The Issue The issue is whether to approve the City of Gulf Breeze's (City's) application for a Consolidated Wetland Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization to conduct a restoration project in Pensacola Bay.
Findings Of Fact Background This dispute involves a challenge by Petitioners to the third phase of a restoration project by the City designed to preserve the Island and protect its historical resources. The project site is located in sovereign submerged lands adjacent to the Island on the southwest side of the Highway 98 Bay Bridge which traverses Pensacola Bay connecting the Cities of Gulf Breeze and Pensacola. The Island is not a true island, but has always been connected to the mainland by a strip of land referred to as an isthmus, which meets the shoreline at Lot 36 of an older subdivision known as the First Addition to Casablanca Parcel No. 1 and platted almost sixty years ago. The isthmus juts out from Lot 36 into Pensacola Bay in a northwesterly direction for several hundred feet before making a 90-degree turn to the southwest where the Island then runs roughly parallel to the shoreline for around a half mile. See Joint Ex. 5-7, 14, and The Island, isthmus, and shoreline form the boundary around a small body of water known as Gilmore Bayou, an ecologically important and pristine salt marsh area. According to aerial photographs, at its widest point, the Island appears to be no more than a few hundred feet wide. Petitioners reside at Lot 37, which is just northeast of the isthmus on the shoreline. The rear part of Lot 37 faces Pensacola Bay and the City of Pensacola to the northwest. Lots 36, 35, and 34 (running to the southwest along the shoreline and facing Gilmore Bayou), are owned by Patricia Moreland, Robert Ozburn, and Intervenor Paul Tamburro, respectively, all of whom testified at the final hearing. Except for Petitioners, the project is supported by virtually all of the residents of the area as well as numerous civic organizations. See Joint Ex. 33. On July 14, 2008, the City filed with the Department its Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida, which would allow the City to complete the third phase of the project by (a) planting native submerged vegetation over approximately three acres of sovereign submerged lands, and (b) placing approximately 16,000 cubic yards of fill material and planting native emergent vegetation to stabilize the fill material on sovereign submerged lands at the north end of the Island. See Joint Ex. 3. The Department has authority under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code chapter 18-21 to approve the application. After an extensive review of the application, on August 9, 2010, the Department issued a Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Wetland Resource Permit and Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands, which authorized the proposed project. See Joint Ex. 4. The proprietary authorization (letter of consent) was issued under the authority of rule 18- 21.005(1)(c), which identifies a number of activities that qualify for a letter of consent. In this case, because of the range of proposed activities, the project could qualify for a letter of consent under subparagraphs 8., 15., and 16. of the rule. On September 1, 2010, Petitioners filed their petition challenging the proposed agency action. While their initial pleading raised a number of issues, and cited two rules as a basis for reversing the agency action, these allegations have been substantially narrowed over the course of the proceeding and are now limited to the following: whether the project constitutes management activities associated with the protection of a historic site, thus qualifying for a letter of consent under rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16.; and whether the project unreasonably restricts or infringes upon their riparian rights of navigation, boating, swimming, and view, as proscribed by rule 18-21.004(3)(c). They also question whether Intervenor has standing to participate, but that issue is not dispositive of the primary issues in this case. Petitioners do not contest the issuance of a Wetland Resource Permit. Finally, Respondents and Intervenor question whether Petitioners have standing to initiate this action. The Project Site The project is located on sovereign submerged lands adjacent to the Island, a "naturally occurring sandy beach," as that term is contemplated in rule 18-21.005(1)(c)8. This is true even though portions of the "sandy beach" have eroded over time. The City owns the entirety of the Island. See Joint Ex. 14 and 15. This was not disputed by Petitioners. The Island is a public park, natural preserve, and historic site that is owned and maintained by the City exclusively for public use. Deeds by which the property was conveyed to the City require that it be forever used as a natural preserve and maintained in its natural state. See Joint Ex. 14 and 15. The Island and the area immediately adjacent thereto have a long and significant history dating back to the 1700's. Throughout the 1700's and 1800's, various portions of the Island were used as a careening facility for the repair and maintenance of large vessels. A marine railway was also built. In the late 1800's, a quarantine station was constructed on the Island where people who had contracted yellow fever were isolated. A cemetery exists upon the Island containing the remains of many who perished from the yellow fever epidemic. Also, there were many shipwrecks at the Island, of which some of the remains still exist. Accordingly, there are historic resources and artifacts such as shipwrecks and human remains on and around the Island. The Island has sustained significant erosion over the past 70 years. The northeast shoreline has eroded some 450 to 500 feet during that period of time. There has been a significant loss of vegetation and land mass. Without protection, the Island is in a perilous condition and subject to a permanent breach. The peat bog underlying the Island is vital to the stability of the Island and has been greatly damaged. It requires protective measures, such as those contemplated by the proposed project in order to assure its preservation. Due to the effects of hurricanes and storms, the erosion has substantially increased during the past decade. The erosion has caused the unearthing of and damage to historic artifacts and the salt marsh in Gilmore Bayou. There are clearly visible remnants of the former marine railway on the Island, which are being weakened by current weather events and require protection in order to preserve them. Caskets from the cemetery as well as human bone remains have been unearthed and additional damage will occur without protective restoration efforts. If the erosion continues, there will be more damage to the historic artifacts and the salt marsh will be destroyed. The Project To prevent further erosion and to protect the Island and Gilmore Bayou, the City has applied to the Department for three separate phases of a project to stabilize the shoreline. The first two phases of the project involved the construction of an artificial reef breakwater and the planting of shoreline vegetation. See Joint Exhibit 7a. They have already been approved by the Department and are no longer in issue. The first and second phases were challenged by Petitioners but the cases were eventually settled. See Case No. 09-4870, which involved the second phase. The third phase of the project is being conducted primarily for the maintenance of essentially natural conditions and for the propagation of fish and wildlife. This phase can be described as follows: restoration or nourishment of a naturally occurring sandy beach as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)8.; habitat restoration or enhancement as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15.; management activity associated with protection of a park as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16.; management activity associated with protection of a preserve as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16.; management activity associated with protection of a historic site as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16.; and management activity associated with protection of habitat restoration or enhancement as contemplated by rule 18- 21.005(1)(c)16. While the project implicates each of the above provisions, the application and proposed agency action indicate that the letter of consent is granted on the theory that the project is associated with protection of historic sites. See Joint Ex. 4. The third phase is also designed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitats and other naturally occurring resources. The project consists of the placement of 16,000 cubic yards of fill material in the area between the existing artificial oyster reef and the shoreline to restore and replace conditions that previously existed. The fill will consist of beach compatible sand that will be approximately six inches to a foot above mean high water. This phase also involves the planting of appropriate native wetland vegetation in the fill area, which will help stabilize the fill. The planting of vegetation in the third phase is separate and distinct from the plantings authorized in the second phase of the project. The project is needed in order to prevent further damage to a public park; public preserve; threatened, endangered, or special concern species of vegetation/habitat; and historic artifacts. These protection efforts were requested and recommended by the Florida Department of State. Petitioners contest only the propriety of the fill materials and the planting of the emergent stabilizing grasses on the fill. The fill portion of the project is located a significant distance from Petitioners' property. The closest portion of the project is estimated to be at least 550 feet from Petitioners' property, while the bulk of the project will take place between some 750 to 1,200 feet from their property. The Proposed Vegetation Planting In the third phase of the project, the City proposes to plant and establish emergent grasses (those that grow in water but partially pierce the surface) and sea grasses, all of which are appropriate native wetland vegetation on the Island. The proposed emergent grasses are Spartina alterniflora (also known as smooth cordgrass) and Juncus roemerianus (also known as black needle rush), which will be used for stabilization of wetlands. The proposed submerged seagrasses are Halodule wrightii (a type of shoal grass) and Ruppia maritime (a type of widgeon grass), which will help stabilize the fill. The smooth cordgrass is native to the Island. It will be planted in the fill area to prevent the fill from eroding. It is expected that once they mature, the height of the plants will not exceed two and one-half feet. Due to the water depth in the area, the shoreline slope, the sediment supply, and the wave action, the smooth cordgrass will not spread outside the proposed project area. Also, it will not interfere with navigation, boating, swimming, fishing, or view. The vegetation will, however, help fishing in the area. The black needle rush is also native to the Island. It will only grow to approximately two and one-half feet in height due to stressful conditions caused by the salt content in the water and wave action. It will not spread beyond the proposed project area and will not interfere with navigation, boating, swimming, fishing, or view. Like the smooth cordgrass, it will enhance fishing in the area. Both Halodule wrightii and Ruppia maritime are native to the Island. Both have slow growth rates, which when coupled with the "high energetics of the system," will hinder their ability to spread outside the project area. Neither seagrass will hinder navigation, boating, swimming, fishing, or view. They will afford a greater opportunity for snorkeling, recreation, and fishing; they will serve as a nursery habitat for finfish and shellfish; they will increase the habitat value of the area; and they will improve water quality. Petitioners submitted no evidence to contradict these findings. They also failed to submit any evidence that the fill material or grasses would spread into any riparian area that might be appurtenant to their Lot 37. The above findings are reinforced by the results of a separate project known as Project Greenshores located across Pensacola Bay from the Island. Project Greenshores involved the restoration of wetlands using dredge material to restore islands that are then protected by the construction of a breakwater and are stabilized by the planting of the same grasses that are proposed for the Island project. The two projects are in relatively close proximity to each other and have essentially the same environment. One difference, however, is that Project Greenshores receives a small source of sediment from stormwater outfalls, which means that it has a higher chance of grasses growing than does the Island. Even with the increased sediment, the grasses at that project have not spread beyond the project area, they have not interfered with navigation, boating, swimming, view, or fishing, and they have enhanced fishing in the area. Historical Artifacts Petitioners contend that the project does not qualify for a letter of consent under rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16. That provision authorizes the Department, acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, to issue a letter of consent for "management activities associated with . . . historical sites . . . provided there is no permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public." As noted above, the Island has a long and significant history dating back to the early 1700's and there are historic resources and artifacts on the Island. See Finding of Fact 10, supra. When there is an archeological site issue in a permit, the Department typically relies on information from the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(2)(c)("reports by other agencies with related statutory, management, or regulatory authority may be considered in evaluating specific requests to use sovereignty lands"). Here, the Department relied on information from that agency, which indicates that there are archeological resources at the project site. The Department of State also recommended placing fill over the artifacts to protect them, which will be accomplished by the proposed fill. In addition, the Department relied upon information contained in a survey conducted by Mr. Empie, a registered professional surveyor, to generally show where those artifacts are located. See Joint Exhibit 5, also referred to as the Empie survey. The evidence supports a finding that the project is for management activities associated with historical sites. The record shows that there is strong public support for the project. See Joint Ex. 33. Although many of the artifacts will be covered by the fill, the fill will actually protect them from damage, destruction, theft, and removal. By protecting them, future generations will be able to enjoy the artifacts. No "structures," as that term is defined in rule 18- 21.005(1)(c)16., are part of the project. Therefore, the project will not cause permanent preemption by structures. