The Issue Issues presented here concerned the entitlement of Respondent, Russell D. Horn, Sr., to be granted an environmental permit by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to build a boat stall on an existing dock in Putnam County, Florida. The boat stall's dimensions are ten feet wide by twenty feet deep and the construction would be on the St. Johns River.
Findings Of Fact On July 13, 1981, Russell D. Horn, Sr., who has a residence in Putnam County, Florida, bade application to the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, for the necessary permits to construct a boat stall ten feet wide by twenty feet deep at the site of an existing dock. A copy of the application may be found as Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The dock where Horn applied to build the boat slip is found in the St. Johns River, a navigable water body and waters of the State of Florida in Putnam County, Florida. The application form which was executed by Horn required him to indicate the name of adjacent property owners to the property at which the dock site was located, both upland and adjacent to the uplands. See Rule 17- 4.28(11)(c), Florida Administrative Code. To accomplish this task, the applicant utilized a sketch which he had been provided when he purchased his homesite in the area and indicated to the Department that the adjoining landowners were Milton Kilis and Robert Michal. In fact, Robert Michal was not an adjacent landowner. The adjacent landowner, Milton G. Kilis, wrote to advise the Department that he had no objection to the construction of the boat slip. This correspondence was dated September 11, 1981. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. After reviewing the initial application, additional information was requested by a document entitled "Completeness Summary" which was addressed from the Department to the Applicant Horn. A copy of this "Completeness Summary" requesting additional information may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Through this summary, Horn was requested to provide written authorization from the dock owners. It was also requested that Respondent provide an affidavit of ownership of the upland property adjacent to the dock site. Horn received permission to construct from Frank Scussell and William A. Reaves, persons he understood to be the dock owners. See Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. Horn misunderstood the question related to ownership of upland property and provided a mortgage deed with its attendant description of his home site property in Putnam County, which is at a different location from that of the upland property adjacent to the dock. A copy of that deed and other matters may be found as Respondent Horn's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. Department of Environmental Regulation reviewing authorities wrote on the "Completeness Summary" form, Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 1, indicating that the task of seeking written authorization from the dock owners had been achieved and that the affidavit of ownership of upland property owners was satisfactory. In fact, all adjacent property owners had not been notified of the pendency of the application request through the process of Horn's advising the Respondent agency of the names of all adjacent property owners to the uplands and the affidavit of ownership of the upland property owner at the dock site was not filed. During the review process, permission was given by the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, for the construction of the boat slip. A copy of this permission, by letter dated August 31, 1981, is Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the permit application and prepared an application appraisal, which may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. The findings made by that application appraisal related to application review are found to be accurate. In particular the permit application appraisal indicated that the boat slip would be located at the waterward end of the existing dock structure, which existing dock structure accommodated four boats. The appraisal found that the project was located in South Putnam County in the town of Georgetown on the St. Johns River. The permit appraisal found that the project site would be located in the littoral zone of the river about one hundred feet waterward of the mean high water line. No littoral growth was seen at the depth of the proposed construction. Tapegrass, Mexican waterlily and cattail were present near the shore. Several large hardwood swamp trees were present at the shoreline. The project was found to be located in a Water Class III and adjacent waters were Class III according to the appraisal, no significant immediate or long-term adverse environmental impacts were to be expected to occur due to the completion of the boat slip. Horn was subsequently given a construction permit to add the boat stall to the existing dock. A copy of that permit may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. The only specific conditions related to that matter pertain to the necessity for the utilization of turbidity curtains throughout the project for purposes of containing the turbidity that might exceed State water quality standards, The permit was issued on September 22, 1981. After receiving the permit, sometime around October 20, 1981, Horn purchased the necessary lumber to construct the stall and on October 24, 1981, went to the dock site to begin the installation of pilings related to the construction of the boat stall. While placing the pilings on October 24, 1981, an adjoining property owner and Petitioner in this cause, Marshall Wolfe, stood on his dock, that is, Wolfe's dock, and hailed to Horn to stop building. Horn did not know Wolfe before that time and did not know that Wolfe, not Michal, was the adjacent property owner on that side of the dock. On October 28, 1981, Marshall Wolfe and his wife, Ann Wolfe, wrote to the Department in the person of G. Doug Dutton, Subdistrict Manager, and indicated that they were opposed to the issuance of the permit, which is under the number of the permit issued to Respondent, and requested a hearing on the question of the issuance. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 7 admitted into evidence. On the same date, October 28, 1981, Horn was contacted by the Department of Environmental Regulation and advised of the Wolfe complaint and Horn was told that he would receive a cease and desist order from the Department of Environmental Regulation. On October 30, 1981, Horn returned to the construction site and found four of his neighbors finishing the construction of the stall. In fact, the neighbors did conclude the construction and the boat slip remains in place. A cease and desist letter was mailed on November 2, 1981; however, this letter was not received by Horn immediately. Horn did subsequently learn of the contents of the letter some time in November or December, 1981. A copy of the cease and desist letter may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. On December 13, 1981, an attempt was made at the instigation of Department officials for the Petitioners and Respondent Horn to resolve the controversy. This effort was unsuccessful. As a consequence, a formal hearing was necessary in keeping with the request of the Department that the Division of Administrative Hearings conduct a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, formal hearing. This request had been made on November 12, 1981, and an initial hearings had been scheduled for February 11, 1982, following consultation between the various parties and the Hearing Officer. At the initial hearing session on February 11, 1982, which was to be held in Palatka, Florida, counsel for Department indicated that the upland property was not owned by Horn and that easement rights to that property were unclear. In view of this fact the hearing was continued until the ostensible upland property owner could be notified of the pendency of the issuance of an environmental permit and be allowed to participate. Notification was subsequently provided by an Intent to Issue Statement, a