Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, posthearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. On January 15, 1979, the then applicant, General United, submitted a joint application to the Department of Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to "remove a rock bulkhead approximately twenty (20) feet wide and fifty (SO) feet long to a minus five (- 5) feet below low tide, to connect upland canals to access channels." The excavation as requested pursuant to the permit application, if approved as applied for, would require the deposit of approximately 167 cubic yards of fill on uplands owned by the applicant (DER Exhibit 1). By letter dated May 15, 1979, Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, gave Petitioner notice that it intended to deny Petitioner's permit application for reasons, summarily stated, that the dredging/excavation as requested in the permit application would result in a degradation of local water quality and that the project, as applied for, would result in a reduction of the capability of habitat to support a well-balanced fish and wildlife population and an impairment of the management of feasibility of fish and wildlife management resources contrary to the public interest as defined in Sections 253.123 and 403.087. Florida Statutes. Public Law 92-500 and Section 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent thereafter filed a request for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner called as adverse witnesses Messrs. R. F. Dumas, Field Agent; Donald Lawless, Chemist; and Curtis Kruer, Field Agent, all employed by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Petitioner's final witness was Dr. Earl Rich, a professor of biology and environmental consultant. Respondent called as witnesses Mike Nowicki, a Dredge and Fill Supervisor; and Messrs. Curtis Kruer and Donald Lawless. As applied for, the project entails the excavation of an access channel approximately twenty (20) feet wide and fifty (50) feet long to a depth of five (5) feet from Petitioner's uplands to the waters of Florida Bay. The parties stipulated that the opening would enter the waters of Florida Bay, which is a Class III water body as defined by Respondent's rules and regulations (Joint Exhibit 2). In the area of Sunset Acres, there is a canal system of approximately 1,940 feet, approxirately one-half of which is occupied by mobile home construction. The canal system is isolated from Florida Bay at the present time by a boulder bulkhead with an elevation of approximately three (3) feet above mean water level (Petitioner's Exhibit 3 and testimony of Rich). The adjacent canals are all approximately fifty (50) feet wide with an average depth of approximately seventeen (17) feet. There is agreement among the witnesses that the interior canal system is stratified and is very good to a depth of appraximately ten (10) feet, at which point the water quality deteriorates. At the lower levels, dissolved oxygen and specie diversity are low. Specie diversity in the upper column (distance of approximately ten (10) feet) supports approximately fifteen (15) fish species and twenty-two (22) species of macro-invertebrates . Algae growth was observed on the canal wall which denotes a continuity of plant and life support systems (testimony of Dr. Rich). Evidence reveals that the plant and fish specie diversity in the adjacent canal system was equally as diverse as that in the adjoining open waters of Florida Bay. The tests conducted in the water columns reflect that the dissolved oxygen levels in the upper column had average concentrations of approximately four (4) parts per million and that dissolved oxygen levels in adjacent canals which were open to Florida Bay fell in the range of 4.3 to 4.6 parts per million, 1/ which in some instances is below Class III standards (testimony of R. F. Dumas). The evidence reveals that there will he no discharge from septic tanks inasmuch as there is a collection and wastewater treatment plant for Sunset Acres. The testimony reveals that the proposed project is situated away from the prevailing winds and that there is little likelihood than detritus will be dumped into the canal systems by natural wind and wave action. In this regard, the evidence reveals that the tidal fluctuations in this area of Florida Bay are less than six (6) inches (testimony of Dr. Rich and Mr. Dumas). Evidence also reveals that inasmuch as the water quality in the interior canal system is strikingly similar and of the same quality as that water outside the canal systems, there is no reason to suspect that the opening of this project would degrade the water quality of the present canal systems based on the minimal tidal fluctuations in the area and the location of the project which is away from the prevalent winds. Nor were any facts introduced to support Respondent's concern for its assumption that the subject project would result in a degradation of water quality. Nor was there any showing that the proposed project, if permitted. would interfere with or otherwise hamper the propagation of fish and wildlife habitat. To the contrary. there is evidence that there is greater fish specie diversity in the canal systems than in the adjacent open waters of Florida Bay. It is likely that by permitting this project, the adjacent waters will benefit from such a rich and varied specie diversity (testimony of Dr. Rich and Petitioner's Exhibit 3).
Recommendation Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on February 27, 1980, in Key West, Florida. The parties stipulated that the hearing closed March 18, 1980, the date on which the parties were granted leave to file memoranda supportive of their respective positions. Said memoranda has been received and was considered by me in preparation of this Recommended Order.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or Department) should exempt Petitioner's alleged maintenance-dredging from wetland resource permitting under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a maintenance-dredging exemption from wetland resource permitting for two channels in Goose Bayou on the two ends of a U-shaped upland cut canal adjacent to Goose Bayou. Rule 62-312 provides in pertinent part: No permit shall be required under this chapter for dredging or filling . . . for the projects listed below. * * * (e) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into surface waters of the state, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the canal, channels, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters of the state. Where no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. There was no evidence of any dredging or application for dredging in the vicinity of the proposed alleged "maintenance- dredging" prior to 1971. There was evidence and a stipulation that Heritage Homes of Fort Walton, Inc. (Heritage Homes), applied to the State of Florida in or around 1971 to dredge two navigation channels in Goose Bayou for a project known as Venetian Villas and to remove two plugs separating a land-locked U-shaped canal from Goose Bayou. The navigation channels were to be 50 feet wide by five feet deep. The southern channel was to be 640 feet long, while the northern channel was to be 450 feet long. This proposal did not receive any governmental authorization. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that in 1973, based on the proposed project modifications, the State of Florida Department of Pollution Control (DPC), a predecessor of DEP, issued water quality certification, and the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) issued a permit for the project, as modified. It appears that the issuance of the water qualify certification and BOT permit was part of some kind of settlement reached between Heritage Homes and the State of Florida for dredge-and-fill violations. It appears that the settlement also involved the conveyance of ten acres of land to the State of Florida in lieu of payment for the spoil used in filling the marsh lands between Goose Bayou and the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, at some point in time, the DPC certification and a BOT permit were transferred from Heritage Homes to West Florida Construction Company (West Florida). There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, as of July 13, 1973, neither Heritage Homes nor West Florida had applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, over time and after receiving comments from various governmental agencies, West Florida's proposed project changed to involve a yacht basin/marina, a proposed southern channel, elimination of the proposal for a northern channel, and plugging the U-shaped canal to keep it separate from Goose Bayou. The location of the single, southern channel under this proposal was different from the proposed location of the southern channel under the Heritage Homes proposal, which was to start at the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. Instead, under West Florida's proposal, the single, southern channel was to be located directly north of the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, by August 21, 1974, West Florida applied to the Corps for a permit to dredge the single, southern channel (50 feet wide, 565 feet long, and four feet deep), to keep the northern canal plugged, and to construct a yacht basin/marina. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended several changes to the project before they could recommend that the Corps issue a permit for the 1974 application; however, it does not appear that the recommended changes were ever made or that the Corps ever took any action on the 1974 application or issued any permit for the proposed project. At some point in time after 1974, the two plugs were removed, which connected the U-shaped canal to Goose Bayou. There is now a wide, shallow channel from the waterward ends of the U-shaped canal into Goose Bayou. The evidence did not prove that these channels, which Petitioner now seeks to maintenance- dredge, were ever dredged by man. Their width and shallow depth are more consistent with natural scouring from surface water runoff leaving the canal system at low and extreme low tides than with dredging. There was no evidence of soil borings, which could have verified whether the channels had been dredged by man. Even if originally dredged, there was no evidence that a dredged channel had been maintained over the years. Mr. Stoutamire testified that DEP does not consider maintenance- dredging to include the restoration or rebuilding of a channel that has not been maintained and no longer exists. This interpretation of the maintenance-dredging exemption is reasonable. Mr. Stoutamire also testified that DEP interprets the last sentence of Rule 62-312.050(1)(e), limiting maintenance- dredging to no more than five feet below mean low water where no previous permit has been issued, to refer to canals constructed before April 3, 1970, since maintenance-dredging of canals constructed after that date would not be exempt if not previously permitted. This interpretation is reasonable.2 Petitioner's application did not state that control devices would be used to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during dredging.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner a maintenance-dredging exemption under Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums"), are entitled to the Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single- family residential dock and associated structures.
