shore birds, including the threatened least tern, make their nests in the foredune area of the beaches in the Preserve. Driving on the foredunes destroys and disturbs nesting habitat and disturbs the nesting activities of these birds. In addition, both these ground nesting shore birds and a variety of migratory birds make use of different areas of the beaches to rest and feed. Driving on the beaches disturbs these activities, as well. The only known nesting colony of least terns in St. Johns County is located in the Park, where beach driving is prohibited. The Division of Parks and Recreation (DPR) of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has utilized F.A.C. Rule 16D-2.002(4)-(5) to prohibit driving or parking motor vehicles on the beaches of the Park by not designating the beaches as driving or parking areas within the Park. At least parts of the beaches in the Park have been posted as areas where driving motor vehicles is prohibited. In order to develop a management plan for the Preserve, the manager of the Preserve personally researched the geology, climate and natural resources of the Preserve, as well as the records of the County, and also collected data pertaining to the Preserve from several state agencies. Over the course of a year, the manager's input was taken into consideration, and a management plan, called the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve Management Plan (the Management Plan), was developed for the Preserve. It was adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund on December 17, 1991. The Management Plan recites in pertinent part: At the present time, motorized vehicular traffic is permitted, by county ordinance, below the natural vegetation line on the beaches adjacent to the Atlantic Ocean in St. Johns County. Vehicles are not allowed on the 4.2 miles of beach within Guana River State Park. The coarse coquina sand and steep profiles of the beaches in the preserve make driving on the wet sand area difficult. Drivers are forced to cross the dry sand area, damaging the foredunes, pioneer dune vegetation and sea turtle nesting habitat. Due to the negative environmental impacts resulting from this activity, motorized vehicular traffic shall not be considered an authorized activity on sovereign submerged lands within [Prime Resource Protection Area] PRPA beach management areas of the preserve, and therefore will be prohibited. Under the Management Plan, all of the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve are Prime Resource Protection Area, and the driving of motorized vehicles on them is prohibited. On June 11, 1993, the DEP's DRP sent St. Johns County a letter advising that, based on the Management Plan, DEP no longer would permit the driving of motor vehicles on the Atlantic Ocean beaches in the Preserve. The proposed amendment to F.A.C. Rule 18-20.004(7), incorporating the Management Plan, was noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 6, 1993. On or about August 18, 1993, the DEP agreed not to enforce the beach driving prohibition in the Preserve until these cases are resolved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order enforcing the prohibitions contained in both F.A.C. Rule 16D-2.002(4)-(5) and the proposed amendment to F.A.C. Rule 18-20.004 against the driving of motor vehicles on the beaches on the Atlantic Ocean beaches in St. Johns County that are within the Guana River Marsh Aquatic Preserve. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of November, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3970 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated. 2.-6. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 7. Subordinate and unnecessary. 8.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as not proven. There also is access by boat and, albeit over longer distances, by foot. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted in part and rejected in part, as reflected in the Findings of Fact. Accepted as representative of dead low tide. Subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part: in that there are "red shell beds" in summer, too, and they can force drivers onto the "soft sand" areas in summer, too, depending on the tides; in that "dramatically" is argument and not proven; and in that Exhibit 2 depicts dead low tide in summer. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Enforcement of such mitigation would be impracticable or impossible.) Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 20.-21. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, accepted that the County uses "due care," but enforcement of a prohibition against driving anywhere except on the "hard sand" is impracticable or impossible. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that there is "no way to get to many beach areas" or that limited access "restricts traditional use." (Access as limited, or more limited, is "traditional.") 25.-27. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. (How easy it is depends entirely on the tide, the number and location of people on the beach, and the presence of "red shell" beds.) Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated except to the extent conclusion of law and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 6.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not concluson of law, subordinate or unnecessary. 21.-24. Rejected as being conclusion of law. 25.-33. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 34. Rejected as conclusion of law as to who is "responsible." 35.-54. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 55. Rejected as not proven. Also, conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel J. Bosanko, Esquire Assistant County Attorney St. Johns County Post Office Box 1533 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-1533 Edwin A. Steinmeyer, Esquire Barrie J. Sawyer, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a dredge and fill permit be issued to Fairfield to fill 2.1 acres of wetlands and to create 2.1 acres of wetlands as mitigation, including the planting of Spartina to be maintained at an 80% survival rate for a period of five years and the provision of erosion control measures in and adjacent to Lake Avoca and St. Joseph's Sound. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of February, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of Feburary, 1986. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent Fairfield have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended, except as noted below: Petitioner page 3, 3rd full paragraph, Rejected; not supported last sentence: by competent substantial evidence. page 4, 1st paragraph: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. page 5, 1st full sentence: Accepted, but irrelevant and immaterial to disposition of any issue. pages 5 and 6, starting with Rejected; contrary to the 1st full paragraph: greater weight of the evidence. Respondent Fairfield page 4, 2nd full paragraph: Rejected; mere recitation of testimony and conclusions of law as opposed to factual findings. page 13, 1st paragraph: Rejected: irrelevant and immaterial. NOTE: Many of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent Fairfield constitute either recitations of testimony or legal conclusions. While these have not technically been rejected by the undersigned, they are not appropriate for the findings of fact section and are discussed in the conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Techinkel Secretary Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mary f. Smallwood General Counsel Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 William W. Deane, Esquire Hanley and Deane, P.A. 465 Second Avenue North P. O. Box 7473 St. Petersburg, FL 33734 Julia D. Cobb Deborah Detzoff Richard Tucker 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Terry E. Lewis Steve Lewis Messer, Vickers, Caparello, French & Madsen P. O. Box 1876 Tallahassee, FL 32302 =============================================================== AGENCY FINAL ORDER =============================================================== STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CLEARWATER-UPPER PINELLAS COUNTY, Petitioner, v. DOAH CASE NO. 85-2755 DDT OGC FILE NO. 85-0822 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION and FAIRFIELD COMMUNITIES, INC., Respondents. /
The Issue Petitioners challenged the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) preliminary Final Order, alleging that Petitioners committed the "unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation for the purposes of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line [(CCCL)] without benefit of a permit." The ultimate issue is whether the work Petitioners performed was seaward of the CCCL, and if it was, whether there was a violation of Amended Permit FR-563 and Section 161.053(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Ben Withers, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ben Withers, is the President and owner of Ben Withers, Inc., and a resident of Panacea, Florida. (Henceforth, Ben Withers and Ben Withers, Inc., are referred to collectively as "Mr. Withers," unless otherwise noted.) Mr. Withers is a licensed general contractor. The Department is the executive agency of the State of Florida operating pursuant to, among others, Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the Department administers the CCCL program for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. Coastal Construction Control Line Program The Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources regulates construction and excavation activities seaward of the CCCL. The Department is responsible for determining and setting the CCCLs. The CCCL is a scientifically established line pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. By definition, the CCCL "defines that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a one-hundred-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Rule 62B-33.002(13), Florida Administrative Code. Construction and excavation activity seaward of the CCCL is regulated by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B- 33, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Withers admitted that he is aware of Department rules regarding beaches and coastal construction and is also aware that excavation seaward of the CCCL requires a permit unless it is otherwise exempt, and that he had this knowledge prior to the present case. Accessing the Pepper Project Site Under Amended Permit FR-563 Dog Island is a barrier island south of and about three miles off the coast of Franklin County, Florida. The island is approximately eight miles in length. There is no bridge to the island. The Pepper project site is on the far western end of the island. The Gulf of Mexico borders the island on the south and St. George Sound borders the island to the north. The most common way to access the Pepper site with any vehicle carrying equipment and materials, would be to use a boat or barge to a marina area (Tyson's Harbor) near the center of the island, or a private dock, and then traverse west down the middle of the island or down the beach itself, or a combination of the two. The Easy Street Easement is an easement area for a roadway running east and west through Dog Island. The parties agree that Easy Street and the Easy Street Easement are the same. The Easy Street Easement had been an unpaved roadway years before; part of the roadway was still visible in May 2001, and other parts had been covered with vegetation. There are portions of Easy Street and Easy Way east of the cul-de-sac which are visible roadways. See, e.g., Department Exhibit 13. Additionally, parts of Easy Street are seaward of the Department's CCCL (e.g., in the narrows area which is west of the cul-de-sac) and other parts are landward of the CCCL. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 29. Pursuant to its statutory duty, in 1996, the Department set the reference monuments R-158-R-160 for the CCCL on the west end of Dog Island. These monuments are in the narrows area of the island and run west to east. The CCCL is not visible on the ground. A surveyor is needed to locate the line. The alleged violation in this case was committed between R-158 and R-160, part of the narrows area. The Easy Street Easement on Dog Island runs both north and south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac and then runs westerly to the west end of Dog Island. The CCCL Permits On October 21, 1999, the Department issued Permit FR-563 to Leonard Pepper, the property owner, for the construction of a single–family dwelling and for structures associated with the dwelling on the west end of Dog Island. Permit FR-563 contained Standard Permit Conditions that required in part: (1)(a) all construction or activity for which the permit was granted be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications which were approved by the Department as a part of the permit; (1)(b) all construction or activity authorized under the permit shall be conducted using extreme care to prevent any adverse impacts to the beach and dune system; and (1)(g) existing beach and dune topography and vegetation shall not be disturbed except as expressly authorized in the permit. Permit FR-563 did not authorize the start of construction until a construction access plan to the Pepper project site was approved, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system. On October 16, 2000, Amended Permit FR-563 was issued with a Notice to Proceed Withheld. The Amended Permit also contained Special Condition 1.5 which required the submittal and approval of "[a] construction access plan showing the route and timing for bringing equipment and materials to the site, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system." The Department was concerned about the manner in which equipment and materials would be brought to the project site without causing further harm to the system. Amended Permit FR-563 did not expressly or implicitly authorize excavation or grading seaward of the CCCL in any area on Dog Island off of the project site and footprint of the house. In late 2000, Mr. Withers became involved with the Pepper project after Amended Permit FR-563 (with the Notice to Proceed Withheld) was issued on October 16, 2000. Part of Mr. Withers' job responsibility was to prepare and submit a construction access plan to the Department for approval. The Department does not normally require an access plan because most job sites are located in areas with established roads for ingress and egress. Here, there was no established road to and from the project site. The access plan was necessary in order to determine how Mr. Withers would transport equipment and materials to the Pepper project site on the west end of Dog Island due to the site's remote location and the absence of an established roadway to the site. Mr. Withers expected that materials and heavy equipment, including cranes, would be off-loaded at Tyson's Harbor, located approximately in the middle of Dog Island, and transported by vehicle to the project site along the access plan route. He expected to only transport pilings using the beach access route. On March 15, 2001, Mr. Withers submitted an access plan which described the route Mr. Withers would traverse by vehicle with construction equipment and materials. See Endnote 1. The Easy Street Easement starts at the east end of the island as an established roadway. Proceeding in a westerly direction, Easy Street comes to a dead-end at a cul-de-sac landward of the CCCL. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to access the job site using part the Easy Street/Easy Street Easement (starting on the east end of the island) going north from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac, then heading in a westerly direction just south of the Ausley house (west of R-158 and just landward of the CCCL) and across the narrows area and continuing in a westerly direction along the northern shoreline and in southerly direction toward R-154. The access plan then authorized Mr. Withers to proceed in a westerly direction over the middle portion of the west-end of the island, then in a southerly direction toward the project site.1 The access plan showed a route both landward and seaward of the CCCL along the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 4- orange line then blue line after the orange circle on the west-end of the island. As described by Mr. McNeal of the Department, the access route is seaward, for the most part, of the CCCL from R-157 to R- 159 (running west to east) and landward of the CCCL east of R-159. The Department described the damaged area of 5,305.6 square feet (Department Exhibit 11A, insert "B") caused by Mr. Withers as east of R-159 and seaward of the CCCL and south of the access plan route. See also Finding of Fact 35. However, it appears that a portion of Easy Street, between R-159 and R-160, is seaward of the CCCL. Compare Department Exhibit 12 with Department Exhibits 4, 11A, and 13. During a pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Withers marked in pink the route he took through a portion of the narrows area which coincides with the portion of Easy Street between the approximate locations of R-159 and R-160, depicted on Department Exhibit 12. See Finding of Fact 43. (Mr. Withers had the Easy Street Easement staked prior to doing any work on Dog Island. See Findings of Fact 33-35.) The damaged area appears to coincide with this portion of Easy Street, and seaward of the CCCL. See Department Exhibit 11A. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to drive (vehicular traffic) his equipment over the easement following the route depicted on the access plan until he arrived at the project site. See Endnote 1. The Department expected that travel along the access route would cause minimal and temporary damage or destruction to the topography, so the plan was considered acceptable. The access plan did not authorize excavation of a roadway within the route, including the narrows area, nor did it contemplate any other activity over or around a dune other than what might occur as a result of driving.2 The Department understood that Mr. Withers would be driving daily over the access plan route to the project site. The Department assumed that trucks would be used to transport equipment and materials. The Department did not differentiate among vehicles which could be used, including large trucks. On April 11, 2001, the Department issued a Notice to Proceed to Mr. Pepper to begin construction of his single-family dwelling in accordance with Amended Permit FR-563. The access plan is part of the Amended permit. Shortly after the Notice to Proceed was issued, The Nature Conservancy advised the Department of concerns it had with the access plan. As a result, on April 24, 2001, there was a meeting in Apalachicola, Florida, convened by the Department and attended by other interested governmental entities and private persons, including Mr. Withers. The purpose of the meeting was explore other possible ways and means of access by Mr. Withers to the Pepper project site.3 No resolution was reached during the meeting and the access plan previously approved by the Department remained effective. The previously issued Notice to Proceed was also in effect. The Violations Mr. Withers hired Kenneth Greenwood of Garlick Environmental Associates to perform a threatened/endangered species inspection, plant and animal, on an approximately 30-foot wide strip on the Easy Street Easement (approximately 1,800 feet) being utilized in Mr. Withers' access plan and within the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 13-yellow markings. On May 2, 2001, Mr. Greenwood performed the inspection within the easement that Mr. Withers had staked out by a land surveyor, approximately 15 feet on either side of the stakes. He found no threatened/endangered species. (The CCCL was not staked by Mr. Withers because, according to Mr. Withers, the Department did not ask him to locate the CCCL with stakes.) The access route depicted by Mr. McNeal in orange on Department Exhibit 4, which runs east of R-159, is similar to the description of the staked areas east of R-159, described by Mr. Greenwood and marked in yellow on Department Exhibit 13. See Findings of Fact 28-29. Both areas are landward of the CCCL. However, the 5,305.6 square foot damaged area is east of R-159 and is seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Greenwood described the area where he performed his investigation as being "relatively undisturbed," "relatively stable," having no vehicle tracks, and he stated that there were areas of bare sand as well as areas of "natural beach dune vegetation." He described the area as "relatively flat with some small amounts of mounding." The pictures taken by Mr. Greenwood within the staked easement on May 2, 2001, as part of his investigation, do not depict any vehicle tracks. After Mr. Greenwood completed his investigation on May 2, 2001, he observed Mr. Withers landward of the CCCL on a front-end loader and north of the cul-de-sac, proceeding west along the Easy Street Easement scraping off the top layer of soil and heading in a westward direction. Mr. Greenwood believed that the activity performed by Mr. Withers at this time was consistent with unpaved, road construction. According to Mr. Greenwood, the width of the scraped area appeared to be approximately the width of the bucket on Mr. Withers' front-end loader. Mr. Withers stated that he was doing minor grading landward of the CCCL with a John Deere 310-E front-end loader tractor when Mr. Greenwood was present on May 2, 2001. This tractor had a front bucket (approximately seven to eight feet wide) and a backhoe for excavating dirt on the back-end. Mr. Withers described the work which he performed when Mr. Greenwood was present as moving out and smoothing off the top of the sand landward of the CCCL in order for his equipment to get through. Mr. Withers also stated that he made areas in the easement seaward of the CCCL smooth by using the bottom of the bucket of his front-end loader to move sand around. Mr. Withers mentioned that he was very concerned that he needed to have the pathway he was utilizing in the access plan marked and smoothed off and fairly level. He believed the access plan authorized him to smooth off the areas on the access route. Mr. Withers stated that he had to have the access path level because he was bringing a self-propelled, 25-ton crane down the access path and they are top heavy and can get off balance, topple over, or get stuck. Mr. Withers described two types of work that he performed in the Easy Street Easement as: 1) clearing landward of the CCCL that required scooping and moving dirt, and 2) smoothing several areas seaward of the CCCL, just east of R-158 to around R- 160. An area of excavation damage seven feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning approximately 130 feet east of R-158) and an area 41 feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning at R-159, continuing east approximately 500 feet) are located within the area Mr. Withers stated he did some "smoothing off areas," again, east of R-158 and continuing east toward, but west, of R-160. Mr. Withers believed that Amended Permit FR-563 allowed him to use the Easy Street Easement in the access plan "to do . . . whatever was necessary and . . . needed to get [his] equipment, access [his] equipment down to the job site." He also admitted smoothing the areas. Mr. Withers also stated that Amended Permit FR-563 granted him permission to access the west end of Dog Island. Therefore, there was no need for him to locate the CCCL. Mr. Withers referred to the easement in the access plan as turning into a good pathway after he smoothed the areas. Mr. Withers stated that it was his "intention to gain access to the west end of Dog Island through a legal easement and an existing roadway" and that he wanted to utilize it. Mr. Withers testified "that he knew a lot of roads on Dog Island crossed seaward of the [CCCL]" in response to questioning whether he knew at the time of his performing work on the easement, whether or not the Easy Street Easement crossed seaward of the CCCL. He knew he was going to be traversing "fairly close" to the CCCL. Mr. Withers stated he did not knowingly violate the conditions of the Amended Permit. Mr. Withers was aware of the Department's permit requirements for work seaward of the CCCL when he performed his access work in the easement on Dog Island. However, Mr. Withers never had a survey done to figure out where the CCCL was located. Notice of the Alleged Violations Around May 2, 2001, the Department received a complaint that excavation was occurring seaward of the CCCL on Dog Island in the narrows area of the Easy Street Easement. On May 4, 2001, John A. Poppel, William Fokes, and Phil Sanders went to Dog Island on behalf of the Department to investigate the complaint of excavation in the narrows area seaward of the CCCL. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Poppel performed a survey of the narrows area and located the CCCL. He located monuments R-158- R-160. Department Exhibit 11. As a product of his survey, Mr. Poppel was able to depict the newly excavated roadway or pathway in relation to the CCCL. Mr. Poppel calculated that one area of damage was seven feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 503.8 square feet of damage and a second area of damage was 41 feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 5,305.6 square feet of damage. These square foot areas represent only the disturbed areas seaward of the CCCL, not the entire area between the CCCL and the Gulf of Mexico. Both areas of damage are within the area where Mr. Withers stated that he smoothed out the sand. As part of the May 4, 2001, investigation, William Fokes, an Engineer I with the Department, took photographs of the damaged areas and prepared an inspection report. Mr. Fokes' report indicates that an approximately 11-foot wide roadway or pathway had been cleared by excavation with the most seaward extent of the road being about 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. In addition, the report states that small dunes and beach vegetation had been destroyed. Mr. Fokes described the damage as excavation or grading done by some kind of machine, which cut and uprooted vegetation and pushed sand to the side as it leveled the ground. Mr. Fokes testified that the damage did not appear to be caused by merely traversing the area. Mr. Sanders, an engineer with the Department, processes CCCL permit applications and supervises Mr. Fokes, a field engineer. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Sanders observed the narrows area in question and confirmed that it looked like a "graded road" in that "[i]t appeared in the road bed that vegetation was gone and had been pushed out to the side, graded away," and that there was "excavation" seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Sanders stated that this activity did not comply with the approved access plan. On May 7, 2001, a Notice of Violation was issued to Mr. Withers for the "the unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and native vegetation for the purpose of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line." Mr. Greenwood's photographs taken May 2, 2001, when compared with Mr. Fokes' photographs taken May 4, 2001, show that no discernable roadway or pathway was present landward or seaward of the CCCL in the narrows area at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection on May 2, 2001. This is evident when comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Exhibit 15a, taken on May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibit 16g taken on May 4, 2001--the roadway or pathway present in the May 4, 2001, photo is absent in the May 2, 2001, photograph, and the vegetation has been removed from part of the area. Comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Department Exhibit 15b, taken May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibits 16c and d, taken on May 4, 2001, also shows that the roadway or pathway was not present on the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection. The previously mentioned pictures, which were used for a comparison, were taken by two different people on separate dates, and from approximately the same locations. Also, Department Exhibit 16j was taken 250 feet east of R-159 and within the narrows area, facing east which shows clearing approximately 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. On May 14, 2001, at the request of the Department, Ken Jones, a principal engineer with Post Buckey et al., performed a damage assessment of the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement which was seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Jones has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's degree in physical oceanography. Mr. Jones was familiar with the narrows area having been to Dog Island for recreation during the past 20 years and as a Dog Island property owner for the last three years. Mr. Jones described the narrows area as relatively flat and located between the St. George Sound to the north and the Gulf of Mexico beaches to the south. Between these two areas, the land is undulating