copy of which may be found as Respondent Department's Exhibit No. 9 admitted into evidence. This notification was through the Department at the instigation of the Hearing Officer. The date of notification was February 12, 1982. An order was entered on March 17, 1982, which allowed the intervention of St. Johns Crescent Lakesites, Inc. into the proceedings and that party, in the person of its counsel, Lauren E. Merriam, III, Esquire, participated in the April 15, 1982 hearing. St. Johns Crescent Lakesites, Inc. is the owner of the upland property adjacent to the dock in which Horn had constructed the boat slip. No indication was given that any easement rights were ever granted by that corporation to grant access to the boat slip from the adjacent property. The overall dock area, in terms of square feet, is between 500 and 1000 square feet. Other than the permit application made by Horn, no other permission has been received by the Department to construct the other features of the dock. A further appraisal of the project site subsequent to the September 18, 1981, appraisal has been made. That appraisal was made by the field inspector for the Department. This appraisal by Melvin Rechtor agrees with the project appraisal made by the first field inspector, John Hendricks. The testimony of Melvin Rechtor on environmental impacts of the project are accepted as accurate. Rechtor's testimony established that the project would have an insignificant impact on water quality considerations and would not adversely affect the species or the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife or other natural resources. Rechtor's testimony established that there would be no unreasonable interference with waterward access of adjacent property owners. Rechtor's testimony also established that there would be no navigational hazard nor interference with fishing and swimming by persons using the river.
Findings Of Fact By application (Exhibit 1) dated September 15, 1978, WCMI requested a permit to dredge approximately 740 cubic yards of sovereign bottom lands in Snook Bay adjacent to upland property owned by applicant. At the same time applicant requested a lease of some 0.98 acres of submerged sovereign land, containing the area to be dredged, for the purpose of constructing a marina with docking facilities over the leased property. Following receipt of all requested information from applicant, plus objections from adjacent land owners, DNR, as the state agency acting on behalf of the Trustees Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF), held a public hearing in Naples, Florida on April 25, 1979. The Hearing Officer submitted a report following this hearing in which he recommended the lease be granted (Exhibit 4). After review DNR staff recommended granting the lease and before the Trustees took action, Petitioner requested this hearing. In the interim DER reviewed the application for a dredge and fill permit and, following a preliminary investigation, advised WCMI of its intent to deny the permit (Exhibit 8). At informal conferences with DER, WCMI revised its application to commence the dredging 25 feet from the existing seawall, reduce the amount of material to be dredged to 349 cubic yards and to move the floating dock sections further from the seawall. This revised application (Exhibit 10) was submitted to DER and, after review, DER on November 13, 1979 (Exhibit 11) issued its notice of intent to grant the requested permit. Petitioner then requested this hearing to contest the granting of this permit. The Isles of Capri was developed into a waterfront homesite project by bulkheading, dredging and filling a pristine mangrove area to provide the homesites now occupied by members of Petitioner. This project destroyed the ecosystem as it existed before the development. The area which is here proposed for lease and for a permit to dredge some 349 cubic yards therefrom is located in the originally disturbed area. Most of the homes on the Isles of Capri are built on waterfront lots and most homeowners have docks and boats. Fishing is generally considered good off the docks and in surrounding waters. The proposed marina is located in Snook Bay, a relatively small cul-de-sac-like area. On the dead end of Snook Bay, which is adjacent to the proposed marina, mangroves have been planted and the area designated as a park. Since these mangroves are rat infested, the park concept has not received general acceptance. However, the proposed marina will not adversely affect this park. Apart from the ecological problems that will allegedly be created by the leasing of the property and the dredging thereon, Petitioner alleges the project will interfere with other "rights" of the homeowners of the Isles of Capri. Although this Hearing Officer has considerable doubts as to the validity of these alleged rights, the facts presented relating thereto will be first considered. WCMI owns the uplands adjacent to this submerged land and this land is zoned General Retail Commercial, which includes use as a proposed marina. Use as a marina would create less additional vehicular traffic than would any of the other 12 uses considered most likely for this land. (Testimony of Barr) The proposed marina will provide wet dock space for 32 boats and dry storage for 116 boats in sheds with the boats stacked three-high. No ramps will be provided and boats will be launched and picked up by use of a forklift at the concrete seawall. Parking space for 54 vehicles will be provided. This parking space complies with local requirements, as does WCMI's proposed construction. Collier County and the area of Collier County in the vicinity of Isles of Capri is an area of rapidly increasing population. A need for some six additional marinas has been recognized by Collier County authorities. Numerous witnesses opposed the use of WCMI property as a marina because: They do not think the site is suitable for a marina, and a much smaller marina would be preferred. Installation of a marina would increase boat traffic, thereby increasing the risk of boat collisions, increase wake action which might damage seawalls, disrupt the peace and quiet now enjoyed by these residents, and increase the possibility of boats striking manatees. Property values in the vicinity of the proposed marina and elsewhere in the Isles of Capri might decline. Operation of a marina would increase the noise level, thereby disturbing occupants of residences closest to the proposed marina. Vehicular traffic would be greatly increased on the Isles of Capri once the marina commences operation. Most of these objections are beyond the jurisdiction of this tribunal. This property has been zoned for the use proposed and if this use is inappropriate, the proper recourse is with the local zoning authorities. The credible evidence submitted is that the operation of the marina would increase boat traffic in and out of Snook Bay some 20 round-trips per day and this increase will create and insignificant additional risk of collision with other boats or with the occasional manatee that is sighted. While most of this traffic will use the deeper channel that follows the seawalls and boat docks of residents, an alternate channel is available for use by boaters with local knowledge of its characteristics. Even if all traffic used the deeper channel, no serious hazard to navigation would thereby result. No credible evidence was presented that the increased boat traffic caused by the marina would increase the damage to a properly constructed seawall. Navigation of these waters is a right to be jealously guarded. If wave damage results, local authorities have jurisdiction to establish speed or wake restrictions. Furthermore, the more credible evidence presented was that at the Isles of Capri more subsidence of soil behind the seawalls is caused by tidal action than by wake action. No credible evidence was presented that the operation of the proposed marina would decrease property values. Even if this could be shown, such a use would be consistent with the usage for which this property is zoned. There are two marinas across the street from WCMI's proposed marina and no evidence was presented that the