Findings Of Fact Background The Crums are the owners of the riparian property located at 15696 Shark Road West, Jacksonville, Florida. The Crum property is adjacent to Pumpkin Hill Creek, which lies within the Nassau River-St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve. Extending from the Crum property into Pumpkin Hill Creek is an existing wood dock approximately 90 feet long and four feet wide, with a platform near the landward end of the dock. Petitioner Brooks owns the property immediately adjacent to and north of the Crum property. Petitioner Brooks has a dock and boat lift. Petitioner Cole owns the property immediately adjacent to and southeast of the Crum property. The Cole property is located on a salt marsh and has no dock. Petitioner Jones lives approximately 3,200 feet north of the Crum property, on a tributary to Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones has fished Pumpkin Hill Creek and the surrounding waters for over 25 years. Noticed General Permits are a type of environmental resource permit granted by rule for those activities which have been determined to have minimal impacts to water resources. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427 grants by rule a general permit to construct a single family pier, along with boat lifts and terminal platforms, provided certain specific criteria are met. In August 2005, the Crums applied for a Noticed General Permit to extend their existing dock into deeper water. The Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for Noticed General Permit, but later rescinded the authorization after Petitioner Brooks complained to the Department that the landward end of the existing dock is located only 21 feet from her property boundary and, therefore, did not comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(3)(d), which requires that a dock be set back a minimum of 25 feet "inside the applicant's riparian rights lines." In November 2005, the Crums re-applied for a Noticed General Permit. Their revised plans called for removal of the existing dock and construction of a new dock extending approximately 255 feet out into Pumpkin Hill Creek. The proposed dock would be located a minimum of 25 feet inside the Crums' riparian rights lines. On December 6, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Noticed General Permit for the revised dock, stating that the project satisfied the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427, as well as the conditions for authorization to perform activities on state-owned submerged lands set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21 and for activities in an aquatic preserve under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20. In April 2006, Petitioners filed three petitions for hearing with the Department alleging that the proposed dock significantly impedes navigation by restricting access to a tidal creek and extends more waterward than necessary to access a water depth of (minus) -4 feet at mean low water, which is prohibited for docks in aquatic preserves under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.005(3)(b)3. Petitioners attached to their petitions a copy of a bathymetric survey showing the elevations of the submerged lands in the vicinity of the proposed project. In response to the information contained in the survey, the Crums revised their plans to shorten the dock to its currently proposed length of 186.56 feet. A new Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Notice General Permit was then issued by the Department on October 16, 2006. The final dock project consists of: (a) removal of the existing wood dock; (b) construction of a four-foot wide, 186.56-foot long, single family residential dock consisting of an access pier, a 12-foot by 12-foot terminal platform, and a 14-foot by 20-foot open boat lift with catwalk (the “proposed dock”). The proposed dock will terminate where the water will be four feet deep at mean low water. Navigating in and Near the Tidal Creek To the south of the Crum property is a wide expanse of salt marsh. Within the salt marsh are unnamed tidal creeks. The mouth of one tidal creek that flows to Pumpkin Hill Creek is located approximately 90 feet south of the existing Crum dock. The tidal creek is shallow and is not navigable at or near low tide. Petitioner Jones owns an 18-foot flatboat which he sometimes keeps at his residence and sometimes at Petitioner Brooks' property. The boat draws about one foot of water. Petitioner Jones uses this boat to fish in the tidal creek located near the Crum property about ten times every month. No evidence was presented to show that Petitioner Brooks or Petitioner Cole ever navigate in or otherwise use this tidal creek. There are many other tidal creeks located in the marshes associated with Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones boats and fishes in most of them. Petitioner Jones said that, currently, he must wait two hours past low tide for the water depth to be sufficient for him to get into the tidal creek near the Crum property. His usual course to the creek lies just beyond the end of the existing Crum dock. He claims there is a channel there, but no channel is shown on the survey or in any of the parties' photographs. After the proposed dock is constructed, Petitioner Jones' usual course to the tidal will be obstructed. He contends that the new course he would have to take to the tidal creek will take him across shallower areas of Pumpkin Hill Creek so that he will have to wait two more hours (a total of four hours) after low tide to get into the creek. Therefore, Petitioner Jones' alleged injury is the reduction of the hours available to him to navigate in and out of the tidal creek for fishing. The existing Crum dock terminates on a broad mud flat which is exposed at mean low water. However, the bathymetric survey shows the mud flat is at a lower elevation near the end of the dock so water covers this area before it covers the rest of the mud flat. However, the bathymetric survey also shows the elevation of the bottom rising as one moves south from the existing dock. At the mouth of the tidal creek the elevation is 1.0 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, an official, surveyed reference point). Because the tidal creek drains into the main body of Pumpkin Hill Creek, a reasonable inference can be made that the bottom elevations in the creek generally become higher (and the water depths decrease) as one moves up the creek toward dry land. Prop scars in the exposed bottom at the end of the existing dock indicate that boats have traveled over this area when the water was so shallow that the engine props were striking the bottom. Prop scarring can cause turbidity and damage to benthic organisms. The bathymetric survey indicates that mean high water in this area of Pumpkin Hill Creek is 3.03 feet NGVD, and the mean low water is -1.78 feet NGVD. The mean tidal fluctuation between mean low water and mean high water is thus 4.81 feet. Randall Armstrong, who was accepted as an expert in navigation and piloting, explained that in this area, where there are two daily tides, the water elevation will generally increase by 1/12 of the mean tidal fluctuation in the first hour after mean low water, another 2/12 of the fluctuation in the second, and 3/12 in the third hour. Applying this general rule to the tidal fluctuation here of 4.81 feet results in an estimated 1.2-foot increase in water elevation two hours after low tide and a 2.4-foot increase three hours after low tide. Based on the mean low water elevation of -1.78 feet NGVD, the water elevation would usually be about -0.6 foot NGVD two hours after low tide and 0.6 foot NGVD three hours after low tide. Therefore, the tidal creek (with a bottom elevation of 1.0 foot NGVD at the mouth) would usually be "dry" two hours after low tide and would usually have less than a foot of water three hours after low tide. That evidence contradicts Petitioner Jones' statement that he now navigates into the tidal creek two hours after low tide. That might occasionally be possible, but the bathymetric survey indicates the creek would usually be too shallow at that time. In fact, the evidence suggests that the tidal creek is only reliably navigable without causing prop scars to the bottom by using boats with very shallow draft and waiting until high tide (or shortly before or after) when the water depth at the mouth of the creek would be about two feet. It was Mr. Armstrong's opinion that the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation at the mouth of the tidal creek determines when and how long the tidal creek is navigable, and those times would not be affected by the proposed dock. He described the new course that a boater would use to navigate into the tidal creek after the proposed dock is built. He used the bathymetric survey to show that when the water is deep enough to navigate into the tidal creek, the water depth is also sufficient to navigate the new course. The proposed dock might, as Petitioner Jones alleges, cause boaters to traverse a longer section of the mudflat then they do currently. However, the more persuasive testimony supports the Crums' position that the navigability of the tidal creek is controlled by its shallowest point at the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation and that the proposed dock will not interfere with navigation of the tidal creek by requiring boaters to traverse shallower areas. Petitioner Jones testified that he regularly navigates his boat close to the existing Crum dock. The evidence does not indicate that the proposed dock would cause an unreasonable risk of collision for boaters using the new course to the tidal creek.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order that grants Noticed General Permit No. 16-253057-002-EG to the Crums. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact On July 19, 1991, the Petitioner, Cahill Pines and Palm Property Owners Association, Inc. (Cahill), filed a permit application with the Department of Environmental Resources, predecessor to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), for a permit to remove two earthen plugs in the Cahill canal system, located in Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The plugs were to be removed to a depth of -5.5 feet N.G.V.D. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrologist employed by the Department, had performed a hydrographic review of the proposed project and reduced his findings to writing in a memorandum dated June 25, 1993. Mr. Echternacht recommended that the project not be permitted. On August 20, 1993, the Department issued a notice of its intent to deny Cahill's application to remove the plugs. The notice included six proposed changes to the project which would make the project permittable. Cahill requested an administrative hearing on the Department's intent to deny the permit. On March 3 and 4, 1994, an administrative hearing was held on the issue of whether a permit should be issued. The hearing officer entered a recommended order on May 9, 1994, recommending that a final order be entered denying the permit. The Department issued a final order on June 8, 1994, adopting the recommended order of the hearing officer and denying the permit. See Cahill Pines and Palm Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Protection, 16 F.A.L.R. 2569 (DER June 8, 1994). In the final order the Department found that the following findings of Mr. Echternacht were "scientifically sound and credible conclusions": The estimated flushing for the presently open portion of the waterway was calculated to be 14.5 days. The flushing for the open section exceeds the 4 day flushing criterion by approx- imately 3.6 times. Clearly, the open portion poses a potential problem to the maintenance of acceptable water quality. For the presently closed sections of the waterway, the calculated flushing time was found to be 38.6 days. Again, this system would pose a significant potential for contamination to adjacent open waters if opened for use. The waters behind the barrier that presently appear to pose no problem would clearly become a repository for contaminants associated with boat usage. Because of the exceptionally long flushing time, contaminants would build up over time. Below standard water quality throughout the waterway would be expected and, associated with this, below standard water would be exported into adjacent clean water on each ebbing tide. The final order also found the following facts: 13. Neither the water in the open canals