sand and fairly consistent vegetation. At the time of Mr. Jones' damage assessment, he determined that a road had been cut through the vegetative portion of the dune of the narrows. Mr. Jones observed cut roots and a majority of the vegetation destroyed. Mr. Jones stated it appeared that the damage was caused by a vehicle with a blade on the front. The result was the road sat down in the sand approximately four to six inches. Mr. Jones stated that the work appeared to have been recent because distinct edges were still present. Mr. Jones took photographs and compiled an inspection report as part of his damage assessment. Mr. Jones testified that the damage "was pretty consistent from both landward and seaward of the [CCCL]." The pictures labeled Department Exhibits 18a1 and 18a2 depict a level pathway or roadway barren of vegetation seaward of the CCCL. Department Exhibit 18a4 is a photograph of a typical vegetated dune. Mr. Jones took this picture in order to have a general idea of what the vegetation coverage was in order to get an idea from a cost-estimating perspective. Mr. Jones's cost estimate for repairing the damage to the narrows area seaward of the CCCL, was approximately $7,500.00.4 Mr. Jones calculated the $7,500.00 by making an estimate of what it would cost to buy coastal vegetation, and by estimating what it would cost to employ laborers to hand rake the sand back into position and to plant the vegetation. Administrative Fine and Damages Jim Martinello, an environmental manager in charge of enforcement and compliance with the Bureau, used Mr. Jones' damage assessment estimate for informational purposes in assessing the damages amount for the narrows area. Mr. Martinello calculated the administrative fine and damages in accordance with Section 161.054, Florida Statues, and Rules 62B-54.002 and 62B-54.003, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.002, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department shall assess fines for willful violations of, or refusing to comply with, for example, Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and the fine should be sufficient to ensure immediate and continued compliance. In determining the actual fine within the range, the Department shall consider the offender's past violations, if any, and other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include prior knowledge of rules. Mitigating circumstances may be considered. Id. Mr. Withers had knowledge prior to the issuance of Amended Permit FR-563 of Department rules regarding permit requirements for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. On October 4, 1996, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. This matter was resolved by entering into a consent order. On October 29, 1997, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible permit violation seaward of the CCCL. On November 13, 1997, Mr. Withers was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. On October 27, 2000, Mr. Withers wrote a letter to Mr. McNeal indicating that he believed that the Easy Street Easement on Dog Island heading south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de- sac, then west to the west end of Dog Island, is landward of the CCCL and, therefore, no permit was necessary to reopen and use the easement, but he would have a surveyor establish the control line prior to work commencing. On November 7, 2000, Phil Sanders replied by letter to Mr. Withers' October 27, 2000 letter, in which Mr. Sanders reminded Mr. Withers of the pertinent rules and laws and suggested that Mr. Withers have the CCCL surveyed. On December 20, 2000, Mr. Martinello sent Mr. Withers an advisory letter informing him that the area he traversed (on July 2000) on the south route of the Easy Street Easement from the cul- de-sac on Dog Island was considered to be a dune as defined by Rule 62B-33.002, Florida Administrative Code. However, Mr. Martinello further advised that the Department did not take any action because "the traversing [did not] cause any substantial damage, it was minimal damage." In regard to the present case, it is more than a fair inference that Mr. Withers had specific knowledge of the CCCL and the Department's laws and rules, and that he knew excavation was not authorized seaward of the CCCL. The information in the prior Findings of Fact was used by the Department, and specifically Mr. Martinello, to determine that the harm to the beach resource or potential harm was major, and the administrative fine assessed was $7,500.00. However, part of Mr. Martinello's determination was predicated on Mr. Jones' assessment that the site one narrows violation was approximately 700 feet in length when, in fact, the area was approximately 500 feet in length, which explains in part the disparity between a 9,800 square foot area and the proven 5,305.6 square foot area. See Finding of Fact 78 and Endnote 4. Even the additional amount of damage of 503.8 square feet for the site two narrows area, when viewed in the aggregate, is significantly less than Mr. Jones' assessment of damages by square feet. (Mr. Martinello used the Jones' assessment as a guideline. Mr. Martinello says that the mistake did not alter his decision, although he was unaware of the mistake until the final hearing. He also says that Mr. Jones recommended a higher damage amount than the $5,000.00 assessed by the Department in its preliminary Final Order. He did--$7,500.00 for 9,800 square feet of damage.) Grossly negligent or knowing violations of statutes and Department rules regarding coastal construction seaward of the CCCL, which result "in harm to sovereignty lands seaward of mean high water or to beaches, shores, or coastal or beach-dune system(s), including animal, plant or aquatic life thereon," shall be considered in determining damages. Rule 62B-54.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a damage amount greater than the minimum amounts may be assessed to ensure, immediate and continued compliance and the Department may consider, e.g., the need for restoration and the damaged ecological resource. The Department determined that the violation was knowing based on the factors mentioned above. The Department also considered the need for restoration and the damage to ecological resources and whether the amount would ensure immediate and continued compliance. Id. The Department determined that there was harm to the resource and that it was major and knowing. The Department proposed to assess the minimum damage amount of $5,000.00. On January 11, 2002, the Department entered a preliminary Final Order for the unauthorized grading and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation seaward of the control line for the purpose of constructing a roadway. The amount assessed in the Final Order was $12,500.00, $7,500.00 in administrative fines and $5,000.00 in damages, as described above. As noted, there has been harm to the beach area resource seaward of the CCCL and the Department proved the need for restoration and the damage to the ecological resource. In mitigation, Mr. Withers' construction access plan was approved by the Department. The Department knew that Mr. Withers intended to use the access route, which ran seaward of the CCCL from approximately R-157 to R-159 (except for a small portion between R-158 and R-159) in the narrows area; that Mr. Withers planned to transport equipment and materials by truck using the access route and necessarily would traverse seaward of the CCCL; and that he would continuously use the access route until the project was completed. The actual damaged area is less than originally determined by Mr. Jones, thus the need for restoration reduced. Mr. Jones, without the benefit of a survey, estimated the total cost to restore the damaged area of 9,800 square feet to be approximately $7,500.00. The total square feet of damage proven in this proceeding is 5,809.4 square feet in the narrows area and the Department is requesting $12,500.00 in fines and damages. Based on an approximate ratio of square feet and dollars needed to restore, a damage assessment in the amount of $4,500.00 is appropriate. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, a fine of $3,500.00 is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: That a final order be issued adopting this Recommended Order; and Within 30 days of a final order being effective, Petitioners shall pay a fine of $3,500.00 and $4,500.00 in damages with the total amount of $8,000.00, to the Department of Environmental Protection. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 9th day of January, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Sarasota County and MPS both filed extensive exceptions to the Recommended Order. I have grouped these exceptions according to the following issues: Manatee Protection, Turtle Nesting impacts, Fisheries impacts, Seagrass impacts, Wetlands Impacted, Water Quality Improvement, Public interest Balancing Test, Miscellaneous Exceptions, Requests For Additional Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law. I shall discuss and rule on each exception by the above groupings. 1. Manatee Protection Sarasota County Exception Number 1 and MPS Exception Numbers 6 and 8 are directed to the issue of adverse affects on the West Indian Manatee. Sarasota County and MPS take exception to Finding of Fact ("FOF") No. 24, claiming that there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that it is anticipated that increased motorboat traffic in the pass vicinity would be an increased potential danger to manatees. MPS additionally takes exception to the finding in FOF No. 29 that maintenance dredging will entail a danger to manatees similar to that during the construction phase. At the outset, I note that where a Hearing Officer's finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence I am not permitted to reweigh the evidence and reject the finding of fact. See, e.g., Florida Debt. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 120.57(1)(b)1O., Florida Statutes. In this case the record does contain competent substantial evidence supporting FOF Nos. 24 and 29. The Hearing Officer's finding that increased motorboat traffic is an expected result of opening of the pass is not disputed. FOF No. 34. The area is designated as a critical habitat for the West Indian Manatee. FOF No. 22. The prefiled testimony of Ms. Kimberly A. Dryden states that "[a]n increase in boat/manate collisions associated with increased boat presence in the pass may occur." Dryden, PF-11. Ms. Dryden was admitted as an expert in wildlife biology including expertise in manatees, and her prefiled testimony was accepted into evidence. TR-756-760. Finally, the fact that Sarasota County itself proposed a manatee protection plan involving, among other things, that all project vessels operate at "no wake" speeds, supports the finding that increased motorboat traffic in the pass vicinity would be an increased potential danger to manatees. Sarasota County and MPS point to the public notice of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Hearing Exhibit 26) and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter (Hearing Exhibit 27) as overwhelming evidence that no adverse effect on the manatee is expected. In essence, Sarasota County and MPS are asking me to reweigh the competent, substantial evidence. As noted above, I may not lawfully do that. The parties do not dispute the Hearing Officer's finding that maintenance dredging is expected to be needed as long as the inlet remains open. FOF No. 21. For the reasons set forth above, the Hearing Officer's finding that maintenance dredging will present a danger to manatees similar to the construction is supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. Sarasota County and MPS also assert that FOF No. 24 must be rejected because it is contrary to a stipulation of fact by the parties. Indeed, the record shows that a prehearing stipulation was filed and accepted into the record without objection at the hearing. TR-8. Stipulation of Fact No. 24 states: With the implementation of recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is not expected that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the manatee or its habitat. Steven Sauers, Director of the Coastal Zone Division for Sarasota County, testified that he believed the County "could adhere to these [U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service] recommendations under a condition of authorization." TR-94-98. I note that when the prefiled testimony of Ms. Dryden was accepted into evidence at the hearing, neither Sarasota County nor MPS objected to those portions dealing with manatee impacts as being contrary to Stipulation of Fact No. 24. I must therefore consider whether the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the stipulation, and whether the Hearing Officer, as the ultimate finder of the facts, is bound by a stipulation of fact when the record contains competent, substantial evidence which conflicts with the stipulation. It has long been the eablished rule of law that stipulations of fact properly entered into are binding on both the parties and the court. See, e.g., Troup v. Bird, 53 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 1951) (where case is tried on stipulation, no further or different facts will be presumed to exist). Where a party seeks to be relieved from a stipulation, he or she generally must file a timely motion, with notice to opposing parties, showing good cause and no prejudice to opposing parties. U.S. Fire insurance Co. v. Roberts, 541 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Lopez v. Dublin Co., 489 So.2d 805, 807 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Munilla v. Perez-Cobo, 335 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. den., 344 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1977); Villa v. Mumac Construction Corp., 334 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Curr v. Helene TransportatIon, 287 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Good cause requires showing of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, withholding of facts by the adversary party, or such other element as would render the agreement void. Spitzer v. Bartlett Brothers Roof in, 437 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Citv of Vero Beach v. Thomas, 388 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In this case, neither the Department nor the Respondent Intervenors sought to be relieved from the stipulation, and there is no contention that any basis for good cause exits to be relieved from the stipulation. However, it is also a long established rule of law that failure to contemporaneously object to the admission of contested evidence is a waiver of the right to object. See, e.g., Swan v. Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 404 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); DeLuca v. State, 384 So.2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. den., 389 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1980); Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, Section 104.1 (2d Ed 1984); Section 90.104, Florida Statutes. in this case the testimony which conflicts with the stipulation was pre-filed before the hearing and the opposing parties had ample opportunity to review it before the hearing. Yet, although Sarasota County did raise objections to certain portions of Ms. Dryden's pre- filed testimony, no objection was raised to the portion relevant to impacts on manatees. TR-754-760. There is also authority for the proposition that when evidence contrary to a stipulation is introduced at trial without objection, the finder of fact is not bound by the stipulation. Special Disability Trust Fund v. Myers, 492 So.2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), cause dism'd, 491 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1986); Espada Enterprises Inc. v. Spiro, 481 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Woods v. Greater Naples Care Center, 406 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. den., 413 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1982). In consideration of the above authorities and circumstances, I conclude that the Hearing Officer was not bound by the stipulation and could properly consider the relevant portion of Ms. Dryden's pre-filed testimony. Therefore the record contains competent, substantial evidence in support of the above findings of fact. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are denied. Turtle Nesting Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 2 and MPS Exception No. 7 dispute FOF No. 26, which states that: "Once dredged, the beach area in the pass vicinity would be permanently lost for the purpose of turtle nesting." Sarasota County and MPS argue that although a portion of the beach will be removed to create the inlet, the loss of beach will not significantly impact on turtle nesting. Sarasota County and MPS contend that the "overwhelming weight" of the evidence is contrary to FOF No. 26. They are in essence asking me to reweigh the evidence. For the reasons stated above, I cannot do so. If the finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence, then I am not at liberty to reject it. Florida Department of Corrections, supra; Section 120.57(1) (b)10., Florida Statutes. Ms. Belinda Perry, Projects Coordinator in the Coastal Zone Division of Natural Resources of the Sarasota County Natural Resources Department, testified that she had maintained records of sea turtle nests in the vicinity of Midnight Pass. She testified that on the average over the last eight years there have been four nests per year in the area that the new inlet at Midnight Pass will be located. Perry, TR-537-538; Perry PF-2, 5, 8. This is competent, substantial evidence of an adverse impact on the nesting habitat of sea turtles. Sarasota County and MPS argue that this impact is not "Significant." If I were to consider the "significance" of the loss of 4 nests per year for the purpose of accepting or rejecting FOF No. - 26, I would in effect be weighing that evidence. This I may not do. If the finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence I may not reject it. Although not articulated, Sarasota County and MPS may be arguing that when evidence which supports a finding of an adverse impact on an endangered or threatened species is "not significant," then such evidence or finding of fact cannot be considered when weighing the seven factors set forth in the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. I reject any such argument as contrary to the law. Neither the statute nor any authority requires a minimum threshold weight for any of the factors. The statute merely requires the Department to "consider and balance" the seven criteria. For the foregoing reasons, Sarasota County's Exception No. 2 and MPS's Exception No. 7 are rejected. Fisheries Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 4 and MPS Exception No. 10 challenge that part of FOF No.-3- that states "the flushing and arrival of predator fishes will adversely affect the nursery habitat now enjoyed by the fish community currently within the LSB." (emphasis added) Sarasota County and MPS contend that this finding is unsupported by any competent substantial evidence in the record. I disagree. Robert L. Stetler, Environmental Administrator, Wetlands Resource Management for the Department's Southwest District testified as follows: Q. What impact on fisheries does the present, i.e., closed condition of the Midnight Pass area have? A. Current conditions in the backwater area of Midnicht Pass as mentioned Before, as quiescent in nature. This influences the fisheries utilization to the competitive advantage of the smaller species and of the early life stages of many of the larger pelagic fish species. The additional cover afforded by seagrass communities and the very shallow water nature of large portions of the site tend to limit successful predation on the smaller specimens. The periphyton communities associated with shallow water areas and seagrass beds also provide large quantities of food to the smaller or younger fish. The conditions now found at Midnight Pass enable it to be classified as a nursery area because they perform the functions of feeding and protecting the early life stages of numerous fish species. Nursery areas like the pass region have been identified as essential to the maintenance of healthy, well balanced fish populations. Q. Does a quiescent estuarine zone provide any particilar benefit to commercially important fish species? A. Under the estuarine conditions, water quality also contributes to the success and/or failure of certain fish species. Many of the estuarine dependent fish species have life histories that include spawning in or near the marine environment and the mitigation [sic] of the larval forms into areas of lower salinity, sometimes lower dissolved oxygen and, in the summer months, often very high water temperatures. These harsh conditions are tolerable to a early life stages of several commercially important fish species and further protects them from predation by adult piscivorous (fish eating) fish that cannot tolerate these conditions. Some of the important commercial species exhibiting this life cycle are the Tarpon, Spotted Seatrout, Redfish, Mangrove snapper, Sheepshead and Mullet. Q. What, in your opinion, would be the overall impact to fisheries resources from the opening of Midnight Pass? A. The overall impact of the project to fisheries would be significant. Reactivating an inlet would produce conditions conducive and reintroducing larger, motile, pelagic fishes into the area. increased flushing would likely occur resulting in increased salinities, higher energy conditions from waye and tidal action. The recreational fishery would probably produce more larger fish utilizing the pass as a migratory, spawning and feeding site. However, the direct impact of the project would also result in the loss of significant portions of the nursery habitat previously described. Q. in your opinion, would opening Midnight Pass be in the public interest from a fisheries standpoint? A. No. Q. Why not? A. The expected physical damages associated with reopening the pass -- increased water depths, destabilization of the substrate by tide and wave energy and destruction of existing shallow water habitat will eliminate or significantly change the habitat characteristics and water guality conditions essential to the early life stages of many fish species. Loss of nursery habitat has been a long-term trend to Tampa and Sarasota Bay due to past dredge and fill activities and increased development. This long-term loss results in a need to classify remaining nursery areas, like Midnight Pass, as critical habitat warranting special protection. (emphasis added) Stetler PF-11-13. This prefiled testimony was accepted into evidence. TR-836, 839. When read in its entirely it clearly provides competent, substantial evidence to support the above finding of fact. Mr. Stetler testified that the existing nature of LSB provides a nursery for certain fishes that in the early stages of their life take advantage of areas of lower salinity, sometimes lower dissolved oxygen and, in the summer months, often very high water temperatures. Such harsh conditions protect them from predation by adult fish that cannot tolerate such conditions. He further testified that reopening Midnight Pass would result in increased flushing, increased salinity, and the loss of significant portions of the above characteristics with a consequent loss of significant portions of the nursery habitat. This testimony is competent, substantial evidence supporting FOF No. 32. Therefore, i may not disturb this finding of fact. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Seagrass Impacts Loss of Seagrass Sarasota County Exception No. 5 and MPS Exceptions Nos. 10 and 11 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the submerged areas of LSB in the vicinity of the inlet are vegetated with seagrasses (including shoalgrass, turtle grass, manatee grass, and halophila), and that a significant portion of these grasses will be dredged if the proposed project is implemented. FOF No. 33. The Hearing Officer also found that the dredged seagrass areas will no longer serve as a nursery to young fishes. FOF No. 34. Sarasota County and MPS contend that only 10 acres of seagrasses will be dredged, and that the evidence shows that reopening Midnight Pass will cause more dense growth of seagrasses in those areas not dredged. Sarasota County and MPS also contend that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that all four of the above noted types of seagrasses would be lost. The gist of Sarasota County's and MPS's argument is that the loss of ten acres of seagrss is less than 10% of the total seagrass acreage in the project area, and therefore is not significant. Sarasota County and MPS further argue that even if the loss of 10 acres of seagrass was significant, it would only be a temporary loss because the opening of Midnight Pass would result in greater seagrass growth, density, and diversity in those areas not dredged. Neither Sarasota County nor MPS take exception to the finding that l0 acres of seagrasses will be dredged, and that, due to the depth of the channel to be dredged, seagrasses would not be expected to reseed or colonize in the deep channel cuts. FOF No. 34; Prehearing Stipulation of Fact No. 22. The record contains competent, substantial evidence that in the vicinity of the project there are 108 acres of seagrasses. Lewis, PF-6 (accepted into evidence TR-425-436). A loss of ten acres of seagrasses would be a loss of more than 9% of the total acreage in the vicinity of the project. A loss of seagrass can have an adverse impact on a fish nursery. Leiby TR-507, 509-510. I reject any suggestion that such a loss is not significant. MPS and Sarasota County contend that there will be no net loss of seagrass because the loss of the ten acres will be offset by increased growth, density, and diversity of seagrasses in the areas not dredged. in asking me to reject the above noted findings, Sarata County and MPS are in effect asking me to weigh the evidence of the impact of the loss of ten acres against the evidence that increased growth, density, and diversity of the seagrasses elsewhere will soon offset any reduction in nursery value to young fishes. When I rule on exceptions to findings of fact I cannot reweigh the evidence. If the record contains any competent, substantial evidence to support the finding, I must accept it. Finally, as to issue of the types of seagrasses present, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that all four of the species mentioned in the finding of fact are found in the project area to be dredged. Stetler PF- 6, TR-843-845; Wilber PF-33, TR-908-915; Dryden PF-5-7; Prehearing Stipulation of Fact No. 21. For all of the reasons set forth above, i reject the exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS. Propeller Dredging of Seagrass Sarasota County Exception No. 6 and MPS Exception No. 12 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "increase motorboat traffic which is an expected result of the pass reopening, would also limit grasses from re- establishing in shallower areas due to damage caused by propellers." FOF No. 34. Sarasota County and MPS do not dispute that opening - Midnight Pass will increase motoboat traffic in LSB. Dr. Wilber testified that the "foreseeable increased boat utilization, especially by large boats will increase seagrass bed damage through prop dredging . . . ." Wilber PF-31. There being competent, substantial evidence in the record supporting the above finding, the exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are denied. Wading Bird Habitat Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the grassy flats will no longer be available to the numerous species of wading birds which frequent the areas since the closure of the pass." FOF No. 33. Ms. Dryden testified that wading birds now use the shallow tidal flats and mud flats which are proposed to be removed. Dryden PF-4-8, 10-11. Mr. G. Jeffery Churchill testified that, as a result of the project, approximately 9 acres of wading bird feeding habitat would be lost. Churchill PF-16-17, TR- 485-487. The record contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the above finding. Therefore, Sarasota County's exception is denied. Wetlands Impacted Sarasota County Exception No. 6 and MPS Exceptions Nos. 5 and 12 take exception to the finding that the dredging proposed by the County would eliminate at least 50 acres of wetlands. FOF Nos. 17 and 34. Sarasota County and MPS contend that only 1.1 - 1.3 acres of vegetated wetlands will be lost. This contention appears to be based on the assertion that submerged lands are not "wetlands" within the meaning of Sections 403.91 - .929, Florida Statutes. I reject Sarasota County's and MPS's narrow construction of the meaning of jurisdictional wetlands. Section 403.912(1) sets forth the powers and duties of the Department in permitting activities in wetlands, including activities "in waters to their landward extent . . ." (emphasis added). The term "waters" includes "rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters." Section 403.031(12), Florida Statutes. the term "wetlands" therefore is inclusive of surface bodies of waters up to and including the limit of the Department's jurisdiction as established by Section 403.817, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-301, F.A.C. Dr. Wilber testified that the project would dredge 43.8 acres for the two access channels, 3.6 acres for the sediment basin, and 7.