Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James M. Brown, d/b/a Ramrod Development Company, is seeking to develop as residential property, the subject land on Ramrod Key, Monroe County, Florida, adjacent to the Torch Ramrod Channel. The specific filling project which is the subject of this hearing involves Mariposa Road and Angelfish Road which lie within the property described above on Ramrod Key and which appear on a subdivision plat filed in the official records of Monroe County in 1960 and on revisions of that plat, one of which was filed in 1963 and the more recent of which was filed in 1969. Since February 9, 1960, Monroe County has been the owner of that roadway known as Mariposa Road located on Ramrod Key and which is depicted on the subject plat of Ramrod Shores, Marina Section. Since the county became the owner of that roadway in 1960, through the date of the hearing, it has never given authorization or approval for any person, firm or corporation to place fill material or any other matter upon that dedicated roadway (which includes a section of Angelfish Road as well as Mariposa Road). Monroe County, Florida, has given the Department of Environmental Regulation authorization to require removal of fill material placed on any dedicated county roadway in violation of any law or administrative rule of the Department. On January 27, 1977, the Department personnel visited the subject site and determined dredge and fill activities had indeed taken place on a tidal Red Mangrove fringe area on the shore line of Torch Ramrod Channel without an appropriate permit issued by the Department. The Petitioner, James M. Brown, in sworn testimony, in the earlier proceeding here involved (DOAH Case No. 78- 1234), admitted that since 1969 he has, on numerous occasions, placed fill material in the Mariposa and Angelfish Road areas, which are the subject matter of this proceeding. He also admitted doing so without a permit issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation (See testimony of Brown in DOAH Case No. 77-1409, Atwater vs. Department of Environmental Regulation). In the earlier proceeding involving the Petitioner, DOAH Case No. 78- 1234, Mr. Sayward Wing described the placing of fill on the northern end of Mariposa Road by Monroe County, but this area is not the area now in controversy, which is on the southern part of Mariposa Road from its intersection with Angelfish Road south to Old State Road 4A. Witness Wing in that proceeding did not observe the county or its agents or employees place any fill in the subject area of Mariposa or Angelfish Road. The fill placed on Mariposa Road, between Old State Road 4A and the intersection with Angelfish Road, by the Petitioner, contained approximately 96 cubic yards of fill as of January 27, 1977. The fill placed on Angelfish Road from the Mariposa Road intersection westerly approximately 50 feet, contained approximately 178 cubic yards of fill as of that same date. The area west of Mariposa Road where the dredge and fill work was performed is predominantly vegetated by red mangroves (rhizophora mangle). The red mangroves are then superseded by white mangroves (laguncularia racemosa), black mangroves (avicennia germinans), as well as transitional vegetation. The red mangroves are the dominant vegetative species in the area. These species are found in the vegetative index which defines the Department's jurisdiction in Section 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code. Witnesses Meyer and Kurer observed large numbers of small fish, predominantly gambusia affinis, in the inundated mangrove area lying on the west side of Mariposa Road. A fringe of red mangroves 50 to 80 feet wide vegetates the area east of Mariposa Road, along the Torch Ramrod Channel shoreline. The sandy mud intertidal and shallow subtidal water bottoms in this area are vegetated by benthic algae and sea grasses. The red mangroves are also the dominant species in this area. Benthic algae (halimeda sp., penicillus sp., gracellaria sp.) and sea grasses (thallassia testudinum and halodule wrightii) are also found in the vegetative index contained in Section 17-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, which delineates the Department's jurisdiction over State waters. The sampling and observations conducted by witnesses Kurer and Meyer in this area yielded silver side anchovies, mosquito fish, killifish, lane snapper, toadfish, needlefish, blennies, barracuda, various juvenile fish species, stonecrabs, amphipods, blue crabs, pink shrimp, isopods, nemerteans, polychaetes, tunicates, gastropods, and bivalves. The mangroves described, as well as associated wetland vegetation found in the area, provide filtration of sediments and nutrients contained in stormwater run-off from adjacent upland areas, as well as from tidal flows. This filtering process is essential in maintaining water quality in the adjacent open bay estuarine or marine system. The nutrients in the tidal waters as well as run-off waters are stockpiled in the sediments retained by the mangrove roots and are transformed into vegetative leaf matter by the mangroves as they live and grow. The extensive root system of the mangroves and their associated vegetation also provides stabilization of estuarine shoreline sediments and attenuation of storm-generated tides. Mangrove wetlands provide unique and irreplaceable habitats for a wide variety of marine as well as upland wildlife species. The Petitioner's activities, conducted without the appropriate approval and permit, have resulted in the alteration of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of State waters in the area of Mariposa and Angelfish Roads by the destruction of wetlands which provide food and habitat for wildlife, and which provide a filtrative and assimilative capacity to remove nutrients and other pollutants from the adjacent bay waters. the discharge of fill on to the mangrove areas, in waters of the State, has resulted in harm and injury to the biological community that existed there before the activity was completed. Specifically, as the testimony of Mr. Helbling (a biologist and water quality expert) establishes, the mangrove community to the east of Mariposa Road was shown not to be in a stressed condition in 1977 or at the time of the hearing. Mr. Helbling's testimony also establishes, however, that the mangrove system to the west of Mariposa Road, in effect inland from the filled portion of the road, is now in a stressed condition as manifested by mangrove trees in this area which area dead, or in the process of dying. This stress is caused primarily by the fact that the waters