STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DR. AND MRS. CONSTANTINO C. ) DEL CAMPO, et al., )
)
Petitioners, )
and )
) FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, ) INC., )
)
Intervenor, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 82-2749
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and ) ORTEGA ISLAND, INC., )
)
Respondents. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. This hearing was conducted in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 26 and 27, 1983. The parties in this cause have submitted proposed recommended orders and supporting argument. The last proposal was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings June 28, 1983. These proposals and argument have been reviewed prior to the entry of this Recommended Order. They have been utilized to the extent that they are consistent with the Recommended Order. Otherwise, the proposals and argument have been rejected based upon lack of relevance, materiality, inadequacy and proof of the facts alleged and presented, or failure to be substantiated by the record.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Christine R. Milton, Esquire
Ralph R. Wickersham, Esquire Mahoney, Hadlow and Adams Post Office Box 4099 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
For Intervenor: Timothy Keyser, Esquire
Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32077
For Respondent: Richard P. Lee, Esquire
Department: Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent Terry E. Lewis, Esquire Ortega Island: Robert M. Rhodes, Esquire
Messer, Rhodes and Vickers Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
ISSUES
The issues presented in this hearing concern the request by Ortega Island, Inc. to be granted permission, by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, to construct a bridge across the Stockton Canal in Duval County, Florida. The permit review is under the general authority of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and associated rules.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In July, 1980, Ortega Island, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Respondent, filed an application with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, which would allow it to construct a bridge giving access from a mainland area to an adjacent spoil island known as Ortega Island. The spoil island was created in 1959. This proposed project is found in Duval County Florida. The island is approximately 42 acres in size and is adjacent to the Ortega River in an area roughly two and a half miles from the confluence of the Ortega and St. Johns Rivers. The body of water to be spanned by the proposed bridge is known as the Stockton Canal, a man-made canal. That canal is connected at its north and south ends to the Ortega River. The State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, which will now be referred to as the Department, reviewed the initial application of July, 1980, and a revision of May, 1981. The review was conducted by the Northeast District Office of the Department. A further modification was offered through a revised construction plan which dates from May, 1982. Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 4 is constituted of the initial applications related to the project design and certain comments made by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Respondent has sought the approval of its permit application based upon the belief that the project involves dredging below the mean high water line and filling above the mean high water line of waters of the state. Consequently, Department approval has been sought pursuant to those Sections 253.123 and 403.087, Florida Statutes, and the related provisions in Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code.
In the initial permit application of July, 1980, the applicant had proposed to construct a 20-foot concrete span, eight feet high, which was to be connected to the mainland and Ortega Island by the placement of fill material, thereby building causeways which extended approximately 55 feet into the canal from each end of the shore. This would have entailed the placement of 3,000 cubic yards of fill waterward of the mean high water line and reduced the canal width to 20 feet at the area of the bridge site. The Department did not look with favor upon the elimination of marine habitat by the construction of causeways and the attendant adverse impacts in the hydrographic regime in the Stockton Canal. This is shown in the Department's remarks found in Respondents' Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. To address those concerns, the Respondent employed Dr. Barry Benedict, an expert in the field of hydrographic engineering, who conducted hydrographic studies of the Stockton Canal. These studies are found as part of Respondents' Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. In summary, Dr. Benedict recommended that the bridge span be no less than 48 feet. Pamela Sperling, the hydrographic expert of the Department, reviewed these materials and concurred that a minimum span length of 48 feet would be necessary. This is
reflected in a memorandum offered by Ms. Sperling, which is Respondents' Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence. The May, 1981, revision of the project calling for 52 foot bridge span is the result of the Benedict study and the remarks of Sperling. That proposal would allow for 39 foot causeways on each end of the bridge and 2,000 cubic yards of fill material waterward of the mean high water line. Notwithstanding the acceptance of the hydrographic improvements related to the new provision, the Department still was concerned about adverse impacts to marine habitat which would occur with the placement of fill on related biological resources. Likewise, the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, National Marine Fisheries Service, United States Department of Interior, and United States Environmental protection Agency had expressed concern about this destruction. Those comments are found in Respondents' Exhibit Nos. 13 through 16 respectively, as admitted into evidence. In the face of these reservations, the May, 1982, revision was made, which would allow a total span of the waterway, eliminating causeways and fill material below the mean high water line. Following the May, 1982, revision, the Department issued its notice of intent to grant the permit. Notification was made on September 10, 1982, a copy of which may be found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 17 admitted into evidence.
The permit application appraisal by the Department was conducted by Tim Deuerling, who is an Environmental Specialist who assesses dredge and fill permit applications. Mr. Deuerling additionally has expertise in the field of biology and water quality analysis related to dredge and fill activities. His appraisal of the project is based upon several visits to the site, and his impressions of the site are outlined in a report of October 30, 1980. A copy is found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence.
On April 1, 1983, a further revision was offered to the permit application. The initial aspect of that revision concerned stormwater disposal for a concrete bridge. The remaining aspect of the revision was the suggestion that a timber bridge be considered as an alternative structure. The April 1, 1983, revision formed the basis of the consideration of the project by way of final hearing.
The Petitioners protested consideration of the April, 1983, revision contending that the revision was not appropriately reviewed by the agency, in that it constituted a substantial revision in the application process and was not the application which the agency had accepted in indicating its proposal to grant the permit in September, 1982. The hearing was allowed to go forward over the objection of the opponents to the permit, it having been determined by the Hearing Officer that the revisions of April, 1983, were not so remarkable that they would require a new permit application or further agency study and review prior to the formulation of proposed agency action in deciding to grant or deny the permit request. Further, it was determined that the April, 1983, revision could be considered without the necessity of additional notification of the issues to be considered in the hearing, there being an adequate opportunity for the applicant to develop the record in favor of those modifications and to allow the Department, Petitioners, and Intervenor to form the needed record response.