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the project will not exclude the general public from the fill area. The City contemplates that other activities, such as underwater snorkeling, will encourage the public to utilize the project site. The evidence supports a finding that the project qualifies for a letter of consent under this rule. Riparian Lines The Empie survey provides a reasonable depiction of the various riparian lines in the areas adjacent to the proposed project. See Joint Ex. 5. A professional surveyor with the Division of State Lands, Mr. Maddox, agreed that it was a reasonable depiction of the angle of the riparian lines and a "fair distribution of riparian areas," including that of Lot 37. The only property owner adjacent to the Island is Patricia Moreland, who owns Lot 36 and has resided on that parcel since 1956. As noted above, the isthmus meets the northwest boundary line of Lot 36. By executing a Letter of Concurrence, Ms. Moreland conferred upon the City all rights, both proprietary and riparian, that she has with respect to Lot See Joint Ex. 16. Petitioners contend that they own riparian rights appurtenant to their Lot 37, which is to the east of Lot 36. The City and Intervenor dispute this claim and contend that Lot 37 does not adjoin any navigable water and thus there are no riparian rights appurtenant to Lot 37. Assuming arguendo that Lot 37 adjoins Pensacola Bay, it is still separated from the project site by riparian areas appurtenant to the Moreland property (Lot 36) as well as the riparian areas appurtenant to the City property, i.e., the Island and isthmus. The Empie survey, which reasonably depicts the riparian lines in the project area, shows the project site as being approximately 300 feet inside the existing breakwater, which is shown as being no closer than 48.9 feet away from the westernmost riparian line appurtenant to Lot 37. See Joint Ex. The primary portion of the fill site is located around 370 feet from the closest point of the western riparian line appurtenant to Lot 37. Id. No portion of the project is located within 25 feet of the Lot 37 riparian line. Id. Petitioners presented no evidence disputing the riparian areas identified on the Empie survey or otherwise identifying the areas of riparian rights appurtenant to their property. While they engaged the services of Mr. Barrett, a professional land surveyor to prepare a boundary survey, the purpose of the survey was to show that Lot 37 adjoins Pensacola Bay, rather than depicting the riparian areas appurtenant to that lot. See Petitioners' Ex. 1. Infringement on Riparian Rights Rule 18-21.004(3)(c) requires that "activities [in submerged lands] must be designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland property owners." (emphasis added) Petitioners contend that, even though they do not routinely use their riparian rights, the project will restrict or infringe upon their riparian rights of boating, swimming, navigation, and view. To make this determination, they assert that the appropriate test under the rule is mere infringement, and not "unreasonable" infringement; however, this interpretation is contrary to the plain wording in the rule. The main living floor of Petitioners' residence is approximately 50 feet above sea level. The emergent grasses will be located no closer than 500 feet from the edge of Lot 37 and 600 feet from their residence and are expected to grow only to a height of no more than two and one-half feet. The concern that the grasses will impair Petitioners' view is without merit. Although Dr. Cope initially believed that fill or grass would be placed or planted "all the way up to and abutting our lot 37," this interpretation of the City's plans was incorrect. A photograph taken from his back yard indicated that he could view the northeastern corner of the Island where new vegetation or fill might be placed, but the photograph depicted an area outside of the Lot 37 riparian area. See Petitioners' Ex. 18. While Dr. Cope initially stated that the new emergent grass would "clearly degrade the view from both the house and the shoreline," he later acknowledged that the project would not have any effect upon his view of Lot 37's riparian areas. There are a boathouse and dock in the waters behind Petitioners' house. However, Petitioners submitted no evidence to support their suggestion that the project might cause the water behind Lot 37 to become more shallow and adversely affect boating and navigation. Contrary evidence by the Department and City was unrefuted. Finally, Dr. Cope stated at hearing that he has never been swimming in Gilmore Bayou or Pensacola Bay and has no intention of doing so. His wife offered no evidence that she ever intends to swim in those waters. In summary, the activities undertaken in the project area will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon Petitioners' riparian rights of swimming, boating, navigation, or view within the meaning of rule 18-21.004(3)(c). Petitioners' Standing Respondents and Intervenor contend that Petitioners lack standing to bring this action for two reasons: that they do not own Lot 37 individually but rather as trustees, and the petition was not filed in that capacity; and that Lot 37 does not adjoin navigable waters. See § 253.141(1), Fla. Stat. ("[r]iparian rights are those incident to land bordering upon navigable waters"). As described by the City's real estate expert, in June 2010, or before the instant petition in this case was filed, the Copes executed two deeds for estate planning purposes, which resulted in "legal title [being] owned part by Dr. and Ms. Cope as to one-half life estate and for Ms. Cope as to one-half for her life estate [and] then the remainder interest is vested in the trustees [of the D. Nathan Cope or Cynthia Russell Cope revocable trust agreements] for the remainder interests." Put in plainer language, this meant that the ownership of Lot 37 is now divided as follows: an undivided 50 percent is owned by the wife as to a life estate and by the wife's revocable trust as to the remainder interest, and the other undivided 50 percent is owned by the wife and husband as to a life estate for the husband's lifetime and by the husband's revocable trust as to the remainder interest. Therefore, there are four entities or persons with an ownership interest in the property: Dr. Cope, Mrs. Cope, Dr. Cope's trust, and Mrs. Cope's trust. The City presented expert testimony regarding the chain of title of Lot 37, beginning in June 1952 when the subdivision was first platted, and running through June 2010, when Petitioners conveyed the property to themselves as trustees of two revocable trusts. According to the expert, the subdivision plat in 1952 reflects a narrow strip of property (described as a hiatus strip) separating the entire subdivision, including Lot 37, from the waters of Gilmore Bayou, Pensacola Bay, and Woodland Lake, a nearby body of water. The strip was a park that was dedicated to the public. See Joint Ex. 1. In 1962, the developer conveyed by quit claim deed the entire strip to the record title holder of each lot in the subdivision. At that time, Lot 37 was owned by the Blaylocks. The expert found that each conveyance of Lot 37 that occurred after 1962, up to and including the Copes' purchase of the property in February 2008, did not include the hiatus parcel. Therefore, he opined that title in the strip property continues to remain with the Blaylocks. Besides his title search, the expert further corroborated this opinion by referring to a topographic survey of Lot 37 prepared in June 2005, see Joint Ex. 2a; a title insurance policy on Lot 37 issued in 2008 when the Copes purchased the property that specifically excludes title insurance for the hiatus parcel; and a recent Santa Rosa County tax bill describing the property without the hiatus parcel. In response, Petitioners contend that the hiatus strip never existed or the 1952 plat is invalid because it failed to comply with section 177.08, Florida Statutes (1951), which required that "all land within the boundaries of the plat must be accounted for either by blocks, out lots, parks, streets, alleys or excepted parcels." Because a dispute over the exact boundary lines of Lot 37 exists, this issue must be resolved in the appropriate circuit court. See § 26.012(2)(g). For purposes of deciding the merits of this case, however, it is unnecessary that this determination be made. Intervenor's Standing Dr. Tamburro currently resides on Lot 34, which faces Gilmore Bayou, and jointly owns the property with his wife. He uses the Bayou to boat and for other recreational purposes. He also uses the Island to swim, walk, and boat. The preservation of the Island is important to him since it serves as a barrier island in protecting his home during storm events. Although Dr. Tamburro's wife did not join in his petition to intervene (but appeared as his counsel), he still has a recognized ownership interest in the property.1
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the City's application for a Wetland Resource Permit and Letter of Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of April, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners filed separate, although virtually identical, applications with the Department in February, 1983 to construct separate catwalks from their properties, with platforms at the end of each catwalk. The dimensions of each catwalk were to be three feet by 350 feet, and the platform dimensions were to be six feet by twelve feet. This construction was to take place through a marsh and mangrove wetland and tidal creek known as Andrews Creek. Petitioner's properties adjoin and are in the interior of the creek. Intervenor's property is located at the mouth of Andrews Creek where it intersects a canal, and borders that area of the creek through which Petitioners proposed to construct their catwalks and platforms. On March 9, 1983 the Department notified Petitioners that a permit would be required for their project pursuant to Chapters 253 and 403, F.S., that their applications were incomplete, and that approval from the Department of Natural Resources in the form of a "consent of use of state-owned land" might be required. Petitioners provided additional information in support of their application, but were again notified on April 5, 1983 that Department of Natural Resources consent or approval was necessary in order to complete their application file. The Department prepared a permit application appraisal report on June 13, 1983 without the benefit of an on-site inspection for these applications. The appraisal was based upon written materials submitted by Petitioners in their applications. The appraisal recommended approval, noting that a single joint access facility would be preferable to the dual catwalk and platform configuration proposed by Petitioners As a result of this appraisal, the Department notified the Department of Natural Resources on July 1, 1983 that it intended to issue permits to the Petitioners but that it needed a response from the Department of Natural Resources concerning consent of use or approval pursuant to Section 253.77, F.S. Final action on Petitioners' applications could not take place until the Department received a reply from the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioners received a copy of this notice which was sent from the Department to the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioner was again notified on August 29, 1983 that consent or approval from the Department of Natural Resources was required before the Department's approval could be given. The August 29 letter also stated that Petitioners would have to obtain a letter of authorization and affidavit of ownership from any property owner, other than Petitioners themselves, whose property would be crossed by their construction. In response, Petitioners submitted to the Department an approval they received from the local homeowner's association, but this approval was not issued in compliance with the association's by-laws, and was therefore not a valid authorization and consent to the use of whatever interest the association has in Andrews Creek. On December 5, 1933 Petitioners notified the Department that they were amending their applications to eliminate the platforms at the end of their respective catwalks. On or about January 3, 1984 the Department of Natural Resources suggested to the Department that public notice of this project be given due to the type and location of the project. The Department notified Petitioners on January 26, 1984 that since numerous property owners might be affected by their project, a public notice would have to be published. In response to such publication, the Department received letters from other property owners on Andrews Creek which both opposed and supported Petitioners' project. At about the same time, the Department learned that Petitioners had already constructed their catwalks, with one large platform joining the ends of both catwalks. This construction took place despite the lack of either a permit from the Department or consent/approval from the Department of Natural Resources. Petitioners' applications indicate the use of six inch pilings and a portable jet pump with a one inch jet nozzle in the construction of their project. The Department performed a field inspection of the site and issued a permit application appraisal report dated May 3, 1984 which recommended denial of the permit applications while also confirming that the project had already been constructed. Denial was recommended since the dimensions of the actual construction exceeded the project dimensions described in the applications, considerable clearing of mangroves had taken place although the applications stated no such clearing would be required, and the adverse impact on water quality, marine productivity and other environmental factors the two catwalks were found to terminate with a large platform thirty-eight feet long by ten feet wide, with Zembillas' catwalk being 417.5 feet in length and Starzak's being 398 feet long. The combined project has a total square footage of approximately 3700 square feet, with each catwalk exceeding the permit exemption dimensions of 1000 square feet. Andrews Creek has been designated a conservation area and therefore the clearing and resulting damage to the mangrove community resulting from this project is particularly significant. As part of a permitting action in 1972 the State of Florida, through he Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, negotiated with Lindrick Corporation, the developer of the residential area surrounding Andrews Creek, to preserve certain areas from development. The Board of Trustees issued a permit to Lindrick Corporation "to perform certain works in the navigable waters of the State of Florida" which allowed half of Andrews Creek to be filled and which preserved the other half that remains today as a conservation area. The conservation area was to be protected from development. Thereafter, the Lindrick Corporation entered into an agreement with the homeowner's association whereby association approval would be required for development in the conservation area. Petitioners' project, as constructed, shades a larger area than it would have if built in accordance with their applications. Shading of wetlands can reduce dissolved oxygen levels of a wetland and thereby reduce the area's productivity. Although Petitioners offered a laboratory report showing exceedingly high dissolved oxygen levels in Andrews Creek, it appears that the sampling technique used resulted in the aeration of the sample which therefore did not reflect the true level of dissolved oxygen. Intervenor testified that he purchased his property because of the designation of Andrews Creek as a conservation area, and the resulting privacy of such a natural habitat. Petitioners' construction has obstructed Intervenor's view of the water and wetlands area of Andrews Creek, and infringes on this privacy due to the close proximity of Petitioners' platform to Intervenor's property. The catwalk is twelve to fourteen feet from the boundary of Intervenor's property. The portion of Andrews Creek crossed by Petitioners' project is navigable according to testimony presented, and as recognized in 1972 when a dredging permit was issued to the developer, Lindrick Corporation. The portion in question includes the original tidal creek, which is a tributary of the Gulf of Mexico via an excavated channel. Navigability of the creek has been adversely affected by this project. There would be a significant, adverse, cumulative effect on Andrews Creek if other surrounding property owners decided to construct docks similar to Petitioners' since this would involve additional clearing of mangroves, a reduction of dissolved oxygen in the water due to extensive shading, and the further elimination of the creek's navigability. There are eighteen (18) property owners on Andrews Creek, including Petitioners and the Intervenor, and there is a reasonable likelihood that other homeowners will apply for permits to construct similar docks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is recommended that: Petitioners permit applications be DENIED. Petitioners shall have forty-five (45) days from rendition of the Final Order in this case to remove their dock, consisting of catwalks, a connecting platform and support pilings. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1985 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nicholas M. Zembillas 2001 Dewey Drive New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Martha Harrell Hall Esquire Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. L. Starzak 2003 Dewey Drive New Port Richey, Florida 33552 Victoria J. Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a consent to use sovereign submerged lands.