nor the water in the closed canals is presently of substandard quality. * * * Petitioner's plug removal project will also spur development in the Cahill subdivision and lead to an increase in boat traffic in the Cahill canal system, as well as in the adjacent waters of Pine Channel. Such activity will result in the discharge of additional contaminants in these waterways. As Echternacht stated in his June 25, 1993, memorandum that he sent to O'Connell, '[b]ecause of the [canal system's] exceptionally long flushing time, [these] contaminants would build up over time' and result in a significant degradation of the water quality of not only the Cahill canals, but also of Pine Channel, into which Cahill canals flow. This degradation of water quality will have an adverse effect on marine productivity and the conservation of fish and wildlife that now inhabit these waterways. Consequently, in the long run, the removal of the plugs will negatively impact fishing opportunities in the area. On the other hand, the project will have a beneficial effect on navigation and recreational boating and related activities. It will have no impact on historical and archaeological resources. On April 10, 1995, Cahill submitted a permit application to the Department to remove portions of the two canal plugs. Cahill proposed to leave an island in the center of each plug. The islands would be stabilized with riprap, and mangrove seedlings would be planted in the riprap. By letter dated April 21, 1995, the Department returned the April 10 permit application to Cahill along with the $500.00 processing fee. The Department advised Cahill that the application was not substantially different from the 1991 permit application which was denied by final order. The Department further advised that Cahill could resubmit the application and application fee if it wanted the permit to be processed but the Department would deny the application on the basis of res judicata. On May 17, 1995, Cahill submitted a revised permit application along with the processing fee. A circulation culvert had been added to the project. Ken Echternacht performed a hydrographic review of the proposed project. In a memorandum dated May 25, 1995, Mr. Echternacht recommended that the permit be denied for the following reasons: The proposed 24-inch culvert connection would not be expected to be visible hydraulically. A 24-inch diameter culvert, length 181 ft would be expected to have a friction factor several orders of magnitude greater than the adjacent canals. As such, water would not be expected to pass through the connector unless there were a sizeable head to drive the flow. No studies and/or supporting documentation have been provided to support the design in terms of the documenting the amplitude and repeatability of the flow driving force. Cutting holes through embankments do not necessarily result in flushing relief. As stated in 1, above, any and all proposed design modifications to the proposed waterway must be accompanied by adequate design justifi- cation based on hydrographic modeling supported by site specific data support. The culvert design proposed does not meet the above require- ment. The proposal is nothing new. In the hearing, ideas such as the above were suggested. However, as was stated in the hearing any and all such proposals must be supported by proper engineering study. On July 7, 1995, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial, denying the May, 1995 permit application on the basis of res judicata, stating that the May 1995 permit was not substantially different from the 1991 permit application which had been denied and that no studies had been submitted by Cahill that would support that the use of the islands and culvert would increase the flushing rate to the four day flushing criterion established in the hearing on the 1991 permit application. At the final hearing counsel for Cahill stated for the record that the use of the islands and the culvert would not increase the flushing rate to four days.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Cahill Pines and Palms Property Owners Association, Inc.'s application for a permit to remove two plugs separating the open and closed canal sections of the Cahill canal system, placing an island in the center of each plug, and adding a 24 inch culvert connection. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 31st day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4377 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-7: Accepted in substance but not necessary to be incorporated in the recommended order. Paragraph 8: The evidence presented showed that there is a dispute of whether the waters are now of substandard quality. For the purposes of this hearing, it is not necessary to determine whether the water quality is presently substandard. Based on the assumption that the water quality is not substandard, Petitioner has failed to show that the change in the design of the project is sufficient to warrant the rejection of the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. Petitioner has failed to show that the addition of islands and a culvert will eliminate the potential for future contamination of the waters. The second sentence is accepted in substance but not necessary to be incorporated in the recommended order. Paragraphs 9-11: Accepted in substance but not necessary to be incorporated in the recommended order. Paragraphs 12-15: Accepted in substance to the extent that for the purposes of this hearing the water quality is assumed not to be substandard. Paragraph 16: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 17-27: Rejected as subordinate to the finding that for the purposes of this hearing the present water quality is assumed not to be substandard. Paragraphs 28-30: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 31: Accepted in substance to the extent that the changes in the design will not increase the flushing rate to four days. Paragraphs 32-33: Accepted to the extent that they were findings in the final order on the 1991 application. Paragraphs 34-35: Accepted to the extent that the slow flushing rate is one of the criteria to be considered. The increase of development and boat traffic are also contributors to the potential of contamination building up. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the use of islands and a culvert will eliminate the potential for contamination. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-10: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 11-14: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 15: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Accepted in substance as corrected. Paragraph 17: Accepted. Paragraphs 18-21: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 22: Accepted. Paragraph 23: Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: David Paul Horan, Esquire Horan, Horan and Esquinaldo 608 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040-6549 Christine C. Stretesky, Esquire John L. Chaves, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth J. Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On January 27, 1987, petitioner, Vincent M. Drost, filed an application with respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department), for a permit/water quality certification to construct 24,155 linear feet of vertical bulkhead (90 degrees to horizontal) in manmade residential canals and along the Atlantic Ocean waterfront (Bow Channel and Cudjoe Bay), in Cudjoe Gardens Subdivision, Monroe County, Florida. The subject waters are Class III, Outstanding Florida Waters. 1/ On August 12, 1987, the Department issued its intent to deny petitioner's application with respect to the northernmost canal, which is abutted on the north and west by lots 1-18 and a portion of lot 19; the second most northern canal, which is abutted on the north and west, south of Second Avenue West, by lots 1-10; and along the southern and western shoreline of the Atlantic Ocean. The predicate for the Department's decision was Section 403.918(5)(b), Florida Statutes, which, pertinent to this case, prohibits the installation of vertical seawalls in lagoons unless within existing canals that are currently occupied in whole or in part by vertical seawalls, and the provisions of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, which prohibits such activities in Outstanding Florida Waters unless the project is clearly in the public interest. The Department exempted, however, the remainder of petitioner's project predicated on the fact that such canals were currently occupied in part by vertical seawalls. Petitioner filed a timely protest of the Department's intent to deny, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing. In light of the Department's exemption of a majority of the project, the parties have agreed that only that portion of petitioner's application which seeks a permit to bulkhead within the two northernmost canals and along the shoreline, approximately 8,000 linear feet, is at issue in this proceeding. Background In 1957, petitioner began the acquisition of certain lands lying south of U.S. Highway 1, Cudjoe Key, Monroe County, Florida. Over the years, petitioner added to his holdings, which he subdivided and platted as Cudjoe Gardens Subdivision. Petitioner's exhibit 6, a copy of which is attached hereto as appendix 2, depicts the subdivision and canal system which petitioner ultimately created as it exists today. In 1969, when petitioner prepared his proposed plans for dredging the canal system for the lands pertinent to this case, which lie west of Drost Drive in the subdivision, the state did not regulate dredge and fill work on privately owned uplands. Rather, a permit was only necessary to open the canal system to navigable waters. In June 1969, petitioner applied to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) for a permit to dredge a 60 foot wide and 3,000 foot long "canal" along the western and southern shore of the subject lands. Petitioner proposed to dredge to a depth of -15 feet mean low water (MLW) and represented that the area of the proposed "canal" was dry at low tide. In September 1969, petitioner revised his application and withdrew his request to dredge the "canal" as originally proposed. As revised, petitioner proposed to dredge the "canal" predominately from uplands, for which no permit was required and requested a permit to dredge 9,722 cubic yards of material from a 75 foot wide, 175 foot long, and 20 foot deep area to create an access channel for the proposed shoreline "canal", and to fill approximately 0.48 acres of submerged land adjacent to the proposed "canal." In December 1969, petitioner's revised application was approved, and a permit issued to perform the requested work in navigable waters of the state. Following receipt of the aforesaid permit, petitioner dredged the shoreline "canal" and the access channel, which currently abuts the southern and western shorelines of petitioner's property. While he avers that the shoreline "canal" was dredged entirely from uplands, the proof demonstrates that, at least in part, it was dredged from lands lying waterward of the natural ordinary or mean high water mark, and that the upper edges of its sides are normally below water. From 1972 through mid-1976, petitioner was prohibited from further development of his canal system because of a rule change which required approval of the complete canal system rather than just the opening of the system to navigable water. During this period, the Department and petitioner reached agreement on an acceptable manner in which the canal system could be completed, and on July 19, 1976, petitioner received his permit. The permit authorized petitioner to do the following: To dredge 75,500 cubic yards of upland material to create approximately & 2,450 feet of canals (approximately 600 feet to -12 feet mean low water, 450 feet to -8 feet mean low water, and 400 feet of tapered culvert) in order to convert a dead-end canal system into a flow-through system; ... to remove existing plug; ... and spoil to be deposited on adjacent upland. and, contained the following pertinent conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS: ...the work authorized by this Permit shall be valid for a three (3) year period that shall commence upon receipt by the Permittee of all government authorizations, state and federal.... * * * PARTICULAR CONDITIONS: 3. The culvert under Drost Drive will be 10 feet wide and at a depth essentially equal to that of the connected canals. * * * 5. All culvert approaches shall be flared to smoothly connect to the canals. * * * 7. The plug shall remain intact until all upland excavation has been completed and any siltation has subsided. Petitioner completed the improvements contemplated by the Department's permit in December 1980. Pertinent to this case, the northern most canal was connected by a 10 foot wide culvert under Drost Drive to an existing canal on the east to provide a flow-through system. Prior to removing the plug from the canal system, petitioner completed all upland excavation of the interior lots which consisted of scraping all mud or soft ground from the edge of the canal back a distance of approximately 20 feet. Additionally, petitioner scrapped the ground back from the edge of the shoreline a distance of 2-10 feet. Petitioner contemplated that the caprock at the edge of the canals and shoreline would be capped with a vertical seawall and a concrete patio constructed over the remaining area. 2/ While such occurred on lots abutting other canals and a few lots abutting the subject shoreline, no such construction has occurred in the two northernmost canals. 