In the dispute as considered at the final hearing, the petitioners and Intervenor contended that the project should not be allowed because it fails to comply with requisite provisions of 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the associated rules related to those statutes. In addition to the protest which has been made by those individuals having party status in this instance, there
have been other written statements in opposition which may be found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 18 admitted into evidence, a composite exhibit. Those objections by Petitioners and Intervenor are more specifically detailed and discussed in further sections of this Recommended Order.
Under the April 1, 1983, proposal, the concrete bridge is composed of a system of hollow cord deck members supported by concrete piles. There are six pile bents and four of those are within the waterway. The spacing between the piles is 24 feet minimum horizontal clearance, with the bottom of the bridge deck being eight feet above the water at the lowest clearance point. The bridge span is 130 feet, to allow the bridge construction to be completed without the placement of fill below the line of mean high water on either end of the bridge. The bridge approaches under the new proposal are constituted of asphaltic concrete roadways supported by fill material and that fill material is separated from the waterway by the use of sheet pilings. Water drainage from the deck surface of the concrete bridge would flow through a collection system, which is part of the bridge structure. The water, which is released from the bridge surface on the mainland side, would be transported to a stilling and percolation basin also serving a residential area of approximately 42 acres. The water from the 42 acres now flows through a grass swale before entering the canal. The project design would accommodate the 42 acre flow and the .35 acres from the bridge. The water from the 42 acre plot and the bridge project flows into the Stockton Canal after receiving some water treatment in the transport process. The volume of the percolation basin is 620 cubic feet. The establishment of this percolation basin will not adversely affect the adjacent properties in the
42 acre tract by prohibiting the flow patterns from that property or sufficiently change the quality of stormwater treatment from the adjacent property to cause adverse impacts on receiving waters in the Stockton Canal. Runoff from the bridge to the island side of the proposed concrete structure would flow through a swale system for treatment before entering the Stockton Canal. The treatment afforded all runoff is by surface flow and vertical percolation.
The alternative bridge structure, i.e., the wooden bridge, would span the Stockton Canal and not require filling either waterward or landward of the mean high water line. Unlike the concrete bridge, the deck surface is pervious. Consequently, water may be introduced directly into the canal from the deck surface. The stormwater runoff on the bridge approach on the mainland side would be collected and discharged through the existing grass swale and from there, into the canal. Drainage from the bridge surface and approach on the island side would be through a swale system and from there into the canal.
The Stockton Canal is constituted of Class III waters within the meaning of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Consequently, the Respondent is required to give reasonable assurances that the project would not violate water quality criteria or standards related to Class III waters. In this instance, construction and utilization of the concrete bridge, with its attendant approaches, would not degrade the water below those standards, that is to say, the necessary reasonable assurances have been given that the short and long-term effects of the project will not result in violations of Class III water quality standards. The latest concrete modification allows for the removal and treatment of the stormwater effluent which flows from the bridge surface and approaches. No fill is to be placed in the waters of the state below the mean high water line. (The mean high water line was established in the course of the hearing through the testimony and the evidence presented.) Fill will be contained by sheet pile. Turbidity screens will be used while the construction is underway to confine turbidity problems in the placement of the
bridge pilings. Siltation barriers are to be employed while removing the existing root overhang on the island side of the bridge to avoid the deposition of those materials in the waters of the state. The timber bridge allows for water to flow directly from the surface into the canal but the contaminants introduced into the canal would not exceed standards. According to Harvey C. Gray, Jr., State of Florida, Department of Transportation, an expert in chemical water quality analysis, the expected constituents from the stormwater runoff from the bridge decks either directly or indirectly introduced into the canal would not violate water quality criteria parameters. Nor would leaching from the wooden bridge pilings present a violation of water quality criteria. These opinions are accepted. A study mentioned by Harvey Gray has established that the contaminants from the deck surface are usually contained in the first half inch of rainfall and the treatment arrangements for stormwater runoff are designed to accommodate that first half inch. The source of pollution on the deck is vehicular traffic and vehicular fallout. Moreover the transport of the stormwater over the land surface attenuates the concentration of pollutants.
Don Clay Bayley is Chief of the Environmental Services Division, City of Jacksonville. Testimony given by the witness Bayley, who has some experience in testing for leaching of contaminants from wood pilings, pointed out the toxicity of those materials. He acknowledges, however, that treatment substances can be used which are not toxic. The applicant should use these substances if the timber bridge is employed. Bayley alluded to studies done by the Department of Transportation for the Buckman Bridge, which is a bridge serving Interstate 95, related to the fact that violations of lead, zinc, and copper standards of water quality have been found in that area. These observations did not take into account an acceptable mixing zone where the contaminants are to be introduced into the St. Johns River under the bridge. More importantly, the Buckman Bridge is very different in terms of the amount of vehicle traffic, in that there are an extremely high number of vehicles using that bridge, as contrasted with the limited use of the subject bridge. Therefore, Bayley's concerns are not well- founded. Otherwise, the timber bridge offers the same quality of protection as the concrete bridge and reasonable assurances have been given that the short and long-term affects of the project will not violate water quality standards for Class III waters. Nonetheless, the higher quality of water treatment would be received in the concrete bridge alternative.
In support of the application, sufficient water quality sampling has been done to establish reasonable assurances that water quality standards shall not be exceeded. Moreover, nutrient loading is not expected as a result of the bridge construction. In addition, witnesses Deuerling, Tyler and Craft, employees of the Department and experts in water quality analysis, do not believe water quality criteria will be exceeded by this construction, and their opinion is accepted. In summary, the necessary reasonable assurances have been given that water quality criteria related to Class III waters, as found in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, will not be exceeded and that the project will not promote undue nutrient loading as contemplated by Rule 17-3.011(11), Florida Administrative Code.