Findings Of Fact MBRRC filed an application for an environmental resource permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands located in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (BBAP). This application sought approval to construct two finger piers and to install twelve mooring pilings for the benefit of a private yacht club. The application was filed with the Department for review on October 20, 1995. The Petitioner’s property is located on Hibiscus Island, a man-made island within the BBAP, and is accessed by boat. The island is primarily used for residential purposes. Petitioner’s facility is the only commercial docking facility on the island. Petitioner owns approximately 140 feet along the waterfront with its property line extending 20 feet seaward of the upland property. It has an existing dock which is approximately 10 feet wide that runs the length of, and parallel to, the seawall along its waterfront. The proposed finger piers would extend waterward and perpendicular to the existing dock from its ends. This extension proposes to use approximately 16 feet into the sovereign submerged land at the ends and would also allow the installation of 12 mooring pilings between the piers. The ultimate purpose of the installation is to allow perpendicular docking. At all times material to this case the Department has considered the proposed construction to be a new facility subject to the requirements of Section 258.397(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Rule 18-18.006(3), Florida Administrative Code. No existing structures at the site would qualify the applicant for the type of lease proposed. The Petitioner annually hosts numerous fishing and social events at its club facility. Participants typically “raft” vessels together in order to gain access to the shore. Historically this process has moored vessels parallel to the existing dock/seawall. This “rafting” would not necessarily be eliminated by the addition of the proposed finger piers. Petitioner seeks to expand the docking facility as requested in order to provide better ingress and egress to its property. It contends that fishing and boating in the BBAP will be enhanced by such improvements. Petitioner maintains its property is being treated differently than others; however, policies used by the Department in this instance are applicable to all areas of the BBAP. By letter dated February 6, 1996, the Department advised the Petitioner that staff would recommend denial of the application. That letter advised Petitioner of the “extreme hardship” test found in Rule 18-18.006(3), Florida Administrative Code as well as Section 258.397(3)(a), Florida Statutes. The letter noted that this standard was “at best very difficult to demonstrate” and advised Petitioner of the “public interest” requirement also set forth by rule and statute. “Self-imposed circumstances” as used in the applicable rule has been construed to include circumstances where the applicant seeks to improve existing boat access, to increase the number of docking slips, and to enhance the upland property. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) has determined that the construction of single-family docks meets the “extreme hardship” test because single-family docks are considered to be the lowest impact use available on sovereign submerged land. It is deemed appropriate to allow a qualified right of ingress and egress to the upland owner. The Petitioner’s proposal is not a public project or a public necessity. Petitioner currently has ingress and egress to its upland property. The Petitioner’s property is a nonconforming use in a residential area. The term “property owners in the area” has been construed to mean the BBAP. The proposed project is not unique to the applicant, and the burden to the applicant is shared by other property owners in the BBAP. The proposed project would provide additional access to an upland property owner who already has boat access to the waterway. Neither the project site nor the island on which it is located are unique as other properties of a similar nature are within the BBAP. In order to establish that a proposed project is “in the public interest,” applicants are required to demonstrate that the activity would improve either public recreation, water quality, fish hatcheries, or other matters of public interest. In this instance, Petitioner did not submit a written proposal to support the public interest requirement during the application process. Consequently, DEP has not assessed such proposal for its quantity or quality. Petitioner relies on its improved boating access to support a claim of enhancement to public recreation. As to water quality, fish hatcheries, or other matters of public interest, the proposed project would adversely affect seagrasses and other environmental resources by shading. Although the installation of mooring pilings would provide some environmental benefit, those benefits would not be quantifiable and would be offset by increased shading from the project. Other proposals submitted by Petitioner incidental to its Dade County permit application are insufficient in detail and scope to show the public interest requirement would be met. The proposed project is located in an area that is intermediate between the most sensitive and least sensitive sites, for the purpose of manatee protection. The proposed project would have an adverse environmental impact on manatee protection since it creates additional docking slips and additional boat traffic. The proposed project would result in environmental costs through the loss of resources and increased turbidity. The proposed project would provide no quantifiable economic benefit to the public, but would provide some economic cost in the loss of habitat and food source for fisheries. The proposed project would provide no social benefits different from those presently provided by the existing facility. The benefit of the proposed project is merely enhancement of the Petitioner’s current use at a cost of lost fisheries, increased danger to manatees, and increased turbidity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for authorization to lease sovereign submerged land. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of March 1997. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen E. Tunstall, Esquire Stephen E. Tunstall, P.A. 2701 Southwest LeJeune Road Suite 410 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection, Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Silver Sands Estates, Inc., has demonstrated, pursuant to the Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, Florida, that a vested rights certificate to undertake development of certain real property located in Clay County should be issued by Clay County, notwithstanding the fact that part of such development will not be in accordance with the requirements of the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan?
Findings Of Fact The Property. Pursuant to Warranty Deeds dated August 15, 1975, and November 10, 1980, Silver Sands Estates, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Silver Sands"), acquired certain real property located in Clay County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Property"). At the time Silver Sands acquired the Property, the applicable zoning district permitted the development of the Property for single-family residential development at a maximum density of one unit per acre. Development of the Property; Government Action Relied Upon by Silver Sands. In 1979-1980, Silver Sands prepared a development plan for the Property which included the planned single-family residential development known as "Little Rain Lake Estates." The planned development consisted of a total of 96 single-family residential lots. Phase One and Phase Two consisted of 13 lots in each phase. In approximately 1979-1981, Silver Sands improved and maintained an unpaved private road, Little Rain Lake Road, which was to be used for the development of Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. The approximate costs to Silver Sands for these actions was $1,000.00. In 1979-1981, Silver Sands caused surveys, topographical surveys, and engineering plans to be prepared for the construction of a portion of Little Rain Lake Road as a paved dedicated road. Little Rain Lake Road was intended to serve Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. The road was planned to eventually extend approximately 3,640 linear feet east from State Road 21. The approximate cost to Silver Sands for these items included the following: surveys, $4,000; topographic surveys, $6,000; engineering, $6,000. Plans for the construction of approximately 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road were submitted to Clay County in 1980 for review and approval. This portion of Little Rain Lake Road was intended to serve nine of the lots within Phase One of Little Rain Lake Estates; the lots were shown on the plans for the road submitted to Clay County. The plans also depicted a temporary turnaround at the end of the 1,400 linear feet of the road submitted for approval. It was evident from the plans that Silver Sands planned a future extension of the road to serve the rest of Little Rain Lake Estates. Subsequent to the filing of the plans for the construction of the first 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road, Clay County requested that Silver Sands submit the development plan for all phases of Little Rain Lake Estates (as described in Finding of Fact 3). Silver Sands complied with this request. Clay County was, therefore, aware of Silver Sands' plan to develop Little Rain Lake Road in conjunction with its development of Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. On November 12, 1980, the proposed plans for the construction of the first 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road were approved by Clay County. Between 1981 and 1991 eight lots within Phase One of Little Rain Lake Estates were sold. Silver Sands' Detrimental Reliance. In December 1980 and January 1981 Silver Sands constructed the first 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road approved by Clay County. The cost of the construction was $26,845. In February, 1981, Clay County confirmed that the first 1,400 linear feet of Little Rain Lake Road approved by Clay County had been constructed pursuant to Clay County specifications. By Warranty Deed dated March 2, 1981, Silver Sands dedicated the portion of Little Rain Lake Road serving Phase One of Little Rain Lake Estates to Clay County. Also between 1981 and 1991, Silver Sands continued to maintain the unpaved and private portion of Little Rain Lake Road extending the remaining approximately 2,240 feet of the portion of Little Rain Lake Road intended to serve Phase One and Phase Two. The approximate cost to Silver Sands for these actions was $1,000.00. In 1997, Clay County requested Silver Sands to convey to the County approximately 34 acres of property along Little Rain Lake Road, formerly a part of Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. Silver Sands conveyed the property to the County. Also in 1997, Clay County requested Silver Sands to dedicate the remaining approximately 2,240 feet of Little Rain Lake Road which had been surveyed and engineered by Silver Sands in 1979-1980. The County also requested Silver Sands to provide the surveys and plans which Silver Sands had prepared in 1979- 1980. Silver Sands dedicated the remaining portion of the road and provided the surveys and plans to the County. Rights that will be Destroyed. In 1991, Clay County adopted the Clay County 2001 Comprehensive Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Comprehensive Plan"). Pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan the land use category applicable to development of the Property as single-family residential limits density to one unit per 10 acres. Under the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1990, Phases One and Two of the planned development of the Property cannot be developed for the 13 lots located in Phases One and Two which still remain in Silver Sands' ownership. The portion of the Property still owned by Silver Sands which has not been developed consists of the four lots in Phase One and the nine lots in Phase Two (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property does not include the lots in Phase One which were sold between 1981 and 1991 or the acreage conveyed to Clay County in 1997. If Silver Sands must comply with the Comprehensive Plan, the Subject Property cannot be developed for the 13 lots originally intended on the Subject Property in Phases One and Two of Little Rain Lake Estates. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
Findings Of Fact On March 6, 1987, Intervenors filed with Respondent an application for a quitclaim deed for the property adjacent to and waterward of Lot 43, Block 3, Lower Matecumbe Beach, Monroe County, Florida. Intervenors are the legal owners of Lot 43, although they entered into a contract for sale of the lot with another individual which remains in full force and effect. However, no transfer of title or sale of the property has taken place since Intervenors filed their application for quitclaim deed. Intervenors' application was reviewed by the Division of State Lands and determined to be complete and in compliance with the rules of Respondent and applicable statutory provisions. This determination by the Division was consistent with previous policy decisions in like matters. The application included two prints of a survey by a licensed surveyor acceptable to Respondent depicting the present mean high water line, surveyed and approved in accordance with Chapter 177, Part II, Florida Statutes; showing intervenor's property ownership to the mean high water line prior to filling; and showing the location of the former mean high water line which is properly riparian to Intervenors' upland property ownership with a tie to an established accessible section corner. Intervenors' application also contained: five maps, no larger than 8 1/2" x 14" in size, showing the location of the property to which a quitclaim deed is sought. the legal description and acreage of the property. an aerial photograph dated March 26, 1955 showing the land as it existed after filling. evidence of Intervenors' title to the riparian upland. affidavits of three disinterested parties evidencing the date of commencement and completion of the fill of the formerly submerged land as prior to June 11, 1957. The proof establishes that the property to which Intervenors seek a quitclaim deed resulted in part from filling performed between 1949 and 1952 and in part from accretion prior to 1960. Although some changes have occurred in the shoreline configuration with the passage of time, the majority of the property was in existence on March 26, 1955, In substantially the same shape and configuration as it existed on the date of the application. All of the property is located landward of the mean high water line and is within the riparian ownership of Intervenors. Petitioner has maintained that the property sought to be quitclaimed was filled as recently as 1975. Petitioner has not performed or had performed a mean high water survey necessary to any determination of whether materials were placed above or below the boundary line in 1975. Further, the purported dredging and filling activities depicted in photographic slides presented by Petitioner are found to memorialize the work performed by the Lower Matecumbe Beach Property Owners Association in 1975 on an existing jetty located adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the property sought to be quitclaimed. The work consisted of the dredging of a channel on the south side of the jetty. All or a majority of the resulting spoil which was deposited in the process on Intervenors lot was removed from the site by trucks. None of the spoil was placed on the beach or in the waters adjacent to Lot 43. The Association subsequently paid Respondents for removal of 1,000 cubic yards of fill from sovereign lands. The agreement by the Association to make such a payment to Respondent was reached in May, 1976.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered directing the issuance of a quitclaim deed to Intervenors as requested in the application. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-3143 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Intervenors' Proposed Findings Addressed. Accepted, but unnecessary. 3.-6. Addressed. 7-8. Accepted but unnecessary. 9.-12. Unnecessary to result. 13. Accepted. 14. Addressed. 15. Unnecessary to result. 16. Addressed. 17.-18. Unnecessary to result. 19. Addressed. 20.-21. Addressed. 22.-23. Unnecessary to result. 24. Addressed. 25.-27. Unnecessary to result. 28. Addressed. Adopted by reference. Addressed. 31.-35. Adopted by reference. 36.-41. Addressed. 42.-44. Adopted by reference. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-7. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha J. Edenfield, Esq. P.O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Eugene D. McClellan, Jr., Esq. Department of Natural Resources Suite 1003, Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 Arthur D. Ballen, Esq. Qualified Representative Two South Drive Key Largo, Florida 33037 Richard G. Colville 257 Sunset Drive Islamorada, FL 33036 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ken Plante General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulated facts of the parties, as filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 14, 1987, the following relevant facts are found: 1/ On October 31, 1985, the DER received from Agrico dredge and fill Application No. 531120329. On May 8, 1986, the DER sent to Agrico a Notice of Completeness indicating that Application No. 531120329 was complete as of April 24, 1986. On July 22, 1986, J. W. Landers, Jr. executed on behalf of Agrico a Waiver of 90 Day Time Limit, indicating that the waiver expired on August 1, 1986. On or about July 28, 1986, DER personnel discussed with Agrico representatives the possible withdrawal of Application No. 531120329 as one of the conditions for the issuance of a permit for Application No. 531093999. The DER failed to take action to approve or deny Application No. 531120329 on or before August 2, 1986. On August 12, 1986, the DER issued Permit No. 531093999. On August 23, 1986, Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. and Manasota-88, Inc. filed a Motion to Intervene Into Ongoing Environmental Licensing Proceeding and Petition For Formal Administrative Proceeding challenging the Department's issuance of Permit No. 531093999 and rendering that Permit to the status of intended agency action. This proceeding was assigned DOAH Case No. 86-3618. DOAH Case No. 86-3618 was scheduled for hearing on April 28-30, 1987. By letter date March 2, 1987, Agrico withdrew Permit Application No. 531093999. On May 8, 1987, the DER sent to Agrico a letter directing Agrico to publish public notice of the DER's intent to issue Permit No. 531120329 pursuant to Section 120.60(2), Florida Statutes. On May 26, 1987, the DER received from Agrico a letter indicating that the public notice was published as required. Manasota-88, Inc. timely requested an administrative hearing challenging the proposed issuance of Permit Number 531120329.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Permit Number 531120329 be issued to Agrico Chemical Company as of August 2, 1986, and that the petition filed by Manasota-88, Inc. challenging this permit be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 18th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1988.
