STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FLORIDA BAY INITIATIVE, INC.; ) THE FLORIDA KEYS FISHING GUIDES ) ASSOCIATION; MICHAEL COLLINS and ) CHARLES W. CAUSEY; 1000 FRIENDS OF ) FLORIDA, INC.; and FLORIDA KEYS ) CITIZENS’ COALITION, )
)
Petitioners, )
) CASE NOS: 95-5525
vs. ) 95-5527
) 95-5526
) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ) and SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, )
)
Respondents, )
)
and )
)
MONROE COUNTY, )
)
Intervenor. )
_____________________________________)
A formal administrative hearing was held in these consolidated cases before Claude B. Arrington, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), on September 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24,
25, 26, 27; October 22, 23, 24, 29, 30; and November 6 and 7, 1996. The hearing was conducted September 4 through 20 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; September 24 through 27 in Key Colony Beach, Florida; October 22 through November 1 in Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida; and November 6 and 7 in Key Biscayne, Florida. As part of this proceeding, public hearings, in which members of the public appeared as witnesses pursuant to Rule 60Q-2.05, F.A.C., were held during the evenings of September 24, September 25, and September 26 in Key Colony Beach, Key Largo, and Key West, respectively.
For Petitioner, 1000 Richard Grosso, Esquire Friends of Florida, Inc.: Shepard Broad Law Center
Civil Law Clinic 3305 College Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314
Terrell K. Arline, Legal
Director
5948
1000 Friends of Florida Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-
For Petitioners, Florida Dionè Carroll, Esquire Bay Initiative, Inc., The Dexter Lehtinen, Esquire Florida Keys Fishing Guides Lehtinen and O’Donnell
Association, Michael Collins, 7700 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 303
and Charles W. Causey: Miami, Florida 33516
For Petitioner, Florida Gregg Goldfarb, Esquire
Keys Citizens’ Coalition: 19 West Flagler Street, Suite 707
Miami, Florida 33130
For Respondent, South Susan Roeder Martin, Esquire Florida Water Management John J. Fumero, Esquire District: Scott Glazier, Esquire
Office of Counsel
South Florida Water Management District
Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
For Respondent, Department Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire of Transportation: Holiday Hunt Russell, Esquire
Berger and Davis, P.A.
215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 705 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Intervenor, Monroe Robert Apgar, Esquire County: Jay Paul, Esquire
Apgar and Pelham
909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Whether FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the activities it proposes to conduct pursuant to proposed District SWM Permit Application No. 940606-10, WRM Permit Application No. 940606-2-D and modification to ROW Permit No. 2584 will comply with the relevant permit criteria set forth in Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., and applicable rules and criteria promulgated thereunder.
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) proposes to widen and improve a 20.4 mile portion of U.S. 1 in southern Dade and northern Monroe Counties, between its intersection with Card Sound Road south of Florida City (referred to as the northern terminus) and its intersection with Abaco Road on Key Largo (referred to as the southern terminus). The portion of
U.S. 1 between Jewfish Creek and the northern terminus of the project is approximately 18 miles. For that reason, this project is frequently referred to by residents of the Keys as the case involving the “18 mile stretch." The distance between Jewfish Creek and the southern terminus of the project is approximately 2.4 miles.
In conjunction with that project, FDOT applied to the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) for a surface water management permit (SWM), a wetland
resources management permit (WRM or dredge and fill) and a right of way modification (ROW) permit. Each permit is necessary for the construction of the proposed project.
The applications for the SWM and WRM permits were submitted by FDOT on June 6, 1994. The application for the ROW permit was submitted by FDOT on September 27, 1994.
The District issued “Staff Reports” on October 24, 1995, with an addendum dated November 3, 1995. The District staff recommended issuance of the permits subject to general and special conditions. Based on the Staff Reports, SFWMD issued its notice of intent to issue, with conditions, the following permits that are at issue in this proceeding: (1) “SWM Permit Application No. 940606-10,” which authorizes construction of a storm water management system for the project, (2) “WRM Permit Application No. 940606-2-D” authorizing dredge and fill impacts to wetlands associated with the widening of the existing roadway embankment and related project activities, and (3) “Modification to ROW Permit No. 2584” authorizing the use of the District’s right of way where U.S. 1 crosses the C-
111 canal.
Thereafter 1000 Friends, FBII, FKCC and A.G. Intus, Inc., timely filed petitions pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S. (1995), objecting to the District’s intent to issue the SWM and WRM permits for the proposed project, and requesting
formal administrative hearings. FBII further objected to the District’s intent to issue a ROW permit for the proposed project.
SFWMD referred these cases to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where they were assigned DOAH Case Nos. 95-5524 (the Intus case), 95-5525 (the FKCC case), 95- 5526 (the FBII case) and 95-5527 (the 1000 Friends case). By order of the undersigned dated December 4, 1995, the petitions were consolidated.
On December 29, 1995, Monroe County filed a Petition for Leave to Intervene into all pending matters. By order entered by the undersigned on January 22, 1996, Monroe County’s Petition to Intervene was granted.
On August 9, 1996, Petitioner A.G. Intus, Inc., filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of its petition, DOAH Case No. 95-5524. On August 12, 1996, by order of the Administrative Law Judge, the Intus case was severed from this proceeding and the Intus hearing cancelled.
FDOT presented the testimony of Mike Ciscar, Barbara Bernier, Raul Driggs, Bradley Waller, Steven Lienhart, Thomas
E. Lodge, Gary Evink, Mark McMahon, Janet Llewelyn, Patrick Brady, and Jeffery Marcus.
Mr. Ciscar is an engineer who was, at the time of the formal hearing, employed by FDOT as its District Six Environmental Engineer. Prior to his promotion approximately two months before the start of the hearing, Mr. Ciscar was employed by FDOT as a Senior Project Manager. Mr. Ciscar was accepted as an expert in the area of transportation engineering with specialization in the engineering and environmental evaluation of transportation projects.
Ms. Bernier is employed by FDOT as its District Six Environmental Administrator. Ms. Bernier was accepted as an expert in the area of environmental regulatory aspects of transportation project design.
Mr. Driggs is a civil engineer and project manager employed by Metric Engineering, a consulting engineering company employed by FDOT to prepare the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Report for the subject project. Mr. Driggs was accepted as an expert in the area of transportation planning and engineering.
Mr. Waller is a consulting hydrologist who owns Hydrologic Associates U.S.A., Inc. Mr. Waller was accepted as an expert in the field of hydrology with specific emphasis on surface and groundwater hydrology and in the field of water management systems of South Florida.