in the mangrove system to the west of Mariposa Road are impounded by the fill and no longer experience tidal flow or exchange daily. Therefore, being impounded, they are becoming more and more saline through the process of evaporation, to the extent that the mangrove trees are being poisoned. The mangrove tree community was not in this stressed condition in 1977 when this witness first observed it, but is at the present time. The primary reason for the imminent loss of this mangrove community is thus due to Mariposa Road being filled to such a level that there is no longer any tidal exchange of water with Torch Ramrod Channel. Witness Kurer established that the proposed plan of restoration set forth in the Department's exhibit two in Case No. 78-1234 and which has been adopted and admitted into evidence herein, would constitute an acceptable resolution of the dispute at bar. Removal of the fill would allow tidal exchange across Mariposa and Angelfish Roads and allow the mangrove system to restore itself and contribute to the protection and enhancement of the productive and valuable marine resource system in the adjacent bay area. Thus, the discharge of fill on to the mangrove areas involved herein which is within waters of the State, has resulted in harm and injury to that biological community which existed there before the activity was commenced and completed. The quality of waters in the Florida Keys is directly related to the degree of shoreline development by activity such as that undertaken by the Petitioner. The greater the degree of shoreline alteration, then the greater the degree of deterioration in water quality and the greater damage to biological productivity. The mangroves, in addition to their valuable filtrative function, also contribute leaf or detrital matter to the surrounding State waters and estuarine system in the form of decayed leaf litter. This organic component forms the basis of the marine food chain and is used directly for food by a variety of marine organisms, including small fish. A variety of important commercial and sports fish species feed directly on the mangrove detritus or on those fish or other forms of marine life which themselves feed on the detrital matter. Consequently, the destruction of the mangroves contributes directly to the deterioration of water quality through the loss of their filtrative function, as well as to the deterioration of an economically and biologically important sports and commercial fishery. Consequently, the restoration plan proposed by the Department is more of a desirable alternative than leaving the fill in place, in that it would restore the mangrove vegetation which provides the filtrative, assimilative functions in removing nutrients and other pollutants, and also provides food and habitat for fish and wildlife. The Petitioner's activities continue to be a source of pollution which was created without an appropriate and valid permit issued by the Department.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the application for an "after the fact" permit. That a Final Order be entered requiring the Petitioner to completely restore the unauthorized fill site to its original contours and elevations and to revegetate the affected area, pursuant to a restoration plan and compliance schedule approved by the Department, which restoration plan and compliance schedule should be supplied to the Department by the Petitioner within 20 days subsequent to the effective date of the Final Order herein; and that the Petitioner be required within 20 days following approval of the said restoration plan to commence the restoration work which shall be accomplished in such a fashion as to prevent further damage to the marine and estuarine environment involved. It is further required that Petitioner complete the said restoration plan and project within 60 days following the approval of the restoration plan by the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 21st day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: David Paul Horan, Esquire 513 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 H. Ray Allen, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy began on July 9, 1990, when petitioners, David and Victoria Page, filed an application with the district office of respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing certain construction activities (including the erection of a seawall) on their residential lot located at 3108 Gulfwinds Circle, Hernando Beach, Florida. The property faces west on the Gulf of Mexico, a water body designated as a Class III water in the State. The application was eventually deemed to be complete on October 24, 1990. After conducting a review of the application and an on-site inspection of the property, on January 18, 1991, DER issued its notice of permit denial. The notice identified the reasons for the denial as being petitioners' failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated and that the project would be in the public interest. Also, DER cited expected adverse cumulative impacts if the application was granted. The notice provided further that if petitioners agreed to locate their seawall landward of the jurisdictional line, the project would be approved. In July 1991, petitioners amended their application to propose that the seawall be constructed even further seaward of the jurisdictional line. When efforts to resolve the case were unsuccessful, petitioners requested a formal hearing on January 17, 1992, to contest the agency's decision. Petitioners purchased their property in 1989. It lies within Unit 2 of Gulf Coast Retreats, a residential subdivision in Hernando Beach, Florida. The property is identified as lot 20 on Gulfwinds Circle and fronts the Little Pine Island Bay (Bay), which is a part of the Gulf of Mexico. Access to the Gulf is provided by a channel (six feet in depth) in the Bay in front of lot 20 and which eventually runs into the Gulf several miles south of petitioners' lot. It is undisputed that in 1985 Hurricane Elena passed offshore causing erosion to lot 20 and other adjacent lots. Consequently, the upland portion of the lot is now smaller than before the hurricane. However, petitioners purchased their property in that state of condition. Lots 19 and 21 are on the south and north sides of petitioners' property and are owned by the Steins and Budricks, respectively. Both neighbors have constructed vertical concrete seawalls in front of their homes. Budrick was issued a permit to construct a seawall on December 28, 1989, while Stein constructed his without a permit. However, Stein has subsequently filed an after-the-fact