The Issue Whether petitioners and intervening petitioners, or any of them, have standing or party status because removal of the dam would cause injury in fact of sufficient immediacy of a kind within the zone of interests protected by Section 403.91 et seq., Florida Statutes (1985)? If so, whether NWFWMD's permit application conforms to the requirements that Section 403.918, Florida Statutes (1985), Chapter 17-12, Florida Administrative Code, and Rules 17-3.001, 17- 3.121, 17-4.242 and 17-4.290(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code, set out? Whether NWFWMD has given reasonable assurances that removal of the dam would not cause water quality violations by lowering dissolved oxygen concentrations below allowable levels, or by causing eutrophication or turbidity or an increase in heavy metals, including chromium or other battery constituents, in excess of allowable levels? Whether removal of the dam would be in the public interest, taking into account the diversity of aquatic life, including aquatic weeds, and whether fish spawning will be enhanced or hindered, whether heavy metals would reach Apalachicola Bay and affect oyster beds or marine productivity, what effects on the property of others would be, what the effects would be on fishing and other recreation, public safety for canoers and others, navigation generally, mosquito breeding and odors?
Findings Of Fact The Dead Lakes are a wide place in the Chipola River. Near Wewahitchka, a forest of towering cypress trees once flourished in the periodic inundation of the Chipola River. But when a sinkhole collapsed the river banks, widening the Chipola River and the lower reaches of Stone Mill Creek, a tributary, to form the Dead Lakes, the trees growing in the riverbed also sank. Permanent immersion eventually killed many of the trees. The dead, moss-draped remnant the loggers left inspired the name of the lakes, which stretch for some ten miles through Gulf and Calhoun Counties. The Rise and Fall of the Dead Lakes The level of the Dead Lakes depends not only on how much water flows in, but also on how much flows out. Before man's intervention, the rate of outflow depended all year round on the stage or height of the Chipola Cutoff, the fork of the Apalachicola River into which, just below the Dead Lakes, the Chipola River drains, as well as on the stage or height of the Chipola River above the Dead Lakes. When the Apalachicola River and, therefore, the Chipola Cutoff were high, a backwater or damming effect tended to keep the level of the Dead Lakes up. Although pristine conditions no longer obtain, the relative elevations of the Chipola and Apalachicola Rivers still affect the water level in the Dead Lakes, at certain stages. The Chipola River drains approximately 1,280 square miles in northwest Florida and southeast Alabama. Although the Chipola is spring fed, the flow of water into the Dead Lakes depends ultimately on rainfall in the basin, which varies seasonally. At Altha, the lowest flow ever recorded was 330 cubic feet per second, and the highest flow on record there was 25,000 cubic feet per second. The Apalachicola River, which arises out of the confluence of the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers, drains a much larger area. Its flow has been altered by the Jim Woodruff Dam and other dams further north that the Army Corps of Engineers constructed, and now uses to generate electricity, and in an effort to keep at least nine feet of water in the Apalachicola River channel, for the benefit of commercial traffic. Although intended to bolster low flows, the Jim Woodruff Dam was first used to impound a reservoir, Lake Seminole, for the purpose. In combination with dry conditions, the result was record low water levels in the Dead Lakes of about ten feet NGVD during the years 1954 through 1958. Lakes Dammed Alarmed at this change in the Dead Lakes, people in the area decided a dam should be built. Not one of the 88 owners of property on the lake objected. The Legislature created the Dead Lakes Water Management District (DLWMD), Chapter 57-1115, Laws of Florida (1957); and the DLWMD constructed a stop log, low head weir just below and parallel to the bridge on which State Road 22A crosses the water flowing out of the lakes. The 787-foot weir was completed in late 1959 or early 1960 on the right of way of the St. Joseph and Iola Railway, alongside the bridge, not far upriver from the point where the clear water leaving the Dead Lakes joins the muddy waters of the Chipola Cutoff. The weir was designed to maintain the Dead Lakes at elevations up to 18.2 feet, in times of low flow. The stop log feature allowed adjustments so that elevations of less than 18.2 feet could also be maintained. In 1962, however, the stop log portion of the weir gave way, and that part of the weir was reconstructed, as the remainder had originally been constructed, with interlocking sheet pile, which, braced and buttressed with I- beams, did not allow any draw down of the lakes below 18.2 feet NGVD. No work has been done on the dam since 1962, and experts predict it will fail in about ten years if not attended to. The DLWMD installed four culverts about seven or eight feet high and twelve feet wide to the west of the weir in 1974, in order to restore draw down capability, as a means of controlling aquatic weeds. The DLWMD caused a channel to be excavated to these culverts, which were equipped with gates that could be raised and lowered with a screw mechanism. Although the invert elevation of the culverts is 10.5 at the upriver end and 10.3 feet at the other end, the Dead Lakes can only be drawn down to about 14 feet because of "base flow" and because of the configuration of the bottom, upriver of the culverts. With the gates of the draw down structure closed, the height of the weir (18.2 feet NGVD) is the limiting factor. Effect of Removal For about one-fifth of the year neither the weir nor the draw down structure determines how high the water in the Dead Lakes is, because interaction between flows in the Chipola River and in the Chipola Cutoff, the fork of the Apalachicola River which eventually rejoins the main river channel, keeps the Dead Lakes at or above the weir crest. During this part of the year, usually beginning in December and ending in March, Respondent's Exhibit No. 2, p. 20, the absence of the dam that NWFWMD seeks a permit to remove would make no difference. But, during times of low flow, with the dam out, the water level in the lakes would fall well below the current floor. Only one percent of the year, however, on average, would the lakes fall as low as the levels they reached in the 1954 to 1958 period. Eighty-five percent of the time the water level would be at or above 12 feet NGVD, without the dam, and the median elevation would be 14.75 feet NGVD, less than a foot above the lowest levels now reached. Without the dam, the lakes would cover more than 3,660 acres, the area covered at 14 feet NGVD, for half the year. The Dead Lakes now cover at least 5,500 acres half the time, or did before the draw down gates began staying open. No Control Over Control Gates As of the last day of the hearing, the testimony was that two of the draw down gates were open and two were closed. For some months preceding the hearing, private citizens opened and closed the gates willy nilly, although it was a good deal easier to close them than to open them, because they are quite heavy and the screw mechanisms are broken. With the dam's transfer to the NWFWMD for the purpose of seeking the permit here in contention, the DLWMD has become defunct, de facto if not de jure. According to Forest Revell, however, as quoted by Sheriff Harrison, the last word from the DLWMD on the gates was an order that they remain open. They were locked open in May of 1986 when Edward Baily, 67 years of age, found himself unable to start his outboard motor as he drifted north of the draw down structure in a small boat with his wife. The current dragged them through a culvert. Mrs. Bailey survived, but her husband did not. Charles Alford Gaskins had been sucked through a culvert some time before Mr. Edwards' fatal accident. Sheriff Al Harrison closed the gates to protect the divers who retrieved Mr. Bailey's corpse, but later opened them in obedience to the DLWMD's reportedly final order on the subject, not without, however, bringing the matter to the attention of a former member of the DLWMD board, Mr. McCarty at the NWFWMD, and various other officials, including then Governor Graham. All disclaimed authority to order the gates closed, and nobody posted any warning. In order to close the gates to protect the divers, the sheriff found it necessary to cut the locks, which were not replaced when the gates were reopened. At the time of the hearing, whether the gates were open or closed was "up to the vandals." All In Favor Sponsored by James Harold Thompson, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, House Bill No. 1262 became law with the Governor's approval on June 19, 1984. Chapter 84-380, Laws of Florida (1984). After the enactment of Chapter 84-380, Laws of Florida (1984), NWFWMD began applying for the permits necessary to remove the Dead Lakes dam, including the dredge and fill permit at issue here. So far it has obtained the requisite permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a permit from the NWFWMD itself. The Florida Department of Natural Resources has no objection to taking the dam out. Florida's Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the United States Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency also approve. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state environmental agency to which the NWFWMD has made the application for the permit at issue in these proceedings. As stated in its notice of intent, DER, which actively participated at the formal hearing, supports removal of the Dead Lakes Dam. Also favoring removal of the dam is the Board of Commissioners of Calhoun County, which participated in the formal administrative proceeding as an intervenor. On March 13, 1984, Calhoun County had a "straw vote" on whether the Dead Lakes Dam should be removed. Those in favor of removal prevailed, 1,575 to 276. The County Commission endorsed removal by resolution on March 27, 1984, Respondent Intervenor's Exhibit No. 3, and subsequently voted to intervene in these proceedings in support of NWFWMD's application for a permit to remove the dam. The voters of Gulf County also favored removal of the dam in a referendum held there. The vote was 1,550 for and 594 against. The Gulf County Commission, too, endorsed removal by adopting a resolution, No. 84-7, Respondent's Exhibit No. 35, but Gulf County has not sought intervention in these proceedings. The same is true of the Cities of Marianna and Blountstown, whose City Councils have also passed resolutions in support of removal of the dam. Respondent Intervenor's Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5. Many of the owners of land on the Dead Lakes are not registered to vote in Gulf or Calhoun Counties, or in Marianna. Also participating as a party in support of removal of the dam is the Chipola Basin Protective Group, a corporation not for profit organized in July of 1983 in an effort to conserve and preserve natural resources in and around the Chipola River. Some 100 people are members, including some who own land on the Dead Lakes and others who own property elsewhere on the Chipola River and "use these natural resources." All Opposed Opposing the permit application are a number of property owners whose waterfront access to the Dead Lakes, although in times of low flow already impaired in many cases, would become still more difficult, if the water in the lakes dropped below the levels at which the dam now keeps it. The east side of the lakes are timberland in single ownership. On the west side, both permanent homes and weekend cottages have been built, and there are a number of fish camps and the like whose revenue depends on access to and fishing in the Dead Lakes. Daniel Monroe Sullivan began fly fishing in the Dead Lakes in 1935, and has fished there regularly since, except for 1939 through 1945 when he went off to the war, where he lost both knees. He "put everything [he] had" into the old Rowell landing, which he purchased in 1975, from Mr. Rowell, who since 1960 had let him keep a trailer on the property. The parcel has frontage on the Dead Lakes of 286 feet and is 394 feet deep. Improvements include a six-stall boathouse with handrails, and a floating dock. Mr. Sullivan has things arranged so that he can lower himself into a boat and set out, or could until people started opening the gates of the draw down structure. Now, at low water, some 300 yards of mud separate the boathouse from the Dead Lakes. Mr. Sullivan's physical condition makes it impossible for him to trailer a boat by himself and launch it from one of the three or four ramps where the water is always deep enough even with the gates open. Just north of Mr. Sullivan, Tullis D. Easterling, who also first fished the Dead Lakes more than 50 years ago, owns two lots, comprising about an acre and a half, with 212 feet fronting the western shore of Dead Lakes. He has a mobile home, a cook shack and other improvements, including a shed for three boats and a 60 to 70 foot dock, which extended 40 feet out into the water, when it was built. With two of the draw down gates closed, he can still use the dock, which is no small convenience for a man 77 years old. At low water, with the gates open, 300 yards of mud separate his dock, too, from the Dead Lakes. From his property north of Mr. Easterling's place, Charles L. Nowlin was able to launch his boat by backing his trailer down a sort of ramp he fashioned with patio blocks. He has about 400 front feet, "when there's water," and a two bedroom cottage on the property. Usually the water is from 2 to 2.5 feet deep in the "natural slip" in which he keeps his boat, but in 1985 and in again in 1986 the slip went completely dry at times. He had to launch his boat elsewhere and pole into a neighbor's dock. Thomas C. Brock, a 64-year-old retiree, has a two bedroom cottage on the Dead Lakes, and a 45-foot dock at the end of which the water was 4 to 4.5 feet deep at the time of the hearing. At low water, however, with all the draw down gates open, "you can plant a turnip patch" in front of his place. Once the lakes attain a height of 15 feet, Mr. Brock can reach his dock by boat. An avid fisherman, Mr. Brock fishes on the Dead Lakes regularly, having first fished there in 1945. James W. Quick and his wife live year round in a home on the Dead