Mr. Lienhart is a professional engineer employed by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan. Mr. Lienhart was accepted as an expert in the field of environmental engineering, with emphasis on surface water management treatment systems
Dr. Lodge was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, the principal environmental scientist employed by Law Engineering and Environmental Services, a consulting firm employed by FDOT. Dr. Lodge was accepted as an expert in the field of ecology, with specialty in South Florida wetlands ecosystems.
Mr. Evink is employed by FDOT as a Senior Environmental Scientist and manager of FDOT’s Environmental Resource Group in the Environmental Management Office. Mr. Evink was accepted as an expert in the field of environmental impacts of road construction projects.
Mr. McMahon is the owner of a consulting company employed by FDOT and was accepted as an expert in the field of ecology with emphasis on Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Design, Implementation and Monitoring.
Ms. Llewelyn is the Assistant Director of the Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Environmental Resource Permits. Ms. Llewelyn was accepted as an expert in the field of wetlands resource and environmental resource permitting.
Mr. Brady is employed by FDOT as the transportation safety engineer for the State of Florida. Mr. Brady was accepted as an expert in the field of traffic safety engineering and traffic crash analysis.
Dr. Marcus is an environmental consultant whose company was employed by FDOT. Dr. Marcus was accepted as an expert in the field of wetland and coastal biology with special emphasis on near shore tropical and subtropical habitat.
Monroe County presented the testimony of Charles Pattison, Lorenzo Aghemo, Robert C. Sheets, William (Billy) Wagner, John Zegeer, Don Lewis, Joe Leiter, Alina Szmant, John Wang, Richard Barber, James S. Mattson, and James Hendrick.
Mr. Pattison is employed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs as the Director of the Division of Resource Planning and Management. Mr. Pattison was accepted as an expert in the field of comprehensive planning.
Mr. Aghemo is the former planning director for Monroe County. Mr. Aghemo was accepted as an expert in the field of comprehensive planning.
Dr. Sheets is a consultant and former Director of the National Hurricane Center. Dr. Sheets was accepted as an expert in the fields of meteorology and emergency management.
Mr. Wagner is the Director of Monroe County’s Department of Emergency Management. Mr. Wagner was accepted as an expert in the field of emergency management.
Mr. Zegeer is a transportation engineer who was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, employed by Barton Aschman and Associates, a consulting firm employed by Monroe County.
Mr. Zegeer was accepted as an expert in the field of transportation planning.
Mr. Lewis is a transportation planner employed by the engineering firm of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan. Mr. Lewis was accepted as a expert in the field of transportation planning and hurricane evacuation modeling.
Captain Leiter is a captain and district commander employed by the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office. Captain Leiter was permitted to express opinions on various matters within the scope of his training and experience.
Dr. Szmant is an associate professor of marine biology and fisheries with the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Dr. Szmant was accepted as an expert in the field of biological oceanography.
Dr. Wang is a professor of applied marine physics with the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Dr. Wang was accepted as an expert in the field of coastal and ocean engineering and hydrodynamics.
Dr. Barber is the Harvey Schmidt professor of biologic oceanography at Duke University. Dr. Barber was accepted as an expert in the field of biological oceanography with specialization in phytoplankton ecology.
Dr. Mattson is an attorney who also has a doctorate in the field of water resources science. Dr. Mattson was accepted as an expert in the field of water resource science with specialization in water chemistry.
Mr. Hendrick is the County Attorney for Monroe County and was permitted to express opinions on various matters within the scope of his training and experience.
SFWMD presented the testimony of Tom Fratz, Kenneth G. Ammon, Robert Robins, and Terry Bates.
Mr. Fratz is the SFWMD’s Director of Right of Way program in the Department of Construction and Land Management and was accepted as an expert in the SFWMD’s right of way management and permitting standards.
Mr. Ammon is the Deputy Director of Regulation for the SFWMD. Mr. Ammon was accepted as a expert in the fields of civil engineering, hydrology and surface water and wetland resource management regulation.
Mr. Robbins is employed by the SFWMD as the Director of its Division of Natural Resource Management. Mr. Robbins was
accepted as an expert in the fields of mitigation, surface water management and wetland resource management regulation.
Ms. Bates is the Director of SFWMD’s department of regulation. Ms. Bates was accepted as an expert witness in the fields of surface water management regulations, wetlands resource regulation and wetland ecology.
FBII presented the testimony of Michael Collins, John Donaldson, Phil Frank, Brian Lapointe, Jim Harvey, and Ray Liberti.
Mr. Collins is a professional fishing guide and the president of FBII and of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association. Mr. Collins was accepted as an expert fishing guide and as an expert in sport fishing in South Florida.
Mr. Donaldson is a traffic and transportation engineer employed by Zuckmore and Associates, a consulting firm employed by FBII. Mr. Donaldson was accepted as an expert in the fields of traffic and transportation engineering planning.
Mr. Frank is a biologist employed by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission in its Florida Keys office. Mr.
Frank was accepted as an expert in the fields of biology, wildlife ecology, effects of development on wildlife population.
Dr. Lapointe is the director of the Florida Keys program for Harbor Ranch Oceanographic Institute. Dr. Lapointe was accepted as an expert in the fields of marine biology and chemistry as it pertains to algal blooms.
Mr. Harvey is a consultant employed by FBII who was accepted as an expert in the field of comprehensive land use planning.
Mr. Liberti is employed by Palm Beach County. Mr. Liberti was accepted as an expert in land planning and comprehensive land use planning.
1000 Friends presented the testimony of Michael Replogle, Earl Starnes, Tom Wilmers, Curtis Kruer, Debra Harrison, and Neil Sipe.
Mr. Michael Replogle is a civil engineer and urban planner who was, at the time of the formal hearing, employed by the Environmental Defense Fund as co-director of its transportation project. Mr. Replogle was accepted as an expert in the fields of transportation planning and policy.
Dr. Starnes was, prior to his retirement in 1992, a professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Florida. Dr. Starnes was accepted as an expert in the fields of land use and comprehensive planning.
Mr. Wilmers is employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a wildlife biologist Mr. Wilmers was accepted as an expert as to Key Deer.
Mr. Kruer is a consulting biologist and part-time fishing guide. Mr. Kruer as accepted as an expert in the fields of marine science, terrestrial biology and ecosystems (terrestrial and marine) of the Florida Keys.
Ms. Harrison is the Florida Keys representative for the World Wildlife Fund. Ms. Harrison was accepted as an expert in the fields of environmental and land use planning in Florida.
