98-002006
Edmond Blount, Jr.; Edmond Blount, Sr.; Robert Davenport; And Gerard Murnan vs.
City Of Mexico Beach And Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, November 10, 1998.
Recommended Order on Tuesday, November 10, 1998.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8EDMOND BLOUNT, SR.; EDMOND BLOUNT, JR.; )
15ROBERT DAVENPORT; and GERARD MURNAN, )
21)
22Petitioners, )
24)
25vs. ) Case No. 98-2006
30) OGC No. 98-1186
34CITY OF MEXICO BEACH and DEPARTMENT )
41OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )
45)
46Respondents. )
48_________________________________________)
49)
50EDMOND BLOUNT, JR.; ROBERT DAVENPORT; )
56and GERARD MURNAN, )
60)
61Petitioners, )
63)
64vs. ) Case No. 98-2007
69) OGC No. 98-0156
73CITY OF MEXICO BEACH and DEPARTMENT )
80OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )
84)
85Respondents. )
87_________________________________________)
88RECOMMENDED ORDER
90On July 29, 1998, and continuing on August 6, 1998, a formal
102hearing was held in this case. Authority for conducting the
112hearing is set forth in Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida
122Statutes. The hearing location was the City of Mexico Beach
132Civic Center, Mexico Beach, Florida. The hearing was conducted
141by Charles C. Adams, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of
152Administrative Hearings.
154APPEARANCES
155For Petitioners: Edmond Blount, Sr., pro se
162Post Office Box 13855
166Mexico Beach, Florida 32410
170Edmond Blount, Jr., pro se
175Post Office Box 13854
179Mexico Beach, Florida 32410
183Robert Davenport, pro se
187Post Office Box 13926
191Mexico Beach, Florida 32410
195Gerard Murnan, No appearance
199Post Office Box 13378
203Mexico Beach, Florida 32410
207For Respondent City of Mexico Beach:
213Paul G. Komarek, Esquire
217Daniel and Komarek, Chartered
221315 East 4th Street
225Post Office Box 2547
229Panama City, Florida 32402
233For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection:
239Ricardo Muratti, Esquire
242Department of Environmental Protection
246Mail Station 35
2493900 Commonwealth Boulevard
252Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
255STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
259Is the City of Mexico Beach (the City or Applicant) entitled
270to the issuance of a joint coastal permit and consent to use of
283sovereign submerged land for the Mexico Beach Canal (Main Canal)
293and a municipal flushing outlet adjacent to 8th Street (8th
303Street outlet)? Those permits would be issued by the Department
313of Environmental Protection (DEP) in response to DEP Application
322File No.: 0124938-001JC and DEP Application File No.: 0129039-
331001JC, respectively.
333PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
335On June 13, 1997, the City applied to DEP for the necessary
347permits to conduct maintenance activities in association with the
3568th Street outlet. This was followed by its application to DEP
367for necessary permits associated with maintenance dredging of the
376Main Canal. The latter application was made on June 30, 1997.
387On January 13, 1998, DEP gave notice of its intent to issue
399necessary permits in association with Main Canal. On March 16,
4091998, DEP gave notice of its intent to issue necessary permits in
421association with the 8th Street outlet. The intent to issue
431necessary permits in association with the Main Canal was
440protested by written petitions from Edmond Blount, Jr.; Robert
449Davenport; and Gerard Murnan. The intent to issue necessary
458permits in association with the 8th Street outlet was contested
468by those Petitioners and Edmond Blount, Sr.
475The petitions in opposition to the grant of the permits
485were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for
494assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct an
503evidentiary hearing to resolve their disputes in accordance with
512Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Those requests for
519assignment were received by the Division on April 30, 1998. The
530transmittal of the petitions was accompanied by the DEP motion to
541consolidate the petitions for consideration by the Administrative
549Law Judge. That motion was unopposed. The motion to consolidate
559was granted on June 12, 1998.
565The City and DEP filed separate motions to dismiss the
575petitions challenging the intent to grant necessary permits.
583Petitioners offered a written response to the motions which more
593specifically identified their interests affected by the grant of
602the permits. Having in mind that information provided by the
612Petitioners and being otherwise advised in the premises, the
621motions to dismiss were denied, in an order which reminded the
632parties that the case would be considered in keeping with the
643statutes and rules which had pertinence to the notices of intent
654to issue the permits and in keeping with the issues identified in
666the petitions in challenge to the intent to grant. The order
677denying the motions to dismiss was entered on June 12, 1998.
688On June 12, 1998, a Notice of Hearing was sent setting forth
700July 28 and 29, 1998, for hearing in Panama City, Florida, at the
713City Hall.
715There ensued written communications from the public
722requesting a change in the hearing location and asking that
732members of the public be allowed to testify at the hearing. The
744parties were noticed of these communications and given the
753opportunity to file responses. That notification was made on
762July 2, 1998. In the notice of communications provided on
772July 2, 1998, the parties were given until July 13, 1998, at
784their option, to file responses to the public requests to change
795the hearing location to Mexico Beach and to testify as members of
807the public. The parties were informed by that notice of
817communications that a decision would be made concerning the
826public request to change the hearing venue and to be provided the
838opportunity to testify at the hearing as members of the public.
849Counsel for the City moved to continue the July 28, 1998
860hearing date in view of a scheduling conflict. DEP did not
871oppose the motion. Petitioners filed a written objection to the
881motion. On July 2, 1998, an order was entered continuing the
892July 28, 1998 hearing date, leaving in place the July 29, 1998
904hearing date and scheduling August 6, 1998, as a substitute
914hearing date.
