Findings Of Fact On October 19, 1983 the City of Jacksonville, Florida made application to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation for permission to replace an existing stormwater outfall structure discharging into the St. Johns River, in Duval County, Florida. The St. Johns River is a Class III waterbody within the meaning of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. By this project the applicant would remove an existing 27 inch RCP outfall pipe and headwall and install a new 48 inch RCP outfall pipe with headwall. The project also envisions the construction of a 16 by 20 foot erosion protection mat. The system envisioned is a stepdown system as it approaches the St. Johns River. Approximately 117 cubic yards of material would be dredged, 38 cubic yards of which would be taken from an area below the mean highwater line. In association with the project 10 cubic yards of fill would be deposited landward of the mean highwater line. The purpose of this project is to provide more effective drainage of an existing residential development constituted of approximately 150-200 homes. This request was made in furtherance of a court mandate to improve the stormwater drainage within this residential area of the community. In the vicinity of the proposed project, the home sites have lawn grass and ornamental shrubbery and the upland vegetation is otherwise' dominated with hickory, pines and oaks with scattered hickory and magnolia. At the project site the river bank is approximately 15 feet high and terraced. Elephant ear dominates the shoreline vegetation along with some bald cypress and red maple. Eelgrass is common to the area but was not found at the exact location of the project site. The sediments in the area are predominantly sand with some silt and detritus. The site selected for this project was chosen after looking at a number of alternatives and presents the better choice of alternatives reviewed. With the advent of the change approximately five (5) times the amount of volume of water will be discharged as contrasted with the present discharge point. No significant increase in velocity is expected in the discharge system. Consequently increased erosion is not expected to occur, in that velocity not volume promotes erosion. Steps will be taken to insure against erosion of property adjacent to the outfall site to include protection of the bulkhead related to Petitioner Coltrane's property which is adjacent to the project site. Inspection of this site by permit assessment officials within the Department of Environmental Regulation established that minimal environmental harm or impact is expected if the project is permitted. The project would eliminate a small amount of river bottom and the associated biota and its available pollution filtering capacity and wildlife habitat. That loss is not significant on the subject of biological resources or water quality of the St. Johns River. The effects of turbidity will be adequately addressed from the point of view of the experts of the Department, whose opinions are accepted. The erosion is addressed by mats which constitute control structures. The area of land which is constituted of the property of the State of Florida at the site is approximately 20 by 15 feet. Although a certain amount of sedimentation will occur, that sedimentation is not significant and will tend to settle on the protection mats. No particular examination was made of the water quality of the stormwater being discharged through the pipe. 1/ The question of water quality was limited to an examination of the receiving waters in the St. Johns River. The volume and velocity of the stormwater being discharged was considered by the department and was not found to be a significant problem. As stated before this opinion on volume and velocity is accepted. 2/ This project will not interfere with conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or the natural, resources in a way that is contrary to the public interest, and will not result in the destruction of oyster beds, clam beds, or marine productivity, to include but not be limited to, destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, nor interfere with the established marine soil suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding ground for marine life. The project will not interfere with natural shoreline processes to such as to be contrary to the public interest. The project is not expected to create a navigational hazard or serious impediments in navigation or to substantially alter or impede the natural flow of navigable waters, such to be contrary to the public interest. Turbidity controls are contemplated to prohibit a turbidity problem exceeding 29 NTU's above background. The Petitioners Coltrane and Khosravi challenged the grant of the dredge and fill permit. Coltrane is concerned about problems of erosion, that the project will be unsightly in its appearance and that it will tend to disturb the river bottom while the construction is occurring. Khosravi speaks in terms of damage to the natural condition and ecological factors of the surrounding area on the banks of the St. Johns River. Both of these petitioners live adjacent to the project site on home sites by the St. Johns River. As described above, the concerns of the petitioners have been adequately addressed in the project design. Coltrane's testimony and depiction of the circumstance in another outfall of the City of Jacksonville in the vicinity of the project site, where adverse impact is shown, was not demonstrated to be sufficiently similar to the present project to cause alarm. See Coltrane's composite Exhibit No. 1 as admitted into evidence, photographs of that site. The City of Jacksonville has been granted an easement by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources for the use of the state owned submerged land.
The Issue Petitioner had filed Notice Of Violation And Orders For Corrective Action and Supplemental Notice Of Violation And Orders For Corrective Action related to the placement of fill material on property owned by the Respondents in Duval County, Florida. This action by the agency was in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, based upon the belief that this fill material was placed within the landward extent of waters of the state. Through this case, the Petitioner attempts to cause the removal of the fill and the restoration of the area in question to a natural state and requests the award of $350.00 in expenses for investigation of this matter. Respondents requested hearing on these allegations, asserting their right to place the fill. Respondents' posture is one of opposing the jurisdiction of the Petitioner to take action, in that the Respondents believe that the fill was not placed on property over which the Petitioner has any regulatory authority. WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE During the hearing, Petitioner called as witnesses Ken Deurling, Dar-Guam Cheng and Sydney Brinson. Nine exhibits were offered by the Petitioner and those exhibits were received as evidence. Respondents testified and presented Richard League as a witness. Respondents offered an exhibit marked as Exhibit A. That exhibit was not admitted.