Mr. Sipe is an independent consultant who was accepted as an expert in the fields of transportation impacts on land use, land use planning economics and land use planning.
FKCC presented the testimony of Arnold Cheal and Robert Morris.
Mr. Cheal is a member of the FKCC. Mr. Cheal testified as to various matters within the scope of his knowledge and experience.
Mr. Morris is a consultant employed by FKCC and was accepted in the areas of transportation planning and traffic engineering.
FDOT had marked sixty-five exhibits, sixty-four of which were admitted into evidence. Monroe County had marked thirty exhibits, twenty-seven of which were admitted into evidence. The District had marked fourteen exhibits, each of which were admitted into evidence. FBII had marked twenty-three exhibits, twenty-two of which were admitted into evidence.
FKCC had marked nine exhibits, eight of which were admitted into evidence. 1000 FRIENDS had marked 47 exhibits, thirty- three of which were admitted into evidence.
The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) became a part of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as a result of DER’s 1993 merger with the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Chapter 92-213, Laws of Florida. The term DER will be used where appropriate for agency action prior to the merger. As a result of the merger, rules in former Title 17, Florida Administrative Code, were moved to Title 62, Florida Administrative Code. References to Title 17 will therefore be used interchangeably with Title 62.
The parties filed a Joint Prehearing Stipulation on September 19, 1996, which stipulated to certain facts that described the parties to this proceeding and the project that is at issue. Those factual stipulations have been accepted by
the undersigned and have been included as findings of fact in this Recommended Order.
The parties stipulated that pre-ERP rules are applicable to the WRM and SWM permit proceedings, and those rules have been admitted into evidence without opposition as FDOT Composite Exhibit No. 44. When listed in this Recommended Order, unless otherwise noted, the following rule references shall be to the rules admitted in the FDOT exhibit, which contain those rules effective through the following dates:
Rule Effective date
Rule Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C. April 4, 1994
BOR March, 1994
Rule 62-4.242, F.A.C. January 23, 1995
Rule Chapter 62-302, F.A.C. January 23, 1995
Rule Chapter 62-312, F.A.C. October 13, 1992 The parties also stipulated to the following:
The Division of Administrative Hearing has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S.
The criteria for a surface water management permit is in 40E-4.301, F.A.C., and the Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the SFWMD, which is incorporated into Title 40E, F.A.C., by reference, is the version effective March 1994.
The wetlands resource dredge and fill aspects of this case are governed by Chapter 403, Part VIII, of the "Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984," including but not limited to Section 403.918, F.S. (1991), and Section 403.919,
F.S. (1991), and the rules of the Department of Environmental Protection that were in effect prior to October 3, 1995,
including but not limited to Rule Chapters 62-312, 62-302 and 62-4.
The surface water management aspects of this case are governed by Chapter 373 Part IV, F.S. (1991), and the rules adopted thereunder, including, Rule Chapter 40E-4,
F.A.C. (April 1994) and the Basis of Review (March 1994).
The District has the authority to administer the wetland resource permitting program under the above-referenced Rule Chapter 62-312, F.A.C., pursuant to an interagency agreement with the DEP and Section 373.046(4), F.S.
Criteria and requirements for the utilization of works of the District and for the issuance of ROW occupancy permits are in the Basis of Review for use or Occupancy of the Works or Lands of the District Permit Applications within the District, Title 40E, F.A.C., including Rule Chapter 40E-6, F.A.C., and Chapter 373, F.S.
Pursuant to law and the parties' stipulation, the undersigned took official notice of Chapters 373 and 403, F.S. (1991), and Rule Chapters 62-302, 62-312, F.A.C., and SWM permit criteria contained in Title 40E-4 and 40E-40, F.A.C., as they existed prior to October 3, 1995, as contained in FDOT Composite Exhibit No. 44.
An original transcript of the hearing has been filed with DOAH. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Administrative Law Judge granted the parties leave, pursuant to Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, to exceed the
40 page limitation, by ordering that proposed findings of fact be limited to 60 pages per side. The proposed recommended
orders were not otherwise subject to page limitations. At the request of the parties, the deadline for filing post-hearing submittals was set for more than ten days of the filing of the transcript. Consequently, the parties waived the requirement that the Recommended Order be entered within thirty days of the filing of the transcript. See, Rule 60Q-2.031(2), Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner, 1000 Friends of Florida (1000 Friends), is a not-for-profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The principal office of 1000 Friends is 926 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32314 and it also maintains an office at 3305 College Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314.
Petitioner, Florida Bay Initiative, Inc. (FBII), is an entity incorporated under the laws of Florida with its principal office located at 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.
Petitioner, the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association, is an association of sport fishing guides who live in the Florida Keys and is headquartered at 138 Royal Lane, Islamorada, Florida 33036.
Petitioner, Michael Collins, is a private individual.
His address is 138 Royal Lane, Islamorada, Florida 33036.
Petitioner, Charles W. Causey, is a private individual. His address is Post Office Box 448, Islamorada, Florida 33036.
Petitioner, the Florida Keys Concerned Citizens Coalition (FKCC), is a not-for-profit Florida corporation whose address is West Shore Drive, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043.
Petitioner, AG Intus, Inc., filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on August 9, 1996. DOAH Case 95-5524, the proceeding filed by Intus, was previously consolidated with the other cases to this proceeding. On August 12, 1996, the Intus case was severed from this proceeding and the Intus hearing cancelled.
Respondent, the South Florida Water Management District (the District or SFWMD), is a public corporation in the State of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S., and Title 40E, F.A.C., as a multi-purpose water management district, with its principle office in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), is an agency of the State of Florida. Its District Six address is 1000 N.W. 111th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33172.
Intervenor, Monroe County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. For the purposes of this proceeding the address for Monroe County is c/o Apgar and Pelham, 909 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301.
The District, FDOT and Monroe County did not object to the standing of the Petitioners at the formal hearing and represented that they will not object to the standing in the event of an appeal. Based on the representations of the Respondents, the Petitioners were not required to put on a case as to their standing.
FDOT has applied to the District for a Wetland Resource Management (WRM) permit, a Surface Water Management (SWM) permit, and a Right of Way (ROW) occupancy permit.
On June 6, 1994, the Applicant submitted applications for surface water management and wetland resource management permits for the purpose of widening and modifying this 20.4 mile stretch of U.S. 1. The surface water management permit application is identified as Application No. 940606-10. The wetland resource management permit application is identified as Application No. 940606-2-D.