permit application and was recently advised by DER that the application was complete. At hearing, a DER representative expressed the view that the Stein application will probably be approved since his wall is landward of the DER jurisdictional line. It is noted that the Stein and Budrick seawalls sit back from the original property lines because of the erosion suffered during the 1985 hurricane and correspond to the jurisdictional line established by DER on their property. Another application for a permit to construct a seawall was filed by the owner of lot 18 in March 1992. Like Stein and Budrick, that owner proposed to construct his wall on the landward side of the jurisdictional line. Petitioners, who live in Kansas, desire to construct a home on their lot. They have proposed to place one hundred cubic yards of fill (limerock) on 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands on the western end of their lot and construct a 110-foot vertical seawall up to thirty feet seaward of the jurisdictional line. Thus, there will be dredge and filling activities in the Gulf of Mexico, a class III water of the state, thereby invoking the jurisdiction of DER. By law, DER is required to establish a jurisdictional line to show the landward extent of waters of this state, including the Gulf of Mexico. Such extent is normally defined by species of plants or soils which are characteristic of those areas subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters of the state. As a general practice, using a prescribed plant or species indicator list, DER makes an on-site inspection of the property to determine what vegetation, if any, is found on the property and is subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters. In this case, the dominant vegetation found on lot 20 was paspalum distichum, a plant on the species list subject to regular and periodic inundation by the Gulf waters. Accordingly, DER observed where the vegetation ended and used that point for the placement of the jurisdictional line. As a cross check, DER also noted the rack line, which is indicative of the landward extent to which the high tides rise, and found it to correspond to the vegetation line. It should be noted that the jurisdictional line established on petitioners' property corresponds with the line drawn on lots 18, 19 and 21, and if that line is used to construct the seawall on lot 20, the seawalls on all four lots would run in a straight line. Although petitioners objected to the jurisdictional line as established by DER, they offered no credible evidence to show that it was improper or should have been placed at a different location. On January 9 and 15, 1991, Richard W. Pugh, a DER field environmental specialist, conducted an on-site inspection of the property and adjacent waters. He also was responsible for establishing the jurisdictional line. Finding numerous adverse environmental effects that would occur if the permit was granted as proposed, Pugh recommended that the application be denied. This recommendation was accepted by the deputy assistant secretary for DER's Southwest District Office and a notice of permit denial was accordingly issued. The bases for the denial were that (a) reasonable assurances had not been given by petitioners that water quality standards would be satisfied; (b) a cumulative adverse impact on the area would occur if the permit was approved, and (c) petitioners had failed to give reasonable assurances that the project was in the public interest. In order to prove entitlement to a permit, petitioners must give reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is in the public interest. In this respect, they offered no evidence to provide these assurances. This in itself supports a finding that no entitlement to a permit has been shown. Even so, the agency elected to present evidence on these issues after petitioners' case-in-chief was concluded. Findings of fact drawn from that evidence are set forth below. On April 6, 1992, a DER marine biologist, Dr. George H. Farrell, visited the site and conducted a biological evaluation of the composition of the benthic community in the intertidal and subtidal wetlands which would be impacted by the project. Based on his tests and observations, Dr. Farrell concluded that the project as proposed would have an adverse impact on marine and wildlife resources in the area. This is because the area has very good water quality, contains a high species diversity, performs an integral part in the food web, and serves a valuable nursery function for estuarine dependent juvenile fish species and a corridor function for migrating estuarine dependent fish species. This testimony was not challenged by petitioners and is hereby accepted. 1/ In granting or denying a water resource permit, DER is also required to consider certain statutory criteria found in Subsection 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, to determine whether a project is in the public interest. Although petitioners did not address these criteria, and thus failed to give any assurances that the project is in the public interest as required by law, testimony adduced by DER established that under petitioners' proposal, there will be a permanent loss of 1,065 square feet of intertidal wetlands due to filling activities. These wetlands are now used by fish and wildlife habitat and will no longer be available for use. In addition, the same area is used as a nursery area by a variety of fish species. As such, the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats and will adversely affect the fishing values and marine productivity in the vicinity. Second, because petitioners' proposed seawall will jut out from their neighbors' walls by as much as thirty feet, and the corners of the seawall in that configuration will result in erosion or shoaling depending on whether the waters are moving north or south, the project will cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Third, because the wall is being constructed of concrete and steel and is not temporary, the project will be of a permanent nature and thus have a permanent adverse impact. Finally, the ecological functions being performed in the immediate vicinity of the project are extremely important and the elimination of this zone will significantly impair those functions. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the project is not in the public interest. DER has a policy of not granting a permit if adverse cumulative impacts may be expected as a result of granting that permit. This policy is derived from a statute (s. 403.919, F.S.) requiring such impacts to be considered in the permitting process. In the case at bar, DER reasonably predicts that if it granted petitioners' application and authorized them to construct a seawall which jutted out up to thirty feet beyond their neighbors' walls, it would be obligated to grant similar permits to property owners on adjacent lots. Because petitioners' application will have an adverse impact on the water quality and is contrary to the public interest, the granting of additional permits would exacerbate those impacts. When an applicant proposes to fill (destroy) wetlands, and the applicant is unable to meet the public interest criteria set forth in subsection 403.918(2), DER shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. In this case, no mitigative measures were proposed by petitioners. At hearing, petitioners' representative asserted that in June 1991, the Cabinet (presumably sitting as the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund) implemented a new "policy" which allows property owners to "recover and bulkhead" land previously lost due to avulsion and erosion. He further represented that such requests were to be filed within five years after the event (hurricane). Although petitioners were not the property owners when the event occurred, and more than five years has elapsed, in July 1991 petitioners filed a request with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reclaim and bulkhead their property and that request remained pending as of the date of hearing. A copy of the policy itself (or rule, if any, implementing the policy) was not made a part of this record. Even so, there was no evidence to establish that the granting of that application would require DER to grant a water resource permit, and DER takes the position that the request has no bearing on the issue of whether a water resource permit should be issued to petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying petitioners' application for a water resource permit. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner has an option to purchase property located at 301-307 Island Way Boulevard, Island Estate, Clearwater, Florida, on which he proposes to construct ten townhouses. Initially Petitioner asked for two variances. The first variance was for 25.12 feet to allow construction on a lot only 124.88 feet wide. This variance was granted for this nonconforming lot. The second variance, for 13.24 feet to allow construction of the ten townhouse complex 12 feet from the side property line, was denied by the Clearwater Code Adjustment Board. The Board concluded the variance requested did not meet the requirements of Section 45.24 of the Clearwater Land Development Code. Petitioner presented evidence that if the lot had been 150 feet wide they would have had 90 feet to build on without requesting any variance. However, since the lot was nonconforming, in order to have 89 feet on which to place the building, the requested variance would be necessary. Petitioner also presented evidence that the construction of ten townhouses on this lot is necessary for the project to be on a solid economic basis. Subsequent to the denial of this variance by the Development Code Adjustment Board, Petitioner submitted plans, which have been approved by the City of Clearwater, to erect nine townhouses on this property without any variance needed. However, these townhouses would be smaller than would be the ten townhouses initially proposed and would provide a lesser return on the capital invested.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Protection (Department) is the administrative agency of the State of Florida which has the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder, Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, as well as other laws and rules related to protection of the environment. The Department is the successor agency to the former Department of Environmental Regulation and Department of Natural Resources. Respondent, Bob Chipman, owns and operates Fish Haven Lodge, One Fish Haven Road, Auburndale, Polk County, Florida. This subject property is located on the west shore of Lake Juliana in the Green Swamp Basin. Fish Haven Lodge is a small mobile home park and fishing camp, with approximately fifty mobile homes and seven cottages. There is a fishing pier built in the 1960's and a boat ramp; neither structure is at issue in this action. The lodge and camp were opened in 1963, some twenty years after Mr. Chipman's grandfather bought the property. Originally, the property sloped gently down to the shore of the lake. Mr. Chipman calls the lakefront a "parking lot for boats", as his patrons and tenants pull their boats up on the shore and "park" them. In the early days, poles were installed up on the shore for securing the boats. Over the years, the lake has eroded the shoreline. As people rented the mobile home lots and were given access to the lake, they would ask permission of Mr. Chipman to build little walkways to get in and out of their boats. These proliferated, and now there are at least twelve such structures. The property began experiencing severe erosion. Whenever it stormed, ruts were washed out, cutting into the grassy areas. Attempts to fill the ruts with dirt and sod provided only a temporary solution. Eventually, instead of a gradual slope, there was an abrupt drop into the lake waters. Mr. Chipman perceived this erosion as a hazard to his remaining property and to the people who used the lakefront. He also found it difficult to mow and maintain the neat, well-kept appearance of the property. In June 1992, Mr. Chipman, without benefit of permit of any sort, commenced building small sea walls, or what he calls "retention walls" on both sides of the fishing pier and along the contour of the shore. The walls are constructed of 2 x 10 wooden boards nailed on posts. The only way to hammer the boards on the landward side of the posts was to dig, then build, then backfill the area behind the walls. The fill came from both landward and waterward of the walls. Later, more fill was placed along the walls, but this was gravel fill. As the walls were built, the existing walkways, or small "docks" were removed and were replaced in a neater, more uniform fashion. The poles were repositioned and planks were replaced. There are approximately twelve of these repositioned walkways, or docks. Photographs taken by Mr. Chipman during the construction show the lakewaters approaching the planks of the wall, and in one view (Petitioner's exhibit #4) the water is lapping up to the planks. The walkways or docks are well into the water. Mr. Chipman concedes that the water has risen up the