operation of these smaller marinas affected property values. The uncontradicted evidence that was submitted was that property values on the Isles of Capri have increased at a rate as great as, if not greater than, land values elsewhere in Collier County. The roads on Isles of Capri are presently operating far below capacity and the additional traffic expected to be generated by the proposed marina will have no significant impact on these roads, nor will the construction of the marina create any vehicular safety problems. Petitioner's contention that the construction and operation of the marina will create additional pollution because of septic tank, oils and greases, and water runoff from impervious surfaces is not well-placed. It is not well-placed in the first instance because this is not the proper forum in which to air these complaints. Local health and safety ordinances regulate the installation of septic tanks, installation of fueling facilities and retention of water falling on the property. Secondly, the evidence presented here is that WCMI will comply with all regulations regarding septic tanks, no live-aboard boats will be moored at the marina other than temporarily for fuel or supplies, fuel tanks will be underground on the upland area, provided with proper protection and insulation, and the fuel will be dispensed by hose from the fueling dock by experienced personnel. WCMI will provide containment booms and retrieving material to take care of the accidental spill that might occur. Collier County Ordinance requires the first 1-inch of rainfall be retained on the property and WCMI will comply with this requirement. From the testimony of the numerous residents who testified, the primary concern of most of those who object to the proposed installation is that "their" waters will become more available to people living elsewhere and this will somehow detract from the use and enjoyment of these waters by these residents. If access to the Isles of Capri is facilitated for people living elsewhere by the installation of this marina, these waters will become more crowded, resulting in less fish per resident, and this aquatic preserve will become less private and more available to the general public. These residents purchased their homesites because of the waterfront characteristics and the quietness and solitude of the area. Facilitating access by non-residents will necessitate sharing these waters with these non-residents, thereby detracting from the enjoyment residents hoped to retain undiminished forever. The allegations of Petitioner that merit the most serious consideration in both of these applications of WCMI involves those relating to the ecosystem. Petitioner contends that the proposed dredging will adversely affect the ecosystem and this requires denial of the dredge-and-fill permit. Without the permit the lease would be useless. Petitioner also contends the granting of the lease would be contrary to the public interest. WCMI's original application was to dredge from the seawall seaward some 60 feet until the desired depth contour was reached. Also, floating concrete docks would be adjacent to the seawall for berthing sites. When an inspection of the area disclosed the bottom grasses were heaviest from the seawall out to about 30 feet, the applicant was issued the Notice of Intent to Deny by DER because of these bottom grasses and the shading that would be caused by the floating docks. WCMI then proposed to do no dredging for the first 25 feet from the seawall, except for two areas 30 feet and 36 feet wide needed to launch boats, and also to move the floating docks 25 feet from the seawall so as not to shade the grassy areas. As noted above, the site under consideration was severely disturbed by the initial dredging which destroyed the original grassbeds at this site. Some of these grasses have now returned but the coverage is sparse and patchy. From the seawall out to about 30 feet the grass is Cuban shoalweed and manatee grass. Respondent's investigations and studies revealed only these two grasses. Petitioner's biologist who performed studies similar to those done by Respondent found halophila in the deeper waters (up to five feet) extending out as far as 60 feet from the seawall. Halophila is a more ephemeral grass that grows in deeper depths than Cuban shoalweed and manatee grass and is often found in previously dredged areas. The area proposed for dredging comprises some 1200 square meters, and seagrasses cover about one-fourth of the dredge area. Sample cores taken by Petitioner's expert in October while the more luxuriant summer growth predominated showed some 1600 blades of grass per square meter, while the winter sample taken by WCMI expert showed 467 blades per meter. In the 320 square meters of seagrasses in the area a total biomass of invertebrates was found to be 17 pounds. Using generally accepted conversion rates and invertebrate reproduction cycles to convert this biomass to fish, this weight of invertebrate biomass could be converted into between 2 and 10 pounds of fish annually. Removal of the seagrasses will remove feeding grounds and hiding areas for some types of aquatic animals and also take away the type of fish that inhabit such areas. On the other hand, the piling and other docking structures that will be installed will attract sessile organisms such as oysters, barnacles, etc. which currently attach themselves to rocks and mangrove roots in the vicinity. The biomass or weight of these organisms is likely to equal or exceed those to be lost by dredging away the seagrasses. While different types of fish will be attracted to the area where the shellfish and other attaching animals congregate than will be attracted to grassy bottoms, the change is not significant from a quality or quantity of fish point of view. The area to be dredged is an area that has partially recovered from its earlier destruction and there is no reason to believe a similar recovery will not recur after the dredging here proposed is completed. No evidence was presented that a collision between a boat and a manatee has ever occurred in the waters in the vicinity of the Isles of Capri. Any conclusion that such an incident is likely to occur because of increased boat traffic when the proposed marina is in operation would be sheer speculation. Furthermore, Collier County does not contain any of those designated waters wherein special manatee protection rules are to be set up. Nor is Snook Bay one of those areas where a concentration of manatees is likely to occur.
The Issue This case arises out of the denial by the Department of Environmental Regulation of an application by the Petitioner to construct a 24-slip marina on Bayou Chico in Pensacola, Florida. At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his on behalf and offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. The Respondent called as its only witness, Jeremy Craft, and offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. Counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact On March 18, 1982, Petitioner applied for a permit to dredge approximately 78,480 cubic yards from Bayou Chico and an unnamed embayment adjacent to the Bayou. The proposed project site is located in Pensacola, Florida, Bayou Chico in Section 59, Township 2 South, Range 30 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the south side of Bayou Chico just north of the Barrancas Avenue Bridge. On April 15, 1982, the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, sent a completeness summary to the Petitioner requesting additional information before the application or permit could be processed. Over a period of approximately a year and a half, Department of Environmental Regulation conferred with Petitioner concerning the proposed project and a number of different plans were discussed. In July of 1983, Petitioner submitted the July 11, 1983 plan, with modifications, and withdrew all prior plans. It is this plan which is the subject of this hearing. A field appraisal of the proposed site was made by Department of Environmental Regulation on December 25, 1982. On August 31, 1983, Department of Environmental Regulation issued an Intent