Findings Of Fact Respondents own property in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, as recorded in Plat Book 12-74, 75 of the public/records of Duval County as Lots 23, 24 25, 26 and 27, Hyde Park Circle. The property which is the subject of this dispute is within those boundaries. This property is further depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9, which roughly describes then placement of fill in the area in question. The yellow cross-hatching on this exhibit represents fill material placed prior to June 1983. The red cross-hatching represents fill material that was not there in June 1983 but was in place by October 1984. The blue cross-hatching represents fill that was not there at the time of the placement of the fill material shown in the red cross-hatching but which was in place by May 1985. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit Number 3 is a series of photographs taken at various times as described on the face of that composite exhibit, indicating the types of materials which were used to fill the area in question, to include building materials, felled trees and fill dirt. Petitioner's Exhibit Number 7 is a composite exhibit constituted of aerial photographs indicating the appearance of the site as of January 5, 1981, and on February 10, 1985. Those photographs show the decrease in the over-story of trees on February 10, 1985, as contrasted with January 5, 1981. Petitioner's Exhibit Number 8 is constituted of maps which depict the connection of the Cedar River to the Ortega River to the St. Johns River, waters of the state. The property in question fronts Wills Branch, a further water body of the state which flows into the Cedar River. Wills Branch is shown on Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9 at the top of that drawing. Respondents' own additional lots which are shown in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9 in the area on the right side of that exhibit which depicts a house and outbuildings. The lots where the house and outbuildings are found had also been filled prior to June 1983. That filling activity is not the subject of this dispute. Some filling had also been done in the eastern- most lot of the lots described as 23 through 27 in the immediately preceding paragraph, and the filling in that eastern-most lot in that grouping is not the subject of dispute. Therefore, it is not depicted in the colored cross-hatching found on Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9. At the time Respondents took up residence in the area adjacent to the questioned site, the road known as Hyde Park Circle, which fronts their property, and a golf course further upland from Wills Branch were already in place. In addition there was a water flow across the property in dispute through a flow-way and into Wills Branch. The flow-way is also part of state waters. At present that flow-way area is depicted in blue cross-hatching on Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9. In the past and at present this unnamed flow-way allowed for the flow pattern across the property in dispute and into Wills Branch. As briefly discussed, this water coming off the property in question would exit via Wills Branch, in turn into the Cedar River, the Ortega River and the St. Johns River. The subject areas in which fill was placed by the. Respondents included certain low-lying areas where water had. stood in the past, and the area depicted by yellow cross- hatching is an area which had been excavated by the City of Jacksonville,. Florida prior to the placement of fill. The fill has not been placed up to the furtherest reaches of the property as it abuts. Wills Branch. All told, approximately 1.4 acres have been filled by the Respondents, and that fill placement was made without benefit of any environmental permit(s) as provided by the Petitioner. The fill in question as shown in the yellow, red, and blue cross-hatching in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 9 was placed within the landward extent of Wills Branch and the unnamed flow- way and as such was placed in waters of the state. The determination of the landward extent of the state waters was. through the use of plant indicators, in this instance, the presence of Fraxinus carolinaina (water oak) and Nyssa sylvatica var, biflora (black gum), formerly referenced as Nyssa biflora, (swamp tupelo), as the dominant canopy species and by the presence of Osmunda regalis (royal fern) and Orontium acquaticum (golden club) as the dominant ground cover species in the filled area prior to and during fill placement. These species are listed in the "species list" related to wetland indicators, as found in Rules 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, as amended and renumbered to be Rule 17-4.022, Florida Administrative Code, in October 1984. The trees in the filled area are buttressed to a height of approximately half a meter and the soil in the filled area is hydric. This buttressing and the type of soil are indicators of a wetlands system. That type of soil tends to indicate that the filled area is subject to regular and periodic inundation by water. The testimony reveals that Wills Branch inundates the property on the occasion of high incidence of rainfall. Other sources of water for the site are provided from rainwater falling directly on the site and the pattern of water flow across the property caused by water coming onto the property from a location upland of the property. This is related to a lake located on the golf course on the other side of Hyde Park Circle. Normally any overflow conditions onto the subject fill. area occurs in the vicinity of the flow-way. Conditions must be more extreme for these off-site influences to discharge water onto the filled areas other than the flow-way. As of June 24, 1983, the filled area was approximately 2,700 square feet in dimension. At that time, the Petitioner advised the Respondents that the fill had been placed in violation of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and requested that the Respondents not place any additional fill. By October 3, 1984, Respondents had expanded the amount of fill to approximately 55,500 square feet and subsequently, on May 9, 1985, that amount of fill material approached 58,500 square feet of fill. A more complete description of the fill material indicates its constituents as being roofing materials, other forms of building materials, wood, insulation materials, dirt and household trash. The major component of the fill is roofing products. The difference in appearance in over-story shown in Petitioner's Exhibit Number 8 can be accounted for in that the vegetation has died as a result of the filling activities or the direct removal of that vegetation by the Respondents. The disposition of the fill material has caused and continues to cause water pollution and to lower the water quality in Wills Branch and the rivers downstream. Prior to the placement of the fill, the natural wetlands vegetation and soil served the purpose of absorbing and assimilating runoff from properties up- land of the site. This included cleansing insecticide and pesticide-laden runoff from the golf course area previously described. In placing the fill, the wetlands system has been destroyed, with its animal, plant and aquatic life components, and no longer provides wildlife habitat or acts as a source of food within the aquatic ecosystem or provides for flood storage. It is probable that some of the fill material, such as the roofing, will provide additional pollution through leaching. The presence of these materials may reasonably be expected to degrade and cause water pollution in Wills Branch and those major water systems connected to Wills Branch through this process. The previous factual findings demonstrate the propriety of the removal of the fill materials and the restoration of the site to its previous character within six months of the entry of the Final Order. The Petitioner has incurred costs of investigation in the amount of $350.00. Respondents needed a dredge and fill permit for the placement of the fill and proceeded to place further fill even after being told of the necessity to obtain a permit and have never sought a permit prior to the placement of any of the fill in question or after the fact.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the construction activities of Respondent Auschra were exempt from applicable permitting requirements on the basis of the application and whether the construction activities exceeded the scope of the exemption. Further, the Petitioner seeks an Order directing the Department of Environmental Protection to initiate an enforcement action against the Auschra project. The Department asserts that the Hearing Officer is without jurisdiction to require the Department to initiate an enforcement action.