3/ In reaching the conclusion that no vertical seawall exists in the northernmost canal west of Drost Drive, I have not overlooked the fact that such canal is connected hydraulically to the canal east of Drost Drive, and that the canal east of Drost Drive does contain vertical seawalls. However, I find compelling the fact that the canal west of Drost Drive was constructed long after the canal east of Drost Drive and that they are connected by a culvert, which runs under Drost Drive, that is significantly narrower than the canals. Under the circumstances, while they may be part of the same canal system, they are separate canals. I have, likewise, not overlooked the fact that the southerly edge of lot 19 is bulkhead. I find, however, that the natural extent of the northernmost canal is abutted on the north and west by lots 1-18 and that portion of lot 19 that is rip-rapped, and that no vertical seawalls exist within that canal. Environmental Concerns The proof demonstrates that along the southern and western shoreline there exists a littoral shelf that varies from 2-10 feet landward of the channel, and that is submerged at a depth of 2-6 inches at mean high water (MHW). Upon this shelf is a dense growth of sea grass and algae, followed landward by jurisdictional species such as mangroves, buttonwoods, and sea daisies. These species provide habitats for wildlife, water quality filtration functions, and food to lower organisms in the food chain. The vertical seawalls proposed by petitioner along the southern and western shoreline would have a direct adverse impact on fish and wildlife, their habitats, and marine productivity. The destruction of the intertidal vegetation where the seawalls would be replaced and the total isolation of the remaining wetland vegetation located landward of the seawalls, would prevent those species from providing their traditional wetland values. Within the two northern most canals, the exposed caprock abutting the canals is at or above mean sea level (MSL) in most cases. The Department offered credible proof, however, that a narrow littoral shelf exists along both canals which supports vegetation similar to that found along the southern and western shorelines. Additionally, the Department demonstrated that portions of the shoreline within the canals, where the caprock has been exposed, is saturated by natural tidal action at a frequency and duration adequate to support mangroves or other wetland species. In most case, however, this growth has been minimized by petitioner's mowing of the shelf area. Petitioner offered no competent proof to rebut the Department's showing that the project is subject to its jurisdiction. While construction of the proposed seawalls would not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation or affect flood control, it would adversely impact the fish and wildlife, their habitats, and marine productivity within the canals. The marine life within these canals are very productive, due in no small measure to the design characteristics adopted by petitioner. Currently, lobster, crab, mollasks, and a healthy array of organisms populate the interior canals in question. There has been no credible showing that the existing waterways are experiencing harmful erosion. Upon consideration of the various criteria established by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, it is found that the applicant has failed to establish that the project is not contrary to the public interest, as well as the more stringent standard that the project is clearly in the public interest. As part of his proposal, petitioner agreed that no mangroves would be disturbed, and that any capping would be done in a manner to assure their survival. The preservation of existing wetland areas alone is not, however, sufficient to compensate for the wetland areas to be lost. A lagoon Respondent contends that the waters abutting the shoreline of petitioner's property are considered a lagoon. A "lagoon" is defined by Section 403.911(5), Florida Statutes, as: . . . a naturally existing coastal zone depression which is below mean high water and which has permanent or ephemeral communication with the sea, but is protected from the sea by some type of natural existing barrier. In the opinion of Janet Llewellyn, accepted as an expert in oceanography, the waters abutting the petitioner's shoreline are within a lagoon that extends from the shoreline to a naturally existing barrier reef to the south. Petitioner offered no contrary proof. Under the circumstances, the opinion of Ms. Llewellyn is credited. Although the interior canals are artificially created waterways that were totally dredged on privately owned upland, and the waters of those canals never overlapped natural surface waters of the state before the plug was pulled, the opening of the canals to the abutting waters extended the lagoonal waters into the canals.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the application be denied. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1988.
The Issue The issues concern the request by Petitioner for a permit(s) to dredge in a man-made canal and to construct two boat houses and six boat slips.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns property in Marion County, Florida, from which he has legal access to a man-made canal that intersects the Oklawaha River. This river is an Outstanding Florida Water body. The canal and river are in Marion County, Florida. In November 3, 1989, Respondent received a permit application from Petitioner. This application sought approval to dredge in the man-made canal which is approximately 800 feet long. That canal is owned by the Canal Authority of Florida. The dredging activity would include removal of material at the mouth of the canal as it intersects the Oklawaha River. The applicant intends to expand by dredging the length in the landward extent of the canal from 60 feet to 120 feet and the width from 50 feet to 170 feet. In the landward extent of the dead-end canal, what is described as the boat basin, the applicant seeks approval for the construction of six boat slips and two boat houses. The relative design of the these activities and the placement of the spoil materials removed in the dredging are shown in the application to include responses to the omissions request. That application is found as the Respondent's Composite Exhibits No. 1. At present the applicant has a 30 foot pontoon boat in the dead-end canal. He has a 17 foot bass boat and his neighbor has a 24 foot pontoon boat that use the canal. With the advent of as many as six boats available for the six slips contemplated by this application, the boats would vary in length from 16 feet to 30 feet. In carrying out the dredging activities Petitioner states that he would use anchored turbidity curtains at the intersection of the canal and the Oklawaha River while dredging activities transpired. The exact location of the proposed project is the south shore of the Oklawaha River in Marion County, Florida, in Section 35, Township 14 South, Range 23 East. On June 1, 1990, Respondent noticed its intent to deny the permit. Following that denial Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing to consider his entitlement to the permit(s). The history of the dead-end canal in question is not clear from the record. Its present condition does suggest that it has existed for a considerable number of years. Its appearance does not reflect that routine maintenance has been performed to preserve its original configuration to include maintaining its original depths throughout its course. At the location where the canal intersects the Oklawaha River, the river runs in an easterly direction for a short stretch. Its flow regime at that point is quite swift. This intersection is in a bend of the river. The high energy flow at that juncture has created an undercut at the mouth of the canal and for some distance on either side. The landward extent of the canal or area of the proposed boat basin is an area which was dredged from uplands. The canal extends in an northerly direction to the river through a wetlands swamp. Spoil material from the original dredging had been placed on the east and west side of the canal. There was sufficient deposition on the west side to allow vehicular traffic. That bank of the canal provides physical access to the river. In the Petitioner's experience, at around the time of the application process the water levels in the river and canal were as low as they had been during his three years of observation. At other times during that three year period the water levels had been approximately two feet higher than the low levels described. It is, however, unclear from the record what the normal high and low ranges of water levels in the river would be at this location. Petitioner has observed that the water levels in the canal during the time in question is three feet in most of the canal except at the mouth as it intersects the river where the water level is shallower. As seen in the photographs a great deal of vegetation is present in the water in the canal causing it to be in a marsh like condition. Emergent vegetation exists in certain portions of the canal which indicates a generally permanent shallow water condition. The low water level in the mouth of the canal which has been described is only a few inches deep. The bottom of the canal where it enters the river is more substantial in compaction as compared to the rest of the canal. It is not clear when this compaction occurred, in particular whether it occurred following the original construction of the canal. Navigation is a problem for most boats in the condition of the canal as it was described at the time of hearing. Petitioner describes that he and other fishermen have navigated in the canal when the water levels were high enough to allow that navigation. The canal in its present condition serves as a habitat for wildlife. The wildlife includes blue winged teal, little blue heron, large mouth bass, bream and alligators. In order to mitigate the effects of this project Petitioner has offered to place a recycling water fall in or near the proposed boat basin to allow oxygen to be placed in that basin. This is described in the application documents. Petitioner proposes to landscape the slopes of the basin with boulders and natural vegetation. He proposes to place "no wake" signs along the canal. Notwithstanding