bottom 2 x 10 board, and that the walls were installed during a period of high water. Notwithstanding this evidence, Mr. Chipman contends that he built his walls along the edge, but not within, the jurisdiction of the "waters of the state". He contends that he was not trying to recapture property he lost to erosion, but rather, he was trying to save what he had left. He admits that the walkways or docks are in the water, but he suggests that they are "grandfathered", as they existed for several years, and some as long as twenty to thirty years. A basic principle of water boundary is that it is an ambulatory line; it moves with erosion or accretion. Erosion is a natural phenomenon. The Department established its jurisdictional water boundary in this case by several means. Ted Murray, an environmental specialist with the Department who was qualified at hearing without objection as an expert in jurisdictional determination, inspected the subject property and found submerged species of vegetation along the seawalls. These species included arrowhead and wild tarrow, common names for species which require the presence of water to grow. In an area where the seawalls were not built, wild tarrow was found four or five feet behind the line where the seawalls had been built, indicating that the water fluctuated naturally where unimpeded by the walls to an area landward of the walls. Two hydrological indicators of the landward extent of waters of the state were noted by Mr. Murray. One was the debris line or "rackline" created by the deposit of debris by fluctuating waterlevels. The other hydrological indicator was the escarpment found north of the boat dock. This escarpment is a miniature cliff, or drop-off caused by the high water line. This is a common situation found at lakeshores. In this case, Department staff located a post that already existed at the escarpment. At the request of the Department, the Southwest Florida Water Management District conducted a land survey, shooting elevations at various locations on the property. The existing post was a reference point agreed by the parties the day the survey was conducted; Mr. Chapman claimed that he had constructed his seawalls landward of that post. The elevation at the post and at the base of the escarpment was measured at 132.6 feet above sea level. At a lake like Lake Juliana, the water level will tend to be the same elevation all around the lake. Any structure or fill placed above 132.6 feet elevation would be in uplands; any structure or fill placed below that elevation would be within the landward extent of Lake Juliana, and therefore within the permitting jurisdiction of the Department. Survey elevations of the seawalls, taken at several points, indicate that the seawalls and fill were placed one to two feet below the jurisdictional line. The fact that the Southwest Water Management District had previously established feet as the minimum flood level for Lake Juliana adds credence to the line established as described above. There have been several enforcement actions on Lake Juliana, including three or four recent violations involving seawalls and associated backfill in jurisdictional waters. Mr. Chipman's is not an isolated case. As he recounts, folks saw him building this wall and told him they would like the same thing. The cumulative effect of such structures on the Lake Juliana environment is substantial. Seawalls preclude vegetative shorelines that would otherwise serve as nutrient assimilation and habitat for a variety of organisms that inhabit the lake. Even though Mr. Chipman's walls are only a foot or so into the wetlands, the surface area affected by the approximate 126 feet length of the walls is close to 500 square feet, including the fill area behind the walls. Loss of vegetation will lead to loss of fishes that depend on the vegetation for feeding, hiding and nesting. Although the docks or walkways can provide nesting or hiding places, their effect is still a net loss, since, as constructed, they deprive the vegetation of needed sunlight. As constructed, the seawalls would not have been permitted by the Department because the same purpose could have been served by building the walls in the uplands just a few feet away. The Department staff have discussed alternatives with Mr. Chipman. The best natural defense against erosion is a gentle slope that is vegetated with native plant species. That solution may not be practical where there is an embankment and where there is constant usage by boats and people. The most practical solution based on evidence in this proceeding is for Mr. Chipman to move the walls back into the uplands and restore the shoreline. There is no controversy that all of the construction by Mr. Chipman was done without permits. His business has been operating since 1963, and he felt that the effort to impede erosion of his "boat parking lot" was of no concern to the state. He has been candid and cooperative with the Department staff, and there is no basis to find that his excuse for not seeking permits is in any way bad faith.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter its Final Order finding that Respondent, Bob Chipman, committed the violations alleged and requiring the removal and restoration described in the notice of violation and orders for corrective actions which initiated this proceeding. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of November, 1994, 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 29th day of November, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 David Thulman, Esquire Heidi E. Davis, Esquire Asst. General Counsel DEP-Twin Towers Ofc. Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Bob Chipman Fish Haven Lodge One Fish Haven Road Auburndale, FL 33823