916On July 9, 1998, the parties were provided additional
925written communications from members of the public concerning the
934hearing location and the opportunity for public comment. A third
944notice of communications was provided on July 20, 1998,
953concerning the hearing location, opportunity for public comment
961and other related matters.
965The parties presented written responses to the request to
974change the hearing location and to allow public testimony during
984the hearing. On July 20, 1998, an order was entered which
995changed the hearing location from Panama City Beach to Mexico
1005Beach, allowing public testimony to be presented on August 6,
10151998, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. CDT.
1023At hearing DEP presented the testimony of Robert M.
1032Brantly, Jr. The City presented Peter M. Sylvester, M.D.;
1041Charles Parker; Mary Leonard; and Jon DeClerk as witnesses.
1050Petitioners presented Gary Gaddis; Howard Spann; Robert
1057Davenport; Edmond Blount, Jr.; Robert Brantly; Frederick Sheer;
1065and Jon DeClerk as its witnesses. Petitioners presented Exhibits
10741, 2, 2A and 3 through 33 as its exhibits. Exhibits 25 and 26
1088were denied admission. Ruling was reserved on the admission of
1098Petitioners' Exhibit 31. All other exhibits by Petitioners were
1107admitted. Upon further consideration, Petitioners' Exhibit 31 is
1115denied admission. DEP Exhibits 1-9 were admitted. City Exhibits
11241-4 were admitted.
1127A transcript of the hearing was filed on September 8, 1998.
1138The deadline for filing proposed recommended orders was
1146September 18, 1998. The City requested an extension of time to
1157file proposed recommended orders. By requesting an extension of
1166time to file proposed recommended orders, the parties waived the
1176requirement that the recommended order be entered within 30 days
1186of receipt of the transcript. See Rule 28-106.216, Florida
1195Administrative Code. That motion was unopposed. The parties
1203were advised that the new deadline for submitting proposed
1212recommended orders was September 25, 1998. The parties submitted
1221proposed recommended orders which were considered in preparing
1229the recommended order.
1232FINDINGS OF FACT
1235THE PARTIES
12371. Petitioners Edmond Blount, Sr.; Edmond Blount, Jr.; and
1246Robert Davenport are residents of the City of Mexico Beach,
1256Florida. As residents they have access to the Main Canal, the
1267public beaches adjacent to the Main Canal, and beaches adjacent
1277to the 8th Street outlet.
12822. Edmond Blount, Jr., and Robert Davenport oppose the
1291issuance of any permits by DEP which would allow the City to
1303conduct dredging and the placement of dredge materials associated
1312with the Main Canal. Those Petitioners and Edmond Blount, Sr.,
1322oppose the grant of necessary permits by DEP upon the application
1333by the City to conduct occasional maintenance excavation at the
13438th Street outlet to alleviate potential damage through erosion
1352to properties adjacent to the 8th Street outlet.
13603. The City of Mexico Beach is a municipality in Florida
1371which serves as the local government for that community. The
1381City owns the Main Canal and 8th Street outlet.
13904. DEP is an environmental regulator with authority to
1399issue or deny joint coastal permits and to grant or deny consent
1411to use sovereign submerged lands belonging to the State of
1421Florida.
14225. The joint coastal permitting authority and right to
1431grant consent to use is pursuant to Chapters 161, 253, and 373,
1443Florida Statutes, and Chapters 18-21 and 62B-49, Florida
1451Administrative Code.
14536. In particular, DEP has joint coastal permitting
1461authority upon sovereignty lands in the State of Florida below
1471the mean high waterline (MHWL) of any tidal water of the State.
1483The reference to sovereign land is an association with lands
1493below MHWL held in trust by the State of Florida. The term tidal
1506waters refers to waters in which there is an astronomical effect
1517on the elevation of that water. The Gulf of Mexico which fronts
1529the City is a tidal water of the State of Florida. The MHWL is
1543established along the coastal regions in Florida, to include the
1553Gulf coast that fronts the City. The MHWL is set based upon
1565charting information concerning the local mean high tide, the
1574average height of the high waters, and where this average
1584intersects the land.
1587PERMIT APPLICATION
1589FOR MAIN CANAL
15927. On June 30, 1997, the City applied to DEP for a ten-year
1605permit/water quality certification and authorization to use
1612sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees of the
1623Internal Improvement Trust Fund (the Trustees), which would allow
1632the City to maintenance dredge the Main Canal entrance and place
1643the dredge material on the beach east of the canal below the
1655water's edge. This task would be accomplished by the use of
1666hydraulic dredging device. In the course of these activities,
1675approximately 660 cubic yards of material would be removed
1684approximately four times a week.
16898. The application file number for the requested permit in
1699the Main Canal project was: 0124938-001 JC.
17069. The City, through its application, provided a complete
1715and appropriate application with adequate engineering data to
1723support the proposed project.
172710. The Main Canal is located in the western part of the
1739City and is partially located in sovereign submerged lands of the
1750State of Florida where the canal intersects the Gulf of Mexico
1761below the MHWL.
176411. On January 13, 1998, DEP gave notice of its intent to
1776issue necessary permits for the activities to allow dredging and
1786the placement of fill in association with the Main Canal.