the intent to use a turdibity curtain to protect against violations of turdibity standards in the waters in the canal and the adjacent Oklawaha River while dredging, problems of violation of Respondent's turbidity standards are expected to occur. This occurrence is probable given the relatively fast current in the river which precludes the efficient use of turbidity screens or curtains. Dead-end canals such as that envisioned in this project have water quality problems. Enlargement of the dead-end canal does not assist in addressing the problems, even taking into account the intention by Petitioner to recycle water in the proposed boat basin. The water quality standards that are likely to be violated concern dissolved oxygen and BOD (biological oxygen demand). The assurances Petitioner has given about these standards in terms of protections against violations are not reasonable assurances. The addition of six boat slips and the potential for greater use of the canal by boats other than those that presently exist creates an opportunity for other water quality violations. Those possibilities pertain to turbidity problems through the stirring of bottom sediments and a violation of standards for turbidity and nutrients through that process. Oils and greases are associated with the placement of boats in the dead-end canal and a violation of Respondent's water quality standards for oils and greases is possible. During high water events and other flushing events when water from the canal enters the river, the poor quality of that water from the canal will reduce the water quality in the receiving body of water, the Oklawaha River, potentially causing water quality violations in the river. More specifically related to the artificial water fall proposed by Petitioner, such a device is not generally found to be an acceptable solution in addressing any potential water quality problems created by the expansion of the dead-end canal system. In any event, that system of aeration only would address the dissolved oxygen water quality parameter and not other regulatory parameters. The dredging of the canal has adverse affects on the fish and wildlife presently using the waters in the canal through the adverse affect on their habitat. When the water quality is degraded as described it adversely affects public health, safety and welfare for those who use these waters. Petitioner has observed logs jamming in the curve of the river and the accumulation of sand around that area further closing the mouth of the canal. In order to keep the logs free from the canal entrance they have to be moved on a weekly or monthly basis. Petitioner would attempt to save as many trees as possible when dredging in the mouth of the canal. Petitioner intends to sod slopes where dredging occurs and to place berms to keep water from running off into the canal and to prohibit erosion in the area of the boat basin. Petitioner has in mind making it convenient for boats to turn around in the landward end of the dead-end canal and hiding those boats from the sight of persons on the river by keeping them in that area. However, Petitioner acknowledges that when boats negotiate inside the landward extent of the dead- end canal they churn up the bottom sediments and cause problems with water quality. More specifically, Petitioner's right of access to the mouth of the canal is an easement across the property of the Canal Authority of Florida. Petitioner owns the area of the boat basin which is at the far end of the canal. Activities by Petitioner in that portion of the canal about which he does not have ownership rights which violate Respondent's environmental regulations would be adverse to the interest of the Canal Authority of Florida. Petitioner intends to improve the road access along the bank of the canal as it offers access to the river. Two hundred fifty to three hundred feet of the canal length moving away from the river is through a swamp which is marshy with weeded vegetation on its slopes. The rest of the length of the canal is through an uplands. As you move up the slopes in the canal it goes from submerged to transitional to upland species of plants. It is a shallow water system where plants can live inundated or exposed. These are types of plants seen along edges of rivers or lakes where water flows slow. At the mouth of the canal, the compacted substrate has the appearance of what you would find on the edge of a deep creek or river channel. This material is compacted clay or rock with a sand overlay. The area is stabilized. The long term impact of this project is the elimination of vegetation within a marshy system thereby removing habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates and their breeding and feeding areas. In the dead-end canal systems the dissolved oxygen problems are presented by a slow moving regime of water and the suspension of nutrients and materials from the banks of the canal. The bottom materials that are stirred up by boats are transported to the river. Ordinarily canals are too deep to support the form of emergent vegetation found in some portions of the canal. The deeper the canal the more difficult the water problems, and the flushing times take longer. This is especially true with long canals such as the one at issue. This contributes to problems with violation of standards related to DO and BOD. While the canal itself is not an Outstanding Florida Water, the Oklawaha River's ambient water quality is at risk with the dredging activities contemplated by this project.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which denies the permit(s) for dredging and construction of boat slips and docks. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 21st day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5734 Having considered the proposed facts of the Respondent they are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 C. W. Pardee, Jr. 2769 Northeast 32nd Place Ocala, FL 32670 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Southern Hy Power Corporation (Hy Power) has provided reasonable assurance, based on plans, test results, or other information, that its proposed hydroelectric facility will comply with the Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) statutes and rules of Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) and the Wetland Resource Management permit (WRM)/water quality certification statutes and rules of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
Findings Of Fact By Joint Prehearing Stipulation the parties agreed to the following description of the parties and the project: PARTIES: The Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) is a government agency in the State of Florida existing by virtue of Section 20.255, Florida Statutes, and operating pursuant to Chapters 253, 373, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes, and Title 62, Florida Administrative Code. Under an interagency agreement with SWFWMD, the Department also implements Title 40D, Florida Administrative Code. The Department is located in Tallahassee, Florida, and it has a district office in Tampa, Florida, which district includes Levy County. Southern Hy Power Corporation is a Florida Corporation whose principal offices are located at 7008 Southwest 30th Way in Gainesville, Florida. Betty Berger is an interested party with a mailing address of Post Office Box 83, Inglis, Florida. The Campbells are an interested party with a mailing address of 245 Palm Street, Inglis, Florida. Hy Power applied on August 31, 1993, to the Department for a WRM permit/water quality certification to construct a hydroelectric facility on the Inglis By-Pass Channel. The project is located in Section 12, Township 17 South, Range 16 East, within the town of Inglis in Levy County. The facility consists of a powerhouse located on the south side of the channel measuring about 28 feet wide by 115 feet long, drawing water from the Inglis By-Pass Channel, passing it through a single-pit type turbine and discharging downstream of the Inglis By-Pass Spillway Dam. Hy Power applied on August 4, 1998, to the Department for a MSSW permit for the same proposed hydroelectric facility on the Inglis By-Pass Channel. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The project involves the construction of an intake structure, powerhouse, and tailrace on a 0.61-acre area located on the south side of the existing Inglis By-Pass Spillway. The facility will take advantage of the existing hydrostatic head that exists on either side of the Spillway Dam, to generate electricity. The powerhouse will be constructed below grade and will contain a single megawatt turbine and generating unit. The intake structure will divert flows from the upstream side of the Spillway Dam through the powerhouse and back into the By-Pass Channel. A small one-story control building and low profile substation will be constructed above grade within the boundaries of the project area. The hydroelectric project is considered to be a "Run of the River" type of facility because it can only use that water which flows down the existing channel. The geometry of the channel restricts flow to a certain amount, therefore the project cannot create or use flows above those that the By-Pass Channel can provide. The overall authority for control of water levels in Lake Rousseau and flow to the lower Withlacoochee River will remain with the DEP. Lake Rousseau was created in 1909 when the Inglis Dam was constructed across the Withlachoochee River for the purposes of hydroelectric generation. The dam impounds over 11 miles of the Withlachoochee River and forms a lake approximately 3,000 to 4,000 acres in size. Prior to construction of the Barge Canal, water released from the Inglis Dam would flow down the lower portion of the Withlachoochee River about 10 miles before entering into the Gulf of Mexico. In the mid to late 1960's the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) built a portion of the Cross Florida Barge Canal between the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Rousseau. The canal severed the Withlachoochee River downstream of the Inglis Dam causing its flow to be diverted into the Barge Canal and then into the Gulf. In order to maintain the flow of freshwater from Lake Rousseau to the lower segment of the River, the 8,900-foot long Inglis By- Pass Channel and Spillway were constructed. The resulting downstream flow ensures navigation in the lower portion of the River and sustains its freshwater and estuarine environment. The water level in Lake Rousseau is generally maintained at an elevation of 27.5 feet above mean sea level (msl) by a combination of the Inglis Dam, the Inglis Lock, which is located in the Barge Canal, and the By-Pass Channel Spillway. These water control features are known collectively as the Inglis Project Works. The water levels in the lower Withlachoochee River immediately to the west of the By-Pass spillway are close to sea level. The resulting head provides the potential energy needed to drive the proposed generator turbine. Under normal conditions the majority of water released from Lake Rousseau flows over the Spillway Dam into the lower segment of the River. According to the DEP Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT), the maximum capacity of the existing By-Pass Channel Spillway is 1,540 cubic feet per second. The hydroelectric project will divert whatever flow is allowed around the existing spillway through the turbine and back into the channel. When the Cross Florida Barge Canal project was cancelled in the 1990's, the ACOE transferred ownership of the property to the State of Florida Board of Trustees, who in turn has leased the property to the DEP for use as the Cross Florida Greenbelt State Recreation and Conservation Area. Management of this property, the control of river flow and lake levels, and operation of the Inglis Project Works are exercised by the DEP's OGT. The OGT utilizes a document entitled "Water Control Plan for Inglis Project Works," dated September 1994, as a guide to