Peter Hallock, project engineer, established in his testimony that either alternative in the bridge design would not adversely affect drainage related to adjoining properties on the landside of the bridge. The concerns expressed by Dr. Arlynn Quinton White, Jr., Department of Biology and Marine Science, Jacksonville University, of the possibility of stormwater impacts, with particular emphasis on hydrocarbon concentrations, are not accepted. The runoff is not found to be violative of water quality standards in the receiving waters. These findings take into account the expected maximum number of average daily trips, 460. Given the number of average daily trips, the stormwater
contaminants, which are untreated, would not violate DER water quality standards. The number of average daily trips on the proposed bridge is much less than the 4,000 trips over the study bridge referenced by the witness Gray and generally discussed before. That study did not show violations of the criteria for Class III waters, which is the classification for the Stockton Canal. The location of the study, while not in Duval County, dealt with sufficiently similar circumstances to allow the acceptance of those findings.
Testimony was presented by Dr. Barry Benedict, author of the aforementioned hydrographic study. His testimony concerned an analysis of the flow patterns at present and following the installation of the bridge. The testimony was based upon results of the initial investigation or study, found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence and the update of April 18, 1983, found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. Dr. Benedict's analysis utilized a liberal estimate of the impact of the bridge on the canal system on the question of flow. His findings were to the effect that the bridge would cause minimal change in the flow velocity of the water and in sedimentation in the overall canal. He did not feel that the installation of the bridge would unduly hamper the flushing qualities in the canal or result in a flood hazard to adjacent properties. This was his opinion whether the concrete alternative or timber bridge were elected. Benedict felt that a maximum nine percent difference in flow would occur bringing the flushing time within the canal system from 3 hours and 30 minutes to approximately 3 hours and
45 minutes. This, in Benedict's mind, is not a substantial hydrographic alteration. In summary, Benedict felt that the installation of the bridge would have minimal impact in terms of hydrographics. Benedict's depiction of these matters is accepted as being correct.
The Department of Environmental Regulation's hydrographic engineer and specialist in hydrodynamics and water quality analysis concurred with Dr. Benedict on the hydrographic effects of the installation of the bridge. Her concurrence is based upon a review of the Respondents' Exhibit No. 6. Ms. Sperling had also examined the site for the proposed bridge project and made independent calculations that the flow velocity would not be significantly influenced by the installation of the bridge. Ms. Sperling believes that a flushing time which is essentially one half tidal cycle or six hours is acceptable, and she believes that the flushing time in this project after the bridge installation will fall within three and a half to four hours. Sperling also indicated that she did not feel that the bridge project would have adverse effects on the water quality within the canal. The opinions of Sperling, as related herein, are accepted as factually correct.
George Robert Register, III, who holds a bachelor's degree in biology and a master's degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering, gave testimony on the hydrographics within the Stockton Canal. Register's opinions were not based upon testing or calculations related to the project such as sediment analysis, studies of tides, or soil borings. He noted the gradual shallowing which has occurred within the canal over a period of years and expressed concern that the change in flow could result in a more rapid shallowing. He alluded to the observations of Frederick W. Brundick, III, a resident of the Stockton Canal, who has seen the shallowing occur over a 20-year period. Register also stated that he feels that the present situation in the Stockton Canal is similar in nature to a problem which occurred in another area of the Greater St. Johns River which is known as Mill Cove. In that instance, dramatic silting has taken place. Register contended that boat traffic helps to suspend the particles of soil and alleviate silting, an influence which will be diminished after bridge construction due to less traffic. Register indicated that the analysis of the
hydrographics, which was done by Dr. Benedict, was insufficient and indicated that, in his opinion, a stability test should have been done related to the project area. The stability analysis pertains to whether the water system will continue in its present flow pattern or is on the brink of rapid shallowing.
While the observations of Register and Brundick related to the shallowing of the canal system are accepted, Register's opinion that the present system will rapidly deteriorate into a more shallow configuration, as with the case with Mill Cove, is not accepted. Nor is Register's suggestion that a stability test was in order on this occasion found to be correct. The calculations by Dr.
Benedict, confirmed by Sperling, are found to be the more accurate depiction of the effects of the installation of the bridge. The placement of the bridge is not expected to be an event which will imbalance the flow patterns in such a fashion that rapid siltation will occur. Based upon Department of Environmental Regulation reports, the types of sediments in the canal subject to water borne transportation are silty. They have low fall velocities, which would make them less likely to increase sedimentation in the canal system due to the installation of the bridge, when compared to other soil types. The sediment materials are very fine and not such that they would readily settle out due to minor reductions in the flow velocity, such as would occur with the construction of the bridge.
Although the reduction in flow velocity within the canal system after the bridge build-out is not such that it would cause water quality violations or substantially impede the flow, there will be some increase in siltation. This change in sedimentation or siltation is recognized by the Respondent, in the person of its expert, Dr. Benedict. The fact of this increase in siltation would require channel maintenance within the canal, and no provision has been made in the application for channel maintenance. That maintenance is necessary to prohibit undue shallowing, especially at the location of the bridge. This siltation at the bridge will result based upon the placement of the pilings, which will slow the velocity of water, leading to attachment of marine organisms to the bridge pilings. Consequently, provision should be made for channel maintenance. Likewise, even though the Respondent hopes to eventually have a homeowner's association responsible for bridge maintenance, that issue of the development of the island was not considered in the course of this hearing, making it necessary for someone to maintain the constructed bridge and approaches prior to any future development. That provision had not been made and should be arranged for. Both the channel and bridge maintenance would be an appropriate responsibility for the applicant for permit. The necessity for the bridge and canal to be maintained by the applicant is not such that the Department, pursuant to Rule 17-4.11, Florida Administrative Code, should require proof of financial responsibility or posting of a bond. If the applicant is financially able to construct the bridge, it is determined that the applicant could be expected to be financially able to maintain the bridge and canal.