On October 24, 1995, the District issued Staff Reports on Permit Application No. 960606-10 and Permit Application No. 94060-2-D. These Staff Reports recommended issuance of the permits subject to general and special conditions as specified therein. An addendum to the staff report was issued November 3, 1995.
On September 27, 1994, the Applicant submitted a request to modify its existing ROW Occupancy Permit to enable it to replace the bridge where U.S. 1 crosses the C-111 Canal. The land encompassed by the ROW occupancy permit challenged in this proceeding is located in Section 16 and 17, Township 59 South, Range 39 East, Dade County, Florida.
A draft right-of-way occupancy permit with standard limiting and special conditions was produced as part of a package that went to the Governing Board and others.
The proposed authorization for use of the ROW is for the following:
REMOVAL OF EXISTING U.S. HIGHWAY 1 BRIDGE AND REPLACEMENT WITH A NEW FIXED BRIDGE. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SERVICE/ACCESS ROAD, 2 DETENTION PONDS, 2 CATCH BASINS, 2-15" R.C.P. OUTFALLS, BOAT RAMP WITH LOADING DOCK, PARKING AREA, PEDESTRIAN GATE AT S-197, FENCING AND WILDLIFE CROSSING ALL WITHIN THE NORTH AND SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-111 (STATION 938+00
- 955+00).
The draft right-of-way occupancy permit modification, identified as “SFWMD PERMIT NO. MOD 2548,"
should correctly be identified at “SFWMD PERMIT NO. MOD 2584.” The numbers “8” and “4” were inadvertently transposed.
The parties have accurately set forth the applicable permitting criteria and the appropriate Basis of Review in their prehearing stipulation.
Rule 40E-6.301, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
In determining whether an occupancy permit should be issued, the District shall consider whether the proposed activity:
interferes with the present or future construction, alteration, operation or maintenance of the works of the District;
is consistent with the policy and objectives of Chapter 373 F.S., the legislative declaration of policy contained in Section 373.016, F.S. and the state water policy, Chapter 17-40, F.A.C.;
has an actual or potential negative impact upon environmentally sensitive areas, which include: wetlands; endangered or threatened species habitat; aquatic preserves; outstanding Florida waters; federal, state and privately owned parks and wildlife management areas; designated areas of critical state concern; lands purchased by federal, state and local governments for the purpose of environmental protection, water resource protection and esthetics; and lands which contain native terrestrial plant species in significant amounts. Environmentally sensitive areas include areas on and off- site that are affected by activities which occur on, or are initiated from, the District’s works;
degrades water quality within the receiving water body or fails to meet the provisions of Ch. 373, F.S., the state water policy, and Ch. 40E, F.A.C.;
involves a discharge of wastewater from a new wastewater source or an increased discharge from an existing wastewater source;
will discharge debris or aquatic weeds into District lands or works or cause erosion or shoaling within the works of the District;
is supported by financial assurances, which will ensure that the proposed activity will be conducted in accordance with Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapter 40E-6, F.A.C.;
presents an increased liability risk to the District;
meets the general and specific criteria in the Basis of Review which is incorporated by reference in Rule 40E- 6.091, F.A.C.;
interferes with actual or potential public use of the District’s works or public, recreational or other facilities not within the District’s works;
is consistent with local zoning and other private land uses in the area;
interferes with the quality or quantity of a public or private water supply;
meets applicable criteria in Chapters 40E-61 and 40E-62, F.A.C.;
ROW occupancy permits typically have standard limiting conditions which are incorporated as part of the permit. The permit may also have special limiting conditions. CRITERIA FOR PERMITTING THE SWM SYSTEM
Rule 40E-4.301(1), Florida Administrative Code, contains the following criteria that, at the times pertinent
to this proceeding, were used by SFWMD in determining whether to permit a surface water management system:
In order to obtain or modify a permit under this chapter, an applicant must give reasonable assurances that the surface water system:
provides adequate flood protection and drainage, without causing over- drainage,
will not cause adverse water quality and quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands regulated pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S.,
will not cause discharges which result in any violations, in surface waters of the state, of the standards and criteria of chapter 17-302, F.A.C.,
will not cause adverse on-site or off-site impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows, including impacts to sources of water supply and wetland hydrology,
will not cause adverse environmental impacts,
can be effectively operated and maintained,
will not adversely affect public health and safety,
is consistent with the State Water Policy, chapter 17-40, F.A.C.,
for a DRI with a signed Preliminary Development Agreement with the Florida Department of Community Affairs, pursuant to section 380.06(8), F.S., provides a surface water management system for that portion of the site approval for development which is able to operate separately from the surface water management system for the balance of the project site and still meet applicable District criteria.
meets any applicable basin criteria
in chapter 40E-41, F.A.C.,
will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources of the District,
will not interfere with the legal
rights of others as defined in subsection 17-40.401(8), F.A.C.,
is not against public policy,
will meet general and specific criteria in the document described in subsection 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C.,
(0) will meet criteria for isolated wetlands, which are found in Appendix 7 of the document described in rule 40E- 4.091(1)(a), F.A.C.,
(p) will meet the criteria for above ground impoundments, which are found in Appendix 6 of the document described in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C.
The SFWMD has adopted certain procedures and criteria contained in a document, referred to as “Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within The South Florida Water Management District” (BOR).
Subsection 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C. incorporates this document by reference into Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C. The BOR is a document that is “described in subsection 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C.,” within the meaning of Rule 40E-4.301(1), F.A.C. The BOR establishes a rebuttable presumption that water quality criteria are met through specified volumetric retention and detention requirements. These performance based criteria are designed to be flexible.
In 1992 DEP entered into an Operating Agreement with the District, which delegated to the District responsibility for issuing wetland resource management (WRM) permits, which are required for dredge and fill activities in wetlands. Both
DEP and the District implement the same wetland resource permit and MSSW permit rules. The District agrees with DEP's interpretation and application of the WRM permitting rules and non-rule policy, and applies the same when issuing such permits.
Section 403.918, Florida Statutes (1991), provides the pertinent criteria that must be applied by the District in determining whether to grant or deny the WRM permit. That criteria requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. In addition, for projects in OFW, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest.
The District is required to balance the following criteria, found at Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), in determining whether a project is clearly within the public interest:
Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others;
Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats;
Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling;
Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values
or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project;
Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature;
Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s.267.061; and
The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.