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Linda L. Braswell owns and resides at 5190 Latham Terrace Port Charlotte, Florida. The property is located at Lot 88 of the Gulf Cove subdivision in Charlotte County, Block 1864, Section 54. Respondent Kurt Auschra owns Lot 90, located adjacent to Lot 88. Mr. Auschra did not appear and was not represented at the hearing. An application dated January 5, 1995, was filed on behalf of Mr. Auschra, seeking approval of seawall construction at his property. The application appears to be signed by Eugene Exejet of the Charlotte County Seawall Company. Respondent Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for the permitting and regulation of projects such as the Auschra project. The relevant properties back up to the Latham Waterway, a man-made residential canal. The Petitioner asserts that the Auschra property was landlocked and did not have access to the water prior to construction of the seawall. A property is "waterfront" if the mean high waterline touches the property. Evidence of the apparent mean high water line, including subdivision plats and location of vegetation, establishes that the Auschra lot was a "waterfront" lot prior to construction of the seawall. Existing residential canal systems are classified as artificially created waterways by applicable administrative rules. The Auschra application was reviewed by Peggy Hellenbach, an employee of the Department. After the application was filed, and prior to the Department determination that the project was exempt, the Petitioner communicated her concerns to two members of the Department staff, including Ms. Hellenbach. At the time of her review, the application contained sufficient information for Ms. Hellenbach to determine the location and the type of project being proposed. Ms. Hellenbach reviewed the application and determined that the project was exempt from permitting requirements. In determining that the project was exempt from permitting, Ms. Hellenbach considered whether the proposed project would violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation or adversely affect flood control. Ms. Hellenbach determined that based on the location of the seawall and the applicant's intended use of turbidity screens during construction, water quality standards would not be violated. Turbidity screens were used during construction of the seawall. Because the construction site is at the "dead-end" of the waterway, Ms. Hellenbach determined that the project would not impede navigation either during or after construction. Because the location of the seawall does not impact water flow, Ms. Hellenbach determined that the project would not adversely affect flood control. By letter to Mr. Auschra dated February 6, 1995, the Department stated as follows: Based solely upon the documents submitted to the Department, the project has been determined to qualify as an activity which is exempt from the need for a wetland resource permit pursuant to Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 62-312.050 (1) 62-312.050(1)(g). The letter also provided: The determination that your project qualifies as an exempt activity pursuant to Rule 62-312.050 (1) 62-312.050(1)(g), F.A.C., may be revoked if the installation is substantially modified, or if the basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations. Any changes made in the construc- tion plans or location of the project may necessitate a permit or certification from the Department. Therefore, you are advised to contact the Department before beginning the project and before beginning any work in waters or wetlands which is not specifically described in your submittal. Ms. Hellenbach did not visit the site prior to making her determination. There is no evidence that Ms. Hellenbach was required to visit the site prior to making her determination. Construction of the project was initiated prior to the issuance of the Department's February 6 letter of exemption. Given Ms. Hellenbach's subsequent review of the project after construction and her continuing assertion that the project meets applicable exemption criteria, it is unlikely that a site visit prior to construction would have impacted installation of the seawall. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, based on the information set forth in the application, the project was exempt from permitting requirements. There is no evidence that the project violated existing water quality standards, impeded navigation or adversely affected flood control. Department policy requires that new seawalls be built in a "continuum" with existing seawalls to prevent water quality problems caused by altered water circulation. The Auschra seawall appears to be in a continuum with the existing Latham Waterway seawalls. There is evidence that vegetation, including mangroves, located both on the Auschra property and on adjoining property, was removed during the construction of the seawall. Removal of vegetation is typical during installation of a seawall. Based on the existing vegetation at the site, the removed vegetation most likely consisted of a thin line of red mangroves at the waterline with a large stand of Brazilian Pepper behind the mangroves and along the banks of the waterway. There is no evidence that a permit was required for removal of the vegetation on the Auschra property. Applicable administrative rules do not authorize removal of mangroves from adjacent properties unless the property is owned or controlled by the person performing the removal of the vegetation or unless the land is adjacent State-owned land lying waterward of the parcel of property on which the exempt activity is occurring. There is no evidence that a permit was issued for removal of the vegetation on the adjoining property. There is evidence that as constructed, the seawall encroaches onto the property of adjoining owners and that during construction, property of adjoining owners may have been excavated. There is no evidence that the seawall encroaches onto the property of the Petitioner. The evidence fails to establish that the amount of material excavated during construction of the seawall was excessive in relation to the size of the structure. Ms. Hellenbach conducted a site visit after the construction of the seawall. Based on her review of the seawall construction and her knowledge of the application, Ms. Hellenbach determined that the project continues to be exempt from permitting requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order dismissing this case. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of April, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 24th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1072 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, unnecessary. 5-6. Rejected, subordinate. 7-8. Rejected. Recitation of testimony is not Finding of Fact. 9. Rejected, unnecessary. The greater weight of the credible evidence establishes that the location of the seawall and quantity of dredged material do not render the project non-exempt. 10-12. Rejected. Recitation of testimony is not Finding of Fact. 13-14. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected as to statement that "the property did not have sufficient area on the canal to build a seawall." Not supported by greater weight of the evidence. Rejected. Recitation of testimony is not Finding of Fact. Rejected, unnecessary. 18-22. Rejected, subordinate. 23-24. Rejected, unnecessary. 26-27. Rejected, fails to comply with Rule 60Q-2.031(3) requiring citation to transcript. 30. Rejected. The evidence that a "new waterway" was dredged is insufficient to be persuasive. Respondent DEP The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 12. Rejected, unnecessary. 17. Rejected. There was evidence presented as to ownership of adjoining property. 24. Rejected, subordinate. 26. Rejected, unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Robert E. Turffs, Esquire 227 South Nokomis Avenue South Post Office Box 1767 Venice, Florida 34284-1787 Kurt Auschra Hinter der Linah 50 21614 Buxtehude Germany Christine Stretesky, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee. Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Respondent Felo McAllister and his wife Dorothy own a home and dock on Texar Bayou off Escambia Bay in Pensacola, Florida. A storm sewer with a diameter of 15 to 18 inches empties into the Bayou near the dock. The silt- laden outflow from the storm sewer has resulted in a sand bar or berm two or three feet wide paralleling the shoreline from the McAllisters' property line to the dock. This sand bar separates a ditch caused by the outflow from Texar Bayou. Over the years, silt has accumulated underneath the dock. The McAllisters originally applied for a permit to dredge boat slips at the dock. Andrew Feinstein, an environmental specialist II in respondent Department's employ, evaluated the original application and recommended denial, because he felt extending the dock was preferable to dredging. The McAllisters then modified their application so as to seek a permit for dredging at the mouth of the storm sewer in order that the silt already deposited there would not wash underneath the dock. Mr. Feinstein and Michael Clark Applegate, an environmental specialist III and dredge and field supervisor employed by the Department, testified without contradiction that the Department has reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not violate any applicable rules. The permit DER proposes to issue contemplates that the berm will not be breached. The bottom on which the dredging is proposed to take place belongs to the City of Pensacola. Although under water, it is a part of a dedicated roadway. The City itself does maintenance dredging to ensure the efficiency of storm sewers, but is glad for assistance from private citizens in this regard. J. Felix, City Engineer for Pensacola, is authorized allow dredging on this road right of way, and has done so. See also respondent's exhibit No. 2. The site proposed for placement of the spoil is a low area affected by flooding. Fill there would affect drainage onto neighbors' property.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent DER issue respondent McAllister the permit it proposed to issue in its letter of September 14, 1979, upon condition that the spoil be placed at least 100 feet from the water's edge. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Hyde, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Larry Jay Sauls and Ms. Harriett Tinsley Sauls 14 West Jordan Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Felo McAllister 2706 Blackshear Pensacola, Florida 32503
The Issue The issue to be determined by this Order is whether the Request for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) on February 15, 2013, was timely1/ and, if not, whether the application of the doctrine of equitable tolling would serve to relieve Petitioner of the consequences of having failed to file a petition for hearing within the time allotted by applicable notice provisions.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, is an active Florida, limited- liability corporation, and is the owner of submerged lands and adjacent upland property contiguous to Sarasota Bay. Petitioner is a closely held entity, the only members being Achim and Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, is an agency of the State of Florida having jurisdiction for permitting Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4), including duties as a federally-approved state program for the implementation of the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, pursuant to authority conferred under section 403.0885, Florida Statutes. Respondents, Sarasota County, City of Sarasota, City of Venice, Town of Longboat Key, and Department of Transportation (“DOT”) (collectively the “Applicants”) are responsible for certain existing stormwater point-source discharges to waters of the state from those portions of MS4 facilities owned or operated by one or more of the individual Applicants. The DEP issued a notice of proposed agency action to issue a renewal of an existing MS4 Permit to the Applicants. On January 30, 2013, Sarasota County arranged for the notice to be published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Sarasota County. The notice provided as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT AND REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING The Department of Environmental Protection gives notice of its intent to issue a permit to Sarasota County, 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Sarasota, Florida 34236 within its jurisdiction and including the following co- permittees: Florida Department of Transportation District One, Town of Longboat Key, City of North Port, City of Sarasota, and City of Venice, for renewal of a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System [MS4] permit. Any person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed permitting decision of the Department may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57 of the Florida Statutes (F.S.). The petition must contain the information set forth below and must be filed (received) in the Department of Environmental Protection, Office of General Counsel, Mail Station 35, 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000. Petitions must be filed within fourteen days of publication of this public notice or within fourteen days of receipt of the notice of intent, whichever occurs first. A petitioner must mail a copy of the petition to the applicant at the address indicated above, at the time of filing. The failure of any person to file a petition [or a request for mediation, as discussed below] within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person?s right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S., or to intervene in this proceeding and participate as a party to it. Any subsequent intervention will be only at the discretion of the presiding officer upon the filing of a motion in compliance with Rule 28-5.207 of the Florida Administrative Code. A petition must contain the following information: The name, address and telephone number of each petitioner, the Department Permit Number and the county in which the MS4 is located; A statement of how and when each petitioner received notice of the Department?s action; A statement of how each petitioner?s substantial interests are affected by the Department?s action; A statement of the material facts disputed by the petitioner, if any; A statement of facts that the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the Department?s action; A statement of which rules or statutes the petitioner contends require reversal or modification of the Department?s action; and A statement of the relief sought by the petitioner, stating precisely the action that the petitioner wants the Department to take. Because the administrative hearing process is designed to formulate final agency action, the filing of a petition means that the final action of the Department may be different from the position taken by it in the notice of intent. Persons whose substantial interests will be affected by any such final decision of the Department on the permit revision have the right to petition to become a party to the proceeding, in accordance with the requirements set forth above. Mediation under Section 120.573, F.S. is not available for this proceeding. The permit application file and supporting data are available for public inspection during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays, at Department of Environmental Protection, NPDES Stormwater Section, 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Room 560, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400, phone number (850) 245-8430. Date of pub. January 30, 2013. Because a portion of the Town of Longboat Key extends into Manatee County, the Town of Longboat Key arranged for the notice to be published in the Bradenton Herald, which is a newspaper of general circulation in Manatee County. The notice was published on February 4, 2013. The substance of the notice, except for the date of publication, was identical to that published in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Neither Petitioner, nor its representatives, saw either of the published notices prior to the filing of the Petition. On or about February 8, 2012, as a result of the filing of a pre-hearing stipulation in related litigation involving an Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (“SWFWMD”), Petitioner became aware of the existence of the MS4 Permit. Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt obtained a copy of the permit online, and on February 12, 2013, sent an e-mail to employees of the DEP Ft. Myers? office expressing her general concern with water quality from the disputed stormwater outfall. She expressed her belief that Sarasota County was in violation of the existing MS4 permit, and requested that the recipients of her e-mail “[p]lease be so kind as to look into this matter and let us know what could be done to prevent this unacceptable condition to continue unchecked like it did in the past.” The e-mail did not request any information regarding the MS4 Permit renewal application, nor did it request any information regarding notices or deadlines related to the application. On February 13, 2013, Christopher Wright, a consultant for Petitioner, called the DEP to gather information and do some “legwork” related to Petitioner?s challenge to the SWFWMD?s ERP. The purpose of the call was to determine if information submitted to the DEP in conjunction with the MS4 application, particularly drainage basin maps, could have been of use in the SWFWMD litigation. Mr. Wright spoke with DEP employee, Heather Ritchie, regarding the drainage basin maps that had been submitted to the DEP. During the course of their discussion, Ms. Ritchie advised Mr. Wright that a Notice of Intent to issue the MS4 Permit had been issued by the DEP. However, Ms. Ritchie did not know when Sarasota County had published the notice or when the deadline for challenging the proposed agency action was to run. In short, Ms. Ritchie expressed to Mr. Wright that “she didn?t know what the status of things were.” The discussion then went back to the primary substance of the call, which was watersheds and discharge points. Ms. Ritchie agreed to provide Mr. Wright with an electronic copy of a drainage map from the MS4 Permit file. At 12:43 p.m., on February 13, 2013, Ms. Ritchie sent a map to Mr. Wright via e-mail, and indicated that “[i]f you have additional questions or comments, you may call or e-mail me.” Later on the afternoon of February 13, 2013, Mr. Wright decided that he should ask Ms. Ritchie for a copy of the Notice of Intent. At 5:59 p.m., on February 13, 2013, after the close of business for the day, Mr. Wright wrote to Ms. Ritchie thanking her for her “rapid response to my inquiry today,” and providing her with comments on various basin areas and discharge structures. Mr. Wright concluded his e-mail by stating that “at this time I would also like to request a copy of the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit.” The next morning, February 14, 2013, Ms. Ritchie provided Mr. Wright with the Notice of Intent to Issue the MS4 Permit as requested. Later that morning, Mr. Wright inquired as to the time for filing a challenge to the permit. Ms. Ritchie replied at 2:34 p.m. that afternoon that the MS4 Permit “was publicly noticed by the county on January 30th with a 14 day window. The window closed yesterday.” There is no evidence that Ms. Ritchie had any specific information as to the date of publication or the deadline for filing a challenge prior to that communication with Mr. Wright. Petitioner filed the Petition on February 15, 2013. The disputes identified in the Petition were directed exclusively at a 46-acre drainage basin in downtown Sarasota, and a related discharge structure that discharges stormwater from the basin to Sarasota Bay just south of the intersection of U.S. Highway 41 and Fruitville Road. The disputed basin and discharge point are located in Sarasota County.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, issue a final order dismissing Petitioner?s Request for Hearing and Amended Petition for FLS000004-004 on the ground that the Petition was not timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2013, 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 18th day of October, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the DER should exempt the stormwater discharge anticipated from the initial phase of a residential development proposed by Sam Rodgers from the licensing requirements laid down by Rule 17- 4.248, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Sam Rodgers (applicant) proposes to alter an existing stormwater conveyance system in connection with transforming part of an orange grove in Polk County into a residential development, Foxwood Lake Estates. If all goes according to plan, the development will eventually occupy all or parts of four distinct basins. The applicant's agents furnished DER data pertaining to all four basins. The only discharge at issue in these proceedings, however, is the stormwater expected to drain from Basin III. See DER Exhibit No. 1, Master Plan-Key Map. Phase I of the development, a trailer park, would lie completely within the 123-acre expanse of Basin III, but would not completely displace the citrus trees. According to the applicant, roofs, streets, parking lots and other impervious surfaces will comprise some two-fifths of the area, when developed. DER Exhibit No. 1. Construction activity increases suspended solids in stormwater draining from construction sites. Lesser but still elevated levels of suspended solids can be expected when people take up residence. Heavy metals from automobile exhaust will end up in stormwater draining from Basin III, if some of the people moving in bring cars. Residential development also increases the biochemical oxygen demand of stormwater washing over it. The applicant proposes sodded roadside swales of varying slope to collect stormwater and, together with occasional pipes under roads, to convey it to an existing pond (Foxwood Lake), which is to be enlarged to an area of 4.82 acres. Foxwood Lake would be 12 feet deep in places. Testimony that the swales and pond would fill with silt in two or three years has not been credited, although it may not take centuries, as another expert testified. The swales will require maintenance and the applicant plans to hire somebody for that purpose. The applicant also contemplates dedicating some road rights-of-way, including swales, to Polk County. Lake Foxwood's present surface elevation of 160.58 feet above mean sea level would remain virtually unchanged, during times of moderate rainfall, at 161 feet above mean sea level. Neither groundwater tables nor the soil's storage capacity would be perceptibly altered, even during periods when the lake was temporarily elevated by the control structure planned for it. The applicant has agreed to a design that would detain on his property a volume of water equal to one inch of rainfall over the whole of Basin III for five to seven days. At the western end of Foxwood Lake, a PVC overflow pipe with a diameter of six inches would be installed in a concrete outfall structure at an elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level. At 164.55 feet above mean sea level, a vertical V-notch in the weir would allow water to spill out of Foxwood Lake, if stormwater should raise the lake's surface to that elevation. Both the overflow pipe and the V-notch would empty through a pipe 36 inches across into an intermittent tributary to Blackwater Creek, which the parties stipulated to be Class III waters. The stream into which water leaving Foxwood Lake would flow meanders west to Martin Lake, about a mile away. James M. Pollock, Jr., owns property on the western edge of Martin Lake and farms land on the lake's edge. Mr. Forrest Sawyer of 1712 Gibsonia-Galloway Road owns land to the north of Mr. Rodgers' property. Mr. Sawyer's property is generally higher ground than the Rodgers property, although three or four acres of the Sawyer property lie in a low area into which drain water from the Rodgers property as well as water from elsewhere on the Sawyer property. No water drains onto the Sawyer property from Basin III, however. Charles C. Krug, his sister, and his brother together own 40 acres abutting the west side of the northwest 40 acres of the Rodgers property. A dike along the southern boundary of the Krug property prevents water entering from the south. No water has drained onto the Krug property from the Rodgers property in the last 45 years. Dorothy Thompson lives 300 or 400 feet east of Orange Avenue which is the eastern boundary of the Rodgers property. There is a small area east of Orange Avenue in Basin III which drains west through three culverts onto the Rodgers property. The Thompson home property evidently drains to the east; however, only since the widening of U.S. Highway 98, which runs north and south to the east of Mrs. Thompson's property have heavy rains resulted in flooding on her property. The applicant gave DER notice of the changes in stormwater discharge proposed for Basin III. Water discharged from the system the applicant proposes would meet the criteria for Class III waters, according to the uncontroverted evidence. Virtually all pollutants except colloidal solids should precipitate or be filtered out by the time water leaves Foxwood Lake for waters of the state. Respondent's witness' suggestion that the swales be paved to decrease the siltation overlooks the filtration and percolation grassy swales make possible. At one time DER required that developers design stormwater systems to detain, instead of a one-inch storm, the mean annual storm, for five to seven days. The applicant's system is designed to avoid any increase in the present rate of discharge under weather conditions up to and including a 100 year 24-hour storm.