to Deny the Petitioner's permit application. The Intent to Deny encompassed all plans and revisions submitted by the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation based its denial on Petitioner's failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated by his project. The Department's denial also asserted that the project would also result in matters adverse to the public interest. The final proposal submitted by the Petitioner sought a permit to dredge a strip 100 feet wide by 450 feet long to a depth of 6 feet. This strip is adjacent to a spit or strip of land which separates Chico Bayou from the emboyment. This plan was subsequently modified to include dredging an additional 100 to 150 feet along the full length of the strip. This additional dredging would take the dredged area out to the deep water of Chico Bayou and was intended to eliminate a channeling effect. The purpose of the dredging is to enable the Petitioner to construct a marina or docking facility along the split. The marina would include 24 slips. The proposed dredge area gradually slopes from the shoreline to five and six foot depths 200 to 250 feet from the spit. The water in the embayment is highly polluted and at one time was used as a holding pond for mahogany logs because the wood-boring worms could not survive in the water. Bayou Chico is also very polluted and fails to meet the water quality standards found in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, for the parameters lead, cadmium, copper, and aluminum among others. The bayou has for many years been used for boat and barge traffic. Jeremy Craft testified on behalf of DER and his opinions as to the impact of the project on water quality and marine life were uncontroverted. In Mr. Craft's opinion, the dredging proposed by the Petitioner would result in further degradation of the water quality in Bayou Chico by eliminating important shallow areas and underwater grasses. The deepening of the dredged area would limit the amount of oxygen available to the water in the bayou thereby harming the aquatic life by freeing many of the heavy metals which are presently bound in the sediments in the bayou. The shallow areas are the most important areas in cleansing the water. With increased oxidation, the biota survive better and the water is better cleansed. Freeing the heavy metals would allow their introduction into the food chain and accumulation in living organisms. The Petitioner has not informed DER of his specific dock specifications, stormwater plans, upland development plans, or dredge disposal plans. The type of dock will determine the type of boating traffic and this will indicate the amount and content of stormwater discharge. Because of the contaminated nature of the spoil, the Petitioner must provide reasonable assurances that the spoil and spoil water will be properly retained. Petitioner testified on his own behalf but did not present any evidence relating to the impact the proposed prod act would have on water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for a permit as set forth in the Intent to Deny previously issued by the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Thulman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Joe Pair 1200 Mahogany Mill Road Pensacola, Florida 32907 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has an option to purchase property located at 301-307 Island Way Boulevard, Island Estate, Clearwater, Florida, on which he proposes to construct ten townhouses. Initially Petitioner asked for two variances. The first variance was for 25.12 feet to allow construction on a lot only 124.88 feet wide. This variance was granted for this nonconforming lot. The second variance, for 13.24 feet to allow construction of the ten townhouse complex 12 feet from the side property line, was denied by the Clearwater Code Adjustment Board. The Board concluded the variance requested did not meet the requirements of Section 45.24 of the Clearwater Land Development Code. Petitioner presented evidence that if the lot had been 150 feet wide they would have had 90 feet to build on without requesting any variance. However, since the lot was nonconforming, in order to have 89 feet on which to place the building, the requested variance would be necessary. Petitioner also presented evidence that the construction of ten townhouses on this lot is necessary for the project to be on a solid economic basis. Subsequent to the denial of this variance by the Development Code Adjustment Board, Petitioner submitted plans, which have been approved by the City of Clearwater, to erect nine townhouses on this property without any variance needed. However, these townhouses would be smaller than would be the ten townhouses initially proposed and would provide a lesser return on the capital invested.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner, David E. Musselman, is the owner of Lot 23, Block 22, Cudjoe Gardens Eighth Addition, Cudjoe Key, Monroe County, Florida. The lot measures 127 feet along its front and rear property line, 135 feet along its side property lines and, similar to adjacent lots, its rear property line abuts an artificially created waterway. Currently, most of petitioner's lot enjoys an elevation of six feet; however, from the edge of the waterway landward a distance of approximately 20 feet [to what has been referred to as the "toe of the existing slope" in these proceedings] the surface consists of exposed caprock at an elevation of approximately four inches above mean high water. It is petitioner's desire to construct a single family residence upon such lot and, incident to such construction, to erect a seawall along the edge of the waterway such that the elevation at the waterway will be increased by two feet, and to backfill from the seawall to his home. Such backfilling would require the deposition of approximately 3,540 square feet of fill within the Department's jurisdiction, which was shown to extend from the edge of the waterway to the toe of the existing slope, and would raise the elevation in such area two feet above existing grade. On December 16, 1991, petitioner filed an application with respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department), for an exemption from the Department's wetland permitting requirements. If approved, such exemption would allow petitioner to construct the vertical seawall along the waterway, and backfill from the seawall to his proposed home. By notice of agency action dated February 14, 1992, the Department proposed to deny petitioner's application predicated on its conclusion that his proposal did not meet the exemption criteria established by Rule 17- 312.050(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner filed a timely protest to contest the Department's conclusion. The exemption Pertinent to this case, Rule 17-312.050(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, exempts from permitting the following activities: (g) Construction of seawalls or riprap, including only that backfilling needed to level the land behind the seawalls or riprap, in artificially created waterways where such construction will not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation or adversely affect flood control. An artificially created waterway shall be defined as a body of water that has been totally dredged or excavated and which does not overlap natural surface waters of the state. For the purpose of this exemption, artificially created waterways shall also include existing residential canal systems . . . . At hearing, the parties stipulated that the waterway which abuts the rear property line of petitioner's lot is an artificially created waterway, as well as an existing residential canal, and that the proposed project will not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation, or adversely affect flood control. Notwithstanding, the Department contends that petitioner's application should be denied because no need has been demonstrated that would support the construction of the seawall along the edge of the waterway, as opposed to locating it further inland, and therefore the amount of backfill, with its attendant loss of wetlands, is excessive. For the reasons set forth in the conclusions of law, the Department's position is untenable as a matter of law. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order approving petitioner's application for an exemption to construct a seawall, and to backfill from such seawall to his proposed home, as applied for. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of June 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own property located in Section 6, Township 9, Range 16 East, Gilchrist County, Florida (the "Moore property"). Mrs. Linda Bridges owns property adjacent to and south of the Moore property (the "Bridges property"). Respondent, Bridges ("Bridges"), is in possession and control of the Bridges property. Mr. Glenn Miller owns property adjacent to and south of the Bridges property (the "Miller property"). ITT-Rayonier owns property west of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "ITT property"). A dirt road runs north and south in front of and along the western border of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "road"). The road separates the ITT property, to the west, from the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties, to the east. Prior to 1989, surfacewater historically flowed in a northeasterly direction. It flowed northeasterly from the ITT property through a 24 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property. It then flowed north through a 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of the Moore property, across the Moore property, and into Weeks Lake to the north of the Moore property. In 1989, with the consent of Bridges but without a permit from the District, Petitioners began a construction plan that included the installation of two 62 inch culverts to enhance the northeasterly flow of surfacewater from the ITT property to Weeks Lake. One 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 24 inch culvert under the road forming the westerly boundary between the ITT property and the Moore and Bridges properties. The second 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 36 inch culvert on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. The second 62 inch culvert was needed so the same volume of surfacewater flowing from the ITT property through the 62 inch road culvert could continue its northerly flow from the Bridges property to the Moore property and on to Weeks Lake. Petitioners replaced the 24 inch road culvert with a 62 inch culvert but left intact the 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of their property. Thus, a greater volume of surfacewater can flow from the ITT property through the 62 inch culvert onto the Bridges property but a lesser volume of surfacewater can flow from the Bridges property through the 36 inch culvert onto the Moore property. Petitioners removed fill material from the ITT property to widen and increase the height of the road bed on the westerly boundary between the ITT and Moore properties. The heightened road bed impounds a greater volume of surfacewater on the ITT property before it flows over the road onto the Moore property. This can increase the rate of flow of surfacewater through the 62 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property under certain circumstances. Petitioners increased the depth and width of existing ditches, and added new ditches along a portion of the road bed onto the Bridges property. The increased ditch capacity further increases the volume of surfacewater that can flow onto the Bridges property. Petitioners constructed a berm running east and west on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. This increases the volume of surfacewater that can be impounded on the Bridges property without flowing onto the Moore property through areas other than the 36 inch culvert that Petitioners left intact on the southerly portion of their property. The 62 inch road culvert, increased ditch capacity, heightened road bed between the ITT and Moore properties, the berm on the southerly portion of the Moore property, and the 36 inch culvert increase the volume of surfacewater that is impounded on the Bridges property before continuing its historic northeasterly flow. Surfacewater impounded on the Bridges property floods the Bridges property and properties to the south of the Bridges property. Although flooding occurred on the Bridges property prior to the 1989 construction, flooding on the Bridges property and properties south of the Bridges property is greater since Petitioners completed construction. In addition, the ITT property drains more readily. On or about October 13, 1993, Bridges applied to the District for a General Surfacewater Management Permit to replace the 62 inch road culvert with a 24 inch culvert pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-4.2010(1)(a). A General Surfacewater Management Permit is issued for activities that have little or no potential adverse impact to surfacewater resources for the District. The application satisfied all of the criteria for the permit at issue. ITT does not object to the proposed permit even though more surfacewater will be impounded on the ITT property. Issuance of the proposed permit will approximate the flow of surfacewater that existed prior to Petitioners' installation of a 62 inch road culvert without a permit in 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Respondent, Paul Bridges', Application For Agriculture Or Forestry General Surfacewater Management Permit. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY 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 2nd day of March 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6656 Petitioners' Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1.-4. Rejected as immaterial 5. Rejected as recited testimony 6.-7. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 8. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 9.-13. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 14.-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 16.-19. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as recited testimony 23.-24. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Respondent, Paul Bridges, Proposed Findings Of Fact. Respondent, Bridges, did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, Proposed Findings Of Fact. All of the District's proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. and Jerrilyn Moore, pro se Route 2, Box 120-E Trenton, FL 32693 Paul Bridges, pro se Route 2, Box 120K-1 Trenton, FL 32693 Janice F. Bessinger, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Cole Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, FL 32056-1029 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060
The Issue Whether the Petitioner (the District) has the authority and cause to revoke Right of Way Occupancy Permit Number 9591 that permitted Respondent to erect a fence and maintain two oak trees on real property that is subject to the District's maintenance easement and, if so, whether the District has the authority and cause to demand the removal of the fence, the two oak trees, and a key lime tree from the easement area.