If the applicant is unable to otherwise meet the public interest test, the District shall, pursuant to Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes, “consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects which may be caused by the project . . .” The District thereafter re-evaluates the project to determine whether the project, as mitigated, meets the public interest test. The criteria for mitigation is found in Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, Title 40 E (including the Basis of Review) and Rule 62-312, Florida Administrative Code.
Rule 62-312.330, Florida Administrative Code, states the general criteria for evaluating mitigation proposals as follows:
The goal of the mitigation proposal shall be to offset the expected adverse impact of the project that have resulted in the project being deemed unpermittable such that the resulting project with mitigation is not contrary to the public interest or, in the case of Outstanding Florida Waters, is clearly in the public interest.
Each project must be separately evaluated to determine whether the proposed mitigation is sufficient. Rule 62-312.340, Florida Administrative Code, provides guidelines that are to be used in evaluating proposed mitigation projects.
FDOT proposes to widen a 20.4 mile portion of U.S. 1 in southern Dade County and northern Monroe County. Approximately seven miles of the project area is in Monroe County and approximately thirteen miles is in Dade County. The northern terminus of the project is the intersection of
U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road, which is located in Dade County south of Florida City. The southern terminus of the project is the intersection of U.S. 1 and Abaco Road on Key Largo in Monroe County.
The corridor of the proposed project passes through Sections 6, 7, 16, 18, 21, 27, 28, Township 59 South, Range 39 East; Sections 24, 25, 36, Township 58 South, Range 38 East;
Sections | 16, | 19, | 30, 31, Township 58 South, Range 39 East, |
Sections | 16, | 30, | 31, Township 60 South, Range 40 East; |
Sections | 25, | 26, | Township 60 South, Ranges 39 East, Dade and |
Monroe Counties, Florida.
U.S. 1 is the main highway between northern Monroe County and southern Dade County. The only other road between Monroe County and Dade County is Card Sound Road.
The Florida Keys is designated as an Area of Critical State Concern, pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes.
The Dade County portion of the road, north of the C-
111 canal, lies within typical Everglades habitat, which is classified as environmentally protected lands of Dade County. Most of the project corridor in Dade County is part of or adjacent to the Everglades National Park. Valuable wetlands exist throughout the project corridor.
The following bodies of water will receive discharges if the surface water management system is permitted: C-111 Canal, Jewfish Creek, Lake Surprise, Blackwater Sound, Barnes Sound, Little Blackwater Sound, Long Sound, Manatee Bay, Sarge Lake, andManatee Creek. The receiving bodies of water are Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) or are connected to OFWs.
As it presently exists in the project area, U.S. 1 is a two lane undivided highway with two passing zones that are each one mile in length. Each travel lane on the existing facility is twelve feet wide. The existing shoulder on either side of the road consists of four feet of pavement and six feet of grassed area. FDOT Exhibit 7 accurately depicts the existing roadway typical section. Exotic vegetation, generally limited to the areas immediately adjacent to the highway, exist throughout the project corridor. These exotic species are present because FDOT has failed to properly maintain its right of way.
A clear zone is an unobstructed area that includes the shoulder of the roadway and typically extends beyond the shoulder. The purpose of the clear zone is to provide a driver who has lost control of his or her vehicle a sufficient clear recovery area to regain control of the vehicle so that it can be maneuvered back onto the road. The clear zone for the existing road is inadequate to provide a safe recovery area.
There is at present a two lane bridge over Manatee Creek, a two-lane bridge crossing the C-111 Canal, a bascule bridge, which is a drawbridge, over Jewfish Creek, and a two lane causeway through Lake Surprise.
The two existing passing zones are located in Dade County. The first is south of U.S. 1’s intersection with the C-111 canal between mile markers 113-115. The second passing lane is approximately four miles south of the northern terminus of the project between mile markers 120-122. Each existing passing zone is undivided and consists of two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes, with each travel lane being twelve feet in width. The shoulders in the passing zones are the same as for the typical section.
A surface water management (SWM) system is defined by Rule 40E-4.021(5), Florida Administrative Code , as being "the collection of devices, improvements or natural systems
whereby surface waters are controlled, impounded, or obstructed.". There is no surface water management system presently associated with the road.
The roadbed is elevated approximately five feet above mean sea level according to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum and was constructed on the old railroad bed of the Florida East Coast Railroad. No hydrologic culverts have been placed within the roadbed. Consequently, surface water flow between the eastern and western sides of the road north of the C-111 Canal has been cut off.
In the 1960's, the C-109 and C-111 canals were constructed as part of an overall water management system in the area. As a result of the roadbed and the canals, water has been impounded on the western side of U.S. 1 at a level higher than on the eastern side. Due to cutoff of waterflow by the roadbed embankment, historic freshwater flow between the eastern and western sides of the project area has been restricted, which has resulted in an adverse impact on the Everglades ecosystem north of the C-111 Canal. The restricted water flow has resulted in less fresh water being available for shorter periods of time. Consequently, aquatic life has had reduced opportunities to develop. The restricted flow also has impeded the ability of aquatic life to reach
freshwater areas during times of drought. On the east side of the road marine conditions have displaced what naturally should be freshwater conditions.
While FDOT has been aware of traffic safety and hurricane evacuations concerns on the roadway for a long time, the current project originated in 1986 when Monroe County identified this project as a need in its 1986 Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to agency practice, the proposed project was incorporated into FDOT's five year work program and a study was performed pursuant to FDOT’s Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual.
FDOT's PD&E manual describes the process by which FDOT determines whether to construct or improve a road. The PD&E process includes an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze existing conditions, assess the need for improvement, and develop alternatives. A Draft EIS is performed and circulated for comment to governmental agencies and the public. Based upon comments and further review a Final EIS is prepared.
Metric Engineering ("Metric") began the PD&E study of the project in 1988 pursuant to a contract with FDOT. Metric identified seven factors which it concluded supported the need for the project. First, the improved corridor would
improve the linkage between the four lane road at the northern terminus and the four lane road at the southern terminus.
Second, the project would improve navigation by replacing the existing bascule bridge at Jewfish Creek. Third, the project would improve the level of service for the road. Fourth, the project would improve the safety of the road. Fifth, the project would improve the clearance time for hurricane evacuation. Sixth, the project was consistent with the long range transportation plans adopted by Monroe County. Seventh, the project would accommodate increased traffic, which can be expected with or without the project. Based on the needs evaluation, Metric performed a corridor analysis to determine the best way to get from Florida City to Key Largo, including improving only Card Sound Road, improving only U.S. 1, or improving a combination of the two. Metric concluded that the best resolution was to improve the project corridor.