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the inlet channel. Wilber PF-5-6. Dr. Wilber further testified that habitat within the proposed channels consisted of valuable biological communities of a natural character that would be severely disrupted or eliminated if the project were permitted. Wilber PF-9. The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the above finding. The exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are rejected. Water Quality Improvement Sarasota County Exception No. 7 and MPS Exception No. 14 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the water quality within LSB will not be significantly improved as a result of the reopening of the inlet. "FOF No. 38. it is contended that this finding is immaterial and irrelevant. These exceptions also challenge as irrelevant the Hearing Officer's finding that "it is impossible to conclude that marine environments serve a more useful purpose than estuarine systems." FOF No. 38. I agree that it is not required that the proposed project improve the water quality in LSB in order to be permittable. Permitting of a dredge and fill project in an Outstanding Florida Water requires that the applicant show that the project is clearly in the public interest, and that reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, including a showing that the existing ambient water quality within the OFW will not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity. Section 403.918(1),(2), Florida Statutes; Rules 17-4.242(2) (a), 17-302.300, F.A.C. The applicant must also show that secondary impacts of the project, and cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable similar projects in the same geographical location will not result in violations of water quality standards, and will not result in the project being not clearly in the public interest. Conservancy, Inc. v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, Inc., No. 90-520 (Fla. 1st DCA, March 29, 1991); Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. The analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts is not a third test; rather, it is a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards, and that the project meets the applicable public interest test. Conservancy, Inc., supra; Peebles v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FALR 1961 (DER, April 11, 1990); Concerned Citizens League of America v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 4237, 4246 (DER, March 29, 1989). if the applicant is unable to satisfy the applicable public interest test, the applicant may propose or accept measures to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. 4/ On the other hand, throughout these proceedings Sarasota County has attemptd to justify the project and show that it is clearly in the public interest by asserting the project will improve water quality in LSB. For example, at page 7 of Sarasota County's Proposed Recommended Order it states: Sarasota County has convincingly demonstrated that it meets the statutory criteria for approval of this project in this Outstanding Florida Water. The project will not degrade ambient water quality, and it will cause an improvement in water guality, not only in the immediate vicinity of the Pass but throughout Little Sarasota Bay. This improved water guality will in turn reap substantial benefits to the degraded marine habitat, the flora and fauna, commercial and recreational fishing and the public's general enjoyment and ability to use Little Sarasota Bay. (emphasis added) Similarly, Sarasota County stated in its opening argument at the hearing that: TR-14. We think that there has been a decline in water quality and it will continue to decline and it will continue to get worse. By reopening the pass, we think we can stop that decline. We think that there will be such considerable improvements to the bay to be clearly in the public interest. The Hearing Officer's finding is clearly relevant to Sarasota County's assertion that the claimed improvement in water quality will make or help make the project to be clearly in the public interest. Similarly, since the reopening of the pass will cause the reversion of LSB from an estuarine to a marine ecosystem, the Hearing Officer's finding on the failure to show that a marine ecosystem has a more useful environmental purpose is also, at least arguably, relevant to the public interest test. 5/ The record contains competent, substantial evidence which supports this finding. Nearhoof PF-8-12, TR-891-895; Wilber PF-17-18, TR-920-921. There being competent, substantial evidence to support the finding, I shall not reject it. The exceptions are there denied. Public Interest Balancing Test Sarasota County Exceptions Nos. 8 and 12, and MPS Exceptions Nos. 15 and 17, take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the beneficial changes expected to result from the reopening of the pass do not offset the adverse affects reasonably expected to be caused by the dredging." FOF No. 39. Exception is also taken to FOF No. 43, which states that it was not established that the project is clearly in the public interest. The gist of these exceptions is that the balancing test is a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Even if that were so, the error in mislabeling would be harmless. Even though I agree that the ultimate determination of the public interest balancing test is a conclusion of law, I do not agree that predicate findings of ultimate facts are not appropriate. Florida Audubon Society v. Cullen, ER FALR 91:018 (DER, Sept. 27, 1990). The Hearing Officer's FOF Nos. 34 and 43 are predicate findings of ultimate facts sufficiently supported in other findings of fact for each of the seven criteria in the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes. See for example: Department's Response To Request For Admission No. 17, and R.O. at 21 and 23, accepting MPS's proposed finding of fact- No. 74, and Sarasota County's proposed finding of fact No. 50 (project will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare); (b) FOF Nos. 17, 22, 24-26, 29, and 32-35 (regarding conservation of fish and wildlife, etc.); FOF No. 36 and R.O. at 23, accepting MPS's proposed finding of fact Nos. 134 and 135 (regarding navigation, flow of water, erosion or shoaling); FOF Nos. 32 and 33 (regarding fishing recreational values or marine productivity); FOF No. 21, 29 and 37 (regarding temporary or permanent nature of project); FOF No. 28 (regarding historical and archaeological rsources); and FOF Nos. 30 and 38 (regarding current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by project). The exceptions are therefore rejected. Miscellaneous Exceptions Sarasota County Exception No. 9 Sarasota County Exception No. 9 contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence for the finding that the Department has not permitted the destruction of a habitat of this size without requiring extensive mitigation. FOF No. 40. Mr. Randall L. Armstrong, then Director of the Division of Water Management of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, testified that he had worked at the Department since 1972, and that "[i]n my experience with the Department in issuing permits under those statutes (Sections 403.918-.919] the Department has never permitted the destruction of such a large area of viable habitat without requiring extensive mitigation." Armstrong PF-9, TR-1017. Sarasota County's reliance on the testimony of Mr. Lewis about lack of mitigation in a Key Biscayne project is misplaced since that project occurred before the enactment of the Henderson Wetlands Act in 1984. Lewis TR at 482. in any event, FOF No. 40 is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. The exception is denied. Sarasota County Exception No. 11 and MPS Exception No. 16 Sarasota County Exception No. 11 and MPS Exception No. 16 complain about FOF No. 42, yet do not dispute its correctness. The finding is a irrefutable finding that no mitigation is proposed for 10 acres of seagrasses which will be dredged. The exceptions are merely an assertion that mitigation is not necessary for the loss of seagrasses because additional seagrass will grow elsewhere. This contention was addressed above under the heading of Seagrass impacts. Furthermore, the Department has the ultimate authority to determine whether mitigation is required and, if so, whether the proposed mitigation is adequate. 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 522 So.2d. 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The exceptions are rejected. Sarasota County Exception No. 3 Sarasota County's Exception No. 3 claims to take exception to FOF No. 29 but does not dispute any of the facts stated therein. The exception is rejected. MPS Exception No. 1 This exception quibbles over an immaterial issue of semantics in FOF No. 2, i.e., whether the project is to "dredge an inlet" or to "restore" the past inlet. The exception is rejected. MPS Exception No.2 MPS takes exception to FOF No. 4 which states that LSB was designated an Outstanding Florida Water. The gist of MPS's exception is that the Environmental Regulation Commission excluded Midnight Pass when LSB was designated as an OFW. Since "Midnight Pass" no longer existed as a body of water when LSB was designated an OFW on April 29, 1986, the exception is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. MPS Exceptions No. 3 and 13 MPS takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding in FOF No. 7 that prior to the closing of Midnight Pass the "beach along the northern stretch of Casey Key eroded badly." MPS also excepts to the finding that without beach renourishment the restoration will cause "harmful erosion" along Casey Key. FOF No. 37. MPS does not dispute the erosion; rather, MPS complains about the choice of words describing the degree of erosion. The choice of words is not material to the underlying validity of the finding. The exceptions are without merit and are rejected as immaterial. MPS Exception No. 9 MPS takes exception to FOF No. 30, contending that there is no support in the record for a finding that, as a result of the evolution of LSB from a marine to an estuarine system, LSB has a longer freshwater residence time. MPS is misreading FOF No. 30. It is clear that FOF No. 30, when properly read, states that as a result of the closure of the pass LSB has evolved from a marine to an estuarine system, and that this evolution is a consequence of the longer freshwater residence time which was caused by the closing of the inlet. This is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Echernacht TR-707. MPS also takes exception to the finding that levels of dissolved oxygen and salinity within LSB are fairly typical for a healthy estuarine system. FOF No. 30. The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support this finding. Wilber PF-32. The exceptions are rejected. Requests For Additional Findings of Fact Sarasota -County Exceptions Nos. 3, 10, and 13 through 16, and MPS Exceptions Nos. 4 and 18 are in essence asking me to make additional findings of fact, or to accept proposed findings of fact which were rejected by the Hearing Officer. I may not lawfully make an independent determination of a disputed fact. Cohn v. Department of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039, 1047 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985). Accord, Miller v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 504 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Inverness Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 512 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Friends of Children v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As to Sarasota County Exception No. 14, which requests a finding of fact that the project will not adversely affect the pubic health, safety and welfare, I note that the Hearing Officer accepted this finding of fact which was proposed in both paragraph 74 of MPS's proposed recommended order and in paragraph 50 of Sarasota .County's proposed recommended order. See R.O. at 21 and 23. Therefore, I consider the requested finding of fact to have already been made by the Hearing Officer. No additional finding is required of me. Sarasota County Exception No. 15 asks me to make specific additional findings of fact in relation to effects of the project on marine productivity. Sarasota County orrectly points out that a finding regarding whether the project will adversely affect marine productivity is needed to conduct the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. However, I note that the Hearing Officer's FOF Nos. 32 and 33 are sufficient predicate findings for her to consider and weigh this criteria in the balancing test. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer has considered and ruled on Sarasota County's proposed findings related to marine productivity as set forth in Sarasota County's proposed recommended order paras. 105-108 and 110 (accepted) and para. 111 (rejected as vague). See R.O. at 22. Sarasota County Exception No. 15 is essentially a reiteration of proposed findings of fact which had been asserted before the Hearing Officer. Where the Hearing Officer clearly and specifically addressed and ruled on the proposed finding in the recommended order, I am not required to provide further reasons for my ruling. Britt v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 492 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), overruled on other grounds sub nom., Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1988). I concur with and adopt the Hearing Officer's rulings as being based on competent, substantial evidence, and therefore reject the exception. Sarasota County Exception No. 16 asks me to make specific findings with regard to cumulative impacts. The matter ofwhether the proposed project will have any significant adverse secondary or cumulative impacts was a disputed issue at the hearing. See Prehearing Stipulation at 24, Stipulated Disputed issue VI(A)9. Section 403. 919, Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the cumulative impacts of the project in conjunction with other existing or future projects where there is a "reasonable likelihood" of similar project applications in the same geographic location in the future. Caloosa Property Owners Ass'n v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Reasonable expectation of future projects is the polestar of cumulative impact analysis. Chipola Basin Protective Group v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 11 F.A.L.R. 467, 477 (D.E.R. December 29, 1988). Testimony at the hearing showed that the Department conducted an evaluation of the project for cumulative impacts and was unable to identify any such impacts. Wilber PF-30, TR-949-950; Armstrong TR-1021-1022. A finding that the Department conducted a cumulative impact analysis and concluded that it was unable to identify any cumulative impact was proposed by Sarasota County in its Proposed Recommended Order, paras. 118 and 119. - These findings were accepted by the Hearing Officer (R.O. at 22). Therefore, the requested findings of fact have already been made by the Hearing Officer, and no additional finding is required of me. The exception is therefore rejected. MPS Exception No. 18 asks me to adopt numerous proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer expressly rejected. The Hearing Officer expressly ruled on each of these proposed findings of fact. (Recommended Order at 23-24) Where exceptions merely reiterate proposed findings of fact which had been asserted before the Hearing Officer, and where the Hearing Officer clearly and specifically addressed each in the recommended order, I am not required to provide any further explicit reasons for my ruling. Britt v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, supra. I concur with and adopt the Hearing Officer's rulings on these proposed findings of fact. I therefore reject the above exceptions. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Public Interest Test Sarasota County's Exception To Conclusion of Law No. 2, and MPS Exception No. 20 take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that "the County has failed to establish that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest." Conclusion of Law No. 6, R.O. at 15-16. As I noted in my earlier discussion on findings of fact, in order to obtain a permit to dredge and fill in an Outstanding Florida Water, the applicant must show, among other things, that the project is clearly in the public interest. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Failure of the applicant to make that showing makes the project not permittable. In order to determine whether the project is clearly in the public interest, the Department must consider and balance the following seven factors set forth in Section 403.918(2)(a): Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. In order to consider and balance these factors it is necessary, of course, to make sufficient findings of fact as to each factor. As I discussed above, the Hearing Officer had accepted or expressly made findings of fact relevant to each of the above factors. in Conclusion of Law No. 6, she considered and balanced those factors in reaching her determination that it was not shown that the project is clearly in the public interest. I am, of course, not bound by the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law. I am free to substitute my own legal conclusions for those of the Hearing Officer, so long as competent, substantial evidence supports my legal conclusions. Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 16 FLW D458 (Fla. 2d DCA, Feb. 20, 1991); Hunter v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); MacPherson v. School Board of Monroe County, 505 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Section 120.57(1) (b)lO., Florida Statutes. I have considered and balanced each of the seven criteria set forth in Section 403.918(2) (a) in the light of the findings of fact discussed above. I concur in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that it has not been demonstrated that the project is clearly in the public interest. In reaching my conclusion I am aware of the holding in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) that no net public benefit need be shown. I conclude that Findings of Fact Nos. 17, 22, 24-26, 29 and 32-35 on balance establish that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Findings of Fact 32 and 33 on balance show that the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in LSB. Findings 30 and 38 on balance sfrthat the current conditiofr of LSB makes it a valuable estuarine ecosystem which will be lost if the project is permitted. Finding of Fact 36 and MPS proposed findings of fact Nos. 134 and 135, which were accepted by the Hearing Officer, on balance show a net benefit to navigation. And, the Hearing Officer's acceptance of Sarasota County's proposed finding of fact No. 50, and MPS's proposed finding of fact No. 74, allow me to conclude that the project will not adversely affect the public health, welfare or safety. I note that there is abundant proof that the project is permanent in nature and that there will be no adverse affect on historical or archaeological resources. When I consider and balance all of these factors and their relevant facts, I conclude that the adverse impacts outweigh any benefits, and therefore donclude that there has been no showing that the project is clearly in the public interest. Since I have determined that it has not been shown that the project is clearly in the public interest, I must also consider any mitigation which Sarasota County has proposed. Sarasota County and MPS contend that no mitigation is needed for the loss of ten acres of seagrasses because reopening the pass will result in recolonization of new areas of seagrass, greater density of growth in existing areas, and greater diversity of seagrass species. Even when I assume that Sarasota County's and MPS cotentions are true, I still conclude that the adverse effects of the loss of ten acres of seagrass will not be mitigated by the proposed project. 6/ Accordingly, I reject the exceptions. Water Quality Improvement Sarasota County Exception To Conclusion of Law No. 1, and MPS Exception No. 19, challenge the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law No. 4. Specifically, the exceptions challenge the statement that "[t]he County has not established, however, that the reopening of the inlet will somehow improve water quality and justify the proposed dredging." Conclusion of Law No. 1, R.O. at 14. To the extent that the Hearing Officer may have thought that a showing of improvement in water quality was a requirement for obtaining a permit, she erred. However, for the reasons set forth in my previous discussion of water quality in relation to findings of fact, Sarasota County and MPS had made improvement in water quality an issue in determining whether the project was clearly in the public interest. Rather than erroneously imposing a requirement of improvement of water quality, it appears that the Hearing Officer was merely making a predicite observation prior to conducting the public interest balancing test. Regardless of how one interprets the above matter, it is clear that the issue does not affect the outcome of this case because both the Hearing Officer and I have concluded that there has been no showing that the project is clearly in the public interest. I therefore reject the exception on the basis that the conclusion of law is not erroneous, or if error, then it is harmless error. Having ruled on all of the exceptions it is ORDERED: Except as is otherwise stated in this Final Order, the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Sarasota County's Permit Application No. 581473069 is DENIED. NOTICE OF RIGHTS Any party to this Final Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Order is filed with the clerk of the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation CAROL BROWNER Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL. 32399-2400
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by Sarasota County. DONE and ENTERED this 19 day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-3533 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant, speculative or immaterial to the issues of this case. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 through 29 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is accepted with the deletion of the quotation marks around the word monitor and with the deletion of the last phrase following the words "survival rate" which is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant or not supported by the record. Paragraphs 32 through 36 are accepted. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 38 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 42 through 44 are accepted. Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraphs 46 through 48 are accepted. Paragraphs 49 through 53 are rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues, comment, repetitive, or argumentative. Paragraphs 54 through 62 are accepted. Paragraph 63 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 68 through 73 are accepted.
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) has demonstrated its entitlement to place dredged material from the maintenance dredging of the East Pass (“East Pass” or “inlet”) entrance channel conducted pursuant to Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) Permit Modification No. 0288799-006-JN (“Permit Modification”), as amended by the DEP’s August 21, 2019, Notice of Proposed Changes to Proposed Agency Action (“Proposed Change”) in the nearshore zone east of East Pass; and whether the East Pass Inlet Management Plan (“East Pass IMP”) is an unadopted rule as described in section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioner, Thomas Wilson, resides at 856 Edgewood Drive, Charleston, West Virginia, and owns a secondary residence at 1530 Miracle Strip Parkway, No. 101-B, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, which is on Santa Rosa Island in the unincorporated community of Okaloosa Island1, and fronts the Gulf of Mexico. Petitioner’s property is in the vicinity of Monument R-14, which is roughly 2.3 miles west of DEP Virtual Monument V-611, and 4.3 miles west of the west side of East Pass. Mr. Wilson uses and enjoys the gulf-front beaches between his property in Okaloosa Island and East Pass. Intervenors, David H. Sherry and Rebecca R. Sherry, own Unit 511 at the Surf Dweller Condominium, 554 Coral Court, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, fronting the Gulf of Mexico and in the Okaloosa Island community. 1 Okaloosa Island is the name of an unincorporated community that stretches about 2.8 miles along Santa Rosa Island from DEP reference monument R-1 through R-16, and is across Santa Rosa Sound from the mainland community of Ft. Walton Beach. Okaloosa Island is the name of the unincorporated community, while Santa Rosa Island is the name of the much longer island of roughly 40 miles in length, which includes U.S. Air Force/Eglin AFB property that extends from the Okaloosa Island community to East Pass. The Surf Dweller Condominium straddles DEP Reference Monument R-7, which is between three and four miles west of DEP Virtual Monument V-611, and is between five and six miles west of the west side of East Pass. The Sherrys use the beach at their condominium on a daily basis for fishing, crabbing, swimming, walking, running, and general recreation. They also walk or run from Monument R-7 along the beaches to East Pass, and occasionally drive to and use the beaches on the east side of East Pass. Intervenor, John S. Donovan, owns Units 131 and 132 at the El Matador Condominium, 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, fronting the Gulf of Mexico and in the Okaloosa Island community. The El Matador Condominium is approximately five miles west of Monument V-611, and is more than six miles west of the west side of East Pass. Mr. Donovan generally walks the beaches west of his condominium, but does occasionally walk along the beach to Monument V-607, which is the location of a seawall constructed by the Air Force on sovereign submerged lands to protect an Air Force tracking facility. Petitioners’ residential properties do not abut either the area established as the zone of influence of East Pass or the stretch of beach that is adjacent to the west fill placement site. Petitioners’ stated injuries are related to the allegation that the lateral movement of sand from the East Pass area of influence is from east to west. Placing dredged material in the eastern disposal site would allegedly deprive the beaches in front of their property -- beaches that are miles from the nearest area of influence or spoil disposal site -- of their natural sand supply by cutting off what they allege to be the natural sand flow, causing the beaches in front of their properties to eventually erode. Petitioners alleged no immediate environmental injuries associated with the Permit Modification. Petitioners’ stated objective in this case is to have any sand dredged from East Past to be placed on the western disposal areas at all times. Respondent, DEP, is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes, having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62 and 62B, regarding activities in surface waters of the state. DEP has been designated by the legislature as the beach and shore preservation authority for the State of Florida and is authorized to take all necessary initiatives to implement the provisions of chapter 161. See § 161.101, Fla. Stat. DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the Permit Modification at issue in this proceeding to the Corps. Respondent, the Corps, is a federal agency responsible for maintenance dredging of East Pass, and is the applicant for the Permit Modification. The Corps and DEP are parties to an Interagency Agreement pursuant to which the Corps has agreed that for joint coastal permits, beach compatible dredged material shall be disposed on Florida’s beaches consistent with chapter 161 and other beneficial use criteria specified by the Department and federal standards. Pursuant to the Interagency Agreement, if DEP determines that a permit modification is required to meet state standards, as was the case here, the Corps agrees to apply for and obtain the modification. Intervenor, Destin, is a municipality in Okaloosa County, Florida, and abuts the east side of East Pass. Intervenor, Okaloosa County, is the local sponsor of the federally authorized East Pass Navigation Project. It has a substantial interest in the safety and navigability of the East Pass Navigation Channel and its protection from effects of tropical storm systems. Okaloosa County also has a substantial interest in preserving its recreational and environmental resources. The Permit Modification was issued on November 14, 2016, without