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner of a single family residence located at 7900 Southwest 173rd Terrace, Miami, Florida. The rear of Respondent's property backs up to the north right of way of the District's C-100 Canal. The C-100 Canal is one of the works of the District and is an essential part of the District's flood control plan. The C-100 Canal system supports surface drainage and flood protection to approximately 40 square miles of Dade County, Florida. The property owned by the District in fee simple includes a strip of land that is adjacent and parallel to the north bank of the canal. This strip of land is twenty feet wide and provides the District with a portion of the land it requires for maintaining the canal. On February 18, 1964, Respondent's predecessor in title executed a document styled "Permanent Maintenance Easement" that granted to the District's predecessor agency an easement on and across a strip of land that constitutes the rear twenty feet of Respondent's property. The easement area is adjacent and parallel to the maintenance strip owned by the District. The instrument granting the easement provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . the grantors do hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the grantee . . . its successors and assigns, the perpetual maintenance easement and right for and to the use and enjoyment for canal maintenance purposes of the following described lands . . . for the purpose of ingress and egress in maintaining and operating Canal C-100, one of the works of the District . . ., and for no other purpose, it being understood and agreed that said land shall not be excavated and that no permanent structure of any kind shall be placed thereon. . . . All the covenants and agreements herein contained shall extend to and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective . . . successors and assigns. On April 9, 1992, the District issued to Respondent Permit Number 9591 which, subject to limiting conditions, authorized certain encroachments by Respondent into the easement area and described those encroachments as follows: 4' high chain link fence enclosure encroaching 20' and 2 trees inside the fenced enclosure within the District's 20' canal maintenance easement along the north right of way of C-100 located at the rear of 7900 Southwest 173rd Terrace. Permit 9591 provided, in pertinent part, as follows: . . . The Permittee [the Respondent], by acceptance of this permit, hereby agrees that he shall promptly comply with all orders of the District and shall alter, repair or remove his use solely at his expense in a timely fashion. . . . . . . By acceptance of this permit, the permittee expressly acknowledges that the permittee bears all risks of loss as a result of revocation of this permit. The District has enacted Rule 40E-6.381, Florida Administrative Code, which provides the following standard limiting conditions of Permit 9591 pertinent to this proceeding: The District's authorization to utilize lands and other works constitutes a revocable license. In consideration for receipt of that licensure, permittees shall agree to be bound by the following standard limiting conditions, which shall be included within all permits issued pursuant to this chapter. * * * (3) This permit does not create any vested rights, and . . . is revocable at will upon reasonable prior written notice. Permittee bears all risk of loss as to monies expended in furtherance of the permitted use. Upon revocation, the permittee shall promptly modify, relocate or remove the permitted use. In the event of failure to so comply within the specified time, the District may remove the permitted use and permittee shall be responsible for all removal costs. * * * (7) The permittee shall not engage in any activity regarding the permitted use which interferes with the construction, alteration, maintenance or operation of the works of the District, including: * * * (c) planting trees . . . which limit or prohibit access by District equipment and vehicles, except as may be authorized by the permit. Among the special limiting conditions of the permit are the following: The permittee is responsible for pruning trees in order that their canopies do not encroach within areas needed by the district for canal maintenance purpose. Upon the request of the district, the permittee shall trim or prune any growth which the district has determined interferes with the district's access, operations, and maintenance. Permittee shall be responsible for the maintenance of the canal right of way within the fenced area and also for the maintenance of the right of way to a point 10 feet outside the fenced area. At the time of the formal hearing, the easement area was enclosed by the fence that Respondent erected pursuant to Permit 9591 and there existed within the easement area two live oak trees and one key lime tree. The two oak trees were approximately ten years old. The evidence did not establish whether Respondent planted (or transplanted) the two oak trees. The key lime tree was planted by Respondent after the issuance of Permit 9591. It is necessary that the C-100 Canal be properly maintained and that the District have access to the canal for routine and emergency maintenance. Following Hurricane Andrew in August 1992, the District developed a maintenance plan for the C-100 Canal. The District did not have an established canal maintenance plan for the portion of the canal relevant to this proceeding at the time it granted Permit 9591. Prior to the development of its maintenance plan, little maintenance had been done on the canal in the area of Respondent's property. The District's decision to revoke Permit 9591 and to demand the removal of the fence and trees is in furtherance of the District's right of way maintenance plan and is only part of the District's enforcement and management efforts to remove permitted and non-permitted encroachments from maintenance easements in this area of the C-100 Canal. Respondent's property has not been singled out for this action. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent's property was the only area in the vicinity on which the District does not have 40' of unobstructed access adjacent to the canal. Respondent disputes that the District needs access to the portion of his property that is subject to the easement for the proper operation and maintenance of the C-100 Canal. Pertinent to this proceeding, the maintenance plan adopted by the District includes the use of land based equipment for erosion control and mowing of maintenance right of way areas and the routine and emergency dredging of the canal channel. The plan sets forth the anticipated maintenance activities for the area of the canal relevant to this proceeding, the type equipment that will be used, and the amount of right of way that will be required to perform the work. Emergency maintenance of the canal may be required in response to a heavy rain event since the District must be able to respond quickly if a part of the canal becomes clogged with debris. The equipment that the District will likely use for maintenance includes batwing mowers, front end loaders, dump trucks, draglines, and towboats. The District established that the 20' strip of land it owns in fee title does not provide sufficient room for the maneuvering of the heavy equipment that will be required for the routine and emergency maintenance of the canal. These pieces of heavy equipment require 40' of unobstructed land to set up and to operate safely and effectively. The District established that it needs the additional area provided by the easement on Respondent's property to properly perform its operation and maintenance of the C-100 canal. The fence that Respondent erected pursuant to Permit 9591 blocks the District's access to the easement area. Consequently, it is found that the District has cause to revoke Permit 9591 as it pertains to the fence. The District's easement entitles it to unobstructed access to the easement area and provides the District with the authority it needs to demand that Respondent remove the fence. The District established that it has cause to demand that Respondent remove the fence from the easement area. Respondent also disputes that the two live oak trees and the key lime tree that are in the easement area need to be removed even if it is found necessary to remove the fence. In their present condition, the three trees, especially the two oaks, obstruct a major portion of the easement area and interfere with the District's intended use of the easement area. Even if the trees are pruned as they grow to maturity, they will significantly interfere with the District's intended use of the easement. The bases of the oak trees are approximately 2.5' and 6.5', respectively, from Respondent's rear property line within the easement area. The two oaks are approximately the same size and are expected to grow to maturity at the same rate. At the time of the formal hearing, the canopies of the trees were approximately 20' tall and 10' wide. In five years, the canopies are expected to be approximately 25' tall and 25' wide. In ten years, the canopies are expected to be 