Witnesses of the Petitioners, in particular, the witness Bayley, have expressed concern about the placement of fill material on Ortega Island, in that it is the belief of that witness that the placement of the fill would displace the muck layer which would then be forced into the canal. Witnesses White and Register supported Bayley's opinions reference the muck layer. There is, in fact, a muck underlay on the island, and the placement of the fill soil can be expected to force the transport of some of the muck underlayer. The amount of muck layer to be displaced is not certain; however, by placing the piling barrier at the edge of the canal the muck can be contained. The applicant has made provision for protection against the muck material where the pilings are proposed for installation. Nonetheless, it may be necessary to extend the
length of pilings beyond the area of the bridge abutment and approach to the bridge on the island side, to contain this material, and the applicant should make any necessary modification to prohibit the introduction of the highly organic muck material which could cause problems with ph and dissolved oxygen content related to water quality standards. In summary, the applicant has given the necessary reasonable assurances that the muck material will not violate water quality standards in the water, subject to necessary adjustments in the piling design on the island side in the area of the bridge approaches to block the flow of the muck.
On the related question of the overall stability of the island, the geomorphologic process evidence shows that the island is becoming more inundated with water. This is borne out by the observations of Mr. Brundick, a 20-year resident in the area of the island, and is more graphically described in the photographs which are Petitioners' Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. His finding is also supported by the observations of Dr. White to the effect that certain vegetational species seen on the island indicated that increased island area was under water. The placement of the bridge approach fill was not shown to be a critical contributor to this condition. Notwithstanding the island's long-term physical change, there was no indication that this condition, per se, when considered in the context of the building of the bridge and the approaches, indicates violation of the permitting statutes or rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation.
The development or the construction of the bridge requires the dredging of material in waters of the state. Per Section 253.123, Florida Statutes and Sections 17-4.29, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent/Applicant needs to address the possible interference with conservation of fish, marine, and wildlife and other natural resources which the project may promote contrary to public interest. Respondent satisfactorily responds to those matters. The biological and ecological studies, which were done by the Department of Environmental Regulation, and reported in Respondents' Exhibits 8 and 9, indicate that the area in the Stockton Canal is not particularly productive in terms of its biological volume and diversity. There is very little litoral vegetation and submerged grasses are scarce. The most diverse area is in the proposed project site which formally was the location of a bridge. The remains of that bridge debris have promoted a more diversified biological community. To protect the species and habitat during and after construction, the applicant is using a full span bridge, which is in keeping with recommendations by various state and federal agencies. The testimony of the expert biologist Tim Deuerling of the Department of Environmental Regulation, was to the effect that the impacts of the project related to biological resources was minimal. Jeremy Craft, of the Department of Environmental Regulation, agrees with Deuerling and indicates that there will be no impact on the resources pertaining to fish, marine, and other natural resources. Moreover, both Deuerling and Craft felt that the placement of the bridge piling would grant an opportunity for increased biological diversity in the Stockton Canal. Jeremy Tyler also indicated that he was of the opinion that the bridge would not negatively impact fish, wildlife, and other natural resources premised upon the fact that no fill was being placed waterward of the mean high water line and no substantial changes in the hydrographics of the canal system. These opinions expressed by Deuerling, Craft, and Tyler are accepted as being correct. The installation of the bridge will not result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity including destruction of marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, and establishment of marine soils which could be used for producing plant growth useful for nursing or feeding grounds for marine life
or interfere with the natural shoreline processes to an extent that is contrary to the public interest within the meaning of Subsection 253.123(2)(d) Florida Statutes.
It was additionally established that the placement of the canal will not interfere with the endangered West Indian Manatee, the area of the canal having insufficient vegetation for the manatee to feed on. Any manatee passing through the area of the canal will not be hindered by the bridge's placement. Additionally, there may be some benefit to the placement of the bridge in that it would tend to slow the boat traffic, decreasing the possibility of injury to the manatee by boat propellers. This was established by testimony of the witness Deuerling.
In summary, no showing was made that the project will adversely impact fish, marine, and other natural resources in the area to the extent that it is contrary to the public interest.
Benedict and Sperling have established, through their opinion testimony, that the installation of the bridge would not have an adverse impact on the shoaling conditions which are occurring at the north and south entrances to the canal. This testimony is correct. The shoaling conditions will occur with or without the construction of the bridge. Moreover, as established through Benedict's testimony, during a flood stage condition, such as a flood tide five feet above mean high water, the bridge would make no notable contribution, in that it would cause a backup of water only in the range of two to three inches.
The bridge, when installed, will reduce boat traffic. Nonetheless, at present, boats are not a primary factor in reducing the amount of siltation in the canal and a further reduction in the contribution which those boats make to reduction of siltation is inconsequential. Any positive contribution by boat traffic in reducing siltation is offset by the negative impact of that traffic on water quality.
On the subject of hydrographic changes to be brought about by the installation of the bridge, there will be no substantial alteration or impediment to the flow of water in the Stockton Canal to an extent that it is contrary to the public interest.
As briefly alluded to before, there will be some impacts upon navigation in the canal; however, those impacts do not reach the level of becoming a hazard to navigation or a serious impediment to navigation contrary to the public interest. At present, approximately 20 boats may use the canal in a weekend according to the testimony of Fred Brundick. The canal already has a "no wake" zone and the placement of the bridge will not tend to interfere with the speed of boat traffic through the canal. If anything, the placement of the bridge may assist in slowing down boat traffic within the canal for those individuals who tend to disregard the "no wake" zone. The shoaling, which has been spoken to in a prior paragraph, is most severe in the north end where minimum controlling depths of 3.7 feet mean low tide may be found as contrasted with 4.4 feet mean low tide at the south end. Therefore, southern access into the canal is easier for those persons who have residences on the canal and other persons who use the canal, when their boats have deep drafts. Smaller boats will be able to enter the canal from the north and south if the bridge is constructed, in view of the fact that the bridge affords an eight foot clearance. Those boats which would not be able to gain entrance into the canal
after the construction of the bridge would be boats which require more than 4.4 feet of draft and greater than eight feet of vertical clearance.