Findings Of Fact Jack E. Moore is the owner of real property in Fort Myers Beach known as Lot 9 of Indian Bayou, a subdivision in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 24 East, Lee County, Florida. Moore's property is bordered on the north by the waters of Indian Bayou and Estero Bay. The northern portions of Moore's property are vegetated by juvenile and mature red and black mangroves. Red and black mangrove are the dominant species of vegetation on the northernmost portions of the property, waterward of the fill pad on which Moore's house is built. Sometimes during July, 1982, Moore used a shovel to excavate a channel from the open waters of Estero Bay to a dock existing at the edge of the fill pad. Approximately 48 cubic yards of excavated material was piled up along the banks of the channel. The channel measured approximately 1.5 feet deep (at low tide) by 9 feet wide by 70 feet long. The channel was dug so that Moore could got his boat in and out from the dock at medium tide. The passage to the deck was already possible at high tide, as Moore had a shallow draft pontoon boat. In July, 1981, Moore constructed a rip-rap revetment with backfill the northern side of his house fill pad. The back fill area contains approximately 160 cubic yards of fill, and is approximately 10 feet wide by 110 feet long. Red mangrove and black mangrove are and were the dominant vegetational species in the area where the channel was dug, where the excavated material was placed, and where the revetment and fill was constructed. The area of dominant mangrove vegetation extends from the work areas to the open waters of Estero Bay. Moore did not apply for or receive a permit from DER prior to undertaking the work referenced above. Upon discovery of the work in September, 1982, DER notified Moore that a permit was needed for the excavation and filling he conducted. In October, 1982, Moore agreed to fill in the channel and remove all unauthorized fill by January 19, 1983. Inspection by DER on January 26, 1983, showed that restoration had not been started, and in fact more work had been done on the channel. DER issued a Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action (NOV) to Respondent on March 29, 1003, alleging violations of Chapter 403, Florida Statute's, and DER rules and requiring restoration of the areas dredged and filled. Upon service of the Notice of Violation by the Sheriff, Respondent petitioned for this hearing. DER incurred costs of 5101.88 in investigating the violations alleged in the NOV. As of the date of the hearing, restoration work still had not been performed. Although the spoil piles alongside the channel are now diminished, the channel itself was deep as it previously had been and the rip-rap revetment and backfill had not been removed.
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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner SFWMD is a public corporation of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility of issuing permits and enforcing orders relating to surface water management within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondents Hubschman, as trustees, have full rights of ownership in 1,280 contiguous acres located in Sections 17 and 20, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida. These lands are known as Bonita Farms I and II. They are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of SFWMD. In their pre- developed state, these lands could generally be categorized as marsh and wetlands with cypress forest and some uplands in the northern half of the project area. After deciding to develop the acreage for use as pasture and farmland for small vegetable crops, Respondents Hubschman applied for a surface water management permit from SFWMD. The purpose of the permit was to allow the construction and operation of a water management system that would serve both farms. A system was designed to drain water off both parcels through a 62-acre retention area into a natural slough system which runs water into Kehl Canal. In order to create the system, the Respondents Hubschman had the following facilities designed for the site: internal ditches, dikes, pumps, a retention area and control structures. On April 15, 1982, SFWMD issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 36- 00315-S, and Respondents Hubschman were allowed to proceed with their proposed construction plan. A modification to the permit was issued on April 14, 1983. The retention area was enlarged from 62 acres to 88 acres by relocating the perimeter dike. The outfall structure was revised in that the two pumps and the weir were to be replaced by three 18" CMP culverts that would discharge the drained water by gravity flow from the retention area through the slough into Kehl Canal. The duration of the construction phase of its permit was a three-year period, unless the construction of the permitted project discharge structure or equivalent had been completed prior to that date. After the close of the three-year period, there was a dispute between the Respondents and SFWMD as to whether the permit had expired. The controversy was resolved through a compromise agreement. An application for the reissuance of Permit No. 36-00315-S was filed on October 13, 1986. Instead of reissuing Permit No. 36-00315-S, as requested by Respondents Hubschman, SFWMD decided to issue a new permit on May 14, 1987. As part of the processing procedures, SFWMD again reviewed and approved the entire surface water management system designed to serve the 1,280 acres of land proposed by Respondents. Because the additional work proposed for Section 17, the northern section was limited at this stage of development to the selective clearing of additional upland areas to create more improved pasture, the new permit directed attention to Section 20, the southern section of the land. The new permit advised the Respondents that if they wanted to propose additional development to Section 17, they were required to seek a modification of this new permit, Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S, to include those changes. The Respondents applied for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S on July 30, 1987. The proposed modification sought to change the status of the development of Section 17 from improved pasture to small vegetable farmland on 639 acres. The surface water management system plan was modified to drain water in Section 17 to the reservoir on Section 20. The water would be directed via a series of lateral ditches and swales. A six foot high dike and one 27,000 GPM pump were also required. Two additional 18" CMP culverts were required at the discharge facilities to accommodate the increased outflow. The Modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S was approved and issued on June 16, 1988. The original Permit NO. 36-00764-S and its modification are similar to a contract novation because the new permits substituted new obligations between the parties for the old ones under Permit No. 36-00315-S. Based upon this approach to the situation, SFWMD allowed the construction work completed under Permit No. 36-00315-S prior to the Stop Work Order of August 27, 1986, to vest. The completion of the berm around the reservoir in Section 20, as set forth in the letter from Elizabeth D. Ross, attorney for SFWMD, on September 19, 1986, was also allowed to vest. However, if the vested matters were changed in the subsequent permits, they became revisions. The revisions take precedence over the vested