30' tall and 30' wide. At maturity, the canopies are expected to be 35' tall and 40' wide. The District has cause to revoke Permit 9591 as it pertains to the two oak trees. The District also has cause to demand that Respondent remove the two oak trees from the easement area. The instrument granting the District the maintenance easement provides the District with the authority it needs to demand that Respondent remove the two oak trees. The base of the key lime tree is approximately 10' from Respondent's rear property line within the easement area. Although this is a relatively small tree, its presence obstructs the operation of equipment within the easement area. At maturity the canopy of the key lime tree is expected to be between 12 to 15' in height and between 12 and 15' in width. The tree trunks and the tree canopies obstruct the operation of equipment within the easement area. This interference cannot be resolved by pruning the trees. The District has cause to demand that Respondent remove the key lime tree that he planted on the easement area since that tree was not permitted by Permit 9591 and is contrary to limiting condition 7(c). The existence of the key lime tree is found to interfere with the District's intended use of the easement. The instrument granting the District the maintenance easement provides the District with the authority it needs to demand that Respondent remove the two oak trees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a final order that revokes Permit 9591 and demands that Respondent remove the fence, the two oak trees, and the key lime tree from the easement area within thirty days from the date the final order becomes final. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 6th day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0049 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 45 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3, 8, 28, 29, 41, 42, 43, and 44 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 23 and 24 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 26 and 27 are incorporated as preliminary matters, but are rejected as findings of fact because they are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 32, 33, 34, and 35 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent the proposed findings of fact are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott Allen Glazier, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Mr. Robert A. Robinson 7900 Southwest 173rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33157 Samuel E. Pool, III, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department was the state agency responsible for the regulation and issuance of dredge and fill permits for waters of the state. Hunt is a real property development company which owns the property in issue located contiguous to Sarasota Bay on the east and an artificial canal, dredged many years ago, located to the south. The property in issue includes submerged lands. Petitioners, Manasota and Manatee are environmental interest associations whose standing as parties hereto was stipulated to by Hunt and the Department. The Rosens are owners of a piece of land at the bayward end of the property located to the south of the artificial canal to the south of the property in issue. On September 2, 1988, Hunt applied to the Department for a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock system four feet wide and approximately one thousand feet in length along the northern edge of the artificial canal. Four access walkways would extend from the existing berm to the north out to the proposed dock. The request also sought permission to trim mangroves to facilitate construction of and provide access to the dock; to place 22 cubic yards of fill to stabilize an existing private road; and to relocate the existing access channel by dredging approximately 700 cubic yards of material. Petitioners do not object to the placement of the 22 cubic yards of fill. During the review process, the Department identified several deficiencies in the proposal which it required be modified before a permit could be issued. Hunt agreed to comply with all of the Department's modifying requirements. As a result, in its amended form the proposal calls for the dock to be reduced in size from 5,080 square feet to approximately 3,800 square feet; access points to be reduced from four to three; the installation of a flushing system consisting of a 30 inch culvert between the west end of the canal and the mangrove swamp to the north to enhance the water quality in the artificial canal; the submittal of historical information to demonstrate the existence of a historic canal which would support maintenance dredging; and the submittal of a mitigation proposal for the seagrasses which would be destroyed by the dredging of a new channel and for the mangroves to be trimmed to facilitate the dock construction. The revised application also sought permission to construct a previously approved (different permit) boardwalk, the mitigation for which has been completed and is apparently successful. This mitigation is located in the northern boundary of the Hunt property. The wetlands area adjacent to Hunt's north property line is a Class II, Outstanding Florida Water, (OFW). The property in issue is located contiguous to Sarasota Bay, a Class II water body designated as an OFW). This portion of the bay is not approved for shellfish harvesting. Sometime between 1951 and 1957, a channel was dredged from the Intracoastal Waterway running generally north and south in the bay, west across approximately 400 feet of bay bottom into what was then a mangrove forest on the east side of Longboat Key. The westernmost 1400 foot extension of that channel into the forest is the artificial canal in issue which receives untreated storm water runoff from Jungle Queen Way, the roadway to the south of the canal. The canal is a Class III water and is not an OFW. Approximately 1,225 feet of the southern shoreline of that canal is seawalled, with approximately 35% of the southern shoreline having mature mangrove trees along it. The entire northern shoreline is vegetated by mature mangrove trees. There is no seawall on the northern shore. The canal varies in depth from less than one foot at points to a maximum of 7 1/2 feet at other points. As a result of shoaling at the canal juncture with the bay, a sand spit has formed, and at low tide, water depth is minimal but allows the passage of shallow draft vessels if their motors are raised. The original channel has silted in to a great degree and has become vegetated by approximately 1,350 square feet of various shoal grasses. It is home to several species of water animal including crown conch, lightning whelk, venus sunray clams, jingle shell, banded tulip snail and common nassa snail as well as supporting a diverse and abundant group of bottom dwelling organisms. The grass beds are fish habitats as well as nursery and feeding grounds and fish species present include some important to commercial and sport fishing. Though the remains of the original channel are often indistinct and difficult to define, the Department, in its analysis of the application for permit, determined from a review of the documentary evidence presented , and it is also found here, that a historic channel exists as described, and is navigable at least fifty percent of the time. As such, the Department concluded that that channel qualified for the maintenance dredge exemption. The Department also concluded that a minimum amount of dredging would be required to clear the historic channel sufficiently to allow boats to utilize it during a full range of tidal conditions. The seagrass beds currently existing in the historic channel would be substantially damaged by a maintenance dredging in the area. Though the Department has no authority to require mitigation for this impact should Hunt exercised its right to maintenance dredge, as an alternative, Hunt proposed to dredge a hook shaped channel curving to the north around that portion of the historic channel which penetrates the grass beds. This alternative site is also located in Class II waters and an Outstanding