Lakes. Retired from the Air Force, he fishes continuously. At the time of the hearing, the water was 3.5 to 4 feet deep at the end of the Quicks' 80-foot pier, but last summer the pier was 300 yards from the water and you had to go another 100 yards into the water before it got knee deep. Oscar G. Clark has owned the property next to the Quicks since 1951. He bought the place for the fishing, which has long been his main recreation. Fishing on the Dead Lakes is what he mainly does since his wife died. He has a ramp and space for four boats under a boat shed, and has no trouble using the ramp in high water, but the last two years in a row the water has been too low seven or eight months running. James C. and Dorothy Taylor own a house on the west side of the Dead Lakes, on the Chipola River channel. The water is 12 to 14 feet deep only some ten feet beyond the end of their dock, which extends 28 feet into the lake. The depth of the water at the end of the Taylors' dock ordinarily fluctuates between 2.5 and 4 feet, but three or four times since 1981, the water's edge has receded two feet beyond the end of the dock. The Taylors' neighbors on the channel, Messrs. Linton and Bidwell are in essentially the same situation. Paris Wayne Carter, a Wewahitchka businessman, bought a place on the Dead Lakes two years ago, with a dock that ordinarily extends 25 feet out into the water, where the water is ordinarily two to five feet deep. But last year at low water with the gates open, he walked 300 yards from his boat dock to the water's edge. James Carroll Stokes, who is totally and permanently disabled, sold his house and used the proceeds to buy six acres on the west arm of the Dead Lakes. He lives there now in a mobile home. He has 18 hookups on the property for recreational vehicles, and charges campers $8.00 a night. When the lakes are at 18 or 19 feet, the boat ramp he has is half out of the water, but at low water with the draw down gates open the ramp cannot be used to launch boats, which affects his business adversely. In 1980, the year Leland Taylor bought the Jerry Gates Fish Camp, business was pretty good. The fish camp consists of five cabins and a house on five acres with 1,200 feet on the lake, and has eight boats and six motors. Even at low water with the gates open, he can get from the end of his 300 foot pier, where he keeps two of the boats, to the middle of the Dead Lakes, but, under such conditions, the boat shed where most of the boats are kept is separated from the water by 200 feet. With the opening of the draw down gates, business has slackened considerably. Mr. Taylor has had to telephone people planning to come to his camp to fish to tell them the water level would not allow it. Juanita Dill put the Cypress Lodge up for sale over two years ago. The Cypress Lodge was once a thriving business. Gulf Life agents 40 to 50 strong used to come every year to go fishing, but business fell off sharply in the last few years, and Ms. Dill has closed the placed down. The evidence did not establish that the decline in business was on account of problems with access to the lakes, as opposed to poorer fishing. But interrogatories adduced as evidence at hearing established that Ms. Dill, Max W. Kilbourn, Jim Gross, R. F. Martin, G. W. Hobbs, J. M. Whittaker, Lee Thompson, Duncan Smith, J. C. Blanton, C. D. Ramsey, Sr., Theodore Elchos, and V. D. Hilton, "have already suffered loss of their access to navigable water." For 45 or 50 years, Clyde Finch Brogdon has owned 165 acres with about three quarters of a mile fronting on the Dead Lakes. Mr. Brogdon raises sheep and cattle on the property. When the water recedes, the animals stray into the mud and bog down. He has to pull them out with a tractor and a length of line. Mr. Brogdon also has a boat ramp on his property that stops well short of the water when the lakes are down. Snails or something die and stink when the water recedes. For a day or two afterwards there is an expanse of "souring mud." Water Quality The clear "fast flowing Chipola River slows and spreads to form the strangely beautiful Dead Lakes," Respondent's Exhibit No. 40, but remains relatively free of suspended solids both in the Dead Lakes and when the river narrows again near the dam, until its confluence with the muddy Chipola Cutoff. In the long run, removal of the dam would lessen turbidity below the dam by increasing the volume of clear water mixing with the Chipola Cutoff during periods of low flow. In the long run, removal of the dam would lessen turbidity even in times of high flow because it would virtually eliminate the erosion now occurring in the vicinity of the draw down structure. In the short run, removing the dam would occasion a temporary increase in turbidity. The plan is to station equipment on the bridge (instead of on a barge) to "vibrate out" the sheet piles and to remove the steel from the site, leaving the riprap on the bottom to damp turbidity and curtail the movement of sediment. If the vibration shears a sheet pile, however, the contractor will have to go one foot beneath the bottom and cut the pile there. Under a proposed special permit condition, the contractor will not start work until the water level upriver of the dam is within one foot of the water level downriver, in order to avoid a sudden rush of water. This will help keep turbidity down and is also important for the safety of the bridge. Dissolved Oxygen In August of 1984, with flows low enough so that the Dead Lakes Dam had impounded the waters of the Dead Lakes, investigators took water samples from the Dead Lakes and from "the Chipola River above the influence of the dam." DER's Exhibit No. 8. Analysis of a sample taken from the bottom, at a point where the lake was nine feet deep, revealed 3.3 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter. A sample taken only one foot below the lake surface was not much better: 3.5 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter. By comparison, the upriver samples yielded results of 7.0 milligrams of dissolved oxygen per liter, or higher. The samples demonstrate the negative net effect impoundment has on dissolved oxygen levels, even though impoundment makes for more aquatic weeds, which add more dissolved oxygen to the water than they remove. The Dead Lakes Dam is in part responsible for these depressed levels of dissolved oxygen in the summer months, and its removal would alleviate the situation. By slowing or stopping the flow of the Chipola River, the dam increases precipitation of organic sediments, which gather on the bottom and compete with living organisms for the limited amount of dissolved oxygen available. Not only would removal of the dam decrease precipitation by increasing the velocity of the flow, it would cause a greater expanse of lake bottom to be uncovered, permitting oxidation of sediments exposed to sunlight and air. As a consequence, when the water again covered the sediment, the sediment would require less dissolved oxygen. Eutrophication Water hyacinths (Eichornia crassipes), limnophila (Limnophila sessiflora) and Brazilian elodea (Egenia densa), which are species of aquatic weeds not indigeous to Florida, all grow in the Dead Lakes, although they are under control and do not present a serious problem. Indeed, some vegetation, even of this kind, is advantageous. Exotic aquatic weeds flourish at the expense of native species, however, and, in overabundance are detrimental to game fish. Herbicides have proven effective against them, except perhaps in the case of Brazilian elodea which, however, such fluctuations as now occur in the level of the lakes seem to keep in check. The impounding effects of the Dead Lakes Dam create favorable conditions for the exotic, aquatic weeds' growth; the lakes tend to grow more shallow and weeds spread. The dam causes accumulation of the nitrates that enter the Chipola from agricultural operations upriver. Without the dam, no abundance of aquatic weeds could persist. Periodic draw downs or natural fluctuations are a good means of controlling most weed species. Water hyacinths, which can germinate in a draw down, are the exception. With the dam removed, sedges and slender rushes would grow up quickly and, in 10 to 20 years, a cypress forest would reestablish itself closer to the river channel, shading the river. Not only cypress, but also willow and button bush would grow up and keep sunlight from aquatic weeds underneath. Heavy Metals From 1970 until it went out of business in 1979, the Sapp Battery Company (Sapp) operated a battery salvage facility on the bank of Little Dry Creek, an intermittent tributary that empties into the Chipola several miles upriver of the Dead Lakes, north of Altha. While it operated, Sapp disposed of heavy metals, including lead, zinc, mercury and cadmium, improperly, so that these materials made their way into the Chipola River, caused at least one fish kill, and apparently caused the elevated levels of heavy metals found in the tissues of native mussels and corbicula alike. Finfish as well as mollusks exhibited these elevated levels at one time. Although several intervening ox bows or deep bends have been "deposition areas," there are no impoundments in the Chipola River between the Sapp site and the Dead Lakes. In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency secured the site of the battery salvage facility, and heavy metals have not entered the Chipola River from that source since. Any manganese still in the water may be geologic in origin. A gladiola farm nearby may contribute to mercury in the river by dipping bulbs in mercurial fungicides. Cadmium is found in phosphate fertilizer, and both manganese and zinc are also used in agriculture. Heavy metals tend to bind to fine clay grains which precipitate out of the water and end up in the sediment and this seems to have happened in the Chipola River, including the Dead Lakes, where occasional sediment samples have revealed high concentrations of heavy metals. But the water itself is now free of measurable quantities of heavy metals. No heavy metals were detected in a sample of the water column taken on April 3, 1987, just above the Dead Lakes. The evidence rules out the hypothesis that removal of the Dead Lakes Dam would let water contaminated with heavy metals escape into the Chipola Cutoff and ultimately into Apalachicola Bay, with its extensive oyster beds. The only conceivable mischief along these lines would be the transport downstream of contaminated sediment into a marine environment in which chemical reactions binding heavy metals would be altered or reversed, releasing them into the water. But the weight of the evidence suggests that, for better or worse, contaminated sediments bound for a marine environment have probably already migrated downriver. In times of low flow, the dam slows or stops the river, precipitating all manner of suspended solids, including materials on the periphery which may never be resuspended or reach the estuary. On the other hand, accumulations of muck up to 12 inches deep in the river channel are regularly resuspended, as the water rises above the weir crest and the current scours the channel bottom. In times of high flow, rocks, fine sand and shells lying on the upriver side of the Dead Lakes Dam are stripped clean of all organic sediment. The dam has not prevented the movement of large quantities of sediment downstream. Public Interest Removing the Dead Lakes Dam would enhance the public safety. When the dam is underwater, as it is, on average, more than two months a year, it is a submerged barrier presenting a considerable hazard to the unwitting boater. Although the application does not contemplate removing the draw down structure, removal of the dam would take away the incentive to open the draw down gates. Even if the gates remained open, moreover, and the water was high enough to flow through the culverts, the absence of the dam would reduce the rate of flow through the draw down structure and the attendant danger. Apart from the matter of safety, the evidence did not show that removal of the dam would have any effect on the public health, although Sheriff Harrison did testify to parts of dead fish being strewn on the ground near the dam where fishermen gathered. Petitioners raised the possibility that the river would leave isolated pools of water as it receded, pools in which mosquitos might breed. But the weight of the credible testimony was that gambusi or other fish trapped in such pools would eat the mosquito larvae; and that the mosquito population should not increase, in the absence, at least, of some man-made interference with drainage. Andromadous Fish On balance, taking the dam out should enhance the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, and their habitats. During spawning season, with the dam in place, fishermen gather on the downriver side of the Dead Lakes Dam and catch substantial numbers of roe-laden fish. They are "all bottled up trying to get in." At one time, Alabama shad, striped bass and Gulf of Mexico sturgeon were found in the Dead Lakes and still further north in the Chipola River. During the summer months these andromadous fish seek a "thermal refuge" in cooler fresh water. Now only the Alabama shad swims north of the dam. Before the dam went in, striped bass occurred in fairly substantial numbers north of where the dam now is. Evidently they cannot navigate the dam now. Even when the water is well above the weir crest, certain species that swam upriver to spawn before the dam was built no longer do so. Either they swim too close to the bottom, or they are unable to contend with currents through the draw down structure and over the weir. Beginning last century and as late as 1970, commercial fishermen took Gulf of Mexico sturgeon, some of which weighed as much as 350 pounds each. By 1983, the number of Gulf of Mexico sturgeon had dropped to 380 fish, and the number fell to 69 in 1986. Now the Gulf of Mexico sturgeon is in category two under the federal endangered species law. The Dead Lakes Dam closes off 80 miles of the Chipola River to this dwindling population. The temperatures in the Chipola River are more constant and the flows more stable than those in the Apalachicola River to which the sturgeon are now relegated. Only 17 percent of the open river system formerly available to the Gulf sturgeon is still accessible. Removal of the dam may also increase the numbers and widen the distribution of the greyfin redhorse, the snail bullhead, the spotted bullhead and the dusky shiner. Respondent's Exhibit No. 27. Fish who do reach the Dead Lakes to spawn come when the water is above the weir crest, and go