179612. More specifically, the hydraulic dredge the City
1804intends to use in the maintenance dredging of the Main Canal is a
1817floating device which excavates the sand from the bottom of the
1828entrance of the Main Canal and pipes the material onto the beach
1840immediately east of the dredge site. The dredging activities may
1850only be conducted in a manner designed to protect the beach-dune
1861system, water quality and habitat for marine turtles. These
1870restrictions in the conduct of the dredging are in accordance
1880with the proposed joint coastal permit.
188613. The dredging activity is to remove and deposit clean
1896beach sand that has been transported by coastal processes and
1906deposited in the lee of the jetty within the Main Canal. There
1918is no intent, nor permission under the proposed permit, that
1928would allow disturbance of any sediments more landward of the
1938extent of the canal.
194214. The dredging is necessitated because the entrance of
1951the Main Canal slowly fills with sand being transported from west
1962to east along the shoreline.
196715. The Main Canal is stabilized on both sides by jetties.
1978The western-most jetty extends further out than the eastern-most
1987jetty. The Main Canal has seawalls along its inside.
199616. A recreational area is located on the western side of
2007the Main Canal.
201017. The Main Canal is highly utilized for purposes of
2020commerce and recreation. The Main Canal constitutes an economic
2029support for many residents of the City.
203618. The Main Canal in proximity to the Gulf and the Gulf
2048itself are not considered outstanding Florida waters or aquatic
2057preserves. The waters in the Main Canal and Gulf are Class III
2069marine waters when considering the parameters for water quality
2078under DEP statutes and rules.
208319. Competent evidence was presented concerning water
2090quality sampling and results in the analysis of those samples for
2101fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria in relation
2110to the Main Canal at its entrance where dredging would take place
2122under the terms of the permit. Some values for fecal coliform
2133and total coliform exceeded the allowable limits for those
2142parameters as envisioned by Section 62-302.530, Florida
2149Administrative Code, as preexisting conditions. However, the
2156dredge operations will not lead to further degradation of the
2166existing Class III marine waters in the Main Canal and
2176degradation of the Gulf.
218020. The relatively clean sand being excavated does not
2189contain fines or organics, which, through the dredging and
2198placement of the sand on the beach following the dredging, would
2209contribute to degradation of water quality standards.
221621. The activity associated with the dredging and placement
2225of those materials on the beach will not cause a significant
2236adverse impact to the beach-dune system, nor will the transport
2246of sand from west to east along the beach as it presently exists
2259be interrupted by the dredging and placement of the sand. The
2270dredged material is being placed immediately east of the dredge
2280operation avoiding a disruption of the natural processes of
2289transport. The proposed disposal area is located on the beach at
2300least 100 feet east of the canal below the waters edge at
2312approximately minus 0.5NGVD. Finally, the deposit of the sand on
2322the beach contributes to beach stabilization as opposed to
2331depriving the beach of sand.
233622. The proposed permit requires that the dredge pipeline
2345be retracted upon a daily basis during marine turtle nesting
2355season from May 1 until October 31 each year. By this limitation
2367in the operation of the dredge pipeline, marine turtles are not
2378hindered in their behavior nor is their habitat unduly disturbed.
2388The placement of the dredged sand on the beach would not be in
2401the dry upland where the turtles would typically nest. The DEP
2412Bureau of Protected Species Management reviewed the permit
2420application for any significant adverse impact on nesting sea
2429turtles and recommends the approval subject to specific
2437conditions such as have been described.
244323. The dredging of the sand from the Main Canal and
2454placement of that material on the beach will not cause
2464significant adverse impact to the property of others.
247224. The Main Canal project will not create any significant
2482erosion or turbidity. Given the small volume and coarseness of
2492the dredged sand, elevated turbidity levels are not expected.
250125. The dredging of material from the mouth of the Main
2512Canal and placement on the adjacent beach does not block lateral
2523access to the beach, because the hydraulic dredge pipeline is
2533placed at the water's edge with a discharge of dredge material
2544being made at the water's edge in the area of the intertidal zone
2557where water comes up to the beach. The exact discharge point is
2569seaward of the area described as the intertidal zone.
257826. Given that the project associated with the Main Canal
2588is located in Class III marine waters, it must not be contrary to
2601the public interest. The project is not contrary to the public
2612interest.
2613PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
26168TH STREET OUTLET
261927. On June 13, 1997, the City applied to DEP for a ten-
2632year permit/water quality certification and authorization to use
2640sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of Trustees. This
2650would allow the City to conduct occasional excavation of the 8th
2661Street municipal flushing outlet which connects to the Gulf,
2670having in mind the alleviation of potential damage to adjacent
2680beachfront properties. That potential damage would be expected
2688to occur in the instance where there was an uncontrolled breach
2699of the berm surrounding the 8th Street outlet due to high
2710incidence of rainfall, thus eroding adjacent beachfront
2717properties. With the advent of scheduled maintenance, excavation
2725of the outlet that erosion is expected to be deterred.
273528. The application file number for the requested permit in
2745the 8th Street outlet project was File No.: 0129039-001 JC.
275529. The City, in its application for necessary permits to
2765conduct excavation at the 8th Street outlet, submitted a complete
2775and appropriate application setting forth adequate engineering
2782details.
278330. More specifically, the permit application contemplates
2790the removal of approximately 20 to 40 yards of beach sand per
2802excavation, with the material excavated being placed on the beach
2812near the water's edge. The excavation would be approximately 4
2822to 5 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 2 to 3 feet deep. Ordinarily,
2836the frequency of excavation would be one to two times per month.