matters. Otherwise, completed construction under Permit No. 36- 00764-S as modified, and post Stop Work Order construction remains in effect perpetually for the operation portion of the permit. In order to determine with certainty what was permitted when the Notice of Violation was issued on December 20, 1988, the parties would have to look to the project work actually completed on August 27, 1986, the specific construction approved by SFWMD after that date, the subsequent Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S issued May 14, 1987, and its Modification issued June 16, 1988. The substantial compliance determination issued by Richard A. Rogers, P.E., Resource Control Department dated September 24, 1987, should also be considered as authorized activity. The Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, was issued to Respondent Samuel Hubschman, Trustee. He was advised that recent routine inspections indicate that current on-site activity was in violation of Special Conditions 2,3,4,7,14, 17 & 23 of Permit No. 36-00764-S (issued 5/14/87) and Special Conditions 5,16 & 22 of 36-00315-S (modified 6/16/88). A meeting to resolve these issued was suggested by SFWMD. Respondent Hubschman agreed to attend the meeting through his consultants. Both parties elected to attempt resolution of the Notice of Violation controversy through negotiations in a meeting scheduled for January 5, 1989. To demonstrate their sincerity, the parties agreed not to bring attorneys to the meeting. During the meeting, the parties resolved the controversy by agreeing to the following: SFWMD would no longer consider the project to be in violation of Florida law if the Respondents submitted certain items that would cause SFWMD to issue certain permits and modify others. The Respondents would promptly file an application for a dewatering permit so that the governing board could issue the permit at its March 9, 1989 meeting. The Respondent's contractor would make no field changes in the mitigation or excavation areas without first obtaining appropriate permit modification from SFWMD. Small jockey pumps were to be installed to pump water from the internal water management system into certain cypress and/or mitigation areas for the sole purpose of establishing wetland vegetation within the areas. Respondents were to apply for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, to allow a single phase of mining for the entire affected area. The perimeter dike was to be made structurally adequate. Respondents were to submit an alternative proposal for the disposal of cap rock within ninety days. In the meantime, the contractor could continue to bury the cap rock within the mitigation areas. Both parties demonstrated their reliance on the settlement reached in the meeting by their subsequent actions towards completing and processing the applications for permit modifications and additional permits. Although the noted violations were not cured by these actions, the parties intended to reach a cure or to mitigate for present permit violations through new permit conditions. The preliminary staff review of the Respondents' application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, was completed by March 31, 1989. The following information was requested by SFWMD staff: Revised engineering calculations which reflect that the permitted discharge structure is five 18" CMP culverts. An explanation as to why the 6.3 acre maidencane/juncus marsh designated as a preserve area and the adjacent western preserve area were excavated and otherwise disturbed by project activities. The scrapedown methodology for the replanting of mitigation areas. The Respondents' plans for the area delineated on the plans as pine, which is currently permitted as part of a cypress preservation area. Dike certification and reservoir certification. The above-listed information was required to be returned to the SFWMD within ninety days from the date of the written request. At the close of the ninety days, the information was not received. A second request for a response within thirty days was submitted by SFWMD on August 4, 1989. In September 1989, the Respondents attempted to comply with SFWMD's second request for information. Communications continued in regard to the filed application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, into December 1989. After the thirty days expired for the response to the second request for information dated August 4, 1989, SFWMD filed the Administrative Complaint in these proceedings. After the second request for information, a partial response was received from Respondent Hubschman's consultants. The application continues to go through the review process. It has not yet been deemed complete by SFWMD. As part of the resolution of the Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, SFWMD issued permit No. 36-01023-W to Respondent Hubschman for construction dewatering, excavation of an irrigation pond, and water storage at the site. The permit was issued on March 9, 1989. Special condition No. 20 of this permit requires a 200-feet setback from the cypress mitigation area and the irrigation pond being dewatered. The setback is shown on Exhibit 10 of the Bonita Farms Dewatering Application which was made part of the permit. A copy of the permit was attached to the Administrative Complaint. No evidence was submitted by SFWMD regarding alleged violations of Special condition No. 20 which were allegedly observed and documented after the permit was issued, before the filing of the Administrative Complaint Respondent Bob Cadenhead is the contractor hired by Respondents Hubschman to construct the surface water management system. There was no evidence presented to show the connection of another party, Respondent, Cadenhead & Sons Construction, to the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00315-S be deemed to have vested as to all construction activity completed under the permit which was not addressed in the subsequent permit issued by SFWMD. The completion of the berm, as set forth in Attorney Ross' September 19, 1986 letter, should also be allowed to vest. That Permit No. 36-00764-S and its later modification be ordered to supercede the prior permit in all matters specifically addressed. That the parties be held to their prior agreements to resolve pending permit violations through the permit modification process. That the alleged dewatering violation in paragraph 19 of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence. That a specific deadline be set to reasonably complete pending application modifications. That all future enforcement action specifically comply with Rule 40E- 1.612, Florida Administrative Code, and remain separate from any permit or permit modification applications. That the parties create a new, active permit file with current drawings and a specific construction schedule. That the Administrative Complaint and Order filed in these proceedings be dismissed. That future agreements be reduced to writing and signed by the proper parties before they are relied upon by either party. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5737 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 4. Accepted. See HO number 3. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. See HO number 6. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Argumentative. Rejected. Legal argument. Accepted. See HO number 5. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. The argument presented in this paragraph is overly punctilious. It ignores the detrimental reliance of opposing parties to the agreement. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Legal argument and improper opinion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Matters presented were either not ripe for these proceedings or not proved at hearing. See HO number 16-number 20 and HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact and law. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings as separate from the Notice of Violation. Irrelevant. Accepted as fact, resolved by agreement. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO number 11-number 12. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Resolved through agreement. See HO number 15. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16- number 20. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Not in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 21. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 13. Rejected. See HO number 23. Contrary to fact and pleadings. Accepted. See HO number 14. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 20. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. See HO number 20. Accepted. See HO number 4-number 7. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The permit modifica- tion specifically required replacement of a pump with 3 culverts. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 7 and number 11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 11. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Additional matters were agreed upon which were not reflected in the letter. This is an incomplete summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 8 and number 9. Rejected. See HO number 8 and number 9. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Fumero, Esquire Office of General Counsel South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Russell Schropp, Esquire HENDERSON FRANKLIN STARNES & HOLT, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John R. Wodraska, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
Findings Of Fact The Respondent owns property in Lake County, Florida which adjoins North Lake Holly. North Lake Holly is a fresh water lake. On an undetermined date between December, 1975 and September, 1976, the Respondent caused a horseshoe-shaped basin to be dredged along the shoreline of North Lake Holly adjoining his property. The fill material taken from the dredged area was deposited along the shore of the lake to farm a beach. The basin is approximately 90' long, 50' wide, and 6' deep. The Respondent has erected a dwelling house on his property, and it appears that the dredging was done in order to transform the shoreline of the lake from a vegetated littoral zone to a beach and boat basin. The Department confirmed the violations in December, 1976, and sought to negotiate a restoration plan with the Respondent. The formal Notice of Violation was issued an November 17, 1977. The dredged area was previously a shallow littoral zone dominated by wetlands vegetation. The most prevalent vegetation was sawgrass, but there were also abundant quantities of cattails, maidencane, arrowhead, and willows. The dredging activity relates to only a small portion of the shoreline of North Lake Holly. The activity nonetheless has resulted in the alteration of the characteristics of the lake. The marsh area which fringes the lake serves as habitat for fish and other wildlife, and also serves to filter runoff which enters the lake from the uplands. The Respondent's activities have obliterated a portion of the wildlife habitat, and provide an avenue for some uplands runoff to be discharged directly into North Lake Holly without the benefit of being filtered through wetlands vegetation. The quality of waters in central Florida lakes is related directly to the amount of development along the shoreline. The greater degree of alteration of the shoreline, the greater degree of deterioration of water quality, and the greater the deterioration of wildlife habitat. A project of the magnitude of that accomplished by the Respondent may have no clearly measurable impact upon water quality and wildlife habitat since the rest of North Lake Holly is surrounded by a broad littoral zone. The only impact that the project can have is, nonetheless, adverse. If a project such as the Respondent's is approved, the Department could not, consonant with due process and equal protection concepts prohibit further such alterations of the shoreline. It is likely that some aquatic vegetation will reestablish itself along the shoreline of the dredged area. Such a natural restoration will not, however, alleviate the negative impacts of the Respondent's dredging. The steep inclines of the dredged area will allow only a very narrow rim of vegetation, which cannot be expected to provide habitat and protect water quality to remotely the extent of the, previous undisturbed broad littoral zone. Furthermore, in the time since the project was completed, no significant vegetative zone has reestablished itself. It is possible for the Respondent to gain access to the lake for boating and other recreational purposes without totally obliterating the littoral zone that was in the area. The Department has offered a restoration plan which would accomplish this result. The Respondent undertook the dredge and fill activity without seeking a permit from the Department, and he continues to operate what amounts to a stationary installation which will serve as a source of pollutants to North Lake Holly without any valid permit issued by the Department. The Department has spent $229.41 in assessable costs in investigating and attempting to rectify the illegal dredge and fill activity undertaken by the Respondent.
