Findings Of Fact This case is presented for consideration based upon the Respondent, Gunard C. Brautcheck, Sr.'s request for hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on the relief sought by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, in which the Petitioner has filed a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action on March 2, 1980. See DER File No. IW-16-80. The Petitioner is an administrative agency in the State of Florida which has the responsibility to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce Florida Air and Water Pollution Act, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder; namely, Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent, Gunard C. Brautcheck, Sr., is the owner of a tract of agricultural land located in Lake County, Florida, in Sections 29 and 32, Township 18 South, Range 27 East. This tract of land is known as the Springhill Farm and is located in an area referred to as Eustis Meadows, a wetlands area which is contiguous to several lakes. One of those lakes is Lake Serpentine, which covers an area of twenty-two (22) acres. The Brautcheck wetlands are drained for the purpose of the cultivation of grasses, hay and sorghum to be used for dairy feed. The Respondent achieves drainage relief by the utilization of a series of interior ditches and this area which has been drained and protected from external overflow at the southern perimeter of the Respondent's property through the utilization of an earthen berm or dyke separating that water source and the property which has been drained. In particular, this berm or dyke serves to repel the water flow from Lake Serpentine in the times of extreme high incidents of rainfall. On those occasions, there is a water connection from Lake Serpentine through the marshlands north of that lake and up to the point of the berm which is at the southern perimeter of the Brautcheck property. Although the Respondent has taken action to protect against the overflow from Lake Serpentine area and has utilized a series of ditches to protect against the internal inundation of his property, there are times when the interior ditches are inadequate to handle the volume of water without backflow onto the property. To contend with this eventuality, the Respondent has employed a pump which is used to evacuate the water from the interior ditches on his property with the pumping points being the southernmost interior ditch adjacent to the berm. The water that is pumped flows through the hero by way of drainage pipes with the water entering the marshlands through that water route and eventually into Lake Serpentine. The water that is pumped out of the ditches on the Brautcheck property also will eventually enter another lake to the west of his property known as Trout Lake. This connection is made through the marshlands into a culvert system which has a flapper valve, with the culvert having an outfall into the waterway known as "Hick's Ditch" and from that waterway directly into Trout Lake. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1 and 5 admitted into evidence contain map grids which show the proximity of the Brautcheck pump site to Lake Serpentine and the attendant marshlands known as Eustis Meadows and Trout Lake. Lake Serpentine and Trout Lake are lakes over which the Petitioner has jurisdiction and regulatory authority and the marshlands between the southern berm referred to herein and Lake Serpentine are also with the agency's jurisdiction and authority. Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 3 and 6 are photographs depicting the pump; the interior drainage ditch; and the berm in that area of marshlands adjacent to the property. The marshlands as depicted in the photographs were inundated by water at the time the Photographs were made. Photographs found in Exhibit 6 show the pump in operation. The waters of the interior ditch which are being directly pumped through this system and into the receiving waters have high biochemical oxygen demand; high nutrient value, in particular nitrogen and phosphorus; depressed levels of dissolved oxygen and high ammonia content. This is borne out by the water quality tests which were made on August 29, 1979, and again on September 25, 1979, as depicted in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 1 and 5, respectively. The values attributed to the water samples taken in the interior ditch as contrasted with samples taken in the marsh area immediately adjacent to the south of the ditch and in Lake Serpentine proper, show that a degradation of water quality is occurring with the introduction of the water from the interior ditches into the receiving waters in the marsh area. This degradation is occurring in the marsh area and in Lake Serpentine. In addition, algae bloom occurs in the interior ditch which can be transmitted by pumping water containing these blooms into the receiving waters and this type of bloom when it dies, has a very detrimental affect on dissolved oxygen levels. This type of algae bloom is not found in Lake Serpentine in it natural state. The effect of pumping the water of the interior ditch on the Brautcheck property into the wetlands and eventually into Lake Serpentine could result in fish kills and be harmful to other aquatic life, to include plants and animals. The Respondent was first made aware of the problem of the discharge through his pumping system into waters which are regulated by the State in a letter from the Lake County Pollution Control Board dated March 27, 1979, which advised him of the necessity to obtain a permit. This letter may be found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1. On June 27, 1979, the Petitioner notified the Respondent of the necessity to comply with the Provisions related to permits as found in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of this letter of notice by certified mail may be found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 admitted into evidence. The Respondent having failed to reply to that letter, an additional letter was forwarded on August 22, 1979, from the Petitioner to the Respondent stating the necessity for permit and indicating the possible consequence of this noncompliance, and a copy of this correspondence may be found in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2. Subsequent to this time, the pump was seen to be operating and discharging water into the receiving waters of the State as recently as October 9, 1979. The Respondent having failed to reply to the August 22, 1979, letter of warning, there ensued the current March 2, 1980, Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action as forwarded by the Department, and in the course of investigating this case, the Department has incurred expenses in the amount of five bonded fifteen dollars and seventy-two cents ($515.72).