2848The excavation practices would be by the use of a backhoe other
2860than in the sea turtle nesting season. While sea turtles are
2871nesting, the plans contemplate excavation by hand by use of a
2882shovel or similar tool. In addition, during the turtle nesting
2892season the application contemplates that the excavation would be
2901done during daylight hours, only twice a month, to reduce
2911potential flooding of marine turtle nests due to a meandering
2921outflow from the outlet. Other than in the marine turtle nesting
2932season the excavation would be done on an "as needed" basis.
294331. On March 16, 1998, the DEP gave notice of its intent to
2956issue a permit for the dredging at the 8th Street outlet.
296732. The conditions associated with the intended permit for
2976dredging of the 8th Street outlet deter any significant adverse
2986impacts to the beach-dune system.
299133. In the area of the 8th Street outlet, a large box
3003culvert runs underneath U.S. 98, the main highway in the city.
3014That highway runs parallel to the beach. Once the water flows
3025through the culvert, it accumulates in the outlet south of the
3036road. In the instance where rainfall is diminished, the flushing
3046outlet does not flow to the Gulf and the beach berm, which
3058accretes seaward of the outlet, traps the water that is being
3069released via the culvert.
307334. By contrast, in instances where heavy rainfall occurs,
3082the water in the outlet collects to a point that it begins to
3095flow away from the culvert in the direction of the Gulf. If the
3108beach berm has built up over time, the path of that flow in high
3122incidence of rainfall can encroach on buildings that are adjacent
3132to the culvert on the south side of U.S. 98. When the rainfall
3145is sufficient, and the water begins to flow, it reaches a
3156sufficient velocity to move sand as a bed load. Under those
3167circumstances, when the water strikes a ridged object, like a
3177house foundation, the local water velocity will act to carry away
3188the sand more readily from that location where the house
3198foundation is found, by scouring out the sand near the
3208foundation, undermining the building and risking the collapse of
3217the building onto the beach. In the course of this process the
3229water breaches the beach berm and flows towards the Gulf. In the
3241instance where the berm on the beach has been breached, the water
3253that has been released begins to scour the beach and establish a
3265pattern that can run down the beach roughly parallel to the Gulf
3277for a distance before flowing into the Gulf.
328535. By contrast, the controlled release of water from the
3295outlet would cause less of an impact, in that it would create an
3308immediate access through the beach berm to the Gulf without
3318creating the potential for harm to upland property or causing
3328erosion or scouring of dunes and vegetation in beach areas, some
3339of which might contain turtle nests.
334536. Unlike the circumstances with high incidence of
3353rainfall where adjacent property is eroded and damaged, the use
3363of controlled maintenance excavation to relieve the outlet would
3372not cause significant and adverse impact to adjacent property
3381owners. The controlled release of the water in the outlet,
3391unlike the natural release of that water in high incidence of
3402rainfall, is more in the interest of the public when considering
3413adverse impacts to property.
341737. The introduction of the water in the outlet, and its
3428constituents, onto the beach and its consequences, is no more a
3439problem whether based upon the natural event of high incidence of
3450rainfall or the routine release contemplated by the project.
3459Therefore, the alternative method of releasing the water by use
3469of scheduled excavation is not contrary to the public interest.
3479If anything, the use of periodic excavation to relieve the outlet
3490would limit the breadth of discharge and the amount of discharge.
350138. The 8th Street outlet and the Gulf area adjacent to
3512that outlet are not within outstanding Florida waters or aquatic
3522preserves. The project site for the 8th Street outlet and the
3533Gulf are within Class III marine waters.
354039. The existing Class III marine water quality parameters
3549for fecal coliform and total coliform when considered in
3558accordance with Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code,
3565have been exceeded in the 8th Street outlet. This is borne out
3577by test results from samples gathered at the 8th Street outlet
3588presented at hearing. However, as with the circumstance with the
3598Main Canal, the effect of periodic excavation to relieve the
3608outlet will not further degrade state waters found in the outlet.
3619The results of water quality tests performed following sampling
3628that relate to the amount of fecal coliform and total coliform in
3640the Gulf that could be expected at the entrance of the Main Canal
3653and as the discharge of water within the 8th Street outlet enters
3665the Gulf show low values for those parameters. Therefore, it is
3676not anticipated that the release of the water from the 8th Street
3688outlet to the Gulf under controlled conditions contemplated by
3697the permit application would cause a violation of the parameters
3707for fecal coliform and total coliform in the Gulf, the receiving
3718body of water, especially when compared to the existing release
3728of water from the 8th Street outlet to the Gulf in high incidence
3741of rainfall. This finding is also influenced by the fact that
3752the most excessive values for total coliform and fecal coliform
3762in the 8th Street outlet system were found 600 to 800 feet up the
3776water course described as the 8th Street outlet.
378440. Similar to the Main Canal, the project contemplated at
3794the 8th Street outlet would not require mitigation before being
3804permitted by DEP.
380741. The 8th Street outlet project would not create
3816significant adverse impacts on coastal sediment transport.
382342. The DEP Bureau of Protective Species Management
3831reviewed the 8th Street outlet application and recommended
3839approval with specific conditions. Those conditions offer
3846adequate protection to marine turtles and their habitat. The
3855conditions include project excavation that does not create
3863parallel trenches in the sand that inhibit movement on the beach
3874by sea turtles.