Metric also analyzed various alternatives in an effort to reduce the size of the typical section of the roadway in the U.S. 1 corridor and thereby minimize environmental impacts of the project.
Because of concerns from Everglades National Park that no aspects of the project construction occur within its boundaries, FDOT agreed to conduct all construction east of FDOT's existing right of way line.
The conclusions of the Metric studies were memorialized in a Final EIS and Final Engineering Report published in 1992. Conclusions regarding alternatives and project needs were then incorporated into the permit application and have continued to be updated. The 1992 version of the project was for a four lane roadway with four lane bridges throughout the project corridor.
Subsequent to its June 6, 1994, permit applications to the District for a four lane roadway, FDOT went through an extensive process of providing the District with additional information in an effort to provide the District with the necessary reasonable assurance that the proposed project would comply with the permit criteria. The final series of modifications contained the three lane alternative, which will be described in detail below and is now the subject of this proceeding.
The three lane proposal is a compromise that FDOT agreed to in an effort to minimize the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the project. Monroe County passed Resolution No. 315-1995 on September 7, 1995, asking FDOT to build a three-lane road on a four-lane embankment. This resolution provided, in part, that “. . . Monroe County finds that the '3-lane alternative' as described in the Statement of Agency Commitments is the most viable proposal of those
considered, because it balances the needs for a widened highway with safeguards designed to address secondary impacts.” The secondary impacts referred to in the resolution included concerns that two southbound lanes would result in more growth. The rationale behind the resolution was that more growth would result from two southbound lanes than from one southbound lane with the proposed passing zones.
In response to the request of Monroe County and in response to a similar request made by the District, FDOT notified the District by letter dated September 5, 1996 of FDOT's decision to redesign the project to change the roadway from four to three lanes.
During the PD&E process prior to permit application FDOT studied project needs and alternative alignments, and conducted corridor analyses. FDOT originally considered a proposal that included approximately 250 acres of wetlands impacts. At the District's suggestion, FDOT revised its proposal prior to the permit application to reduce the wetland impacts and project footprint. The application submitted contained approximately 165 acres of impact. FDOT changed the typical section of the proposed roadway again after substantial interagency coordination in an effort to reduce wetlands impacts even further. FDOT agreed to reduce the
footprint by changing the design of the median from 22 feet and a Jersey barrier (which is a minimum barrier) to 20 feet with a tri-beam rail barrier. The more substantial barrier was added because the median was narrowed. Additionally, instead of ten-foot paved shoulders on each side of the median, FDOT would use two-foot paved shoulders with sixteen feet of grass in the middle. These minimization efforts resulted in a wetland impacts decrease from 164 acres to
149.07 acres, the current impact of the project.
Avoidance, or choosing alternate routes to avoid impacts to wetlands, was not a possible option because only wetlands and open waters exist between the northern and southern terminus of the project.
FDOT explored all reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including a two lane alternative proposed by a consultant for FBII. As discussed below, FDOT did not adopt the two-lane alternative, because the alternative did not address all of FDOT's identified needs for the project.
FBII prepared a report with a two-lane alternative to the proposed project. FBII's original proposal included one 12-foot northbound lane with a 10-foot paved shoulder covered with thermoplastic rumble strips to deter vehicular use of the shoulder. In the southbound direction, FBII proposed a 12-foot travel lane with a 4-foot paved shoulder,
essentially the same as currently exists. That proposal was analyzed by Metric Engineering on behalf of FDOT.
FDOT rejected the FBII alternative for several reasons. First, though the 10-foot northbound shoulder theoretically may be used by cars during hurricane evacuation, removal of the rumble strips would be impractical due to lack of time to do so under threat of a hurricane, and due to the costs involved. It would be unrealistic to require people to otherwise drive over the rumble strips, without removal, because they are designed to prevent such access.
Using the 10-foot shoulder during an evacuation would result in there being no shoulder area to remove accident vehicles from the roadway which would otherwise threaten to restrict the flow of traffic or cease it altogether. The reduced width of the shoulder lane below the standard 12-foot lane would also decrease the flow of evacuees. FBII's proposal for a two-lane fixed-height bridge at Jewfish Creek would not completely eliminate rear-end collisions at the bridge.
The two-lane alternative proposed by FBII is not a signed and sealed cross section. The proposal by FBII does not include the area necessary for a SWM system or for clear zones. FBII did not do an analysis to determine whether its proposal complies with pertinent FDOT roadway and traffic
design standards or with pertinent highway safety and improvement standards.
The FBII proposal does not account for removal of the Lake Surprise causeway or construction related impacts from barge traffic.
FBII did not do a wetlands survey to determine the impact of its two-lane proposal.
At the Final Hearing, Petitioners presented for the first time a new proposal to use "flexible diverters" to pave a third northbound lane and to block that lane from travel traffic with poles. However, no research was conducted into the feasibility of such a proposal, nor was it adequately thought out. Such a use of "flexible diverters" is unprecedented in FDOT's history, is impractical to implement, and would violate FDOT's design standards contained in its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Petitioners also presented for the first time at the Final Hearing a proposal to add an 8 to 10 foot paved northbound shoulder which could be converted to a travel lane with traffic control cones in the event of an evacuation. This plan is also not feasible, because the resulting lanes would not be wide enough to safely accommodate evacuating traffic, and because the contradiction between existing road
striping and the placement of cones would likely cause accidents, which would halt evacuation.
The proposals submitted by FBII do not sufficiently improve hurricane evacuation or traffic safety and, consequently, are not acceptable alternatives to the project.
FDOT can do nothing else to minimize the impacts of the project and still address the needs for the project.
Minimization of wetlands impacts was accomplished to the greatest extent possible.
FDOT has proposed mitigation to offset the impacts that could not be avoided.
Petitioners stipulated that the design and construction specifications of the roadway proposed to be permitted in this case comply with all applicable design and construction standards for structural integrity, and adequately describe the three-lane divided roadway proposed to be constructed on a four-lane roadbed/embankment.
FDOT proposes to widen the roadway in the project area to a three lane divided roadway with two northbound lanes and one southbound lane, plus three passing zones. The proposed project will be constructed on a four lane roadbed
embankment. FDOT does not presently have plans to add the fourth lane to this roadway.
FDOT Exhibit 8 contains an accurate description of the proposed typical section of the roadway. The typical section will consist of two twelve-foot northbound lanes with a six-foot paved shoulder and a four foot stabilized area adjacent to the paved shoulder; a twenty-foot median consisting of a two-foot paved shoulder, sixteen feet of grass and a tri-beam guardrail in the middle as a separator; and one twelve-foot southbound lane with an eight-foot paved shoulder.