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant Sam Rodgers' application for exemption from stormwater discharge licensure for Phase I of the proposed Foxwood Lake Estates. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1980 COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew Reilly, Esquire Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33844 Walter R. Mattson, Esquire 1240 East Lime Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 David Levin, Esquire 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent Oculina Bank is entitled to a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization to construct three single-family homes, an access drive, surface water management systems, and three single-family docks in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, and Garrett Bewkes live approximately one mile north of the proposed project site, on John's Island. John's Island is on the opposite side of the Indian River Lagoon from the proposed project site. Petitioner Carolyn Stutt uses the Lagoon for boating, nature observation, nature photography, and sketching. Petitioner Robert Prosser uses the Lagoon for boating, kayaking, and fishing. Petitioner Garrett Bewkes uses the Lagoon for boating and fishing. Petitioners Michael Casale, Orin Smith, and Stephanie Smith did not testify at the final hearing nor present other evidence to show they have substantial interests that would be affected by the proposed project. Respondent/Applicant Oculina Bank owns the project site, which it acquired through foreclosure, and is named in the agency action that is the subject of this proceeding. The Department is the state agency responsible for regulating construction activities in waters of the State. The Department also has authority to process applications for authorization from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") to use sovereignty submerged lands for structures and activities that will preempt their use by the general public. The Project Site The project site is 15.47 acres and located along 45th Street/Gifford Dock Road in Vero Beach. It is on the western shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. The Lagoon in this area is part of the Indian River- Malabar to Vero Beach Aquatic Preserve. It is also an Outstanding Florida Water. The Lagoon is an estuary, but it is almost non-tidal in this area. There is a seasonal rise in sea level that occurs from August to November and it is during this season that waters of the Lagoon flood into adjacent wetlands. The wetlands may be inundated at other times as a result of large storms. The wetlands along the western shore of the Lagoon play a major role in regional tarpon and snook fisheries. Wetlands provide essential refuges for early-stage tarpon and snook. When the wetlands are inundated, larval tarpon and snook move into the wetlands and seek out shallow areas to avoid predation by larger fish. When the waters of the Lagoon recede, the juvenile tarpon and snook remain in the wetlands where the predators cannot go. The project site is dominated by salt marsh wetlands. In order to control salt marsh mosquitoes, the site was impounded by the Indian River Mosquito Control District sometime in the 1950s by excavating ditches and building earthen berms or dikes along the boundaries of the site. During the dry season, the Mosquito Control District pumped water into the impounded wetlands to keep them wet. It discontinued the seasonal pumping many years ago. There was a dispute about whether the wetlands on the project are isolated or are connected to the Lagoon. The mean high water line of the Lagoon in this area is 0.78 feet. The berms were constructed to an elevation of about five feet, but there are now lower elevations in some places, as low as 2.5 feet in spots on the north and south berms and 3.8 feet on the shore-parallel berm. Therefore, the wetlands can be described as isolated for much of the year because the waters of the Lagoon cannot enter the wetlands unless the waters rise above these lowest berm elevations. On the other hand, the Lagoon and the wetlands are connected whenever the water rises above the lowest berm elevations. Petitioners' experts said the project site is still inundated seasonally by waters of the Lagoon, but they did not address the frequency and duration of the inundation. The more persuasive evidence is that the frequency and duration of inundation has been reduced by the impoundment berms. There are almost 14 acres of wetlands impounded by the berms. The impoundment berms and fill along the road comprise 1.71 acres. The impounded wetlands are dominated by salt grass. There are also mangroves, mostly white mangroves, along the side slopes of the berms. Most of the upland areas are dominated by Brazilian pepper trees and Australian pine trees, which are non- native, invasive vegetation. Within the wetlands are three ponds. Before the project site was impounded for mosquito control, it had "high marsh" vegetation such as saltwort and glasswort, as well as black and red mangroves. The impoundment resulted in the loss of these species. There is now reduced nutrient export from the impounded wetlands to the Lagoon. Nevertheless, Petitioners' experts believe the wetlands still have high functional value. Dr. Gilmore believes this site is "one of the critical habitats maintaining regional tarpon fisheries." Dr. Gilmore found juvenile tarpon, among other species, in the wetlands on the site. The project site provides nesting, denning, and foraging habitat for numerous birds and other wildlife. Petitioners presented evidence that there might be a small fish, rivulus marmoratus, that uses the site, which is a listed "species of special concern." To the north and south of the project site are salt marsh wetlands that have been restored. North of the project site is a portion of the mitigation area for a development called Grand Harbor. To the south is the CGW Mitigation Bank. Both adjacent wetland areas were restored by improving their connection to the Lagoon and removing exotic vegetation. The restored wetlands to the north and south now contain a dominance of saltwort and glasswort. They also have more black and red mangroves. These environmental improvements, as well as an increase in species diversity, are typical for former mosquito control impoundments that have been restored. In the offshore area where the three proposed docks would be constructed, there are scattered seagrasses which are found as close as 25 feet offshore and far as 100 feet offshore. They include Manatee grass, Cuban shoal grass, and Johnson’s seagrass. Oyster shells were also observed from 50 feet to 400 feet (the limit of the survey) offshore. There was a dispute whether a significant number of live oysters are present. Oculina Bank's and the Department's experts found no live oysters, but Petitioners' expert found some live oysters and believes they represent an important resource. The rules of the Board of Trustees require greater protection for areas with