to the shallow periphery to deposit their eggs. At such times, it is not the dam that determines the height and configuration of the Dead Lakes, and its removal would not interfere with this spawning. On the contrary, removal of the dam would help matters. During times of low flow, the dam slows or stops the water occasioning precipitation of soft organic material in the shallows. When spawning time comes, roe can sink into this material and fail to hatch for want of oxygen. Little Effect On Birds Restoration of a more natural hydroperiod would let certain trees reestablish themselves in areas now covered year round, improving the habitat for nesting birds. Newly uncovered land would be seasonally available to deer, turkey and squirrel, but less hospitable for alligators and others. Aquatic organisms trapped in sloughs would become food for predators, like the wood stork. During periods of low flow, the black bear and the indigo snake would have additional foraging. The little blue heron, the snowy egret and the tricolored heron might benefit from removal of the dam as might, theoretically, the limpkin, although there is no proof the limpkin is present in the area. If bald eagles are present, removal of the dam would work to their disadvantage, but no record exists of their nesting or making any other use of the area. Thousands of ducks flocked to the Dead Lakes regularly as recently as 1964 or 1965. Now perhaps a tenth that many come, mainly wood ducks and a few mallards. On the other hand, the number of ospreys has increased since the dam went in. This may in part be attributable to protection they have received under the game laws in recent years. For most birds and other air breathing wildlife, removal of the dam would not have a significant effect one way or the other. Fish Stories Fishing is the main recreational use to which the Dead Lakes are put. The short-term effect of impounding the Dead Lakes during times of low flow was an increase in the number of fish who multiplied or congregated to avail themselves of the newly prolonged enlargement of their aquatic habitat. Over time, however, other effects have become evident and taken their toll. If the numbers of fish have not fallen dramatically, their average size has. Diminished oxygen attributable to the impoundment has increased fish mortality by its direct effect on the fish, as well as indirectly by its effect on organisms further down the food chain. Hardest hit among the fish have been some of the most sought after: shellcracker, large mouth bass, blue gill and channel catfish, among others. Removing the dam would improve the fishing. Fishing on the Dead Lakes was once almost too good to be true, to hear the old-timers tell it. As late as 1959, there were 20 fish camps on the lake. Mr. Brock remembers seven "major" ones in the 1940s. Now six are open, if that. Sixty years ago, Sam Casey fished the whole summer, and for many summers after that, but now he doesn't bother after the willow fly season is over. Cyrus Royce Lewis also began fishing on the Dead Lakes in the 1920s, and now he, too, goes almost exclusively during late spring and early summer, when may flies and willow flies hatch. After that, it's no use, he finds. Expert fishermen like Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Easterling, Mr. Brock, Mr. Quick, and Mr. Leland Taylor, who testified he caught a ten-pound bass last spring, still catch fish regularly, but the fishing is not what it once was. It is a lot harder to catch fish now, and some owners of property on the lakes, including Charles Cook Bridges, want to see the dam out so the fishing will improve. In the 1950s, you might see 200 boats tied to each other fishing over a five-acre shellcracker bed. The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission roped off some of the beds to protect spawning fish; the game warden had to sleep in his boat to guard the beds. As late as 1964 there were single shellcracker beds that covered three acres of lake bottom. Now you only see "pocket beds," maybe half the size of the courtroom in Calhoun County Courthouse. The first time Alton Coxwell, now 55 years old, went fishing on the Dead Lakes was with his mother who put an umbrella over him. When, as a small child, he began getting bait for his uncle, his uncle sold all of it to people going fishing on the Dead Lakes. Before the Second World War, Willy Rowell alone had 300 boats but nobody had outboard motors to speak of. People fished with flies, or catawba worms and crickets then. Nowadays Mr. Coxwell sells lots of earthworms. He put retail sales of earthworms at 21,000 for Thursday the week of the hearing. But only two to five percent of these earthworms were used as bait in the Dead Lakes. Nineteen years ago, more than 20 percent of the earthworms Mr. Cox sold were used for bait in the Dead Lakes. In 1977, the Bay County Bass Club had four tournaments on the Dead Lakes, but for the last two or three years they have held only one tournament a year on the Dead Lakes. They have considered not scheduling any more there. Two fishermen in each of 23 to 27 boats, all of whom are familiar with the Dead Lakes, participate in these tournaments. Jim Bozeman of Wewahitchka caught 14 pounds of bass in his first tournament in 1977, but did not finish in the top three. Last tournament the winner caught less than five pounds of bass. The biggest bass caught in a 1977 tournament on the Dead Lakes weighed 7 pounds 4 ounces. In last year's tournament on the Dead Lakes, the biggest fish weighed three pounds. The biggest bass (eight pounds) that Mr. James C. Taylor ever caught he took in July of 1978. The Chipola River is more productive both above and below the Dead Lakes. Increased fishing pressure cannot account for the decline in numbers and the even more remarkable decline in the size of game fish in the lakes. Indeed, the weight of the credible evidence was that less fishing occurs on the Dead Lakes now than 10 or 20 years ago when the fishing was better. Since 1981, the number of permits sold for fishing on the Dead Lakes has declined. The fisheries' biologists corroborated the testimony that, after an initial beneficial effect, the impoundment of the Dead Lakes has had an adverse effect on the numbers and weight of fish in the Dead Lakes. Very likely the low dissolved oxygen levels in the summertime keep many fingerlings from surviving to grow larger. Mr. Leland Taylor's testimony that he has never seen mature fish floating dead on the lakes is consistent with the hypothesis that many do not survive the critical fingerling stage. Removal of the dam would increase fish production. While the volume of water in the Dead Lakes and therefore the fish habitat would shrink further in low flows than it does with the dam in place, the fish would have access to habitat downstream without having to contend with the dam. Invertebrates Other aquatic life has waned with impoundment of the Dead Lakes, including snails of the kind that leave a white, snail-wide streak of eggs on trees growing at the water's edge. When they hatch, they fall into the water and become food for the shellcrackers, but their numbers have been declining since 1966. The drought in 1955, which like last year's, was among the most severe the Chipola River has experienced, did not affect the diversity of aquatic life in the Dead Lakes adversely. In August of 1984, a sampling of benthic organisms, bloodworms and the like, in the Chipola River near State Road 71 above the Dead Lakes yielded 1,256 individuals comprising 33 species, with a Shannon-Weaver diversity index of 4.07. A sample taken at the same time in the Dead Lakes near the dam yielded 304 individuals representing only eleven species, and a Shannon-Weaver diversity index of 2.38. A contemporaneous sample taken downriver from the dam had a comparable Shannon-Weaver diversity index (2.41), although 18 species were present. Of 975 organisms in the downriver sample, 575 were tubificid worms, a species which does not contribute significantly to fish productivity. Although less water during drier periods would mean less bottom area for benthic organisms, some of these organisms depend on periodic fluctuation. Even those that require constant immersion can survive, when the water level falls slowly enough for them to adjust. The loss of some organisms would not necessarily diminish the diversity of species. Historically prolific throughout the Chipola River, native mussels are now found only in the upper reaches of the river. Removal of the dam would restore the environment in which they prospered before the impoundment. The impoundment has affected larger invertebrates adversely too. Dr. Nowlin testified he had not seen any crawfish lately. Higher dissolved oxygen in the lakes would increase the diversity of species of macro- and benthic invertebrates alike. Mr. Stokes, Mr. Brogdon, Mr. Leland Taylor and others testified about the stench of souring mud that persisted for a day or two after each of the abrupt draw downs which the erratic opening of the control gates occasions. As Mr. Brogdon testified, the odor arises because "something dies." Removal of the dam will bring an end to the sudden, random outrushing of impounded water through the draw down structure. Without the dam, the water level will fall and fall further, but the drop will be more gradual so that organisms that need water to survive will have a chance to migrate and remain submerged. A more gradual lowering would also mean that less bottom would be newly exposed in the same interval of time. For both these reasons, removal of the dam should make odors associated with changes in the level of the Dead Lakes less, not more, of a problem. Public Welfare And The Property Of Others The Dead Lakes dam serves no flood control function. In times of low flow, it creates a reservoir, but the weight of the evidence was that such a reservoir is not needed. Nothing in the record suggests that removal of the dam would affect any significant historical or archaeological resources. There are two public boat ramps on the Dead Lakes, one at Oak Grove in Calhoun County and one in the Dead Lakes Recreational Area. Removal of the dam would render both of them useless for much of the year, unless they were extended. With the dam gone, fishermen and other recreational boaters would be able to navigate the Chipola River from a point in Jackson County down to its confluence with the Chipola Cutoff and from there down the Apalachicola River to Apalachicola Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, during much of the year. Boaters coming upriver could enter the Dead Lakes under a wider range of conditions. The dam, of which neither buoys nor anything else gives warning, presents a considerable navigational hazard. On the other hand, removal of the dam would impede navigation for riparian owners, who would need to extend their docks or boat ramps or take other measures to gain access to the water during times of low flow. Bound up with the environmental effects of removing the dam are certain economic realities. The weight of the evidence established that the value of most of the private residences, permanent and others, along the west shore of the lakes, would tend to decrease with removal of the dam, because removal would aggravate the access problem most of these landowners now have. On the other hand, other environmental consequences of removing the dam, notably better fishing, will have a beneficial economic effect, tending to increase land values not only for riparian landowners but also for owners of other property in the area. For riparian owners of land lying on the Chipola River above the Chipola Cutoff and below the Dead Lakes, the economic consequences of removing the dam would all be good. Jim Bozeman lives on the bank of the Chipola Cutoff 4.5 miles downriver from the dam on the site where his father has a public boat landing. Still further downriver are two other major businesses of this kind. With installation of the dam closing off the Dead Lakes, the Bozemans' business, which includes renting boats and motors as well as launching others' boats, fell off. Removal of the dam should have the opposite effect. Ten fish camp properties have docks or ramps on the Dead Lakes between the dam and Cypress Creek, as do 41 or 42 private landowners. Land upriver from Cypress Creek fronts the river channel, and lies beyond the influence of the dam. If the dam is removed, these property owners will have to extend their docks in order to have access to the water year round. In some cases, extending boat ramps may be an alternative. There is a statutory exemption from permitting requirements for private docks of up to 500 square feet. DER generally permits private docks no wider than six feet if they are built in T- and L- shapes, whatever their length. The environmental authorities do not favor excavating channels. The remains or "skeletons" of early docks reflect adaptations to fluctuations in the level of the lakes of the magnitude likely to recur upon removal of the dam. There are multi-tier docks on the lakes today. Only a few inches of water at the end of a dock will allow access to the lakes by boat, although it may be impossible to use the motor close to the dock. The prosperity of the fish camps depends more on the size of the fish population than on the length of the dock necessary to reach the fishing boats. William Setterich, who owns Stokes Fish Camp, which is located midway along the western shore of the Dead Lakes, wants to see the dam removed. It will mean more mud in front of his fish camp more of the time and he would have to spend some more money on the dock, but the prospect of better fishing would justify the investment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Daniel M. Sullivan, et al in Case No. 84- 4468, and the "Petition" of Raymond Drainville in Case No. 85-0129, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 8th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Carroll L. McCauley, Esquire Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Post Office Box 3567 Secretary Panama City, Florida 32401 Department of Environmental Regulation Mr. Raymond Drainville Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2027 N. Roberts Circle 2600 Blair Stone Road Cantonment, Florida 32533 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William J. Rish, Esquire Post Office Box 39 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 B. Suzi Ruhl, Esquire 203 N. Gadsden Street Suite 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patria Fitzpatrick, Esquire Post Office Box 2464 Panama City, Florida 32402 