The proposed typical section also includes a storm water management system that will be described in more detail below.
The proposed typical section includes a clear zone thirty feet in width, which is adequate.
The existing passing zone located in Dade County between mile markers 113 and 115 is one mile in length. FDOT proposes to alter this passing zone to 1.44 miles in length. The existing passing zone located in Dade County between mile markers 120 and 122 is also one mile in length. FDOT proposes to alter this passing zone to 2 miles in length. In addition, FDOT proposes to construct a 1.5 mile long passing zone between mile markers 110 and 112 in Monroe County. If
permitted, the proposed project will include 2 passing zones in Dade County and 1 passing zone in Monroe County, for a total of 3 passing zones. The total length of the passing zones will equal 4.94 miles.
There are no plans to change the elevation of the existing roadway.
The project contemplates the construction of 25 hydrologic culverts north of the C-111 Canal. These culverts will remain capped until further hydrological studies are completed and input from all concerned regulatory agencies can be obtained. It has not yet been determined how these culverts will be utilized to maximize the improvement to the ecosystem north of the C-111 Canal.
The project contemplates the construction of three wildlife crossings north of the C-111 Canal in Dade County with fencing designed to funnel wildlife through the crossing. These crossing, sometimes referred to in the record as “panther crossings” are located between mile markers 118-119, 122-123, and 126-127 and will be constructed as overland bridges. In addition, the replacement bridge over the C-111 Canal (located between mile markers 116-117 in Dade County) is
intended to serve as a wildlife crossing and will also employ fencing to funnel wildlife through the crossing. All four of these structures will be constructed as four-lane bridges, but will be striped for three lanes with rumble strips on the southbound fourth lane to discourage vehicular traffic in that lane. There will be an eight foot outside shoulder.
FDOT proposes to construct 18 culverts south of the C-111 Canal for crossings by crocodiles, alligators, manatees, and other wildlife. These crossings will consist of 15 box culverts and 3 bridges.
The proposed bridge at Manatee Creek would be constructed as a four lane bridge, but would be striped for three lanes with rumble strips on the southbound fourth lane to discourage vehicular travel in that lane. There would be an eight foot outside shoulder.
Jewfish Creek, which is part of the Intracoastal Waterway, and Lake Surprise would be bridged by a continuous structure. The Jewfish Creek bascule bridge would be replaced by a high-level four-lane fixed bridge. The Lake Surprise causeway would be replaced by a low-level four-lane bridge. The total distance for this bridging is approximately 2.35 miles.
The three passing lanes (4.94 miles) and the bridge over Jewfish Creek and Lake Surprise (2.35 miles) would be operated with four lanes. Those areas total 7.29 miles of the
20.4 mile project corridor. Approximately 43 percent of the proposed roadway would have four lanes of pavement. Excluding the areas where the fourth lane will be blocked from travel with rumble strips, only 35 percent of the completed project will contain four travel lanes. This area consists of the three passing zones and the bridges over Jewfish Creek and Lake Surprise.
The proposed project would provide for a SWM system consisting of inlets, culverts, swales, berms and dry/wet retention areas. For the typical roadway section, runoff from the paved roadway surfaces will be directed to roadside swales designed to provide retention for 50 percent of 2.5 inches times the impervious area. The SWM system for the bridges will collect runoff in inlets and culverts and direct it to either swales or dry or wet retention ponds.
The berms of the SWM system provide additional protection by restricting spills of pollutants, such as petroleum from overturned tankers or other vehicle accidents, from running into the surrounding waters. The berms and
swales of the SWM are designed to catch pollutants and prevent their discharge into the surrounding waters.
FDOT Exhibit 18 consists of four separate drainage reports submitted to the District in 1995 in connection with the project, one report for each section of the project. The reports accurately document the drainage calculations, the drainage design, the rationale behind the drainage design, and compliance of the design with the laws and regulations of the permitting agencies for the original four-lane proposal. On or about September 5, 1995, FDOT submitted revised drainage calculations to the District, determining the amount of stormwater treatment for the three-lane project. The revised calculations established that at least 95% percent of all stormwater runoff from the project would be captured in the proposed SWM system.
Because the swale design was based on the originally proposed four-lane road, retention will be in excess of the required volume for most sections of the roadway. The required retention volume for this project is approximately
166 percent of what is required by the BOR.
The surface and subsurface geology of the roadway consists of Miami oolite limestone overlain with Perrine maral. Underlying this is Thompson formation, anastasia and Key Largo limestone. Based on these constituencies, the
swales proposed by the SWM system would be effective in rapidly removing heavy metals and phosphorous.
The revised calculations established that approximately five percent of the project area will not have a SWM system. These areas will not have a SWM system because properly-sized retention systems in those areas can not be constructed without causing a disproportionate, adverse impact to surrounding wetlands.
FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed SWM system’s total water quality treatment exceeds the District's permitting requirements and provides sufficient treatment to exceed the BOR requirements. The water discharged from the proposed system would be of higher quality than that currently discharged, which is not treated.
FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed SWM system complies with the permitting criteria found in Rule 40E.301(1)(a)-(p), Florida Administrative Code. The following findings are made as to that criteria.
The parties stipulated that Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), F.A.C., pertaining to flood protection and the adequacy of drainage, is not at issue in this proceeding.
The quality of water being discharged from the SWM system will be of substantially higher quality than the existing discharges. Consequently, it is concluded that the system will not cause adverse water quality impacts within the meaning of Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), F.A.C. In addition, the evidence established that there will likely be less water discharged from the roadway if the project is constructed because of the amounts of water that will likely be retained in the swales that are a part of the SWM systems.
Because the receiving bodies of water are designated Outstanding Florida Waters, the District is required to apply the DEP's most stringent water quality requirements -- the antidegredation requirements for discharge to OFWs, to this project. Those standards will be discussed in more detail below. The evidence established that the proposed project will not violate those requirements.
Impacts to sources of water are not at issue.
The District reviewed the potential effect of the SWM system upon on-site and off-site impacts to surface or groundwater levels and flows. The evidence supports the District's conclusion that no adverse impacts will be caused. Petitioners failed to present any evidence on groundwater
levels and flows. Consequently, it is found that the criteria found at Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d), F.A.C., has been satisfied.
The 25 hydrologic culverts north of C-111 have the potential to re-establish historic surface water flow in the area. They were sized, based on rainstorm events, to help equalize water levels from one side of the road to the other. The culverts are capable of transferring water from west to east to assist in the historic restoration of flows.