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact made herein and the Conclusions of Law reached, the following disposition is recommended: That the Respondent be ordered to immediately cease and desist the operation of the pumping /system installation in the absence of an appropriate and currently valid permit and that a final order by the Department be entered to this effect. That within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order of the Department Secretary the Respondent should be required to pay to the Department an amount of five hundred fifteen dollars and seventy-two cents ($515.72) as the necessary cost and expenses incurred by the Department in tracing an abetting this source of pollution, with that payment being made to the Department of Environmental Regulation, Pollution Recovery Trust Fund. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. 1/ CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1980.
The Issue This case involves a challenge to St. Johns River Water Management District’s (District or SJRWMD) intended issuance of an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, for the construction and operation of a surface water management system for a retrofit flood-relief project known as Drysdale Drive/Chapel Drive Drainage Improvements consisting of: excavation of the Drysdale Drive pond (Pond 1); improvement to the outfall at Sterling Lake; and the interconnection of Pond 1 and four existing drainage retention areas through a combination of pump stations and gravity outfalls (project or system). The issue is whether the applicant, the City of Deltona (City or Deltona), has provided reasonable assurance the system complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the District’s ERP regulations set forth in Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code,1 and the Applicant’s Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005) (A.H.).2
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to the City of Deltona an ERP granting the City's Application No. 4-127-97380-1, subject to the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 2006.
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent failed to maintain sewage drains and to prevent the presence of roaches in violation of Food Code Rules 5-402.13 and 6-501.111, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating restaurants in the state. Respondent is licensed as a restaurant, pursuant to license number 3912699, and is located at 1235 Hillsborough Avenue, Tampa, Florida. A sanitation and safety specialist (Specialist) for Petitioner inspected the restaurant on March 15, 2006. Respondent committed two violations. One violation involved waste water sewage, and the other involved roaches. Waste water sewage backed up into the mop sink in the floor drain in the dishwashing room. Waste water also backed up in the kitchen hand sink drain. Eight roaches were present in a shelf, and 10 roaches were clustered in cracks in a pipe. Another roach crawled out from behind the kitchen stove. The deficiencies were significant violations. Petitioner issued an emergency order closing the restaurant. Respondent corrected the offenses in one day. There is no evidence the violations are continuing. Respondent submitted credible and persuasive evidence of diligent efforts to maintain the restaurant in proper condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of committing the acts and violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine of $1,000, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date that the agency serves Respondent with a copy of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria B. Vences Los Tucanes 1235 East Hillsborough Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy began on July 9, 1990, when petitioners, David and Victoria Page, filed an application with the district office of respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing certain construction activities (including the erection of a seawall) on their residential lot located at 3108 Gulfwinds Circle, Hernando Beach, Florida. The property faces west on the Gulf of Mexico, a water body designated as a Class III water in the State. The application was eventually deemed to be complete on October 24, 1990. After conducting a review of the application and an on-site inspection of the property, on January 18, 1991, DER issued its notice of permit denial. The notice identified the reasons for the denial as being petitioners' failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated and that the project would be in the public interest. Also, DER cited expected adverse cumulative impacts if the application was granted. The notice provided further that if petitioners agreed to locate their seawall landward of the jurisdictional line, the project would be approved. In July 1991, petitioners amended their application to propose that the seawall be constructed even further seaward of the jurisdictional line. When efforts to resolve the case were unsuccessful, petitioners requested a formal hearing on January 17, 1992, to contest the agency's decision. Petitioners purchased their property in 1989. It lies within Unit 2 of Gulf Coast Retreats, a residential subdivision in Hernando Beach, Florida. The property is identified as lot 20 on Gulfwinds Circle and fronts the Little Pine Island Bay (Bay), which is a part of the Gulf of Mexico. Access to the Gulf is provided by a channel (six feet in depth) in the Bay in front of lot 20 and which eventually runs into the Gulf several miles south of petitioners' lot. It is undisputed that in 1985 Hurricane Elena passed offshore causing erosion to lot 20 and other adjacent lots. Consequently, the upland portion of the lot is now smaller than before the hurricane. However, petitioners purchased their property in that state of condition. Lots 19 and 21 are on the south and north sides of petitioners' property and are owned by the Steins and Budricks, respectively. Both neighbors have constructed vertical concrete seawalls in front of their homes. Budrick was issued a permit to construct a seawall on December 28, 1989, while Stein constructed his without a permit. However, Stein has subsequently filed an after-the-fact permit application and was recently advised by DER that the application was complete. At hearing, a DER representative expressed the view that the Stein application will probably be approved since his wall is landward of the DER jurisdictional line. It is noted that the Stein and Budrick seawalls sit back from the original property lines because of the erosion suffered during the 1985 hurricane and correspond to the jurisdictional line established by DER on their property. Another application for a permit to construct a seawall was filed by the owner of lot 18 in March 1992. Like Stein and Budrick, that owner proposed to construct his wall on the landward side of the jurisdictional line. Petitioners, who live in Kansas, desire to construct a home on their lot. They have proposed to place one hundred cubic yards of fill (limerock) on 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands on the western end of their lot and construct a 110-foot vertical seawall up to thirty feet seaward of the jurisdictional line. Thus, there will be dredge and filling activities in the Gulf of Mexico, a class III water of the state, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of DER. By law, DER is required