J. David House, Esquire 119 River Street Blountstown, Florida 32424 Douglas L. Stowell, Esquire Gary J. Anton, Esquire P. O. Box 1018 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Susan Swihart, Esquire Asst. General Counsel Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Woodland, is made up of property owners in Woodland Lakes subdivision, an area abutting on Woodland Bayou, situated off Pensacola Bay in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Petitioner, Margaret B. Miller, owns property directly across the channel which forms the entrance to Woodland Bayou and which is the proposed location for the bulkhead and riprap forming the subject matter of this dispute. Mrs. Miller and her late husband purchased their property, which is not located in Woodland Lakes subdivision, in 1957. Their lot is located on Pensacola Bay and at the time she and her husband purchased the property, they were looking for an area that had the special characteristics of this lot she now owns. It included big trees, a gentle slope to the Bay, and a view out over Pensacola Bay across a sandy peninsula which extended out into the bay a considerable distance and which they owned. At the time they made their purchase, Woodland Bayou opened into Pensacola Bay at the East End but the opening near Mrs. Miller's property was obstructed by a sandy beach. The extent of channel blocking and obstruction caused by this sandy beach was the subject of a lawsuit between the Millers, the Woodland Lake Property Owners Association, and the State of Florida 1n June, 1972. The substance of that suit was concerned with ownership of the land which extended out from the Miller property into Pensacola Bay over which certain of the parties desired to cut a channel from Woodland Bayou into Pensacola Bay. There was substantial conflict in the testimony at the time as to whether there was a natural channel existing across the Miller property prior to 1957-1958 or not, or, in the alternative, whether the Millers filled in an existing channel thereby blocking reasonable entrance to Woodland Bayou. The answer to that question is irrelevant to the issue in this hearing. However, a judgment of the Circuit Court entered on June 13, 1972, awarded to the Millers title to property which extended out across the currently existing channel dredged subsequent to that time by the Respondent, Woodland, to a point into Pensacola Bay. The decision of the court also awarded to the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund a section of property directly west of the northern tip of the Miller property consisting of a strip approximately 40 feet wide and a maximum of76 feet long lying approximately perpendicular to the currently-existing channel and through which it was envisioned the channel would be dredged from the entrance of Woodland Bayou out to Pensacola Bay. By so doing, the canal would have made a left turn coming out of the bayou into Pensacola Bay but the Miller's property, which was not then split by the canal, would be left intact. According to Mr. Hunsley, the dredging completed after the entry of the final judgment in the Quiet Title suit was not done consistent with the dictates of that judgment. Instead, the channel was cut straight out from the bayou across the Miller property, and so it remains to this day. He contends, however, that historically, the channel existed in this very spot and that the Millers as well as other property owners in the area at the time, closed the channel off by dredging and filling at their own expense some time in 1957 and 1958. Regardless of the history regarding the genesis of the channel, however, the fact remains that the channel now exists in a straight line from Woodland Bayou to Pensacola Bay across the Miller property and has so since 1972 when it was dredged subsequent to the lawsuit. The channel, being a tidal channel and subject to sand drift caused by wind and wave action, tends to become clogged with sand on a periodic basis. Because of the increased clogging currently experienced, sometime prior to September 9, 1983, the officers of Woodland circulated a petition to secure the permission of all the neighbors in the subdivision to construct a bulkhead on the Woodland side of the channel across from and up channel from the Miller property. This petition, which at the time did not include riprap, was approved by all property owners in the subdivision except for 2 and was then forwarded to the Gulf Breeze City Council to allow the Council to assess costs in the amount of approximately $600.00 per property owner against the property owners in the event DER approved the permit to construct the bulkhead. Mrs. Miller was not solicited to sign the Petition nor will she be assessed any of the costs of construction of the bulkhead if approved since she is not a property owner in the subdivision in question. The petition was circulated, according to Mr. Kettenring, who has lived in the area for several years, because of the increasing sedimentation. To his knowledge, the channel was last dredged in 1982 and 1983. Prior to that time, during the period 1979-1981, he recalls at least three fish kills in the bayou but none since the dredging was accomplished. The residents of Woodland and the surrounding owners are all on septic tanks. There is no city sewage service to this area and every year there is a change in the clarity of the water in Woodland Bayou in the summer. During warmer weather, as the temperature increases, the water becomes cloudy and full of algae. However, after dredging was accomplished and the channel was opened further both in width and in depth, the water quality improved considerably. Mr. Kettenring has seen patterns of sand drifting from the point into the channel. The area has changed considerably in that the point has scalloped out into the channel blocking it. As a result, the bayou, which is at the mainland source of the channel, is currently somewhat brackish. Access of boat owners to the bayou has become impaired. On September 9, 1983, the application submitted by Woodland was received by DER, and a determination was made that the proposed project lay in Class III waters of the State, the standards for which are outlined in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. Shortly thereafter on September 28, 1983, DER notified Woodland that the application was incomplete in that the application fee had not been submitted, aerial photographs of the area were required, and a consent for the use of State-owned land was necessary. In addition, it was determined that Woodland needed to provide detailed plans for compliance with State water quality standards as well as a hydrographic survey. All requirements were subsequently met except for the survey. The application originally called for an additional 300 foot bulkhead to the east of the area in question here and the hydrographic survey referred to that bulkhead. Subsequent to the filing of the application, however, that bulkhead portion of the project was deleted and when that was done, the need for the hydrographic survey was obviated. Since all other shortcomings in the application had been corrected, the project was then reviewed by Mr. Hambrick who recommended the installation of riprap in front of the remaining bulkhead and grass, and on December 20, 1984, DER published an intent to issue for the project. The project in question is a 150 feet long bulkhead fronted with 35 cubic yards of riprap at the toe. The bulkhead will be located at the entrance channel of Woodland bayou across from Petitioner's property. Mr. Hambrick, who initially reviewed the application for DER and who signed off on it in December, 1984, visited the site in question on at least 2 or 3 occasions in relation to the application and because Mrs. York, Miller's neighbor, also had an application for a bulkhead pending. He looked at the property and determined that the amended application did not call for riprap. However, because the new law requires riprap in front of seawalls, he recommended that the riprap be installed here where there is no grass. In other words, according to Mr. Hambrick, riprap will be placed flush against the bulkhead where no sea grasses exist but will curve out in front of the sea grasses where there is grass at the foot of the bulkhead which will proceed behind the grassed area. The purpose of using riprap is to dissipate wave energy. Riprap will diminish the effect of the wave and its adverse effect on Petitioner's property. Mr. Hambrick is of the opinion that installing the bulkhead and riprap would not cause or increase damage to Petitioner's property and based on the criteria he used in analyzing the project, he feels that it is in the public interest. The factors he used in his consideration of this project include: that an erosion problem exists in the area, that bulkheading and riprapping would reduce the need for dredging, that there is a history of fish kills in the area, that maintaining a channel would help flush out the bayou, and homeowners on the bayou would have access to Pensacola Bay and their interests constituted a part of the public interest. Since the revised application was completed in October, 1984, it therefore had to comply with the criteria outlined in the new water quality bill which are two-fold in general application. These are: that the project will have no adverse effects on water quality of Woodland Bayou but would likely improve it through the increased flushing of the bayou as a result of maintaininq the channel, and that a need for dredging would be reduced since the channel will not shoal in as much. According to Mr. Hambrick, at the present time there is a collapsing and sluffing off of soil along the channel, which has increased since his prior visit in November, 1984. In his analysis of the project, he considered the effects that the project would have on the public interest, water quality, wildlife and fish in the area, and the historical and archeological aspects of the area. In his opinion, riprap would provide a habitat for marine wildlife which is a plus factor and would help to maintain a shallow shore environment. It would help to maintain a stand of marsh grass that is presently in the area and which is being covered with sand coming from the eroding point. In his opinion, there would be no adverse effect on the archaeological aspects of the area nor is there any indication of any adverse effect on the public interest, including Mrs. Miller. He also considers there would be no adverse effect on marine productivity which, in his opinion, would very likely improve as a result of the project. In his opinion, overall the project will maintain and even enhance the public interest considerations in the area and there would be no damage to the marine bottom by the installation of the riprap. Since the bulkhead will be fronted by riprap, it is not considered a vertical seawall which would be prohibited by the statute as it is currently constituted. Mr. Hambrick is quite certain in his opinion that since Mrs. Miller's property is already bulkheaded and riprapped, there would be no further erosion of her property. Consequently, there would be no adverse ecological effect notwithstanding the fact that Mrs. Miller contends that keeping the channel open would be a continuing trespass to her property. She also contends that when she put in her bulkhead, now at water's edge, it was designed as a retaining wall and was located in sand some substantial distance from the water. When the channel was cut across her land, the beach from the channel to the "retaining wall" eroded and when it appeared the wall would be undercut as well, she put in the riprap. All of this would be perpetuated by the construction of Woodland's project which would keep the channel open and keep it naturally closing as she believes it would do if left alone. In short, Mr. Hambrick's analysis of the situation including his personal visits to the site lead him to conclude that the project will not: harm water quality in the area, increase the number of boats using the channel, influence the speed of boats that use the channel, or increase erosion of Petitioner's property. This opinion is supported by that of Dr. Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer who is also convinced that construction of the proposed bulkhead and riprap would not cause any erosion to Petitioner's property. In fact, the riprap in front of the bulkhead will act to absorb wave energy and since it cannot be placed in a vertical manner, it reduces that amount of reflected energy. The bulkhead and riprap as proposed here would reduce the amount of soil infusion into the channel and thereby the amount of dredging needed. The technical aspects of the proposal were also considered by Mr. Fancher, the dredge and fill supervisor for DER in the Northwest District. When he reviewed the application, including Mr. Hambrick's proposal for riprap, he concurred with it. In order to appropriately receive a permit, applicants must show that the application conforms to both water quality and public interest standards. After his review of the entire project, Mr. Fancher concluded that this project would not adversely affect water quality standards and would not adversely affect but in fact might promote public interest considerations. When the Florida Legislature passed its new water quality bill in October, 1983, it prohibited the construction of most vertical seawalls. In Mr. Fancher's opinion, what is proposed here is not a vertical seawall and there is no evidence submitted by Petitioner to refute this. In fact, there was no evidence presented by Petitioner, save her own testimony which does not serve to overcome the expert opinions to the contrary, that the proposed project fails to meet the tests set out under the laws of this State.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Woodland Lake Property Owners, Inc.'s permit to construct a bulkhead be issued as modified. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esq. Oertel and Hoffman 2700 Blair Stone Road Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. B. Murphy, Esq. 506 S. Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Brad Thomas, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This proceeding concerns a Consent Order entered into by the Department of Environmental regulation (DER), and James and Patricia Gratzer (Gratzers) regarding an allegedly unpermitted fill in Winter Springs, Florida. The ultimate issue for determination is whether DER abused its discretion in resolving the alleged violations by entering into the subject Consent Order.