387743. The 8th Street outlet project will not create
3886significant erosion concerns or turbidity concerns.
389244. The 8th Street outlet project does not block lateral
3902beach access to the public, in that the excavation to relieve the
3914outlet on a periodic basis is temporary, that is to say only in
3927effect when the water is being released from the outlet to the
3939Gulf.
3940CONSENT TO USE
3943SOVEREIGN SUBMERGED LANDS
394645. The 8th Street outlet project, as well as the Main
3957Canal project, involves sovereignty submerged lands below the
3965MHWL constituted of the beach and ocean bottom.
397346. The facts show that the City is entitled to consent of
3985use to work on sovereign submerged lands in the Main Canal and
39978th Street outlet projects.
4001CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
400447. The Division of Administrative Hearings has
4011jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in
4020accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
402848. Petitioners' Edmond Blount, Sr.; Edmond Blount, Jr.;
4036and Robert Davenport have standing to bring challenges to the DEP
4047intent to grant necessary permits under application File No.:
40560124938-001 JC, the Main Canal, and application File No.: 129039-
4066001 JC, the 8th Street outlet.
407249 . Both projects involve activities subject to regulation
4081under Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, pertaining to beach and
4090shore preservation. As such, permits are required in accordance
4099with Section 161.041, Florida Statutes, before undertaking the
4107activities called for in the permit applications. Those
4115applications are subject to review by DEP.
412250. The type permit contemplated by Part I of Chapter 161,
4133Florida Statutes, at Section 161.041, is referred to as a coastal
4144construction permit.
414651. Chapter 62B-41, Florida Administrative Code, further
4153establishes requirements for obtaining coastal construction
4159permits.
416052. Both projects involve surface waters regulated by DEP
4169and are subject to the regulatory process set forth in Part IV of
4182Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, involving the management and
4190storage of surface waters.
419453. The permit required by Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida
4205Statutes, is referred to as an environmental resource permit.
421454. Both projects involve the use of sovereignty lands of
4224Florida held by the Trustees. Those are lands below MHWL of a
4236tidal water of the state and are classified as sovereign
4246submerged lands.
424855. Given the intent to use sovereign submerged land held
4258by the Trustees, responsibilities of DEP reference that land are
4268implicated in Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Rules 18-21.0040
4277and 18-21.0051, Florida Administrative Code. Those provisions
4284allow for DEP to review and make decisions upon the use of
4296sovereign submerged land held by the Trustees.
430356. To facilitate consideration of the request for coastal
4312construction permits, environmental resource permits, and
4318proprietary use of sovereign submerged lands owned by the
4327Trustees, the permit applications for both projects have
4335undergone review in accordance with Chapter 62B-49, Florida
4343Administrative Code, which allows for the consideration of the
4352permit applications and consent to use sovereign submerged land
4361in one application per project. This process of permit review
4371and consideration of a request to use sovereign submerged lands
4381recognizes the delegation provisions of Chapter 18-21, Florida
4389Administrative Code, from the Trustees to DEP in making decisions
4399concerning the use of sovereign submerged lands. Chapter 62B-49,
4408Florida Administrative Code, also takes into account the
4416standards and criteria for issuance of environmental resource
4424permits and coastal construction permits in satisfaction of
4432requirements set forth in Title 62, Florida Administrative Code.
4441Given the nature of both projects, the dredge and fill
4451requirements set forth in Chapter 62-312, Florida Administrative
4459Code, must be met by the City to include Rule 62-312.065, Florida
4471Administrative Code, setting forth additional requirements for
4478this concurrent review. Implicated by the challenges brought by
4487these Petitioners, are the water quality standards for Class III:
4497Marine Waters, for the parameters of Bacterial Quality (fecal
4506coliform bacteria) and (total coliform bacteria). See Rule 62-
4515302.530, Florida Administrative Code.
451957. The City, as the applicant, bears the burden of proving
4530its entitlement to the joint coastal construction permits and
4539environmental resource permits together with the proprietary
4546opportunity to use sovereign submerged lands for these projects.
4555See Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d
4566778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). That proof must be by a preponderance
4578of the evidence.
458158. The proposed projects do not interfere with the use by
4592the public of areas of the beach seaward of MHWL, other than the
4605limited activity of protecting endangered upland structures near
4613the 8th Street outlet, nor do the projects require the provision
4624of alternative public access to the beach. See Section 161.041,
4634Florida Statutes.
463659. The proposed projects will have no significant adverse
4645impact on the beach-dune system or shoreline stability.
4653Therefore, mitigation that affects the project is not required.
4662See Section 161.041, Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B-41.005,
4670Florida Administrative Code.
467360. Reasonable condit ions have been set forth in the
4683proposed permits for both projects to protect marine turtles and
4693their habitat. See Rule 62B-41.0055, Florida Administrative
4700Code.
470161. Nothing involved with the proposed projects will
4709constitute a taking of marine turtles or their habitat or an
4720interference with their essential behaviors. Therefore, DEP is
4728not prohibited from issuing the requested permits. See Section
4737370.12(1), Florida Statutes.
474062. The City must satisfy the requirements of Section
4749373.414, Florida Statutes, in relation to water quality standards
4758pertaining to the Main Canal, the 8th Street outlet, and the Gulf
4770by virtue of the activity called for by both projects. The City
4782must provide reasonable assurance that the state water quality
4791standards set forth in the Florida Administrative Code will not
4801be violated as a result of the activity. Reasonable assurance
4811has been given that state water quality standards will not be
4822violated by virtue of the activities in the proposed projects.