operating the structures. The Water Control Plan is incorporated as part of the MSSW intent to issue. On or about April 25, 1995, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Trustees"), approved a request from Hy Power to sublease 0.61 acres of Greenway property at the project site for the purpose of providing electric power. The request was challenged by Berger and the Campbells, and resulted in an administrative hearing held on November 3, 1995. As a result of the hearing, Administrative Law Judge Larry Sartin entered a Recommended Order on July 12, 1996, that the Board enter an order approving execution by the DEP of the proposed sublease and dismissing the petition of Berger and the Campbells. The Recommended Order was approved by the Trustees in its entirety in a Final Order dated April 12, 1996 ("Final Order"). Berger v. Southern Hy Power Corporation et al., Case No. 95-3589. A copy of the Final Order is listed as an exhibit to this Stipulation, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained therein are adopted herein. As previously ruled by the undersigned, the previous Final Order is res judicata as to Petitioners in this case, who are collaterally estopped from challenging any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law contained in the previous Final Order. Petitioners reserve the right to litigate issues of fact and law not addressed in the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law contained in that Final Order with regard to the permittability of this project under the WRM and MSSW permitting proposals, and to raise objections as to relevance to this proceedings of any of the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law in the Final Order. On February 21, 1995, Hy Power filed application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a conduit exemption from the licensing requirements of Part I of the Federal Powers Act (FPA) for the proposed project. Petitioners and various other persons filed protests with FERC in opposition to the project. On April 21, 1997, FERC issued an Order Granting Conduit Exemption, a copy of which is listed as an exhibit to this Stipulation. Petitioners in this case are collaterally estopped from challenging any of the findings or conclusions contained in that Order Granting Conduit Exemption. Petitioners reserve the right to litigate issues of fact and law not addressed in the Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law contained in that Order Granting Conduit Exemption with regard to the permittability of this project under the WRM and MSSW permitting proposals, and to raise objections as to relevance to this proceedings of any of the findings or conclusions in the Order Granting Conduit Exemption. FACTS ADDUCED AT HEARING OUTLINE OF PROJECT The proposed project calls for the construction of a water retention structure along the existing By-Pass spillway, the excavation of a large hole in which the powerhouse and turbine would be constructed "in-the-dry" south of the existing dam, and a millrace below the proposed project to return the water back into the existing water course. Conflicting testimony was received regarding the facts surrounding the construction of the project. These included: whether the proposed project will touch the existing wing walls of the existing dam; whether the water retention structure is a coffer dam; whether the proposed water retention structure will safely retain the water; whether the powerhouse and turbine have sufficient negative buoyancy to stay in the ground; whether the proposed excavation will weaken the existing dam; and whether the de-watering of the excavation site will adversely impact ground and surface water. PROJECT DESIGN AND ENGINEERING Engineering for the project was directed by witness Richard A. Volkin, a professional engineer and president and CEO of Engineering Company, Inc., based in Canton, Massachusetts. Mr. Volkin has extensive national and international experience in the design, management, and operation of hydroelectric facilities. Other engineers in Mr. Volkin’s firm worked on the project under Mr. Volkin’s direct supervision, including John May, who became registered as a professional engineer in Florida in order to sign and seal the engineering drawings for the project, which he initially did around 1994. Mr. May became ill and retired in 1998. Because of the length of time the application process has taken and the fact that Mr. May retired, there was a time while the application was pending, when Hy Power's design team was without a registered Florida engineer. When this was brought to the attention of Hy Power, Hy Power substituted Steven Crockett for Mr. May as the Florida-registered professional engineer of record for the project. DEP routinely accepts an applicant’s changing its engineer of record during the course of permit application or construction. Mr. Crockett is a civil and structural engineer who has considerable experience in preparing dam structural designs. Mr. Crockett independently reviewed and evaluated the engineering drawings for the project. Mr. Crockett resealed the drawings by using his drawn seal and signing the plans because his embossed seal was not readily available and time was of the essence. Mr. Crockett has advised DEP that he is now engineer of record for the project, using the appropriate DEP forms. Mr. Volkin’s firm performed all of the studies required by the various agencies, including a geotechnical study of the area, a 50-year analysis of water flow in and out of the Lake Rousseau regime, and water quality evaluations of water in the By-Pass Channel. The ACOE performed deep hole borings of the soils (approximately 36-40 feet below sea level) in the area of the project site to determine soil stabilization conditions at the site when they were constructing the Inglis Project Works. The soil conditions found can reasonably be expected to be similar today. Mr. Volkin’s company also took its own eight-foot deep surface core samples. The purpose of those samples was to verify the ACOE data. The new core samples verified the original core samples. Mr. Volkin also reviewed the ACOE’s engineering drawings developed from construction of the Spillway Dam. These show that the dam is founded on limestone bedding that has been stabilized with concrete. The hydroelectric facility will be constructed adjacent to and south of the dam structure and adjacent to and north of the barge canal. The same type of limestone bedrock is found in the area of the proposed construction. The facility design includes an intake channel on the upstream channel and a tailrace downstream. Those are the only structures that will be constructed next to the By-Pass Channel. The construction of the facility itself will be "in the dry." Hy Power will use coffer dams to seal off the construction site from the By-Pass Channel, so that there will not be water leakage from the Channel into the construction site. Water from the By-Pass Channel will enter the power plant when the coffer dams are lifted and the water is allowed to flow into the facility. The Petitioners presented the testimony of Bill Edwards, an individual with considerable experience in the construction of bridges, cofferdams, and similar concrete structures in aquatic and semi-aquatic conditions. Mr. Edwards is a former hard-hat diver who worked all over the world and worked in Florida for many years prior to his retirement. Based upon his experience and expertise in construction related to projects of this type, his testimony is credible and worthy of consideration. Mr. Edwards pointed out that if the proposed water retention structure did not touch the wing wall of the existing dam, it could not keep the water out and would not have the strength that it needed to retain the water. Hy Power’s witnesses explained that the retention structure would be set close enough to the existing wing wall that waterproofing materials could be placed between the two structures to keep the water out. Further, that the existing plans did not show interior bracing which would be included for structural strength and integrity. In sum, the retention structure will be in contact with existing dam’s wing wall, but will be free standing and not dependent upon the strength of the wing wall for its strength. Mr. Edwards pointed out that a cofferdam by definition has walls on all sides of the structure. The structure proposed by Hy Power did not have walls all the way around the proposed excavation. In rebuttal, Hy Power presented evidence that its plans were conceptual, design drawing and not construction plans. Hy Power represented that in actuality it would put as many walls as were necessary to keep the water out of the hole it intended to excavate. Trash racks will be constructed at the intake structures to protect aquatic life and make sure that trash and vegetation do not enter the intake structure or go down river. The trash rack bars will be two inches on center, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined as the appropriate size for the protection of fish. The turbine blades are "double regulated," and operate generally between 60 and 90 revolutions per minute. The design enables the turbine to operate at a constant speed to generate a consistent flow of electricity, notwithstanding the fact that the flow of the water may vary. The blade speed is not very fast, and the 2.5-meter blades provide a two to three-foot opening. This design acts to prevent fish mortality. There are four ways to shut off the flow of water through the proposed structure: close the pitch of the blades, close the wicket gates, allow the counter balance to the wicket gates to kick in and automatically close the gates, and close off the main gates. This is a fail safe system ("four level redundancy") designed to work upon any failure. Once water goes through the generator, its velocity is reduced to no greater than its intake rate which is a maximum of three feet per second. This prevents the water being discharged from the tailrace from causing erosion. If the head of water in the dam produces a flow exceeding three feet per second, it can be diverted over the other dams which will be functional. The power plant will be encased in concrete, except for a small access way that enables a person to go down a set of stairs to the plant. It will be a sealed, waterproof structure, as required by FERC and the ACOE. This will prevent penetration of groundwater, or flood waters in the event a massive flood overtops the plant. The only water entering the powerhouse will be through the turbine tunnel for power generation purposes. Mr. Edwards pointed out that the powerhouse was a closed structure and as such would have positive buoyancy, that is, it would float. Mr. Edwards pointed out that the proposed site is between the barge canal and By-Pass spillway and there is a great deal of groundwater and potentiometric pressure in the existing water table. In sum, there is a unlimited supply of groundwater at the site, and powerhouse could float out of the ground just like an empty swimming pool. Hy Power presented rebuttal evidence that the weight of the building, the turbine, and the water flowing through the turbine would be close to negative buoyancy, and they would add additional weight to the structure as necessary to keep it in place. The project is designed to generate three megawatts of electric power which is enough electricity to serve between 300 and 3000 homes, depending on usage. The project is designed to be unmanned. This is common for facilities such as this. The plant can be operated by remote control, unlike the existing controls at the By-Pass Dam, which are operated manually. DEP can access, monitor, and control remotely the generator's operation to include shutting the facility down at any time. There will be remote sensors to monitor water elevations. Flood protection will improve because of the ability of DEP to manage water flow from a remote location. If there is any major disruption, the plant will shut itself down. The