to establish a jurisdictional line to show the landward extent of waters of this state, including the Gulf of Mexico. Such extent is normally defined by species of plants or soils which are characteristic of those areas subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters of the state. As a general practice, using a prescribed plant or species indicator list, DER makes an on-site inspection of the property to determine what vegetation, if any, is found on the property and is subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters. In this case, the dominant vegetation found on lot 20 was paspalum distichum, a plant on the species list subject to regular and periodic inundation by the Gulf waters. Accordingly, DER observed where the vegetation ended and used that point for the placement of the jurisdictional line. As a cross check, DER also noted the rack line, which is indicative of the landward extent to which the high tides rise, and found it to correspond to the vegetation line. It should be noted that the jurisdictional line established on petitioners' property corresponds with the line drawn on lots 18, 19 and 21, and if that line is used to construct the seawall on lot 20, the seawalls on all four lots would run in a straight line. Although petitioners objected to the jurisdictional line as established by DER, they offered no credible evidence to show that it was improper or should have been placed at a different location. On January 9 and 15, 1991, Richard W. Pugh, a DER field environmental specialist, conducted an on-site inspection of the property and adjacent waters. He also was responsible for establishing the jurisdictional line. Finding numerous adverse environmental effects that would occur if the permit was granted as proposed, Pugh recommended that the application be denied. This recommendation was accepted by the deputy assistant secretary for DER's Southwest District Office and a notice of permit denial was accordingly issued. The bases for the denial were that (a) reasonable assurances had not been given by petitioners that water quality standards would be satisfied; (b) a cumulative adverse impact on the area would occur if the permit was approved, and (c) petitioners had failed to give reasonable assurances that the project was in the public interest. In order to prove entitlement to a permit, petitioners must give reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is in the public interest. In this respect, they offered no evidence to provide these assurances. This in itself supports a finding that no entitlement to a permit has been shown. Even so, the agency elected to present evidence on these issues after petitioners' case-in-chief was concluded. Findings of fact drawn from that evidence are set forth below. On April 6, 1992, a DER marine biologist, Dr. George H. Farrell, visited the site and conducted a biological evaluation of the composition of the benthic community in the intertidal and subtidal wetlands which would be impacted by the project. Based on his tests and observations, Dr. Farrell concluded that the project as proposed would have an adverse impact on marine and wildlife resources in the area. This is because the area has very good water quality, contains a high species diversity, performs an integral part in the food web, and serves a valuable nursery function for estuarine dependent juvenile fish species and a corridor function for migrating estuarine dependent fish species. This testimony was not challenged by petitioners and is hereby accepted. 1/ In granting or denying a water resource permit, DER is also required to consider certain statutory criteria found in Subsection 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, to determine whether a project is in the public interest. Although petitioners did not address these criteria, and thus failed to give any assurances that the project is in the public interest as required by law, testimony adduced by DER established that under petitioners' proposal, there will be a permanent loss of 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands due to filling activities. These wetlands are now used by fish and wildlife habitat and will no longer be available for use. In addition, the same area is used as a nursery area by a variety of fish species. As such, the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats and will adversely affect the fishing values and marine productivity in the vicinity. Second, because petitioners' proposed seawall will jut out from their neighbors' walls by as much as thirty feet, and the corners of the seawall in that configuration will result in erosion or shoaling depending on whether the waters are moving north or south, the project will cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Third, because the wall is being constructed of concrete and steel and is not temporary, the project will be of a permanent nature and thus have a permanent adverse impact. Finally, the ecological functions being performed in the immediate vicinity of the project are extremely important and the elimination of this zone will significantly impair those functions. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the project is not in the public interest. DER has a policy of not granting a permit if adverse cumulative impacts may be expected as a result of granting that permit. This policy is derived from a statute (s. 403.919, F.S.) requiring such impacts to be considered in the permitting process. In the case at bar, DER reasonably predicts that if it granted petitioners' application and authorized them to construct a seawall which jutted out up to thirty feet beyond their neighbors' walls, it would be obligated to grant similar permits to property owners on adjacent lots. Because petitioners' application will have an adverse impact on the water quality and is contrary to the public interest, the granting of additional permits would exacerbate those impacts. When an applicant proposes to fill (destroy) wetlands, and the applicant is unable to meet the public interest criteria set forth in subsection 403.918(2), DER shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. In this case, no mitigative measures were proposed by petitioners. At hearing, petitioners' representative asserted that in June 1991, the Cabinet (presumably sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) implemented a new "policy" which allows property owners to "recover and bulkhead" land previously lost due to avulsion and erosion. He further represented that such requests were to be filed within five years after the event (hurricane). Although petitioners were not the property owners when the event occurred, and more than five years has elapsed, in July 1991 petitioners filed a request with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reclaim and bulkhead their property and that request remained pending as of the date of hearing. A copy of the policy itself (or rule, if any, implementing the policy) was not made a part of this record. Even so, there was no evidence to establish that the granting of that application would require DER to grant a water resource permit, and DER takes the position that the request has no bearing on the issue of whether a water resource permit should be issued to petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioners' application for a water resource permit. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1992.