publication, or a notice of rights language regarding the right to request a hearing or time limits for doing so. Petitioner, Mr. Wilson, alleged that he received a copy of the Permit Modification on or after May 22, 2019. There was no evidence to the contrary. He, thereafter, filed a challenge with DEP on June 5, 2019, no more than 14 days from the date on which he received notice. East Pass The issue in dispute in this case, as it was in 19-1844, is the determination of whether beaches adjacent to the East Pass inlet are eroding, stable, or accreting, for purposes of meeting the statutory objective of section 161.142. Prior to 1928, the connection from Choctawhatchee Bay to the Gulf of Mexico flowed through what is now Old Pass Lagoon. After a storm in 1928, a high-tide breach of the shoreline near the current location of East Pass was formed. In 1929, a record rain event caused waters to rise in Choctawhatchee Bay. Residents of the area dug a relief channel at roughly the present location of East Pass. The waters releasing through the more hydraulically efficient flow path from Choctawhatchee Bay established a channel, which quickly enlarged to become the prominent inlet to the Gulf of Mexico. The permanent channel, now known as East Pass, is the only navigable passage from Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intercoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico between Panama City, Florida, and Pensacola, Florida. East Pass separates the gulf-fronting beaches of Destin to its east from the beaches owned by the United States as part of Eglin Air Force Base to the west. The entrance to East Pass is protected by two boulder-mount jetties: a 3,860 foot-long jetty on the west side of the inlet, and a 1,210 foot-long jetty on the east side of the inlet. East Pass includes a federal navigation channel. The federal navigation channel requires routine maintenance to prevent it from shoaling. On average, East Pass is dredged in two-year intervals. The last time that East Pass was dredged was in December of 2013. It has now shoaled with sand. Although there was a suggestion that recent storms may have opened the channel to some extent, the evidence was not sufficient to alter the findings based on the 19-1844 record that the channel remains hazardous for marine traffic. East Pass Inlet Management Implementation Plan The East Pass IMP was adopted by Final Order of DEP on July 30, 2013. The East Pass IMP does not require that any quantity of dredged material from the dredging of East Pass be placed at any particular location other than as established in permits issued by DEP. Rather, disposal sites are to be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the best monitoring data available for the beaches in the area of influence of East Pass. Areas of influence are the beach areas east and west of East Pass affected by tidal forces generated by the inlet. The critical element of the East Pass IMP, and that in keeping with the statutory requirement that sand be placed on “adjacent eroding beaches” is the “strategy” that “the recent erosion of adjacent beaches observed over a minimum of five years shall define the placement need in terms of location and volume.” The Permit Modification On October 28, 2009, DEP issued Permit No. 0288799-001-JC to the Corps to perform maintenance dredging of the East Pass Navigation Channel and the Old Pass Lagoon Channel, and to rehabilitate the eastern and western jetties. Materials dredged from the Main Channel south of the U.S. Highway 98 bridge would be primarily bypassed to a portion of the beach on Eglin Air Force Base west of East Pass. As originally issued, the 2009 Permit limited placement of dredged sand to sites west of the inlet, and prohibited placement to the east of the inlet. Contrary to the 2008 amendment to section 161.142 and the 2013 East Pass IMP, the 2009 Permit did not require that sand dredged from the federal navigation channel be placed on the adjacent eroding beach, nor did it extend the life of the proximate West Destin Beach Restoration Project. The Corps requested the Permit Modification in furtherance of an inter-agency agreement between DEP and the Corps, by which the Corps agreed, to the best of its abilities, to act in a manner consistent with state requirements. Pursuant to section 161.142(5), beach compatible sand dredged from federal navigation channels is to be placed on the adjacent eroding beach. On November 14, 2016, DEP issued the Permit Modification to the Corps. The Permit Modification did not change the authorization or requirements for the dredging, but allowed dredged material to be placed on “the Gulf-front beaches on the eastern and western sides of East Pass.” On August 21, 2019, DEP filed the Proposed Change, which amended the Permit Modification to require that “[b]each compatible material dredged from the initial maintenance dredge event following issuance of [the Permit Modification], shall be placed to the east of East Pass.” The Permit Modification provides that, for the first maintenance dredging event following issuance of the Permit Modification, dredged material is to be placed at fill sites east of East Pass, the condition that Petitioners’ find objectionable. The Permit Modification then provides that “[f]or all subsequent maintenance dredging events conducted under this permit, disposal locations shall be supported by physical monitoring data of the beaches east and west of East Pass in order to identify the adjacent eroding beaches that will receive the maintenance dredged material, providing consistency with section 161.142, Florida Statutes.” Thus, the placement of dredged material to the east of East Pass authorized by the Permit Modification applies to the next dredging event, and not necessarily to subsequent periodic dredging events authorized by the Permit Modification. Fill Placement Site The eastern fill placement site authorized by the Permit Modification extends from R-17 to R-20.5. The shoreline adjacent to the eastern fill placement site has been designated as critically eroded for more than ten years. The eastern fill placement site is within the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project and designated as “Reach 1.” The fill placement site west of East Pass is located between V-611 and V-622. The shoreline landward of the western fill site has not been designated as critically eroded by the Department. There are no current beach restoration projects in or adjacent to the western fill site. East Pass is an ebb tide dominated inlet, with a sizable amount of sediment moving in and out. When outgoing tidal flow moves though the constriction formed by the jetties, flow velocities are accelerated. When the water, and any entrained sediment, passes the jetties, flow tends to spread out to the east, west, and south, and naturally loses velocity. When the outgoing tidal waters reach a critical velocity where they can no longer carry the sand, the sand drops out of suspension, which forms the ebb shoal. Essentially, the ebb shoal is a large, semi-circular sandbar extending from the mouth of East Pass that was created by the ebb tide carrying sediments south. East Pass is a highly dynamic inlet system. There are processes spurred by the configuration and location of East Pass, tides, waves, and storms that have resulted in currents running to the east and west that change on a frequent basis. The evidence in this proceeding, which includes the evidence adduced in 19-1844, established, for the period of 1996 through 2007, “a trend of west to east longshore transport, resulting in net gain immediately west of [East Pass] and a significant loss of sand along Holiday Isle east of [East Pass].” The evidence further established that a “drift nodal point” existed at East Pass. Longshore transport at uniform coastal locations is generally in one direction. However, when there are wave events coming from varying angles, and where beach contours are not parallel and uniform, or even linear, it is common for transport reversals to occur. The point at which those reversals occur is referred to as a nodal point. That point can be where east and west transport converges, or where it diverges. The shoreline in the vicinity of East Pass has exhibited “quite a few” nodal points over the past decade, resulting in frequent drift reversals and sand transport to the east and the west. The evidence as to the existence and effect of the East Pass drift nodal point, and its effect on the lateral transport of sand in the area, including the East Pass areas of influence, was substantiated by testimony and other evidence introduced at the final hearing. The testimony and evidence that there is no consistent direction of lateral sand transport in the vicinity of East Pass, and no predominant lateral current transporting sand in a westerly direction, is accepted. Competent substantial evidence in the record of this proceeding includes monitoring data for the eastern beach placement areas from the West Destin Four-Year Post-construction Monitoring Report and earlier annual post-construction reports covering the period from October 2012 to July 2017; data from the Holiday Isle Emergency Beach Fill Two-Year Post- construction Report; historical monitoring data for the area west of East Pass, including the Western Beach Monitoring Report, which covered 2006 to 2017; the Potential Borrow Area Impact Report, which included data from 1996 through 2012; and recent profile data from April 2019. These reports, and the data contained within them, cumulatively provide more than 20 years of data, and demonstrate convincingly that the shoreline to the west of East Pass has been stable or accreting, and the areas to the east are eroded. Mr. Trammell offered testimony, including a discussion of photographic evidence, demonstrating the beaches east of East Pass exhibit the following signs of significant and ongoing erosion: extensive dune erosion; exposed sea oat roots; reduced beach elevation; reduced beach width; crenulate2 bays; newly built dune walkovers that replaced old walkovers claimed by erosion; dune walkovers in close proximity to the shoreline, indicating that the shoreline had receded to the walkover; and beach scarping at the shoreline indicating active erosion. Mr. Trammell’s testimony as to the eastern spoil disposal sites was convincing and is accepted. The eastern areas of influence are currently designated to be “critically eroded” by DEP, a designation maintained for more than 10 years. The photographic evidence supports the data collected over time for the beaches east of East Pass, and the persuasive testimony offered by Mr. Clark, Mr. Trammell, Mr. Garis, and Mr. Trudnak (who testified in 19-1844), collectively establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the beaches east of East Pass, including the eastern area of influence and the proposed dredge material disposal sites at Monuments R-17 to R-20.5, except for the area immediately abutting the eastern jetty, are critically eroded, a condition that is influenced by East Pass and its navigational channel, and are “adjacent eroding beaches” as that term is used in section 161.142. The evidence demonstrates that the shoreline of Santa Rosa Island to the west of East Pass has historically been stable. To be sure, as is the case with any shoreline, there will be some areas of erosion and some areas of accretion. After Hurricanes Ivan and Opal, areas of Santa Rosa Island experienced erosion. DEP declared the shoreline to be critically eroded after the 2004-2005 hurricane seasons, which prompted Okaloosa County to commission a study to monitor the health of the Monuments R-1 through R-16 beach segment, a segment that includes Petitioners’ residences. Despite the fact that no post-storm beach restoration occurred in the area, the beach recovered naturally and gained sand following the post-storm recovery. In addition, Santa Rosa Island is known for “beach cusps,” which are crenulate 2 “Having an irregularly wavy or serrate outline.” See “crenulate,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/crenulate (last visited February 2, 2020). shapes along the shoreline. Depending on the season and storm conditions, those beach cusps can have a localized erosive effect on the beach, but those tend to be seasonal. They do not negate what the evidence shows to be the overall stable to accretional conditions of the beaches west of East Pass from Monument V-622 to Petitioners’ residences. Mr. Trammell offered testimony, including a discussion of photographic evidence, demonstrating the beaches west of East Pass have large dunes; multiple dune lines; tall and thickly vegetated dunes indicating established dune growth; pioneering vegetation indicating active, healthy dune growth and accretion; partially buried signs indicating dune advance; and broad and expansive beaches. Those features are indicative of a stable and accretional shoreline. Mr. Trammell’s testimony as to the western spoil disposal site was convincing and is accepted. At present, the Santa Rosa Island shoreline is not deemed by DEP to be “critically eroded.” Mr. Trammel’s photographs offered in 19-1844 were supplemented by a series of photographs taken from several of the same locations after the passage of Tropical Storm Nestor in October 2019. Those photographs are consistent with a finding that the beaches to the east of East Pass are highly eroded and erosional, and that the beaches to the west of East Pass are not. The photographic evidence supports the data collected over time for the beaches west of East Pass, and the testimony offered at the final hearing, which collectively establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the beaches to the west of East Pass are stable and accretional, are not subject to erosion caused by East Pass, and are not “adjacent eroding beaches” as that term is used in section 161.142. Petitioners offered testimony of Dr. Douglas and Dr. Young in an effort to shore up weaknesses in the evidence offered in 19-1844. Their testimony and the evidence discussed therein was largely, if not exclusively designed to demonstrate that the direction of lateral sand transport in the vicinity of East Pass was predominantly east to west, which was the prevailing theme of Petitioners’ argument in 19-1844. The evidence adduced from Dr. Douglas was, in many respects, cumulative of that previously offered by Dr. Walton in 19-1844, and considered in the development of the Recommended Order in that case. For example, both Dr. Walton and Dr. Douglas reviewed and assessed information from the Taylor study, the Morang study, and the CP&E report in developing their opinions. Both agreed that sand placed in