project is classified as "green power." In other words, it generates natural energy without any disruption to the environment. The project will have minimal to no impact on the environment. There will be no significant changes in water quality compared to existing conditions as a result of either construction or operation of the facility. WRM Permit Criteria Hy Power has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause a violation of state water quality standards of Section 403.918(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The parties stipulated that turbidity and dissolved oxygen were the two surface water quality issues of concern in this proceeding. The receiving water body is the Inglis By-Pass Channel. The Inglis By-Pass Channel is a Class III surface water. The project is not located in a OFW. While the lower Withlacoochee River is an OFW, the OFW designation runs up the natural river itself, and does not include the Spillway Dam, tailrace, or the remainder of the By-Pass Channel. There would be no degradation of water quality at the point of contact with the Withlacoochee River OFW. The DEP and FERC looked specifically at potential for turbidity and dissolved oxygen in determining whether the project would violate state water quality standards. The standards for turbidity and dissolved oxygen will not be violated. Because the By-Pass Dam is an under flow structure, a minimum of oxygenation currently occurs as water flows through the existing dam. The proposed project runs the water underground through the generator; however, Hy Power will measure the dissolved oxygen below the dam in the Lower Withlacoochee River. In the event there is any lowering of dissolved oxygen, Hy Power can install a "sparge ring" to reoxygenate the water going through the turbine so that dissolved oxygen remains at current levels. No turbidity will be added to the receiving water as a result of the project, because water velocity is low and the structure is encased in concrete and rip-rap. The only other potential for turbidity would occur when the coffer dams are removed after construction is complete. The coffer dams can be removed with the generator closed to permit any turbidity to settle. The amount of siltation that might occur when the generator is opened would be insignificant. Where a project is not in a OFW, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project will not be contrary to public interest. See Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes (1991). Hy Power has provided such assurances. The project will not directly affect public health, safety or welfare, or the property of others. See Section 403.918 (2)(a)1., Florida Statutes. There are concerns relating to the structural integrity of the proposed facility and adjacent structures which are discussed extensively below. The project will have no adverse impact upon the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species and their habitat. See Section 403.918 (2)(a)2., Florida Statutes. While manatees are not likely to be found at the project site, the installation of the trash racks will eliminate any potential adverse impact on manatees. In fact, the racks will be an improvement over the current unprotected Spillway Dam. DEP procedures require a specific manatee control plan be implemented to deal with site specific concerns. The project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of the water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. See Section 403.918(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes. The project will not adversely affect fishing or recreation values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project. See Section 403.918(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. The permanent project and its construction will cause no significant environmental impacts. See Section 403.918(2)(a)5., Florida Statutes. There will be no adverse impacts to significant historical and archeological resources. Section 403.918(2)(a)6., Florida Statutes. With regard to the impact on current conditions and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity, there will be no negative impacts. See Section 403.918(2)(a)7., Florida Statutes. Improvement will result from better control of water flow at the project site, installation of trash racks and implementation of green power. THE FORESEEABLE ADVERSE SECONDARY OR CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Potential adverse secondary impacts related to power transmission are addressed through the fact that there is an existing power line corridor that can be used to transmit the electricity. Any need to change the corridor could be addressed by subsequent DEP permitting. Cumulative impacts are not at issue. Mr. Gammon, with Florida Power, acknowledged that the current electric company, presumably Florida Power, would be required by FERC to transport the electricity generated by Hy Power over its existing corridor and poles. No final decision has been made regarding how to access the site with equipment during construction. Several feasible construction options exist, and there are several ways of accessing the site with heavy equipment vehicles and without impacting wetlands. Any final decision would be subject to DEP approval. Since the project meets the public interest criteria of Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and wetland impacts are minimal, the project is permittable without the need for mitigation. See Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. The ACOE has issued a permit for the facility. The permit varies slightly from the DEP intent to issue in the use of reinforced concrete rather than rip-rap on the bottom half of the intake channel. This is to comply with ACOE preference, but the variation has only an environmental benefit. Counsel for Petitioners sought to elicit testimony from Linda Sloan, Executive Director of the Withlacoochee Regional Planning Council, with regard to compliance of the proposed project with the Town of Inglis Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. Such compliance is not relevant to this proceeding. At any rate, Ms. Sloan conceded that any prohibition that might apply in the Land Development Code to construction of the proposed facility could potentially be alleviated by exemption or variance provisions in the Code. MSSW PERMIT CRITERIA The project will provide adequate flood protection and drainage in the conventional sense. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Because the amount of impervious area is minimal, runoff from the project will not in any way contribute to increased flooding or adversely impact drainage patterns. The total amount of impervious area of the facility is less than that of a single-family residence. SWFWMD rules do not even require MSSW permits for single-family residences because the impact is not significant. The only purpose for requiring a MSSW permit for the project is to review the project’s potential downstream impacts to the watershed, not stormwater runoff from the facility itself. The project will not cause adverse water quality or water quantity impacts on adjacent lands in violation of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, or cause a discharge that violates state water quality standards. See Rule 40 D-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. As indicated by the WRM water quality findings above, the project will not generally violate state surface water quality standards. See Rule 40 D-4.301(1)( c), Florida Administrative Code. The project will not generally cause adverse impact on surface or groundwater levels or flows. See Rule 40 D- 4.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. Since the project is a run-of-the-river, it will not diminish the capability of a lake or other impoundment to fluctuate through the full range established for it under Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code. The project will not cause adverse environmental impacts, or adverse impacts to wetlands, fish, and wildlife or other natural resources. The project can be effectively operated and maintained. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code. The project is a slow speed, low maintenance facility. The design concept is well established and has been successfully used for many years. Possible adverse affects to public safety are discussed below. The project is consistent with the requirements of other public agencies. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Potential harm to water resources within the SWFWMD are discussed below. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code. The proposed project generally will not interfere with the legal rights of others. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. The proposed project is not against public policy. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(l), Florida Administrative Code. The project complies with the requirements contained in the Basis of Review. See Rule 40D-4.301(2), Florida Administrative Code. There is a dispute as to whether the project was within or at the edge of the 100-year flood plain. This dispute is related to how one interprets the rule as it relates to the millrace and the location of the facility which is under ground. In the conventional sense, the project is not in the flood plain. Further, the project is designed in such a way, that it is waterproof if it were topped with water. While in the past SWFWMD may have had concerns that the project might cause downstream flooding, SWFWMD currently has no such concerns, given the run-of-the-river status of the proposed project. The operation of the project will not cause downstream flooding. The DEP included in its intent to issue, conditions contained in the sublease between Hy Power and the DEP in order to ensure that the facility would remain run-of-the-river, would comply with the water control plan, and would otherwise comply with the terms of the sublease. The DEP has final control over water flow and can revoke the permit or otherwise take enforcement action against Hy Power if Hy Power fails to comply with the water control plan. GROUNDWATER IMPACTS Operation of the project will not cause groundwater contamination or otherwise have adverse groundwater impacts. Some concerns about groundwater during excavation of the construction site were raised. The conflicting evidence received regarding them is discussed below. An area of concern was the de-watering plan for the project. Everyone agrees there will be some water seepage into the construction site that will have to be pumped out. The parties disagree regarding the amount of water that will have to be removed. Their estimates of amount of water to be removed vary because their estimates of size and over-all depth of the site vary. Petitioners presented credible evidence that a potential exists for the construction site to have a large quantity of water because of its location between two sources of surface water (the By-Pass Channel and Barge Canal), because of the makeup of the subsurface, and because of the depth of the construction. Hy Power credibly represents that if excessive groundwater is found, it can address the adverse impacts through its de-watering plan that would have to be filed with FERC and DEP. The technology exists to address the de-watering of the project. Such plans are routinely considered by DEP after a construction permit is issued and before de-watering occurs. There is very little evidence of sinkhole activity in the project area, and the construction activities are not expected to cause any sinkhole activity. NOISE POLLUTION Mr. Bitter expressed concerns that FERC would require the facility to install a very loud siren that would result in sudden noise adverse to the well-being of neighbors. Mr. Bitter is unfamiliar with FERC siren requirements at run-of the-river hydroelectric facilities. In contrast, Mr. Volkin, who has substantial experience in this area, testified that the only alarm device that would be required