The Issue There are two sets of issues to be considered in this matter which require separate determination. The issues in D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-2133 pertain to a notice of violation and orders for corrective action filed against Michael H. Hatfield related to the alleged construction of a causeway from a mainland shoreline to an island owned by Hatfield. In particular, that action by the Department alleges certain violations of environmental law and demands restoration of the area in which the causeway was constructed. The companion case, D.O.A.H. Case No. 84-0465, concerns Hatfield's request to construct a causeway from the mainland to the island in a location apart from the existing causeway. The Department has denied Hatfield's request for necessary permission to install that causeway.
Findings Of Fact Michael H. Hatfield is the owner of property in Marion County, Florida. That property is located on Lake Nicatoon, a 307 acre nonmeandered water body. Lake Nicatoon is a Class III water body as defined in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. To gain access to the island from the mainland, Hatfield sought permission from the Department of Environmental Regulation to construct a causeway from the mainland to the island. The area between the mainland and the island is subject to water level fluctuations in that at times it is essentially dry and other times is under the waters of Lake Nicatoon. His application for environmental permits was filed on May 13, 1980. A copy of that application may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 4, admitted into evidence. His proposed project calls for the placement of approximately 525 cubic yards of fill in wetlands and littoral zones adjacent to the mainland and island. Per the application, the causeway would be 7 yards wide at the bottom and a length of approximately 73 yards and is to be constituted of sand and crushed concrete block. In particular, Hatfield wishes access to allow construction of a residence on the island and to gain entrance to the residence after construction. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the application and on May 27, 1980, made a request to Hatfield to provide additional information related to his proposal. A copy of that request for additional information may be found as part of Department Environmental Regulation's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. Among the items requested was information from local government related to that entity's approval of the project in accordance with Section 253.124, Florida Statutes. This request was made based upon the perception by the Department of Environmental Regulation that Lake Nicatoon was found in the Florida Lakes Gazateer of Meandered Water bodies. The Department continued to operate on this erroneous assumption throughout the permit review process. Unknown to the Department, the lake was a nonmeandered lake which was discovered by Hatfield and verified on September 8, 1980, through an affidavit of the Division Director of State Lands for the State of Florida. A copy of that affidavit may be found as Hatfield's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. In effect, although the Department had made a good faith request for information pursuant to chapter 253.124, Florida Statutes, that information was not necessary because Lake Nicatoon is nonmeandered and not subject to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, jurisdiction. Additionally, the requested hydrographic information pertaining to Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, was not needed. Among the other items requested in the way of additional information was item No. 6, pertaining to the placement of fill. That request was not complied with. Requested information related to a plan view was not complied with. Requested information in the category of "notes and drawings" was not complied with. Requested information pertaining to plans for complying with state water quality standards for Class III waters as related in Section 17- 3.121, Florida Administrative Code, was not complied with. These materials were relevant to the permit review process and the request for the information was never modified nor abandoned by the Department, notwithstanding discussions between the parties in an attempt to reconcile their differences in the permit assessment process. Those suggested alternatives to grant Hatfield access were not satisfactory to Hatfield and the original description of his project as set forth in his application of May 1980, has remained constant throughout the permit review process to include the final hearing. Generally, the parties' discussion of the installation or a bridge between the mainland and the island or the placement of a temporary steel road during the course of construction of his residence on the island did not promote a modified permit application. Finally the indication by staff members of the Department of Environmental Regulation that the project envisioned by his original application would not likely be approved did not cause a change in the obligation to respond to the request for additional information. Even though Hatfield became aware that it was unlikely that the staff would look with favor upon the project as proposed, in making its recommendation as to the issuance or nonissuance of the permit, the staff attitudes in the review process could only have become accepted with finality at the point of entering the Recommended Order. Consequently, it was incumbent upon Hatfield to respond to the request for additional information, in that the information sought was relevant to a consideration of the project which would be examined in the course of the final hearing. The discussions, related to the grant of permission to gain access by placement of a structure between the landslide and the island, entered into by the Department and Hatfield, briefly mentioned before, involved 1) the possibility of the construction of a bridge, 2) use of a metal roadway during the buildout of his residence and 3) his proposal as offered through the application. The bridge proposal advanced by Hatfield was for a span of 20 to 30 feet end the Department desired a span of 200 feet. The reason for the length of bridge required by the Department was to assure protection of a reasonable amount of the lake ecosystem between the landside and the island. Hatfield found the Department's proposed bridge length to be unacceptable due to financial reasons. He likewise did not like the idea of a temporary utilization of a steel roadway to the island during the construction of his residence. Hatfield preferred a permanent road allowing vehicular traffic from the mainland to the island. In conjunction with this alternative offered by the Department, Hatfield could later access the