H. J. Skelton, a resident of the landside of the north end of the canal, testified in the course of the hearing and indicated that the placement of the bridge would limit the type and size of boat that he might wish to purchase in the future. At present, he does not own a boat or dock at his residence. Witness Brundick also established that he would be precluded from bringing one of his boats to his home because of the placement of the bridge, except at extremely high tide events. That boat is one which is infrequently moored at his home. Raymond Perry Harris, who lives on the canal, has difficulty bringing his boat through the north end at low tide, and he would be unable to utilize the southern entrance at low tide due to the 14 foot clearance necessary for the boat to go under obstacles such as the bridge. He brings this boat to the dock at his home approximately three to four times a month.
Although it has been demonstrated that there will be some hindrance to local residents and others due to the placement of the bridge, the only hazard presented by the placement of the bridge concerns boat operators who are not attentive and water-skiers. This latter category of canal users would be utilizing the canal contrary to the "no wake zone, even without the placement of the bridge. Thus, water-skiers and careless boat operators are not the categories of individuals who use the canal and by doing so should cause the rejection of this permit request. On balance, the proposed bridge is not a hazard or impediment to navigation and its restrictions to the utilization of the canal are not contrary to the public interest. The minimal restrictions on navigation are within acceptable limits.
The project, in its design, will not require the placement of fill below the line of mean high water. Determination of the mean high water line was made by a registered surveyor and that determination may be found as Respondents' Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. Consequently, no local approval was sought pursuant to Section 253.1245, Florida Statutes (1982).
There is no extension to land by the process of the construction of this project. However, there is an area of overhanging vegetation with an underlying undulation/indentation, which by its design causes the vegetation to be slightly above the water at low tide and under water at high tide, with the indentation being configured in a fashion which places the line of mean high water further landward than depicted by the applicant. The locale of these features is at the construction site on the island side. This phenomenon has occurred due to the changes related to erosion. The indentation or cave eroded because of tidal influences and boat traffic, leaving the vegetation mass. The overhang material would be removed, and this process does not involve the extension of land from a point above the line of mean high water into waters of the state. A siltation barrier would be used while this overhang is being cleared, and the sheet piling would be installed at or above the mean high water line, and associated work related to the installation of the pile would be landward of the line of mean high water. The applicant's plans do not show that the piling barrier or bulkhead will follow the configuration of that phenomenon. At present, there is a straight line bulkhead. Nonetheless, the applicant could vary the configuration and prevent the placement of fill in the water. To accommodate this problem from an engineering point of view, the bridge can be lengthened to assure that the bridge spans the entire waterway at the point of the phenomenon and thereby prevent any placement of fill waterward of the line of mean highwater. In addition, the bulkhead can be placed so that it follows the configuration of the undulation.
In summary, treatment of the overhang problem will not require the extension of land into waters of the state by the placement of fill below the mean high water line as described in Section 253.1245, Florida Statutes (1982) . Moreover, the removal of the material in the overhang and the placement of the bulkhead to approximate the configuration of the cave and expansion of the bridge span on the island side are not actions which would violate water quality standards of the Department or are contrary to public interest related to conservation of fish, marine wildlife, or other natural resources. Neither will this tend to adversely impact or substantially alter or impede the flow of navigable waters contrary to public interest nor present a navigational hazard or serious impediment to navigation contrary to public interest.
There is some indication of concern on the topic of decreased property values for residents on the landside on the proposed bridge. Likewise, testimony was given concerning the opinion of one homeowner that additional traffic would be hazardous to persons living in the present neighborhood adjacent to the canal. Additionally Phillip Fred Baumgardner is a member of the general public and gave testimony to the effect that the installation of the bridge would prohibit certain commercial boats from being able to work the canal. Owen Ganzel, who fishes in the area, expressed concern that the bridge installation would cause a decline in fish population; however, he indicated that lately, the Ortega Island area has improved These concerns are not substantial enough to cause the rejection of this permit application based upon public-interest concerns.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. See Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Pursuant to Rule 17-25.06(1), Florida Administrative Code, matters related to stormwater discharge are considered in keeping with the requirements for dredge and fill permits under Rules 17-4.28 and 17-4.29, Florida Administrative Code. No separate permit must be obtained for stormwater discharge. Therefore, discussion in law is given to the implications of stormwater discharge through the process of commenting on the dredge and fill permit application under the aforementioned provisions of Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code.
The Stockton Canal is constituted of waters over which the state has jurisdiction in keeping with Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant, such as Respondent, Ortega Island, to affirmatively provide the Department reasonable assurances based upon plans, test results, and other information that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity envisioned will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards, rules, or regulations. The quality of proof necessary to give these assurances is that set forth in Rule 17-1.59, Florida Administrative Code, in which it is set forth that the burden of proof related to reasonable assurances and other items of proof must be by a preponderance of the evidence before the license requested may be granted. The applicant has met the necessary proof in establishing its entitlement to the permit to construct the bridge.
Pursuant to Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, the aforementioned reasonable assurances must be given that the dredging and/or filling activities conducted in or connected to waters of the state comply with Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, pertaining to water quality criteria standards requirements and provisions. Those standards in this instance pertain to Class III waters. The proposed bridge project, in its long-term and short- term effects, will not result in a violation of any of the rules, standards, or criteria of the Department pertaining to water quality. That is to say, the proof here is sufficient to establish reasonable assurances that these rules, standards, and criteria pertaining to water quality have not been violated, as spoken to in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The applicant utilized current, acceptable, scientific methods to produce plans, test results, and other information which satisfactorily addressed the various criteria and standards, both as to the concrete bridge alternative and the timber bridge. Likewise, impacts of stormwater runoff by the proposed project will not exceed the identified criteria or standards related to water quality. Reasonable assurances have been given that stormwater runoff will not violate these standards. These conclusions contemplate a final build-out which does not allow fill material to be placed below the line of mean high water and the containment of any fill material placed behind placing sheet pilings.