4832The activities in the proposed projects will not violate the
4842water quality standards by degrading the water quality below the
4852standards. In particular, the proposed activities for these
4860projects will not cause a violation of the parameters in the
4871Class III marine waters associated with the project for fecal
4881coliform and total coliform. See Rule 62-302.530, Florida
4889Administrative Code. To the extent conditions exist which have
4898led to violations of the parameters for fecal coliform and total
4909coliform, as evidenced by sampling and analysis of water in the
4920area of the proposed projects, the activity in the proposed
4930projects will not further degrade the water in the Main Canal,
4941and 8th Street outlet, or cause degradation of water quality in
4952the Gulf below acceptable parameters for fecal coliform and total
4962coliform. See also Rule 62-312.080(1), Florida Administrative
4969Code.
497063. Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, makes it incumbent
4978upon the City to give reasonable assurance that the activities
4988involving the Main Canal, 8th Street outlet, and the Gulf are not
5000contrary to the public interest. Reasonable assurance has been
5009given that the activities for the proposed projects are not
5019contrary to the public interest.
502464. The City having shown that this project is not contrary
5035to the public interest is entitled to the DEP
5044authorization/consent to use the sovereign submerged lands
5051involved with the projects. See Rule 18-21.004, Florida
5059Administrative Code.
506165. The proposed projects by the City have been
5070demonstrated to be unharmful to the water resources regulated by
5080DEP. See Section 373.414, Florida Statutes.
508666. The City in all other respects required by the
5096referenced statutes and rules has shown its entitlement to the
5106permits and consent to use sovereign submerged lands.
5114RECOMMENDATION
5115Based upon the facts found and the conclusions of law
5125reached, it is
5128RECOMMENDED:
5129That DEP issue a final order granting the City the joint
5140coastal permits and consent to use sovereign submerged lands in
5150accordance with application File Nos.: 0124938-001JC and
51570129039-001JC respectively, subject to specific conditions
5163contained therein.
5165DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1998, in
5175Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
5179CHARLES C. ADAMS
5182Administrative Law Judge
5185Division of Administrative Hearings
5189The DeSoto Building
51921230 Apalachee Parkway
5195Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
5198(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
5202Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
5206Filed with the Clerk of the
5212Division of Administrative Hearings
5216this 10th day of November, 1998.
5222COPIES FURNISHED:
5224Edmond Blount, Sr.
5227Post Office Box 13855
5231Mexico Beach, Florida 32410
5235Edmond Blount, Jr.
5238Post Office Box 13854
5242Mexico Beach, Florida 32410
5246Robert Davenport
5248Post Office Box 13926
5252Mexico Beach, Florida 32410
5256Gerard Murnan
5258Post Office Box 13378
5262Mexico Beach, Florida 32410
5266Paul G. Komarek, Esquire
5270Daniel and Komarek, Chartered
5274Post Office Box 2547
5278Panama City, Florida 32402
5282Ricardo Muratti, Esquire
5285Department of Environmental
5288Protection
5289Mail Station 35
52923900 Commonwealth Boulevard
5295Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
5298John McInnis, City Manager
5302City of Mexico Beach
5306Post Office Box 13425
5310Mexico Beach, Florida 32410
5314Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk
5318Department of Environmental
5321Protection
5322Mail Station 35
53253900 Commonwealth Boulevard
5328Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
5331F. Perry Odom, General Counsel
5336Department of Environmental
5339Protection
5340Mail Station 35
53433900 Commonwealth Boulevard
5346Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
5349NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
5355All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
536515 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions
5376to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that
5387will issue the final order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 12/24/1998
- Proceedings: Final Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 11/10/1998
- Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 7/29/98 and 8/6/98.
- Date: 09/30/1998
- Proceedings: (DEP) Page 12 of Petitioner`s PRO (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 09/25/1998
- Proceedings: Department`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 09/25/1998
- Proceedings: City of Mexico Beach`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 09/24/1998
- Proceedings: Proposed Recommended Order for the Petitioners filed.
- Date: 09/15/1998
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion for Extension of Time for Submitting Proposed Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 09/08/1998
- Proceedings: Transcripts (Volumes I, II, III, tagged) filed.
- Date: 08/11/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from Mexico Beach Canal Hearings filed.
- Date: 08/06/1998
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 08/05/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from C. Parker Re: Drainage ditches w/map filed.
- Date: 08/03/1998
- Proceedings: (3) Letters Save Our Canal filed.
- Date: 07/31/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from L. Seuafford Re: Save Our Canal filed.
- Date: 07/30/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from J. Eble Re: Save Our Canal filed.
- Date: 07/29/1998
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 8/6/98; 10:00am; Mexico Beach.
- Date: 07/28/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from S. & J. Keigan Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/27/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from D. Shelby Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/24/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from C. Shulgon Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/24/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from Beverly & George Phillips (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/24/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from Mr. & Mrs. J. Cormichael Re: Reschedule hearing filed.
- Date: 07/23/1998
- Proceedings: (3) Petitioner`s Response to Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 07/23/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from W. Hill Re: Requesting hearing be held in Mexico Beach filed.
- Date: 07/23/1998
- Proceedings: (3) Cards Help Save Our Canal filed.