island by utilization of a boat on those occasions when the waters of Lake Nicatoon stood between the landside and the island. While Respondent's application for dredge and fill permit was being considered, an inspection of the property made in the summer of 1982, revealed that a causeway connecting the mainland and Hatfield's island property had been constructed. This causeway is depicted in red on Department's Exhibit No. 10, admitted into evidence, a series of aerial photographs. Ground shots of the causeway may be found as Department of Environmental Regulation's photographic Exhibits No. 8 and No. 9, admitted into evidence. The causeway was primarily constructed by the dredge of material and placement of the material immediately next to the dredge site with an overlay of offsite fill. Respondent was responsible for the construction of this causeway. The causeway is not found in the location contemplated by his permit application and permission was not given by the Department of Environmental Regulation to construct the causeway. This construction occurred in an area dominated by the vegetative species beak rush (Rhynchospora tracyi). Having placed the causeway in this location, Hatfield has created a stationary installation which caused pollution in the course of that construction and can reasonably be expected to be a future source of pollution, in that the dredging and placement of fill and the effects of the structure after construction have emitted and shall emit in the future, substances that are harmful to plant and animal life, in contravention of the Department of Environmental Regulation's rules. By this installation, an alteration in the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the state has been occasioned by the destruction of submerged land vegetational communities which provide water treatment, and food and habitat for fish and wildlife. When the fill was placed, the filtration and assimilation system of Lake Nicatoon was adversely affected through the removal of existing wetland vegetation. Were the applicant granted the opportunity to install the proposed causeway, the same adverse effects or problems could be expected with that installation. Having discovered the existence of the causeway, and after warning Hatfield that this installation was in violation of regulatory statutes and rules related to the Department's responsibility in environmental matters, Hatfield was served with a notice of violation and orders for corrective action from the Department of Environmental Regulation. The date of this action was June 1983. A copy of that document may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. In this same time frame, the Department continued to evaluate the permit application of Hatfield related to the proposed causeway and an application appraisal for that proposal was made on June 6, 1983. A copy of that appraisal may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Subsequent to that time, and having failed to receive the aforementioned requested additional information from the Respondent, the Department issued its intent to deny the application related to the proposed causeway. A copy of the intent to deny may be found as Department's Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence. The date of the denial was November 4, 1983. A more detailed examination of the area in question on the northern shoreline of the lake on the mainland side, shows that natural vegetation has been replaced with a Bahla type of grass. The gradient dropping toward the lake proper reveals upland grasses giving way to submerged species such as maiden cane (Panicum hemitom), pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata) and pond lilies (Nymphaea). In this area, the transitional species to be found include St. John's wort (Hypericum fasculatum) and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). Between the landside and the island, in the direction of the island, there are less rooted plants. The dominant plants in this vicinity are pond lilies. The distance to be traversed between the landside and the island related to landward extent of the lake on the landside and island where the proposed causeway would be located is approximately 550 feet, and net the 225 feet described in the application. As you approach the island from the landside, the last approximately 150 feet along the proposed causeway's alignment is dominated by transitional freshwater species to include doheen holly (Ilex cassine), button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), St. John's wort (Hypericum fasculatum), and switch grass (Panicum virgatum). The island, itself, is dominated by live oak and sable palm. To summarize, the area between the landside shoreline along the lake and the island shoreline, is dominated by submerged and transitional freshwater species as found in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code. In the area of the proposed causeway are found detrital feeders, the most numerous of which are amphipods. There ore also larval insects and gastropods, bivalves and freshwater shrimp. Crayfish, frogs and tadpoles are found in this area. In addition, species of fish include mosquito fish, least killfish, shiners, blue spotted sunfish, juvenile largemouth bass, silverside and juvenile catfish. Bird species observed in the area are blue heron, snowy egret, lympkins and ibis. Soft-shell turtles have also been observed in the vicinity of the project site. Should the construction of the causeway be allowed, short and long-term adverse effects on surface waters of Lake Nicatoon can be expected and these effects will be negative. With installation of the causeway, there would be a permanent elimination of the water bodies' littoral zone vegetative community which is important in converting available dissolved nutrients into food material in the aquatic ecosystem. The vegetation also assists in the cleansing of the ambient water and by that action reducing pollution loading. With the construction of the causeway, state water quality standards related to biological integrity, Section 17-3.121(7), Florida Administrative Code; nutrients, Section 17-3.121(17), Florida Administrative Code; and turbidity, Section 17-3.061(2)(r), Florida Administrative Code, can reasonably expected to be violated. Hatfield has failed to give reasonable assurances that the short and long-term impacts of the construction of the causeway would not violate and continue to violate water quality standards as alluded to. These problems as described exist while the unauthorized causeway remains. Hatfield, by actions involving private parties and the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, has sought necessary easements to gain access to his island property. While successful in this undertaking, these successes do not include the grant of