submerged resources. Rule 18- 20.003(54) defines a Resource Protection Area 1 ("RPA1") as an area within an aquatic preserve which has "resources of the highest quality," which may include marine grassbeds and "oyster bars." A Resource Protection Area 2 ("RPA2") is defined as an area which is "in transition" with declining RPA1 resources. The grassbeds in the area of the proposed dock constitute RPA1s. The oysters in the area constitute an RPA2. The Proposed Home Sites, Access Drive, and Surface Water Management Systems The proposed home sites are on separate, recorded lots ranging in size from 4.5 acres to 6.5 acres. The home sites would have 6,000 square feet of "footprint." The houses would be constructed on stilts. There would be a single access driveway to the home sites, ending in a cul-de-sac. The displacement of wetlands that would have been required for the side slopes of the access drive and cul-de-sac was reduced by proposing a vertical retaining wall on the western or interior side of the drive. Each home site has a dry retention pond to store and treat stormwater runoff. The ability of these retention ponds to protect water quality is not disputed by Petitioners. The home sites and access drive would be constructed on the frontal berm that runs parallel to the shoreline. However, these project elements would require a broader and higher base than the existing berm. The total developed area would be about three acres, 1.85 acres of which is now mangrove swamp and salt marsh and 0.87 acres is ditches. The houses would be connected to public water and sewer lines. The existing impoundment berm along the north boundary of the site and the south end of the frontal berm would be "scraped down" to an elevation of one foot. The re-graded area would be planted with salt cordgrass. If there are rivulus marmoratus using the site, scraping down the berms could destroy some of the crab holes they use for habitat. A culvert will be installed beneath the drive at the north side of the proposed project. The culvert at the north and the removal of a portion of the impoundment berm on the south would allow more frequent and prolonged exchange of water between the Lagoon and the interior of the site. Despite the proposed culvert and removal of a portion of the frontal impoundment berm, Dr. Cox and Dr. Gilmore said the elevated (about seven feet above mean high water) home sites would act as a barrier to water. However, Ms. Garrett-Krauss said the pre- and post-construction condition would be the same. Petitioners failed to prove that the elevated home sites would prevent the interior wetlands from being inundated. Two of the ponds on the site would have to be filled to create the home sites. There is no proposal to establish new ponds. Dr. Gilmore believes the ponds are important for the nursery function of the wetlands. Oculina Bank would grant a perpetual conservation easement over 11.69 acres of onsite salt marsh wetlands. It would remove Brazilian Pepper trees, a non-native plant, from the site. At the hearing, Petitioners claimed that a portion of the proposed conservation area was subject to a DOT easement, but they were wrong. Using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method ("UMAM") in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-345, the parties analyzed the functional values of the site in its pre- and post-project condition. The UMAM analyses conducted by the Department and Oculina Bank showed the project resulted in a gain in functional value for fish and wildlife. Petitioners' UMAM analysis showed a net loss of functional value. The UMAM analyses conducted by Oculina Bank and the Department did not adequately address the loss of the ponds or the impact on rivulus marmoratus. Petitioners contend that the project would have less impact if it were constructed on the most western portion of the site, but Petitioners failed to prove this allegation. Petitioners contend that the impacts of the project have not been minimized because the houses could be smaller. Petitioners do not say how small a "minimized" house should be. Of course, meeting the requirement to minimize impacts does not mean only teepees are allowed. The Department has some discretion in determining, under the circumstances of each permit application, whether reasonable reductions in impacts have been made by a permit applicant. Oculina Bank proposes to build on the most disturbed area of the site and it made costly1/ design changes to reduce impacts to wetlands. These factors, if combined with a demonstration that Oculina Bank would restore the site to create a net improvement for fish and other wildlife, would provide a reasonable basis for the Department to determine that the project impacts were minimized. However, Respondents' evidence that the project would result in a net environmental improvement was contradicted by Petitioners' evidence regarding the refuge and nursery functions of the wetlands and the project's adverse impacts to those functions. Petitioners' evidence on this point was not completely rebutted by Respondents. Oculina Bank did not provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not adversely impact the value of the refuge and nursery functions provided by the wetlands. This failure of proof was due mainly to insufficient evidence regarding (1) the interrelationship of exisiting channels and open water features on the site, (2) which features are natural and which are man-made, (3) how those features are used by fish, (4) how they will be altered by the project, and (5) how the nursery and refuge functions of the wetlands would be affected.2/ Under the circumstances of this case, it was not sufficient to merely show that the wetlands would be "re-connected" to the Lagoon. The finding made above should not be confused with Petitioners' argument that the non-natural conditions should be maintained on the site. No such finding is made. The Department did not consider the secondary impacts of the home sites, access drive, and surface water management systems because it had determined that there would be a net improvement in environmental value. However, the loss of refuge and nursery functions would prevent a net improvement in environmental value and it would cause secondary impacts to the tarpon and snook fisheries. Petitioners identified other secondary impacts, such as the impacts of human disturbance, which it said should have been considered. The other impacts discussed by Petitioners were considered by the Administrative Law Judge and it is found that those impacts are insignificant. The Proposed Docks Petitioners' original objection to the proposed project and their decision to file a petition for hearing appears to have been caused by Oculina Bank's proposal to build docks over 500 feet in length. The dock lengths in the final revision to the project vary in length from 212 to 286 feet. The docks do not extend out more than 20 percent of the width of the waterbody. The docks do not extend into the publicly maintained navigation channel of the Lagoon. Petitioners claim the docks would cause a navigation hazard. However, because the docks meet the length limit specified in rule chapter 18-21, they are presumed not to create a navigation hazard. Petitioners' evidence was not sufficient to rebut this presumption. To reduce shading of sea grasses, the decking material for the docks would be grated to allow sunlight to pass through the decking. There are no seagrasses at the waterward end of the docks where the terminal platforms would be located and where boats would usually be moored. The dock pilings will be wrapped with an impervious membrane to prevent the treatment chemicals from leaching into the water. The consolidated permit and authorization limits the vessels that can be moored at the docks to vessels with a draft that would allow at least 12 inches of clearance above the submerged lands at mean low water so no harm would be caused to submerged resources. Signs would be posted at each dock providing notice of this restriction. A dock owner is unlikely to know what size boat he or she is limited to, based on a permit condition which is worded this way. To provide reasonable assurance that