- Date: 07/23/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from T. Shelby (RE: request to change hearing location to Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/22/1998
- Proceedings: Post Card from Mr. & Mrs. Rowan to Judge Adams (RE: request to deny permit of Mexico Beach Canal) filed.
- Date: 07/22/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from K. & S. Cook Re: Hearings on Mexico Beach dredging permit filed.
- Date: 07/22/1998
- Proceedings: (2) Letters to Judge Adams from G. & B. Mason, S. Randall-Sell Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/22/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from C. Ray Re: Hearing location (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/21/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from D. & E. Simmoes Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/20/1998
- Proceedings: Card to Judge Adams from L. Carptner Re: Help Save Our Canal filed.
- Date: 07/20/1998
- Proceedings: (14) Letters to Judge Adams from J. Turvaille, M. & M. Jordan, C. Meier, M. & W. Holberg, W. Tobolt, J. Campbell W. & H. Goodman, G. & D. Howren, D. Sloan, D. Baxter, K. Doan, A. & S. Carter Re Hearing location and dredging filed.
- Date: 07/20/1998
- Proceedings: Order Rescheduling Hearing Location and Creating the Opportunity for Public Testimony sent out.
- Date: 07/20/1998
- Proceedings: Notice of Communications sent out. (re: letters filed. at DOAH in reference to hearing location, public comment & other related matters)
- Date: 07/17/1998
- Proceedings: Card to Judge Adams from J. Allmond Re: Help Save Our Canal filed.
- Date: 07/17/1998
- Proceedings: Letters to Judge Adams from C. Novota, L. Stripling, R, Wolborne, H. Baker, J. Turner Re: Hearing Location filed.
- Date: 07/17/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from N. Arunakui (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/16/1998
- Proceedings: Card to Judge Adams from M. Davis Re: Help Save Our Canal filed.
- Date: 07/16/1998
- Proceedings: (8) Letters to Judge Adams from J. Broshar, S. Matinecheck, E. Metcalf, T. & S. Kerns, J. Prentice, D. & S. Gaylor, P. Harrison, D. Herring filed.
- Date: 07/16/1998
- Proceedings: (3) Letters to Judge Adams from S. Reynolds, P. Kallay, J. & J. Stanley Re: Denial of dredging permit filed.
- Date: 07/15/1998
- Proceedings: (2) Letters to Judge Adams from J. Roberts, J. Carlton Re: Hearing location; Letter to Judge Adams from Unsigned Re: Canal in Mexico Beach filed.
- Date: 07/15/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from J. Ackerman (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/15/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from D. Breault (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/15/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from M. Discher (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: (Mexico Beach) Response to Citizens` Request to Change Venue filed.
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from Several People Re: Requesting hearing be held in Mexico Beach filed.
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from B. & J. Cory Re: Hearing location; Letter to Judge Adams from J. DeLorme Re: Resolution 98-1 filed.
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: (4) Letters to Judge Adams from J. Warner, C. & J. Jackson, W. Thomas, Denial of dredging permit for Mexico Beach Canal filed.
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: (7) Letters to Judge Adams from G. Gannaway, P. Laws, B. Holder, D. Levy, J. Levy, J. Thigpen, S. & C. Spencer Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: (10) Letters to Judge Adams from M. Martin, W. Hunter, R. Bassett, J. Hines, K. Helms, D. MeAnll, J. Fudge, C. Fudge, J. DiLorenzo, L. Aderhold Re: Hearing Location filed.
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: (8) Letters to Judge Adams from J. Parrott, D. & S. Miller, T. Marquardt, L. Marquardt, J. Gibbens, L. Weathealy, S. & B. Caldwell, J. Murphy Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: (9) Letters to Judge Adams from J. Guitter, I. Ginter, G. Hunter, C. Jones, R. Dudzinski, W. Magfield, K. Scherdin, T. Malone, T. S. Malone Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: (7) Cards to Judge Adams from M. & M. Putnam, R. & B. Miller, C. King, T. Roberts, D. & P. Hammen, W. Gillen & K. Wilson, T. & A. Menger Re: Help Save Our Canal filed.
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from Douglas Hollberg (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/14/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from J. Kirkman (RE: request that hearing be moved to Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: (2) Letters to Judge Adams from G. Herring, B. Francio Re: Dredging Permit for Mexico Beach Canal filed.
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: (7) Letters to Judge Adams from R. Davis, A. Cathey, S. Norma, A. & L. Nelson, B. Landingham, E. Hendrix, B. & L. Matthews Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: (8) Letters to Judge Adams from H. Kinclid, D. Coker, G. Gaddis, V. Young, D. & N. Steinger, G. Warren, J. Newsome, J. Smith Re: Moving hearing from Panama City to Mexico Beach filed.
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: (8) Letters to Judge Adams from B. Host, C. Boylkin, D, Singleton, D. Shipley, B. & J. Host, R. & A. Partridge, J. Smith, B. Tolleson Re: Hearing be moved from Panama City to Mexico Beach filed.
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: (4) Cards to Judge Adams from H. Stafford, M. Stolenber, Mr. & Mrs. J. Mannon, D. & D. Wise Re: Help Save Our Canal filed.