a prohibition against the Department of Environmental Regulation performing its regulatory responsibility. In particular the decisions in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, in and for Marion County, Florida, Case No. 83-1826-C, Michael Hatfield, Plaintiff v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, Defendant, granting partial Summary Judgment for the plaintiff and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss do not bar the Department from fulfillment of its regulatory charge. A copy of these decisions of court are found as Hatfield's Exhibit No. 7, admitted into evidence. In order to return the area where the unauthorized causeway has been placed to its prior existing condition, it would be necessary to remove the fill material and return elevations at the site to their prior level before the construction of the causeway. In addition, beak rush should be replanted in the areas where this dominant vegetation has been removed. An amount of $30.75 has been incurred in the way of cost to prosecute D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-2133
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be granted a permit to clear and place fill on 0.23 acres of Lot 5, in Block 85 of Daytona North subdivision for the purpose of creating sufficient uplands for a single family dwelling, septic tank system and drainfield.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the owner of a parcel of real property located in Section 17, Township 12 South, Range 29 East at Lot 5, Block 85, in the Daytona North Subdivision, west of the town of Bunnell in Flagler County, Florida. The Department is the agency of the State of Florida that is authorized to issue permits to dredge and fill wetlands pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. It is successor to the Department of Environmental Regulation. On March 8, 1993, the Petitioner filed an application with the Department for a permit to clear and fill within 0.23 acres [approximately 10,000 square feet] of hardwood swamp which is connected by large drainage ditches to Bull Creek. The property subject to the application for a permit to fill is a portion of that property described in Finding of Fact 1. The purpose of obtaining a permit to fill was to create sufficient uplands upon which to construct a single family dwelling with a septic tank system, including a drainfield. Following a review of Petitioner's application, the Department issued its Notice Of Permit Denial on July 30, 1993. The denial was based on the Petitioner's proposed project failing to provide the Department with the reasonable assurances required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes [formerly Section 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes] While there are some pine trees scattered throughout the area, including the Petitioner's lot, the area does not appear to be what is commonly referred to as longleaf or slash pine flatwoods because the understory (undergrowth) is not dominated by saw palmetto, even though Petitioner's composite exhibit 2 (photographs of area) reflects a patch or two of saw palmetto. The area is dominated by understory that tends to thrive in soil that, while not always covered with water, is usually saturated with water. Additionally, the more predominant trees in the area are hardwood [gums, etc.] and cypress which tend to thrive in soil that is saturated with water. The upper surface of the soil in the area, including the Petitioner's property, is peat or muck which tends to be saturated with water and has very little percolation. To the north and east of the subdivision are potato and cabbage fields, drainage from which is routed through the subdivision in large agricultural drainage ditches. Petitioner's property backs up to a large drainage canal, which is one of many canals in the subdivision connected to these even larger agricultural drainage canals. Water from these many canals flows into Bull Creek, Class III waters, and from Bull Creek to Dead Lake and then into Crescent Lake. There is sufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the Petitioner's property comes within the definition of wetlands as defined in Section 373.019(17, Florida Statutes, which are connected to waters of the state as defined in Section 373.019(8), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Petitioner's proposed project is not exempt from permitting and requires a dredge and fill permit for the proposed construction. Water quality in Bull Creek and in the receiving waters of Dead Lake and Crescent Lake has been degraded as a result of agricultural runoff from nearby farms. This runoff, containing nitrogen and phosphorus, the main components of fertilizer, is routed through the ditch system in the subdivision directly into receiving waters of Bull Creek, Dead Lake and Crescent Lake. Agricultural runoff from these sources has resulted in water quality violations for nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria and benthic macroinvertebrates in Bull Creek Canal; and for nitrogen, phosphorus and dissolved oxygen in Dead Lake and Crescent Lake. This subdivision contains approximately 800 lots located in wetlands. It is anticipated that if dredge and fill permits were available for development, then the lots located in the wetlands would develop first due to the difference in price between the lots located in the wetlands as opposed to lots located in the upland. It was the Department's testimony that this was the first application received by the Department to place fill in wetlands in the subdivision. However, photographs 22 and 23 of Petitioner's composite exhibit 2 reflect that there are houses in the wetlands area of the subdivision that appear to be located on wetlands that have been filled, with a septic tank system located on the filled area. Petitioner's proposed project is permanent in nature, and any wetlands that were filled as a result of this project would be lost to the system. Likewise, any other lots located in the wetlands area of the subdivision that were developed would also be lost to the system. Assuming that the lots in the wetlands area of the subdivision were developed as the Department anticipates, then there would be a permanent loss to the system of a large area of wetlands which would result in a loss of the wetlands filtering system. Without this filtering system, there would be a decrease in the nutrient uptake which could create algal blooms and deplete dissolved oxygen levels, thus further degrading water quality resulting in a long term water quality violation. Due to nature of the surface of the soil located in the wetlands area of the subdivision and its lack of permeability, the effluent from the septic tank system would likely fail to percolate below the fill. This failure to percolate would likely result in a lateral flow of the effluent towards the drainage ditches located within the subdivision which flow into the agricultural drainage canals and eventually into Bull Creek to Dead Lake to Crescent Lake, thus further degrading water quality resulting in a along term water quality violation. Development of the wetlands area of the subdivision would adversely affect the conservation and productivity of fish by further degrading the already poor water quality of Bull Creek and Dead Lake. While the proposed project's effect on the habitat and functioning of the wetlands area of the subdivision or the water quality may be minimal, it is the adverse cumulative impact the proposed project would have, by "opening the door", so to speak, on other permit applications for dredge and fill in the wetlands area of the subdivision that is the main concern.