submerged resources in the area are protected, the permit condition should be stated as a maximum permissible draft. The Department determined that the impacts of the docks, such as the installation of the pilings and shading of seagrasses would de minimis. That determination is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioners claim the Department failed to consider shading, prop wash, and scarring to seagrasses and oyster beds, and increased turbidity. Considering the use of grated decking, restricting vessels to a maximum draft, and other related factors, the more persuasive record evidence establishes that these potential impacts would be reduced to insignificance. Oculina Bank made alternative offers to satisfy the public interest requirement of the Department and Board of Trusteees rules; the first was to contribute $25,000 to the Marine Resource Council to remove five acres of non-native, invasive vegetation and plant mangroves on Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in the Indian River Lagoon; the second was to purchase one tenth (0.1) of a credit from the CGW Mitigation Bank. Petitioners objected to the offers as inadequate for various reasons, but as explained in the Conclusions of Law, neither offer is necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order that denies the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Submerged Land Authorization to Oculina Bank. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Department of Environmental Protection properly determined that Respondent City of Gulf Breeze was entitled to construct a concrete jetty at the mouth of Gilmore Bayou, to widen the mouth of the bayou an additional 35 feet, and to dredge sections of the bayou to a depth of minus eight feet.
Findings Of Fact On March 22, 1996, Gulf Breeze applied for a wetlands resource permit from DEP to allow the following: (a) dredging of the entrance channel to Gilmore Bayou in order to return the channel to its original width and depth; (b) construction of bulkheads on either side of the channel; and (c) construction of two jetties on the east side of the channel to slow the accretion of sediments in the channel. The proposed project is located in the waters of the state at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou where it opens into Pensacola Bay. The project is adjacent to and north of 406 Navy Cove Road, in the City of Gulf Breeze, Florida, Section 6, Township 35N, Range 29W. The Petitioner's home is located at 86 Highpoint Drive, Gulf Breeze, Florida. Her residence is downstream from the project at the northeastern end of Gilmore Bayou. The channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou was originally dredged in the mid-1950s. Since that time, the channel has provided a navigable outlet to Pensacola Bay for use by property and boat owners along Gilmore Bayou. The channel has also provided for water circulation and tidal flushing within the Bayou. Maintenance dredging has been performed almost annually to keep the Gilmore Bayou channel open. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce the need for the frequent maintenance dredging and to provide for better water circulation in the bayou. A wetlands resource permit to perform maintenance dredging has not been required in the past because that activity was exempt from the permitting process. On July 28, 1997, the Department issued Gulf Breeze a Notice of Intent to Issue Draft Permit Number 572874961 to construct one seventy (70) foot long concrete jetty at the mouth of Gilmore Bayou, widen the mouth of Gilmore Bayou an additional thirty-five feet and dredge sections of the Bayou to a depth of minus eight feet. In issuing the Notice of Intent to Issue, the Department also considered Gulf Breeze's application for a five- year sovereign, submerged land easement for the location of the jetty. Gulf Breeze published the Notice of Intent to Issue in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with DEP requirements and Section 373.413(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62-343.090(2)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition requesting that the permit be denied. Petitioner has a substantial interest in the permitted activity, as she owns property and resides on Gilmore Bayou. Petitioner's request that the permit be denied is primarily based on her opinion that water quality in Gilmore Bayou has deteriorated as a result of the original and continuous dredging of the channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou. She is concerned that the permitted activity will result in further water quality degradation and result in a further movement of the spit of land which extends in front of her home out to Deadman's Island on the northern side of the Bayou. The ecosystem in Gilmore Bayou today is a healthy system which supports various marshes and fish. The ecosystem thrives despite water quality degradation resulting from development and urbanization along its shores. More specifically, septic tanks, fertilizer runoff, and stormwater discharge have caused water quality to degrade in the Bayou. The most persuasive evidence indicates that the dredging of the channel over time has not caused the water quality to degrade. The permitted activity will have a positive effect on water quality in Gilmore Bayou, as it will enhance tidal flushing through the channel. The jetty, which is a part of the permitted activity, will slow the transport of sand into the channel, allowing for better flushing and reducing the need for maintenance dredging in the channel. Construction of the jetty is recommended and supported by the hyrdographic study of Kenneth L. Echternacht, Ph.D., P.E. Gulf Breeze obtained and submitted this study to DEP to assist in evaluating the project. The permitted activity will have no significant impact on the location of the spit of land extending from Petitioner's property to Deadman's Island. The shifting of the spit of land over the years has been caused by numerous factors which are identified in a 1993 study by Dr. James P. Morgan, Ph.D. These factors include development of the area, erosion of the surrounding bluffs, the location of the Pensacola Bay bridge, and storms and sand drift into channels to the east of the spit. Without this project or frequent maintenance dredging, the channel at the southwestern end of Gilmore Bayou would fill with silt. Eventually, the silt would inhibit water circulation and result in further water quality degradation in the bayou. The permitted activity is not contrary to the public interest. Instead, it will benefit the public interest. The project will make it possible to maintain the Gilmore Bayou channel more efficiently. The project will allow for increased flushing of the bayou. The increased flushing will improve water quality in the bayou. The permitted activity will not have any adverse effect on the conservation of fish or wildlife, or any endangered species or their habitats. The permitted activity will not adversely affect navigation or flow of water or cause any harmful erosion or shoaling. It will have a positive effect on navigation and water flow and act to prevent harmful erosion or shoaling. The permitted activity will have no adverse effect on fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. The permitted activity will provide for permanent jetties and bulkheads at the entrance to Gilmore Bayou. The permitted activity will have no adverse effect on historical or archeological resources on Deadman's Island or in the vicinity of the project. The permitted activity will have a positive impact on the recreational functions and use of the channel and Deadman's Island.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order determining that its Notice of Intent to Issue Permit, together with Permit No. 572874961, is final agency action. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jane Thies, Esquire Beggs and Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 Ricardo Muratti, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Patricia J. Moreland 86 Highpoint Drive Gulf Breeze, Florida 32561 Matt E. Dannheisser, Esquire 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