In the overview of Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, the evidence presented leads to the conclusion that the bridge will cause no significant degradation or adverse effect on water quality of the Stockton Canal.
The Department of Environmental Regulation has jurisdiction over this project pursuant to Section 253.123, Florida Statutes (1982). The construction of the bridge involves a dredging activity in navigable waters of the state.
By contrast, the provisions related to the addition or extension of existing land (filling) as found in Sections 253.124 and 253.1245, Florida Statutes (1982), are not applicable. The present bridge will not create or extend land or islands. The adjustment necessary at the shoreline to accommodate the undulation/indentation and overhang do not require creation or extension of land or islands. In summary, the Department's jurisdiction is not conferred pursuant to Section 253.124, Florida Statutes (1982).
Related to Section 253.123, Florida Statutes (1982) and its public interest test, the Hearing Officer need not consider the proposed development of the island and its resulting environmental impact when attempting to consider and rule upon the application for a bridge permit. That has been the preliminary decision of this Hearing Officer, by order dated November 2, 1982, in this case and that decision remains by the process of the entry of this Recommended Order. The bridge application must be granted or denied upon its own merits and speculation about the utilization of the island for purposes of development need not and properly should not be considered as a part of this present hearing. Consideration of the island development is a matter to be examined upon another occasion.
On the question of necessary proof to be granted a permit pursuant to Section 253.123, Florida Statutes (1982), the applicant must establish that the project will not interfere with the conservation of fish, marine, and other wildlife, or other natural resources, nor alter or impede the flow of navigable waters or interfere with navigation in a way that would be contrary to the public interest. Concerns for flow and navigation pertain to Rule 17-4.29, Florida Administrative Code. The concept "contrary to the public interest" as
stated in Shablowski v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 370 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), is a factual question and that question has been determined in favor of the applicant. The bridge construction as is contemplated herein, is not "contrary to public interest." Its hydrographic impacts are negligible when considered as influences on conservation of fish, marine, and other wildlife, or other natural resources, or as an alteration or impediment to the natural flow of navigable waters. Moreover, stormwater impacts by the project design are not "contrary to the public interest." Finally, while there is some interference to navigation in the canal proper, on balance, that interference is not such as to be characterized as "contrary to the public interest." Either the concrete bridge or timber bridge are acceptable based upon scientific data. The concrete bridge alternative is more in the public interest than the timber alternative, in view of the better quality of protections which it affords to the environment.
The installation of the bridge will not result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity including destruction of marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life and establishment of marine soils which could be used for producing plant growth useful for nursing or feeding grounds for marine life or interfere with the natural shoreline processes to an extent that is contrary to the public interest within the meaning of Subsection 253.123(2)(d) Florida Statutes.
In summary, the applicant has made sufficient showing that it is entitled to be granted necessary permits for the construction of the bridge pursuant to Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. This proof has not been refuted by the Petitioners or Intervenor. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to be granted the construction permit.
In this instance, the Department of Environmental Regulation could have required the applicant to submit proof of financial responsibility in order to be granted the necessary permits for construction of the bridge per Rule 17- 4.11, Florida Administrative Code. This was not a mandatory requirement, and the Department's election not to require such proof of financial responsibility was a proper exercise of discretion.
The suggestion by Petitioners and Intervenor that the modifications to the project announced on April 1, 1983, and as developed in the course of the final hearing in this action, should not be allowed, are without merit. The Petitioners and Intervenor were sufficiently apprised of these modifications to offer their case in opposition. The modifications were not substantial and were not violative of rights of the Petitioners and Intervenor related to notice.
See Manatee County v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 429 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Petitioners and Intervenor had alluded to the provisions of Article II, Sections 2 and 7 of the Florida Constitution, which speak in terms of the state policy related to the abatement of water pollution. Reference has been made to Sections 403.01 through 403.4153, Florida Statutes, with emphasis on Section 403.021, Florida Statutes, dealing with the public policy of the state to conserve, protect and improve the quality of Florida waters. Emphasis is also placed on Section 403.061, Florida Statutes, which grants to the Department of Environmental Regulation the necessary authority to carry out the purposes of control and prohibition of water pollution and the mandate to establish and administer the necessary programs to restore and preserve those bodies of water that are in the state. Moreover, the Respondent points to Rule 17-3.011,
Florida Administrative Code, which speaks in terms of the policies of the state in the protection, maintenance, improvement, and enhancement of waters of the state, with special concern about the introduction of nutrients into the waters of the state, particularly those waters which already have high nutrient concentrations. The nutrient question has been sufficiently addressed by the applicant, in that reasonable assurances have been given the nutrient problems will not occur in the construction of the bridge, and this proof is not refuted by the Petitioners and Intervenor. In tying together the other provisions within this paragraph in discussion of law, Petitioners and Intervenor urge that Rule 17-4.03, Florida Administrative Code, conditions the grant of any permit by the Department by requiring the Department to be satisfied that the installation, here a bridge, will not cause pollution and violations of the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or any rules and regulations which have been promulgated pursuant to that chapter. In response, those provisions of applicable statutes and rules have been discussed in previous paragraphs with the exception of the discussion of the nutrient rule which is discussed in the present paragraph. The remaining constitutional provisions, statutes, and rules which are referenced in the present paragraph are statements of policy goals.
As such, they do not establish mandatory requirements which must be complied with before a permit may be issued an applicant. If the substantive standards are complied with, it is the expectation of the framers of the Constitution, the Legislature, and the Department, that the goals of protecting Florida waters will be achieved.