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for dredge and fill Permit Number DF 182280792. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of May, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 May 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5970 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department in this case. Petitioner Stanley A. Ferguson Petitioners did not submit any proposed findings of fact. Respondent, Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. The Department's proposed findings of fact 1 through 15 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 19 of the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley A. Ferguson Route 1, Box 21A-1R Bunnell, Florida 32110 Donna M. La Plante, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-240 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Respondent Trevey is constructing condominium units on property adjacent to Oyster Creek in Charlotte County, and seeks to develop waterfront facilities for the use of condominium residents. Oyster Creek is a navigable stream flowing into Lemon Bay and thence into the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed site of Dock No. 1 is along the south bank of Oyster Creek in that portion of the stream which constitutes the main channel. Dock No. 2 would be located on a branch or loop off the main channel. The pedestrian bridge would cross this stream near the proposed site of dock No. 2 and would be part of a nature walk on Respondent Trevey's property situated on the south bank of the main channel. At some earlier time the stream was altered by the dredging of a canal which became the main channel and created the island which is the proposed site of the nature walk. In addition to this canal which forms a portion of the main channel, a network of smaller canals has been constructed on the north side of Oyster Creek, generally across from the sites of the construction proposed herein. These canals provide water access for homeowners in this area. Respondent Trevey observed some 92 boats moored in these canals. The main channel of Oyster Creak provides boater access to Lemon Hay and the Gulf of Mexico. Construction of proposed Dock No. 1 in this channel would therefore affect navigation to some degree. Dock No. 1 has a proposed length of 300 feet and a width of 4 feet. The dock would be built two to three feet away from the south bank of Oyster Creek, thus extending about six feet into the channel. The dock would be used to moor boats, on a "parallel parking" basis. Assuming a boat width of eight feet and proper mooring, protrusion into the stream would be approximately fourteen feet. Creek width in the Dock No. 1 site is about sixty feet. The water is shallow and varies with the seasons and tides. Navigation near the north bank opposite the Dock No. 1 site is not possible due to the presence of a large oyster bed. Therefore boat operators tend to maneuver their craft on the (proposed) dock side of the creek center line. The distance from the deepest part of the creek to the south bank where Dock No. 1 would be located averages about 33 feet. The proposed dock and moored boats would take up nearly half of this distance. Since boaters must stay near the deepest part of the channel, as well as avoid the oyster bed on the north bank, navigation around the dock and moored boats could prove difficult. A hazardous situation could occur when boats were passing in opposite directions in the dock area or when any Dock No. 1 boats were improperly moored. Operation of powerboats in the vicinity of Dock No. 2 is not feasible due to shallow waters nor is this branch of the stream utilized for access to open water. Therefore, construction of Dock No. 2 would not impede navigation. The presence in the area of a paved road, bridges, an industrial park, Petitioner's boat ramp and numerous canals contribute to degradation of water quality, disruption of wildlife and soil erosion. Studies made by Respondents established that water quality would not be further degraded by construction of the proposed facilities, nor would any wildlife or vegetation be significantly disturbed. The facilities are designed and located to avoid creating or contributing to soil erosion.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a permit to Howard Trevey for the construction of the proposed pedestrian bridge, nature walk and Dock No. 2, but deny that portion of the application pertaining to the proposed Dock No. 1. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Makela 2642 Titania Road Englewood, Florida 33533 Richard L. Smith, Esquire 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577 Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1976, Dennis E. Andrews, trustee of the Fannin Springs Trust (hereinafter "Trust"), applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and for water quality certification under Public Law 92-500, for the construction of a floating barricade across Fannin Springs Run near its entrance to the Suwannee River in Levy County, Florida. Fannin Springs Run extends to Fannin Springs and the outer limits of the springs are about 400 feet from the Suwannee River. The Trust, composed of four trustees, owns the land surrounding the springs and extending to the river. This property is not commercialized, but permission is periodically granted to church and civic groups to use it for social and money- making purposes. In such instances, the particular group operates a soft drink concession stand and charges fifty cents admission to swimmers using the Trust dock and beach area at the springs. However, the Trust insists that any such groups carry liability insurance to indemnify it against any injuries arising from the use of the land and facilities. The property is not open to the general public unless incident to one of the above authorized uses. (Testimony of Usher, Exhibit 6) The proposed floating barrier would be constructed of styrofoam ballast with a wood frame