Florida Water. Dredging at the alternative site would displace much the same amount of material, (approximately 700 cubic yards), and the resultant channel would be approximately the same length, width, and depth overall. The alternative site will cross an area which contains a shoal grass, Cuban Shoalweed, but utilization of this site will have a substantially lesser impact to the overall seagrass population than would dredging of the historic channel. If Hunt chooses to utilize the alternative route, it would have to comply with the Department's mitigation requirements which include transplanting the displaced grass from the alternative channel to another location. The conditions for the mitigation were developed by Department personnel in conjunction with the Department of Natural Resources whose personnel have agreed to participate in the transplantation. Hunt has agreed to undertake additional mitigation planting regardless of whether the transplant is successful. The Department has determined that Hunt's total mitigation program is sufficient to offset the adverse impacts of the proposed dredging. Any sea grasses in the area of the channel will be protected by the installation of signs indicating their location. Speed will be limited by the installation of "No Wake" zone signs, and, in addition, the natural dog-leg in the channel should minimize the impact to adjacent shorelines and reduce the potential for shoaling or erosion. The Department gathered water quality data for the area from 1988. This is consistent with the current statutory and rule criteria which permits the use of data existing in the year prior to application. To supplement this, however, the Department also required that Hunt submit water quality data for the actual project site as a part of the application process. From this input, existing ambient water quality standards were established. To insure that these existing ambient water quality standards within the OFW are maintained during construction, the Department has established a mixing zone and has indicated a requirement for the use of double turbidity curtains. Additional safeguards include limiting dredging to periods of low tide. The Department has concluded that these prosthetic activities will most likely result in maintenance of the water quality standards required for Class II and OFW. Any diminishment of those standards would be of limited duration. The Department was also satisfied that the project would not adversely impact in this area after construction was completed and the facility in operation. In support of this position, the Department relied on evidence tending to show that the design of a culvert proposed for incorporation into the project should significantly improve flushing of the water within the canal. Pollutant loading to the system should be reduced as a result of the biological filtration of the mangrove community which will absorb many of the excess nutrients currently in the canal water, and the removal of suspended solids. Expert evidence on the subject indicates that flushing time, currently estimated at 9 days, will be reduced to less than 4 days. Polluting activities, such as fueling facilities, live-aboards, and major repair and maintenance of boats in the canal will be prohibited. Any pollutants not removed by the natural filtration process described above will, therefore, remain in the canal water for less time than before. If vessels are docked in the canal, the minimal amount of resulting oil and grease pollution should not be sufficient to degrade water quality in either the canal or the bay to a point below acceptable established standards. In fact, such impact should be both non-detectable and non-measurable.. Hunt's plan calls for the removal of approximately 20 of the approximately 2,400 mangrove trees and the trimming of approximately 230 additional ones. Though this trimming, as a part of an exempt activity, is also exempt, and as a result, mitigation in not required, Hunt indicates its intention to plant 3 trees for every tree removed or trimmed, and this proposal, considered acceptable to the Department, has been incorporated as one of the permit conditions. The new mangrove area to be planted in mitigation should be fully established within 3 years of planting and will provide the same beneficial function as the replaced trees. Hunt's mitigation planting for the previously mentioned boardwalk project has been successful. To protect the manatee population as much as possible, the Department has also included conditions to the permit requiring the posting of manatee awareness signs along the canal and channel and the installation of a permanent informational display at the facility. These measures, though no guarantee of compliance by individual boaters, are currently the most effective safeguards short of prohibition of boat activity. The Department has concluded, and it is so found, that, considering the proposed project against the statutory criteria relating to dredge and fill permitting of this nature, the project, as conditioned, is in the public interest and would have no cumulative impact on the environment in the area. When the 36 special conditions attached to the permit by the Department are complied with, the effect on fish and wildlife resources in the area should be beneficial. As a result of the mitigation activities, both mangrove and seagrass populations should be increased and the shoreline enhanced. Water quality in the canal should be significantly improved above existing conditions, and the abandonment of the historic maintenance dredging operation, with its associated impacts, is clearly in the public interest. The incorporation of a permit condition precluding any subsequent maintenance dredging in the historic channel upon completion of the relocation is a safeguard clearly in the public interest. The evidence also indicates, supporting Departmental findings to that effect, that the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or property of others; nor will it adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, endangered, threatened or other. It will not adversely affect navigation or flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. It will not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the area; nor will it endanger significant historical or archaeological resources which exist currently in the area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case granting a Dredge and Fill permit to Hunt Building Corporation consistent with the terms and conditions outlined in the Department's Intent to Issue, dated March 29, 1990, under file NO. 41-1542543. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 3rd day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NO. 90-2350 & 90-2736 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR PETITIONERS, MANASOTA AND MANATEE: 1. Accepted. 2(a) - (e). Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Accepted. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 22. Not appropriate Findings of Fact. Should be in Conclusions of Law. 23. - 26. Rejected. 27. - 30. Accepted and incorporated herein. 31. - 33. Accepted. Accepted except for last clause. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the state of the evidence. Rejected. Not proven. Not a proper Finding of Fact and not supported by authority. Accepted and incorporated herein except that the canal is a Class III water body. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Rejected. Accepted. Accepted but not determinative of any issue of fact or law. Ultimate Fact. Rejected. FOR RESPONDENT HUNT Accepted and incorporated herein. & 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Repetitive information. 14-1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT: 1. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23. & 24. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Martin Rosen 672 Jungle Queen Way Longboat Key, Florida 34228 Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Patricia Petruff, Esquire John V. Quinlan, Esquire Dye & Scott, P.A. P.O. Box 9480 Bradenton, Florida 33506 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