would be for the protection of the workers during construction. The purpose of the alarm is to warn persons below a dam spillway of a change in the volume of water being let out of the impoundment. In the case of a run-of-the-river facility, the volume is near constant, changing only gradually. Therefore, even if a warning siren had to be installed its use would be limited to significant changes in flow or testing. This would not constitute a nuisance. Further, the facility is located in the vicinity of the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant which has its own warning sirens. It would be prudent to make any warning devices required for this structure significantly different from those at the nuclear plant and to limit their use. DAM SAFETY AND FERC REVIEW In reviewing whether Hy Power’s applications complied with the relevant permitting criteria, the DEP took into consideration the review of the facility already performed by FERC. FERC will also be responsible for reviewing the project as it is being constructed. Mr. Edwards also raised concerns about the structural stability of the By-Pass Dam itself. This has been a subject of concern by those responsible for the dam, and a survey of the structure was conducted in 1993, referred to as the Greiner Report. The Greiner Report identified specific maintenance problems that have been and are being addressed by the DEP. However, DEP’s maintenance plan does not address specifically the possibility that the weight of the dam over time has caused some shifting in the dam. Hy Power has only a few core borings and only one at the location of the generator. Hy Power is using the ACOE’s original borings, as confirmed by several new ones, to develop its preliminary plans. The DEP considered FERC and the ACOE as responsible agencies for determining the structural integrity of the dam. DEP has taken FERC’s review of this facility into consideration as part of DEP’s own permitting review. It is normal for DEP to rely on outside sources and agencies for assistance in determining compliance with DEP permitting criteria such as public health and safety, and it is reasonable for DEP to do so in this instance. Most states do not have the full capability to evaluate dam safety, and so they rely on FERC and ACOE. On April 21, 1997, the project received a conduit exemption from FERC. The application process is illustrated in Hy Power Exhibit 11. Hy Power submitted to DEP detailed information about the dam, the associated structures and the proposed project which had been reviewed by FERC and the ACOE, the two agencies in the United States who are responsible for dam structure design, control, and administration. Included in the package was the Greiner Report and Hy Power’s review of it. FERC evaluated the project, the Inglis By-Pass Dam structure, and the proximity of the project to the Dam in relation to structural impact, upstream and downstream impacts, water quality, and environmental issues. Mr. Edwards raised concerns regarding the ability of the limestone bedrock to sustain additional construction in the area of proposed construction. This is a material issue in the controversy which impacts several aspects of the proposed construction. Mr. Edwards pointed out that the barge canal channel was constructed with the use of explosives that caused a fracturing of limestone bedrock. He pointed out that the steel panels, which Hy Power proposes to drive into the bedrock to construct the water retention structure necessary to excavate the hole into which the turbine and powerhouse would be placed, will further fracture this bedrock. This creates two potential dangers. It could permit water to move under and around the bottoms of the panels, potentially scouring the loosened material from the base of the panels and making them unstable and subject to failure. It could weaken the entire southern wing of the existing spillway dam. Mr. Edwards opined that this could result in catastrophic failure of the dam or the coffer dam. Such a failure would cause major destruction and loss of life to those persons living and working in and along the lower Withlacoochee River. Hy Power presented rebuttal evidence that it could and would, if necessary, inject concrete into the limestone to stabilize it and avoid the concerns raised by Mr. Edwards. FERC specifically evaluated concerns raised by project opponents over the poor physical condition of the By-Pass Channel Spillway structures, relying particularly on the 1993 Greiner Report. FERC noted that the DEP had entered into a contract to correct any deficiencies listed in the Greiner Report, which "did not conclude that the deficiencies at the By-Pass Spillway threaten downstream life and property." The FERC review concluded that the dam was safe. To ensure safety, FERC is requiring that Hy Power do a complete stability analysis of the dam prior to any construction. Articles 301 and 302 of the FERC exemption ensure that all final drawings and specifications be submitted to FERC prior to construction, along with a supporting design report consistent with FERC’s Engineering Guidelines; that FERC can require changes to assure a safe and adequate project; and that Hy Power must also submit approved coffer dam construction drawings and specifications at least 30 days prior to starting construction. FERC has its own engineering staff who will go to the site and do their own analysis, along with the ACOE, of the dam and structures, prior to any construction commencing. This is a detailed design review evaluation so that the latest information on the dam will be made known immediately prior to construction, and will prevent any catastrophic event from happening. Under FERC procedures, FERC requires the applicant to obtain the DEP permits prior to requiring applicant to submit more detailed construction designs for FERC's consideration. These more detailed designs in turn will be subject to further review by DEP and FERC. It is assumed that Hy Power will comply with the post- permitting procedures and requirements, and will present complete, detailed construction drawings for FREC and DEP approval. Hy Power’s failure to complete the process would result in denial of a construction permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the DEP enter a Final Order that issues the two permits challenged in this proceedings, WRM Permit No. 38-237096-3.001 and MSSW Permit No. 38-0129249-002, subject to the conditions contained in the Intents to Issue in the respective WRM and MSSW Permits and as described in the Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 2nd day of March, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Berger Davis & Singerman 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 705 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrew Zodrow, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John S. Clardy, III, Esquire Crider Law Firm Plantation Point 521 West Fort Island Trail, Suite A Crystal River, Florida 34429 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Bernard M. Campbell Bessie H. Campbell 245 Palm Street Post Office Box 159 Inglis, Florida 34449 Sarah E. Berger Post Office Box 83 Inglis, Florida 34449
Findings Of Fact On June 26, 1986, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued a permit, No. 661168901, to Elizabeth R. McSheehy authorizing construction on the shore of Choctawhatchee Bay of a seawall 165 feet long and eight feet high "faced with rip-rap . . . and backfilled with 18 cubic yards of sand fill . . . in accordance with [an] attached map and drawing." Joint Exhibit No. 1. The permit application had proposed that the seawall "TIE INTO MR. HEATH['S] SEAWALL," and the attached drawing indicated a point of beginning along the seawall already protecting the lot to the east, then owned by Mr. Heath, now owned by Prentice M. Thomas. The drawing has no compass rose and does not specify the angle of either leg of the permitted seawall. The construction permit expired December 30, 1987 (well beyond the 120 days within which the application indicated it would be necessary to complete construction, once begun.) At hearing, the parties stipulated that Ms. McSheehy had erected or caused to be erected a seawall at the location permitted on or before December 30, 1987. DER does not dispute that the seawall functioned as such when built. Seawall Fails Ms. McSheehy received a letter from Mr. Thomas dated June 6, 1990 (in an envelope postmarked June 22, 1990) stating, "I recently visited my lot at Four Mile Post and regret to inform you that the seawall you installed on your property has been demolished by the winter and spring storms." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The letter reported that her "lot was eroding at a rapid pace." Id. Afraid that his own lot would be affected, despite its well-maintained seawall and rip-rap he had added, Mr. Thomas "beseech[ed her]. . . to take action to arrest the erosion of [he]r shoreline." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The lot west of Ms. McSheehy's has no seawall. T. 48. Its shoreline had also eroded, judging from photographs in evidence. Soon after receiving the letter, Ms. McSheehy inspected the property for the first time since the summer before. She found the piles on which the seawall had been constructed in 1986 or 1987, now standing as far as 30 feet out in the bay. Only the eastern 20 or 30 feet of the seawall remained intact. Remnants, including individual boards and wall fragments comprised of as many as four boards had washed up on the receded shoreline. When DER's James Eric Buckelew happened on the site on July 26, 1990, he concluded from the erosion that the seawall had ceased to function as such some months before. Bay waters reached 20 or 30 feet further inland, covering about a tenth of an acre landward of what remained of the seawall. Mr. Buckelew took photographs of the site. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Seawall Now in Bay Before the month ended and apparently before anybody from DER communicated with Ms. McSheehy, the seawall was rebuilt in its original location. No additional fill has been placed landward of the seawall, which now has water on both sides. In various trips to the site and otherwise in responding to this turn of events, DER has expended at least $245.37. DER advised Ms. McSheehy that a permit could be issued for construction of another seawall along what seems to be the new mean high water line, but that she had acted illegally in having the seawall restored at a location now some 20 or 30 feet out in the Bay. (T. 115). After first applying for and receiving a permit to remove the existing seawall and construct a new one further landward, she took the position that restoration of the original seawall had been lawful, and these proceedings ensued.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That DER make final its proposed orders for corrective action, unless within a reasonable time DNR conveys or leases to respondent the property lying between the seawall and the mean high water line. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-7281 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbers 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With regard to petitioner's proposed finding of fact number 1, the permit issued in 1986, but it is not clear that construction was accomplished in 1986. With regard to petitioner's proposed finding of fact number 4, the seawall failed sometime between the summer of 1989 and the spring of 1990. With regard to petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbers 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, use of the word "unauthorized" renders these proposed conclusions of law. Respondent's "proposal for the ruling of the hearing officer" did not contain separately numbered proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Richard L. Windsor, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Elizabeth R. McSheehy 516 Mooney Road Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32547