approximately five feet wide and eighteen inches high to be moored on either side of the run by cables secured on the banks. The purpose of the barricade is to prevent boats from proceeding into the springs where a hazard to swimmers has existed for some time. Some of these craft have customarily maneuvered in and around the main swimming area known as the "boil" and utilized the Trust facilities, including dock and beach area, without permission or otherwise paying the concession fee, thus creating hard feelings between the swimming and boating groups. The presence of the boats also causes resentment by those on shore due to the litter composed of beer cans and the like deposited by their occupants. During summer weekends and holidays, the area becomes quite congested with perhaps several hundred individuals enjoying the springs, together with as many as one hundred boats in the area. Incidents have arisen in the past involving reckless boat operation in the springs. Some were reported to the Levy County Sheriff's Office; however, the former sheriff was unable to verify any of the complaints made to his office. It is conceded by all parties to the proceeding, and those members of the public who testified, that a definite safety hazard exists in the area. (Testimony of Usher, Berry, Hartley, Dean, Brown, Judah, Bancroft, Shifflette, A. Andrews, Locke, Exhibits 1, 2, 6) After receiving the permit application, Marcia Elder, an environmental specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation, inspected the site and concluded that there was a definite need for the barricade, but that the proposed location, approximately 110 feet from the mouth of the "run," would effectively constitute a denial of public access to the springs. She therefore concluded that a diagonal barrier across the springs would serve the same purpose of safety to swimmers, but also provide the necessary access to those arriving by boats. She further determined that such a barrier would create no adverse effects on water quality or plant and animal life and other natural resources to any appreciable extent. (Testimony of Elder, Exhibit 7) Based on Elder's investigation, the Department of Environmental Regulation indicated to the Trust its intent to deny the application. After the parties were unable to resolve the matter informally, the Trust filed a petition for an administrative hearing on September 1, 1976. Formal notification of the Department's intent to deny the application was stated in a letter of December 7, 1976, which advised the Trust that the proposed denial was based on the fact that the barricade would not allow navigation into Fannin Springs, but would create a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation on navigable waters, so as to be contrary to the public interest. (Exhibit 8) The petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer. Subsequent to the filing of the petition in this Division, the parties negotiated further and arrived at a compromise settlement of the matter. It was agreed that if the Trust would place the barrier across the run at a point closer to the springs than previously requested, the necessary permit would be granted. Petitioners Berry and Bancroft, who had previously objected to any barrier at all, were notified by a letter of the Department, dated April 29, 1977, of the Department's intent to issue the modified permit. Thereafter, on May 11, 1977, they petitioned the Department of Environmental Regulation for a hearing, claiming that the proposed barrier would create a navigational hazard, impede navigation and not be in the public interest. The petition further alleged that the contemplated location of the barrier would be in an area where the water would be too deep for children to have access to the shallow water of the swimming area beyond the barrier. At the hearing, however, petitioners acknowledged the existence of a swimming hazard at the springs and Ms. Bancroft agreed that a diagonal barrier as originally proposed by Elder would be unobjectionable. (Testimony of Berry, Bancroft, Petition) If the barrier is placed across the run as agreed to by the Department and the Trust, it would be close to the mouth of the springs in an area of varying depths of 6 to 8 feet and at times 20 feet. The width of the run where the barrier is contemplated is approximately 110 feet. If boats are stopped in that area, congestion would result and boat passengers attempting to swim to the shallow water near the beach or to the land would be endangered by the boat traffic. It is possible, also, that fees would be charged such individuals to exit on the land of the Trust. If the diagonal barrier were permitted, there would be a much larger area for the use of boats, and access to the swimming area would be greatly facilitated. (Testimony of Usher, Berry, Dilger, Seykera, Judy) On July 19, 1977, the Board of County Commissioners of Levy County, Florida, passed a resolution stating that an extremely dangerous situation existed at Fannin Springs because of boaters encroaching upon swimmers. The resolution further stated that application would be made to the Division of Marine Resources of the Department of Natural Resources for the purpose of having Fannin Springs declared a restrictive area pursuant to Section 371.522, Florida Statutes, and having a floating barrier erected at the mouth of the springs to prevent boats from entering the swimming area. (Exhibit 5) On August 22, 1977, the Trust agreed to abide by the provisions of a proposed Department of the Army Corp of Engineers permit to install the barricade at a position across Fannin Springs Run 170 feet from the Suwannee River, subject to providing upland access when the barricade is installed and not charging a fee for the use of the barricade provided upland facilities are not used. (Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a modified permit as set forth above to Fannin Springs Trust to construct a floating barrier in the Fannin Springs area, pursuant to Section 403.813(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4.29(e), Florida Administrative Code. Done and Entered this 29th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William D. Ryals, Esquire Post Office Drawer J Gainesville, Florida 32602 Mrs. Thomas Berry 8375 35th Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Ms. Julia Bancroft 1414 Cleveland Street Apartment No. 1 Clearwater, Florida 33515 Appendix A List of Public Witnesses Name Address Bruce W. Dilger Suwannee River on U.S. 19 Camp Ground Old Town, Florida 32600 Mrs. Carl Shifflette Executive Vice President Suwannee River Citizens Assoc. Bell, Florida Peggy Seykora Route 3, Box 35 Old Town, Florida 32680 A.D. Andrews Post Office Box 1126 Chiefland, Florida 32626 Wayne C. Locke Post Office Box 147 Chiefland, Florida Fred Judy Route 3 Old Town, Florida