Based upon a consideration of the facts found, and the conclusions reached, it is
That a Final Order be entered which grants the permit to construct the concrete bridge alternative; conditioned upon the contractor's written acknowledgement of responsibility for maintenance of the Stockton Canal and the bridge and approaches; conditioned upon the applicant's modification of the pilings or bulkhead on the island side of the project to impede the introduction of the muck material into the canal system and conditioned upon by the applicant's installation of the bulkhead or pilings in the area of the overhang to accommodate the configuration of the undulation/indentation and conditioned upon expansion of the bridge length on the island side to traverse that undulation.
DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1983.
4COPIES FURNISHED:
Christine R. Milton, Esquire Ralph R. Wickersham, Esquire Mahoney, Hadlow and Adams Post Office Box 4099 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Timothy Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32077
Richard P. Lee, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Terry E. Lewis, Esquire Robert M. Rhodes, Esquire Messer, Rhodes and Vickers Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DR. & MRS. CONSTANTINO C. del
CAMPO et. al.,
Petitioners,
and
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC.,
Intervenor,
vs. DOAH Case No. 82-2749
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and ORTEGA ISLAND, INC.
Respondents.
/
FINAL ORDER
On August 19, 1983 the Division of Administrative Hearings' hearing officer in the above-styled case submitted his Recommended Order to the Department of Environmental Regulation ("Department"). A copy of that Recommended Order is attached as Exhibit A. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-1.68(1), the parties to the proceeding were allowed ten days in which to file exceptions to the Recommended Order. Petitioners and Intervenor, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., filed joint exceptions to the Recommended Order. A copy of those exceptions is attached as Exhibit B. Respondent Ortega Island, Inc., also filed exceptions to the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. A copy of those exceptions is attached as Exhibit C. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-1.68(3), Petitioners and Intervenor requested an oral argument before the Secretary of the Department.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS
In ruling on these exceptions, I specifically note the standards of review contained in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Section 120.57(1)(b)9., Florida Statutes, provides that an agency head may not reject the hearing officer's findings of fact unless she determines, after a review of the complete record, that such findings were not based on competent substantial evidence. The agency head may not reweigh the evidence presented at the hearing. See, MacDonald v.
Department of Banking and Finance, 346 S.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Petitioners and Intervenor filed numerous exceptions to both the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the Recommended Order. Each of these exceptions will be dealt with separately. For the purpose of simplicity, future references in this Final Order to the "Petitioners" should be construed to include the Intervenor, Florida Wildlife Federation.
Petitioners take exception to the hearing officer's finding of fact that the proposed stormwater system as designed would accommodate stormwater runoff from both the bridge and an adjacent residential area of approximately 42 acres so as to comply with the provisions of Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code. After a review of the entire record I must conclude that there is competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's finding of fact. Department witnesses Mr. Craft and Mr. Tyler have testified that the project as designed will meet all requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-25. Petitioners' first exception is rejected.
Petitioners' second exception is to the hearing officer's finding of fact that water quality standards for class III waters would be met. After a review of the record, I must conclude that there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the applicant provided reasonable assurances that all applicable water quality standards would be met. Petitioners' second exception is rejected.
The third exception filed by Petitioners objects to several findings of fact relating to the effect of the bridge on flow and sedimentation in the channel. Petitioners argue that the hearing officer should have required that a stability test be done. The hearing officer, after weighing the evidence, chose to reject the testimony of Petitioners' witnesses on this point. After reviewing the record, I find that there is competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's finding of fact that the flow velocity in the channel would not be significantly influenced by installation of the bridge and that the placement of the bridge will not result in rapid siltation. Petitioners' third exception is rejected.
In their fourth exception, Petitioners argue that the hearing officer erred in holding that the applicant had given reasonable assurances that placement of fill material on Ortega Island would not result in displacement of a muck layer leading to violations of water quality standards. In fact, the hearing officer found that there might be some displacement of muck as a result of construction. However, the hearing officer also found that by placing a piling barrier at the edge of the canal such displacement could be contained. In addition, the hearing officer found that by slightly modifying the placement of pilings on the Island side of the project, any potential problems could be avoided completely. While there is conflicting testimony on the location and exact amount of muck existing on the Island, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that, with the precautions required by the hearing officer, no discharge of muck will take place so as to cause violation's of water quality standards. Petitioners fourth exception is rejected.
Petitioners' fifth exception objects to the hearing officer's conclusion of law that the Department acted appropriately in not requiring proof of financial responsibility from the applicant. Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-4.11 provides:
The Department may require an applicant to submit proof of financial responsi- bility and may require the applicant to post an appropriate bond to guarantee compliance with the law and Department rules and regulations.
As noted by the hearing officer, it is within the discretion of the Department to require proof of financial responsibility. The Department's rules do not make this an absolute requirement in all cases. There is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Department abused its discretion in this case by not requiring proof of financial responsibility or posting of a bond. Petitioners' fifth exception is rejected.
Petitioners' sixth exception challenges certain findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to the effect of the bridge on navigation in the channel. The testimony is uncontroverted that the bridge will impose certain restrictions on navigation although it would not prevent access to the canal entirely. After construction of the bridge, certain vessels may be required to enter the canal from the north end. After a review of the record, it appears that the hearing officer was correct in his assessment in finding that the impact on present residents would be minimal. I must agree with the hearing officer that the impact would not be so great as to be contrary to the public interest. I must also reject Petitioners' exceptions relating to the depth and usage of the canal. Competent substantial evidence in the record exists to support those findings of fact.
Petitioners take exception to the hearing officer's conclusion of law that Sections 253.124 and 253.1245, Florida Statutes, are not applicable. By their terms, those provisions apply to activities that "add to or extend existing lands or islands . . . in the navigable waters of the state "
Section 253.124(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioners argue that the placement of pilings in navigable waters of the state constitutes filling as that term is used in Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-4.29. While the specific question of whether bridge construction constitutes dredging or filling has not been addressed in any Department final order or judicial decision, the Department has held under similar circumstances that the driving of pilings to construct a dock constitutes dredging and not filling. See, Bayshore Homeowners, Inc., v.
Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case Nos. 79-2186, 79-2324, and 79- 2354 (Final Order issued December 29, 1980); City of Venice v. Department of Environmental Regulation, DOAH Case No. 80-920 (Final Order issued November 7, 1980). I must agree with the hearing officer that the driving of pilings to construct a bridge does not by itself constitute filling under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-4.29. Such pilings do not add to or extend existing lands or islands. Petitioners' seventh exception is rejected.
Petitioners' eighth exception essentially repeats the allegations addressed above in paragraph 7 with respect to whether bridge pilings constitute fill material. In addition, however, Petitioners also allege that filling will result because of the configuration of the shoreline on the island. Tidal action in the area has apparently eroded the shoreline leaving an overhanging mass of vegetation. The hearing officer specifically found that removal of that overhanging material would be effected without resulting in any filling of navigable waters. After a review of the complete record, I must conclude that there is competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's finding of fact on this point. Exception number 8 is rejected.
Petitioners take exception to the hearing officer's conclusion of law that he need not consider the impact of proposed development on the island in conjunction with the bridge permit application. Specifically, the hearing officer concluded that the bridge application should be granted or denied based upon its own merits and that speculation about the ultimate development of the island could not properly be considered at this time. The Department has maintained as a matter of law that in reviewing a permit application for a portion of a project it may consider the impacts of associated development, even where no application has been received for that development. As the hearing officer recognized, however, it is not always appropriate to consider such future development. In this particular case there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the applicant could not develop the island in an environmentally sound manner. It is very likely that at least certain aspects of that development will require permits from the Department of Environmental Regulation. If, for example, the applicant proposes to conduct future activities in waters of the state, a dredge and fill permit will be necessary. Even if all future activities are conducted in uplands, other permits may be required. By issuing a permit for construction of the bridge, the Department does not bind itself in any way to issue permits for future activities on the island. Clearly the applicant assumes the risk that certain activities which he may propose will not be permissible. Under the circumstances of this case, then, I conclude that the hearing officer was correct in refusing to consider the applicant's future development plans for the island. I reiterate that under a different set of facts I might reach a different conclusion. Petitioners' ninth exception is rejected.
Petitioners take exception to the conclusion of law that the provisions of Article II, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution and those statements of policy found in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, do not provide a basis for denying the permit. The Hearing Officer interprets those statements as policy goals which are implemented by the more specific substantive standards and requirements in Chapter 403 and the regulations adopted thereunder. He assumes that if those substantive standards are complied with, the overall goals will also be achieved. Petitioners argue that those policy goals are standards which must be considered in the permitting of any project. While accepting that there may be some set of facts under which the Department would deny a permit on the grounds that it was clearly contrary to the goals and policies set forth in Chapter 403, no such facts have been established in the present case. There is no basis in the record for finding that any violation of Chapter 403 or the regulations adopted pursuant to that statute will occur; on that ground, I must reject Petitioners' exception.
In Petitioners' final exception, they argue that the Hearing Officer should not have recommended issuance of a permit without also recommending that the permit be stayed during the pendency of any appeal. On this point, Petitioners misapprehend the provisions of Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. That Section provides that the losing party may petition the agency for a stay of its action or file a petition to the reviewing court for supercedeas. Thus, in rejecting exception 11, I note that Petitioners are not foreclosed upon entry of this Final Order from requesting a stay as provided in Section 120.68.
Respondent, Ortega Island, Inc., ("Respondent") has filed two exceptions, both relating to the hearing officer's ultimate recommendation.
Respondent first takes exception to the recommendation that the project contractor be required to produce a written acknowledgement of responsibility for maintenance of both the bridge and approaches and the existing canal.
Respondent correctly points out that the applicant, as opposed to the contractor, is the appropriate party to assume such responsibility for the bridge. With respect to the canal, Respondent argues that maintenance dredging should not be the sole responsibility of the applicant since the construction of the bridge is not expected to have a significant impact on the need for maintenance dredging in the canal. I must agree with respondent on both points. I specifically reject the hearing officer's recommendation that the permit be conditioned on maintenance of the canal and modify his recommendation on maintenance of the bridge to require that the applicant have responsibility for such maintenance. I recognize that at some future date this responsibility could be transferred to an appropriate homeowners' association.
Respondent also takes exception to the hearing officer's recommendation that the applicant be required to construct a concrete bridge as opposed to a timber bridge. In his order, the hearing officer concluded, based on specific findings of fact, that either type of construction would meet all requirements of Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules. Under the circumstances, there was no basis for requiring that the permit be conditioned upon construction of a concrete bridge. Accordingly, Respondent's exception is accepted.
ORDER
Accordingly, having considered the Recommended Order, the record and pleadings in this case, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
The hearing officer's findings of fact are adopted in toto.
The hearing officer's conclusions of law are adopted as modified herein.
Within 20 days after entry of this order the Department shall issue a permit to the applicant to construct either a concrete or timber bridge, with the conditions specified in the hearing officer's recommendation as modified by this final order.
Petitioners' Request for Oral Argument is denied.
DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 1983.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
Terry Cole Assistant Secretary
Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Telephone: (904) 488-4805
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that true copies of the foregoing Final Order have been furnished by United States Mail to the parties listed below on this 3rd day of October, 1983.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Charles C. Adams Christine R. Milton, Esquire
Hearing Officer Ralph R. Wickersham, Esquire Division of Administrative Mahoney, Hadlow and Adams Hearings Post Office Box 4099
2009 Apalachee Parkway Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Timothy Keyser, Esquire Richard P. Lee, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Department of Environmental Interlachen, Florida 32077 Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Terry E. Lewis, Esquire Robert M. Rhodes, Esquire Messer, Rhodes and Vickers Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
MARY F. SMALLWOOD
General Counsel
State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Telephone: (904) 488-9730
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 19, 1983 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 03, 1983 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 19, 1983 | Recommended Order | Respondent is entitled to permit to construct bridge over the canal with certain conditions attached. |