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: Memo to Judge Adams from E. Blount (RE: notice of retaining court reporter) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from C. Mason (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Response to Notice of Communication (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from R. Sanchez (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from G. Sanchez (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from M. Presswood (RE: request to approve permit to allow dredging of MB Canal) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from W.H.G. Phinizy (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from P. McFadden (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from John Mosley (Re: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/13/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from J. Prentice (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/10/1998
- Proceedings: (2) Letters to Judge Adams from C. Penney, M. Delegal-Joseiak Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/10/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from P. Johnson Re: Revoking permit to dredge the canal; filed.
- Date: 07/10/1998
- Proceedings: (9) Letters to Judge Adams from B. Hayward, J. Nowood, W. Joswiak, E. Nichols, D. Foley, M. Joesey, M. Penney, L. Latham, C. Bonarus Re: Hearing be moved to Mexico Beach filed.
- Date: 07/10/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from J. Mitchell (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/10/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from S. Mitchell (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/10/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from Maurice Law (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/10/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from B. Matthews (RE: request for change of venue) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/09/1998
- Proceedings: Notice of Communications sent out.
- Date: 07/09/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Response to Hearing Change and Various Letters (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/09/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from M. Gargiulo (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/09/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from J. Reynolds (RE: request that hearing be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/09/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from George Riles (RE: request for hearing to be held in Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/09/1998
- Proceedings: Memo to Judge Adams from C. McDaniel (RE: request that hearing be moved to Mexico Beach) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/09/1998
- Proceedings: (2) Letters to Judge Adams from M. Bloemsma, W. Bloemsma Re: Changing venue of hearing from Panama City to Mexico Beach filed.
- Date: 07/09/1998
- Proceedings: (5) Letters to Judge Adams from M. Norman, D. Hale, B. Harmon, L. Giffin, A. & A. Lindener Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/08/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from W. and J. Norris Re: Location of Hearing filed.
- Date: 07/08/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from J. Kraemer Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/07/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from S. Hunter Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/07/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from J. Cobb (RE: request for change of hearing location) (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/06/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from K. Cox Re: Relocating hearing filed.
- Date: 07/06/1998
- Proceedings: (3) Letters to Judge Adams from R. Hall, M. Brown, F. Kuax Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/06/1998
- Proceedings: (8) Letters to Judge Adams from M. Rycroft, J. Rycroft, G. Wilson, R. Habbn, J. Middeton, F. Guilford, G. Peacock, C. Hobbs Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/06/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioners) Subpoenas for Trial filed.
- Date: 07/06/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from S. & M. Pyron Re: Changing hearing location and time of hearing filed.
- Date: 07/02/1998
- Proceedings: Order sent out. (7/28/98 hearing date cancelled, but hearing will proceed on 7/29/98 & 8/6/98; 9:00am; Panama City)
- Date: 07/02/1998
- Proceedings: Notice of Communications sent out. (petitioners & respondents to respond by 7/13/98 to changing of venue & testimony of parties)
- Date: 07/02/1998
- Proceedings: (3) Letters to Judge Adams from B. Crum, J. Crowe, T. Crowe, Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/02/1998
- Proceedings: (5) Letters to Judge Adams from W. Krause, N. MrSchile, J. Combs, L. & J. Howell, A. Bealle Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/01/1998
- Proceedings: (5) Letters to Judge Adams from J. Rigdon, W. Holman, M. Corbell, W. & F. Guilford, H. Buyer Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/01/1998
- Proceedings: (7) Letters to Judge Adams from E. Thompson, B. Miller, C. Danil, W. Connor, J. McCully, R. Johnson, G. & B. Hunter Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 07/01/1998
- Proceedings: (7) Letters to Judge Adams from G. Johnson, W. Danil, S. McGunnis, R. Miller, D. Guilford, C. Guilford, S. & L. Scaboro Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 06/30/1998
- Proceedings: (3) Letters to Judge Adams from J. & B. Heathcock, J. Luke, G. & B. Wyatt Re: Relocating hearing filed.
- Date: 06/29/1998
- Proceedings: (3) Letters to Judge Adams from G. Woodham, G. Woodham, L. Woodham Re: Requesting hearing be moved to Mexico Beach filed.
- Date: 06/29/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Adams from M. Moaachelli Re: Requesting hearing be relocated to Mexico Beach; Letter to Judge Adams from K. Stromguist Re: Hearing location filed.
- Date: 06/29/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Objections to Continuance of Hearing (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 06/29/1998
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion for Continuance of Hearing filed.
- Date: 06/12/1998
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for July 28-29, 1998; 9:00 am; Panama City)
- Date: 06/12/1998
- Proceedings: Order sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 98-2006 & 98-2007; motions to dismiss are denied; City`s motion for attorneys` fees & costs is denied) . CONSOLIDATED CASE NO - CN002975
- Date: 06/09/1998
- Proceedings: (DEP) Notice and Certificate of Service of Interrogatories filed.
- Date: 05/26/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioners) Motion to Squash filed.
- Date: 05/19/1998
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Response to Initial Order filed.
- Date: 05/18/1998
- Proceedings: Ltr. to Judge Smith from P. Komarek re: Reply to Initial Order filed.
- Date: 05/18/1998
- Proceedings: (DEP) Motion to Dismiss (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 05/18/1998
- Proceedings: (City of Mexico) Motion to Dismiss filed.
- Date: 05/06/1998
- Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
- Date: 04/30/1998
- Proceedings: (exhibits) filed.
- Date: 04/30/1998
- Proceedings: Motion To Consolidate (DOAH related cases are 98-2006 & 98-2007); Agency Action Letter; Petition Against Proposed Intent To Issue Dredging/Flushing Permit (4); Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.