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1990, the Gratzers purchased a 4.35 acre lot located at 216 Stoner Road in Winter Springs, Florida. At the time of purchase, the Gratzers planned to divide the lot and build a residence on the two acre parcel. In preparation for construction of their new home, the Gratzers approached the Winter Springs City Council to subdivide the property and to approve of use of the fill road as ingress and egress for both lots. In February of 1991, the Gratzers and their builder obtained the proper building permits from the County and septic tank permits from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Construction began on the residence on April 9, 1992 when the Gratzers' builder brought in several trucks of dirt to the end of the existing fill road to begin the house pad. At the time the Gratzers began construction on the subject lot, they had no idea or reason to believe that they were about to build in jurisdictional wetlands of the State of Florida. On approximately April 14, 1992, the Gratzers were first made aware that they may have problems with potential wetlands on the property when an officer of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission visiting the site instructed the builders to halt construction, pending a review by DER. As a result of the site visit, the Gratzers investigated further with DER employees the potential wetlands on their property. They also sought the advice of an attorney and his environmental consultant regarding possible ways to solve DER's concerns. On approximately April 26, 1991, an employee of DER visited the site and made an initial determination that the property was a jurisdictional wetland subject to permitting by DER. Under present rules the Gratzer property, with exception of the filled access road, would all be in DER jurisdictional wetlands if only the natural vegetation were considered. Upon being informed of DER's initial determination, the Gratzers hired an engineer from Boyer-Singleton & Associates to make an engineering determination as to the extent of jurisdictional wetlands based upon a ten-year backstop. A ten-year backstop is a method provided by statute to determine the ultimate landward extent of DER's vegetational jurisdictional line. It is a hydrological calculation to determine water elevation levels in a certain area, subject to the ten-year recurrent storm event. By rule and statute, DER's jurisdiction over wetlands effectively stops at the upper end or limit of the ten-year flood elevation line. Claude Cassagnol, of Boyer-Singleton and Associates, an expert in hydrology, reviewed available materials, visited the site and made an initial determination of the ten-year backstop on the Gratzers' property, and ultimately mapped out his conclusions on a plat. Mr. Cassagnol's hydrological study, and his review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) materials, led him to conclude that the ten-year backstop would leave the Gratzer's house pad out of any DER jurisdictional wetlands. As a result of his study, Cassagnol forwarded several letters to George Baragona of DER requesting that Mr. Baragona, an expert hydrologist, review his determination and ratify his conclusions. The Gratzers, on advice of counsel, allowed their building contractor to complete compaction of the house pad and begin preparations to pour the house floor. The septic tank contractor for the Gratzers completed installation of the tank and drain field prior to July 1st. After the Gratzers had recommenced construction, on approximately July 10, 1992, DER, issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) which ultimately formed the basis for the Consent Order in this case. The Gratzers immediately ceased further construction on the property and sought further negotiations with DER. Shortly after the NOV was issued, George Baragona reviewed the information, studies and plats submitted by Mr. Cassagnol regarding the ten-year backstop. Baragona made a determination of the ten-year backstop at a point more landward than Cassagnol's. It appears from the plat submitted at hearing, that Baragona's ten- year backstop line runs along the base of the fill roadway; his testimony, however, indicated that his backstop line dipped in and out near the roadway, and he simply chose the baseline of the fill road as his "worst case scenario". Baragona, because of the house pad, was required to extrapolate a line through the house pad, resulting in approximately half of the house pad area being in jurisdictional wetlands. The result of further negotiations between the parties was the Consent Order which is the subject matter of this proceeding. As settlement, the Gratzers agreed to Baragona's "worst case scenario" ten-year backstop, placing approximately half of the house pad was in DER jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the settlement, the Gratzers agreed to, and have paid, a fine of $1,400.00 to DER and have granted a conservation easement over a large portion of the remainder of their property, resulting in an 11.6 to 1 ratio of conservation easement to impacted wetlands, slightly above DER's guideline 10 to 1 ratio. In investigating the alleged violations at the subject property, DER reviewed the cumulative impacts of the project and determined that they were not great, in light of the surrounding area and its already high level of development. In making this determination, DER reviewed property lists, maps and other facts to determine the level of current development. In reviewing the alleged violations, DER also considered whether or not this project would have been able to get a permit had the Gratzers sought a permit prior to any construction. It was DER's determination that the project would have been permittable under the criteria in Chapter 403, in conjunction with the mitigation offered at the site. Finally, in its review and study of the alleged violations, DER determined there was no evidence that this project would have any adverse impact on water quality. DER made a determination that this was a "low to medium" violation, and that the impacts were properly addressed through the Consent Order which imposed the $1,400.00 fine and secured the conservation easement. Fill Road Issue A small road or driveway existed on the site at the time the Gratzers purchased the property, extending from Stoner Road from the south, to the center of their property. Although Baragona indicated the DER modelled backstop line did not always extend to the driveway, he said it sometimes appeared to "bump up" to the eastern edge of the driveway. Baragona could not say with absolute certainty where the 10 year backstop would be on the east side of the site if the driveway were not present. The type of wetland vegetation on the Gratzer property would be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules adopted pursuant to the 1984 Warren F. Henderson Wetlands Act (Section 403.91, et seq.), but would not be considered jurisdictional wetland vegetation under rules applicable prior to October 1, 1984. If the driveway on the Gratzer property was installed prior to October 1, 1984, it is legal, but if it was installed after that date it is illegal because there is no evidence it ever was properly permitted. DER does not allow illegally filled areas to cut off the extent of its wetland jurisdiction. Therefore, if the driveway on the Gratzer property were placed in DER jurisdictional wetlands without a permit, the road itself could not act as a 10 year backstop cutting off DER wetland jurisdiction to the west. There was conflicting evidence as to when the driveway was placed on the property. James Hartman, who sold the property to the Gratzers, testified he built the driveway in 1978 and 1979. William Kuyper, an expert in aerial photography interpretation, testified that based on his review of aerial photos, the road had been placed on site sometime between January 6, 1986, and March, 1989. The weight of the evidence indicates the driveway was probably placed on site before October 1, 1984, and therefore did not require a DER permit. First, the former landowner's testimony that he built the road in 1978 and 1979, must be considered more reliable than an interpretation of aerial photos taken from 12,000 feet in the air, in spite of the expertise of the photographic interpreter. A possible explanation for why the driveway "appeared" in the 1989 aerial photo but not in the 1986 aerial photo is that the road may have been disturbed, or new fill put on the road sometime between 1986 and 1989, causing the road to be more visible in 1989. Even if the 10 year backstop were to be determined without the driveway present, it would not be significantly different. While DER's 10 year backstop line "bumps up" against the road in places, it does not "bump up" in other places along the driveway, but in order to be conservative the line was placed along with driveway in all areas. The modelled location of the line north of the housepad where there is no driveway is consistent with where the line is modelled south of the housepad where the driveway is located. The Society and its Concerns The Society's corporate status was not controverted. CFWS members have been patrolling the Lake Jessup/Gee Creek area and other wetland areas and have found what they believe are violations of the law and rules intended to protect wetland resources. Although neither Michael Mingea nor his expert witness have been on the Gratzer property, they have been in the immediate area and are concerned about the cumulative impact of small dredging projects, like the Gratzers, which projects are routinely reported to DER by the Society. Beginning in May 1991, the Society corresponded regularly with Secretary Browner at DER and Secretary Williams at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) and their respective staffs, regarding what the Society perceived were violations occurring through lax enforcement. The Society believed, though review of HRS and DER files, that the Gratzers' project included a septic tank placed in jurisdictional wetlands. This was not established; rather, the septic tank was erroneously placed inside a setback line, but outside the jurisdictional line, and a variance was readily obtained from HRS. DER does not have direct jurisdiction over septic tank permits and HRS' authority is derived from the statutes, not from DER. The Society's position regarding the Gratzer project is based in substantial part on its assertion that the fill road was illegally placed and that DER's jurisdiction extended through the entire property. The Society, however, did not rebut the sound evidence by George Baragona of the 10-year backstop. Nor did it present competent evidence of any alleged water quality violations. Only one other actual violation of permit requirements was established, and DER has required the developer to move the project from jurisdictional wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that the Consent Order that is the subject of this proceeding be adopted as Final Agency Action. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0104 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners: 1.-3. Adopted in preliminary statement and paragraph 19. 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. 5.-6. Rejected as unnecessary. 7.-8. Adopted in substance in paragraph 14. 9.-12. Rejected as unnecessary. 13. Adopted in part in paragraph 20, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 14.-16. Rejected as unnecessary. 17.-18. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. 20.-22. Rejected as unnecessary. 23.-25. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27.-30. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 31.-32. Rejected as summary of testimony or argument, rather than findings of fact. 33.-34. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 35.-36. Rejected as unnecessary. 37. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. [Section VI, pp 19-22 includes unnumbered paragraphs summarizing testimony, rather than findings of fact]. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Mingea, President Central Florida Wetlands Society P.O. Box 2826 Orlando, FL 32802 Rex D. Ware, Esquire P.O. Box 1794 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. DER-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners and an adjoining land owner have been involved in a dispute respecting the boundary between their property. The adjoining land owner developed a residential community known as the Bayside Estates subdivision. A canal system was dredged creating waterfront lots in the subdivision, and the canal system was connected to a waterway which flows to the Gulf of Mexico. The portion of the canal system which connects it to the waterway leading to the Gulf of Mexico was constructed on property owned by the Petitioners. Litigation respecting the rights of the Petitioners and adjoining land owners has been conducted in the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit, Lee County, Florida, and in the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. Petitioners are seeking to construct a cable across the joining portion of the canal system, which they contend lies totally within their property. The canal system is a navigable waterway. The stated purpose of the Petitioners' proposed project is to prevent persons who live above the Petitioners' property from using the waterway for boating access to the Gulf of Mexico. The project would serve as a clear obstruction to navigation within the canal system. The Bayside Estates subdivision is located on the canal system above the point where the Petitioners would construct their proposed cable. There are approximately 300 property owners in the subdivision and as many as 150 of them are boat owners. These persons presently utilize the portion of the canal system which the Petitioners propose to block for water access to the Gulf of Mexico. These persons purchased property in the subdivision with the understanding and the belief that they would have water access to the Gulf of Mexico. Other than the fact that it would serve as an obstruction to navigation, the Petitioners, proposed cable would have no environmental impact, except perhaps an aesthetic one. The cable would not obstruct the flow of water, and would not be a source of pollution.