proximity to the jetties would tend to stay in place. Both ultimately concluded that sand placed to the west of the East Past west jetty would migrate to the west. Dr. Douglas offered new opinion testimony largely based on the Wave Information Study (“WIS”), which is an estimate of wave height and direction from a location two miles off-shore of East Pass. The data is a mathematical estimate, and does not rely on physical measurements from buoys or wave gauges. The wave estimates were then used as inputs in a model developed by the Coastal Engineering Research Center (“CERC”). Dr. Douglas candidly testified that the CERC model, even with normal input data, involves a substantial degree of uncertainty -- up to an order of magnitude. Adding to that uncertainty is that the CERC model assumes bottom contours and offshore volume calculations that were either inapplicable to the area around East Pass, or unavailable. Dr. Douglas was convincing that the CERC model is a tool commonly used by coastal engineers. His testimony, and the evidence on which it was based, was not unreasonable. However, it was not sufficient to outweigh the evidence introduced in support of the Permit Modification. In particular, and in addition to the evidence and testimony introduced in 19-1844, the testimony of Mr. Clark, whose extensive and direct knowledge, observations, and familiarity with the area, and of the data and information collected over periods of years, is found to be more persuasive regarding the processes and conditions in and around East Pass, and supports a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the area to the east of East Pass constitutes “adjacent eroding beaches,” and that the area to the west of East Pass does not. Similarly, the evidence adduced from Dr. Young was largely cumulative, a fact that resulted in sustained objections to questions eliciting such information. He did provide testimony regarding time-lapse images from Google Earth Engine, and a critique on how to balance a sediment budget, though without providing a budget. As was the case with Dr. Douglas, Dr. Young’s testimony and the evidence discussed therein, was not sufficient to outweigh the more persuasive evidence introduced in support of the Permit Modification that the area to the east of East Pass constitutes “adjacent eroding beaches,” and that the area to the west of East Pass does not. The evidence is persuasive that placing dredged material at R-17 to R-20.5 in Holiday Isle on the eastern side of East Pass would not result in erosion on the western side of East Pass. Dredged material placed in the western beach placement area, and in the “shadow” of the western jetty, will tend to remain in that area. It would take a very long time, if at all, for that material to migrate further to the west. However, some -- but certainly not all -- of the dredged material placed on the eroding beaches to the east of East Pass can be introduced into the ebb shoal and move to the west. In that regard, the Google Earth Engine images depict sand moving across the ebb shoal to the western side of the inlet and attaching at various distances from the west jetty. As such, placement of the dredged material on the eastern beach placement areas would, to some degree, accomplish the goals of allowing sand transport to the western beaches, as was the relief sought in the Petition. The evidence was convincing that depositing dredged material onto the eroding beaches east of East Pass, as authorized by the Permit Modification, will not result in significant adverse impacts to areas either east or west of East Pass, nor will it interfere with the use by the public of any area of a beach seaward of the mean high-water line. Furthermore, the evidence introduced in this case and 19-1844 provide reasonable assurance that the Permit Modification is consistent with section 161.142 and will ensure that net long-term erosion or accretion rates on both sides of East Pass remain equal. Ultimate Findings of Fact The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the eastern areas of influence of East Pass, including the beach disposal areas at R-17 to R-20.5, are critically eroded, a condition influenced, if not caused, by East Pass, and constitute East Pass’s “adjacent eroding beaches.” Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the western areas of influence of East Pass, including the beach disposal areas at Monuments V-611 to V-622, are stable, if not accreting, and are not East Pass’s “adjacent eroding beaches.” Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the placement of dredged material on the eastern side of East Pass will extend the life of the proximate West Destin Beach Restoration Project. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the Corps met the standards for the Permit Modification as proposed for issuance by DEP on November 14, 2016, and August 21, 2019, including section 161.142 and rules 62B-41.003 and 62B-41.005. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. Thus, the Permit Modification should be issued.
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 approving the November 14, 2018, Permit Modification No. 0288799-006-JN, as amended by the DEP’s August 21, 2019, Notice of Proposed Changes to Proposed Agency Action, for the maintenance dredging of East Pass, subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 20th day of February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Alexander Brown, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) D. Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Marianna Sarkisyan, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3900 (eServed) Paul Joseph Polito, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3900 (eServed) Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3900 (eServed) Winifred L. Acosta, Esquire United States Attorney's Office Northern District Florida 21 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502-5676 (eServed) Kathryn Drey, Esquire United States Attorney's Office Northern District Florida 21 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502-5676 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Timothy Joseph Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) Carley J. Schrader, Esquire Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Gregory Thomas Stewart, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Elizabeth Desloge Ellis, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue The Jupiter Inlet District, a special taxing district located in northern Palm Beach County maintains that the definition of "public navigation project" found in Rule 18-20.003(26), Florida Administrative Code, is invalid. It reads: "'Public navigation project' means a project primarily for the purpose of navigation which is authorized and funded by the United States Congress or by port authorities as defined by Section 315.02(2), Florida Statutes." The term public navigation project is substantively used in Rule 18- 20.004(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, which establishes management policies, standards and criteria used by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund when deteremining whether to approve request for activities on sovereignty lands in aquatic preserves. That rule states that: "(e) A lease, easement or consent of use may be authorized only for the following activities: a public navigation project; maintenance of an existing navigational channel..." Other portions of the rule provide that eligible requests for a lease, easement or consent of use will be evaluated according to stated social, economic and environmental benefit criteria.
Findings Of Fact The Jupiter Inlet District is a special taxing district in Palm Beach County created in 1921. It is authorized to "construct and thereafter to maintain an inlet connecting the mouth of Jupiter River with the Atlantic Ocean, and ... to deepen Jupiter River in said district and thereafter to maintain same." Section 8, Ch. 8910, Laws of Florida (1921). The legislation found the deepening of the river was a "public purpose and necessary for the preservation of the public health and for the public use of shipping and transportation, and for the extension of commerce of the State of Florida." The district is specifically authorized: "[T]o clean out, straighten, widen, change the course or flow of or deepen any other water course, natural stream or body of water that may be found to be necessary by said board in order to facilitate the opening and maintenance of said inlet or waterway ... or necessary to maintain a sufficient depth of water in said Jupiter River." Section 9, Ch. 8910, Laws of Florida (1921). The district's powers further include the authority to: "Construct and maintain canals, ditches, revetments, jetties and other works," construct bridges, roads, acquire property, and construct and maintain "docks, wharves, buildings and other improvements upon any of the properties which may be acquired by virtue of this act." Id. It is not a port authority as defined in Section 315.02(2), Florida Statutes (1985). The Legislature revised the District's enabling legislation in 1979. That statute contains a finding that the District is "a responsible local agency, entrusted by statute with maintenance of certain waters of the State within its territorial boundaries." Section 1, Ch. 79-532, Laws of Florida. The Legislature then required the Department of Environmental Regulation to seek and take into account recommendations or suggestions by the governing board of the Jupiter Inlet District on any applications for permits for activities in the waters within the Jupiter Inlet District. The territorial boundaries of the district overlap and include a portion of the Loxahatchee River/Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve. The Loxahatchee River was formerly known as the Jupiter River. Before 1980, the Board of Commissioners of the Jupiter Inlet District constructed navigation channels and performed other dredging within the boundaries of the Loxahatchee River/Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve. The district is applicant for consent for use of sovereignty lands to dredge a new channel in a portion of the Loxahatchee River located within the preserve. The Florida Aquatic Preserve Act was adopted in 1975. It directs that state-owned submerged lands in areas which have exceptional biological, aesthetic and scientific value be set aside forever as aquatic preserves or sanctuaries. Section 258.36, Florida Statutes (1985). The Loxahatchee River/Lake Worth Creek Aquatic Preserve is created in Section 258.39(10), Florida Statutes (1985). Under Section 258.40(2), Florida Statutes (1985), the following areas are excluded from aquatic preserves: "Any publicly owned and maintained navigation channel or other public works project authorized by the United States Congress designed to maintain or improve commerce and navigation shall be deemed excluded from the aquatic preserves established under this act." The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund is charged with the maintenance of aquatic preserves. Under Section 258.42(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), the trustees are instructed that: "No further dredging or filling of submerged lands shall be approved by the trustees except the following activities may be authorized pursuant to a permit: Such minimum dredging and spoiling as may be authorized for public navigation project.... 4. Such other maintenance dredging as may be required for existing navigation channels. " The Board of Trustees is empowered by Section 258.43, Florida Statutes (1985), to enact: "[R]easonable rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this act and specifically to provide regulation of human activity within the preserve in such a manner as not to unreasonably interfere with lawful and traditional public uses of the preserve, such as sport and commercial fishing, boating and swimming." The Legislature also authorized the trustees to permit other activities in aquatic preserves, stating: "Reasonable improvement for ingress and egress, mosquito control, shore protection, public utility expansion, surface water drainage, installation and maintenance of oil and gas transportation facilities, and similar purposes may be permitted by the trustees subject to the provisions of any other applicable laws under the jurisdiction of other agencies." Section 258.44, Florida Statutes (1985). There are numerous special act inlet districts in Florida, e.g. St. Lucie Inlet District and Port Authority created by Ch. 9631, Laws of Florida (1923); Lake Worth Inlet District (now the Port of Palm Beach District) created by Ch. 7081, Laws of Florida (1915); Daytona, New Smyrna Inlet District created by Ch. 14503, Laws of Florida (1929); Ponce de Leon Inlet and Port district created by Ch. 21614, Laws of Florida (1941); Port Orange Special Road and Bridge Inlet District created by Ch. 13492, Laws of Florida (1927); Vero Beach Inlet District created by Ch. 11263, Laws of Florida (1925); Sebastian Inlet District created by Ch. 78-440, Laws of Florida; Hillsborough Inlet Improvement and Maintenance District created by Ch. 73-422, Laws of Florida; and South Lake Worth Inlet District created by Ch. 7080, Laws of Florida (1915). Each district has been subject to special acts amending its organic legislation. The Board of Commissioners of the Jupiter Inlet District filed a petition with the Department of Natural Resources, pursuant to Section 120.54(5), Florida Statutes (1985), seeking amendment of the rule at issue here to include in the definition of public navigation projects not only those authorized and funded by Congress and by port authorities, but also those of special districts. That petition was assigned Case No. 86-001 and was denied by the Department of Natural Resources in an Amended Final Order entered August 28, 1986, introduced into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. No evidence was taken in that proceeding. The Amended Final Order consists mostly of the Department's explanation of why it does not believe amendment of the rule in the manner sought by the Jupiter Inlet District is appropriate. Except for the holding that the Department of Natural Resources will not institute proceedings to amend the rule defining public navigation projects, the Amended Final Order is entitled to little weight. For example, the statement in its Findings of Fact that the Jupiter Inlet District is not within the boundaries of the Loxahatchee Aquatic Preserve (see paragraphs 1 and 11) is simply wrong. There is no evidence that the Jupiter Inlet District operates any sort of port facility.