In order to assure the proper usage of the culverts, they will remain gated until the District develops a management plan in conjunction with other agencies. The District will determine the maintenance entity.
The FKAA water main runs beneath this section of the road. As a result, there is no other more hydrologically efficient alternative for the placement of the culverts. The culverts would also provide a means for overwash from storm events, over the U.S. 1 roadbed, to flow back to its point of origin, stabilizing the roadbed and allowing release of the accumulated salt water.
In addition to providing for a net improvement in water quality, the project will offset any adverse impacts through mitigation and other environmental enhancements for which no mitigation credits are being assigned, as described below.
FDOT has a history of adequate maintenance of SWM systems, and has provided reasonable assurance that it has the staff and budget to comply with District operation and maintenance requirements. FDOT will also be able to comply with the District's requirements to control exotic plants and other foliage along project corridor.
The SWM system will not adversely affect public health and safety. The dispute as to the public interest test focused more on the WRM permitting requirements. Findings as to the public interest test are discussed in more detail below.
The evidence established that the SFM system is consistent with State Water Policy.
This project does not pertain to a DRI and, consequently, this criteria is not applicable.
There are no basin criteria applicable to this project.
The evidence established that the SWM system will not be harmful to the water resources of the District. While there will be adverse environmental impacts caused by the project, those adverse impacts have, as will be discussed in more detail below, adequately offset by mitigation.
This issue was not at issue in this proceeding.
As will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this Recommended Order, the project is not against public policy. For the reasons set forth in that subsequent section, it is found that the project is clearly in the public interest.
Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C., constitutes the BOR. As discussed in detail above, the SWM system complies with the BOR.
There are no isolated wetlands pertaining to this project.
There are no above ground impoundments, as described in Appendix 6 of the BOR, pertaining to this project.
Because the project will involve discharges into Outstanding Florida Waters, it was necessary for FDOT to establish that the discharges from the SFW system will not degrade those OFWs. The evidence established that FDOT's proposed project complies with and exceeds applicable water quality standards and permitting criteria. There will be no significant degradation of ambient water quality as a result of the project. It is expected that there will be a net improvement in ambient water quality resulting from the proposed project, as opposed to the continued degradation if nothing is done to treat stormwater runoff.
In FDOT Exhibit 46, FDOT provided baseline water quality data in the form of STORET data for waters adjacent to the project area. STORET is a centralized repository and database for water quality data throughout Florida. It is Florida's principal source of water quality data. STORET contains the best scientific database on water quality in
Florida. The STORET data set forth in FDOT Exhibit 46 provided sufficient evidence on ambient water quality for the waters adjacent to the proposed project. In addition to providing the water quality data in FDOT Exhibit 46, FDOT is required by Special Permit Condition 37 to submit appropriate water quality data in the surrounding waters prior to any construction activities.
SFWMD Exhibits 5 and 6 contain amendments to Proposed Agency Action made after the beginning of the formal hearing. These amendments include a requirement that an appropriate water quality monitoring plan be submitted within
30 days of the permit issuance.
FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will be met and that there will be appropriate water quality monitoring during construction. DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT
The proposed roadway design will result in the following direct impacts to wetlands adjacent to the roadway corridor: 1) the dredging of 11,028 cubic yards of material from 2.1 acres, 2) the placement of 1,689,553 cubic yards over
147.0 acres of wetlands, and 3) 6.9 acres of (potential) permanent impact due to shading and 4.1 acres (potential) of temporary impacts from the Jewfish Creek Bridge construction activities to seagrass habitat.
In order to determine the project's direct impacts, the area surrounding the project was surveyed to determine the number of affected acres. This was done by using a computer aided design ("CAD") system, and by categorizing the various forms of wetlands and associated flora and fauna into the following communities: mangrove, emergent freshwater, open water, and tidal, consisting of seagrass and non-vegetated bottoms. Using these categories and the CAD system, every square foot of direct impacts were accounted for.
The adverse direct wetland and surface water impacts of this project are as follows: 1) 27.83 acres Non- Vegetated Tidal Bottom; 2) 11.27 acres Seagrasses; 3) 46.85 acres Mangroves; 4) 42.35 acres Sawgrass/Cattail/Spikerush; 5)
14.31 acres Shrub Wetlands; and 6) 6.46 acres Open Fresh Water; totaling 149.07 acres.
Though some wetlands to be impacted may be of lesser quality, FDOT stipulated that all wetlands to be directly impacted by the project should be considered to be high quality wetlands for the purpose of mitigating the impacts.
The impacted wetlands are part of larger wetland systems. Petitioners assert that the District should have required studies as to impacts as to the larger wetland systems. The evidence established that the District
appropriately considered the type and location of the wetlands involved so that additional study suggested by Petitioners was unnecessary.
Petitioners also assert that impacts to isolated wetlands should have been studied. The evidence established that there will be no such impacts.
In addition to the direct impacts of the project, the District is required to analyze secondary and cumulative impacts. A project's secondary impacts are those that, though outside of the project footprint, are very closely linked and causally related to the project. This is a "but for" test. Secondary impacts are those impacts which, if not for the proposed project, would not occur. Both positive and negative secondary impacts are considered. When there are both positive and negative secondary impacts caused by a project, the permitting agency must consider the severity of the impacts and balance these together with the other factors in the public interest test to determine whether or not the project is clearly in the public interest.
WRM statutes, and DEP rules and policies pertaining to those statutes do not regulate growth or traffic increases, per se. Only if such increases are very closely linked and causally related to the project will they be considered.
The District identified several secondary impacts that would be temporary in nature since they would occur while the project is being constructed. One is the use of a barge facility, primarily at Jewfish Creek, where the anchoring of the barge may result in temporary impacts to seagrass during construction. This impact is addressed by a component of the seagrass mitigation at Boca Chica, discussed below. Another impact is turbidity associated with the dredge and fill and the barge activities. That issue is appropriately addressed by permit conditions, through the use of turbidity control screens and other techniques.
The District also identified secondary impacts directly associated with the project footprint that would be permanent in nature. The removal of the exotic vegetation potentially opens up the areas adjacent to the road north of the C-111 canal to off-road vehicles or four-wheel driving and the potential impacts caused by those vehicles. That impact is appropriately addressed by fencing north of the C-111 canal.
When a road is widened, animals have a greater distance to travel back and forth from one side of the road to the other. A wider road exposes such animals to greater risk of being hit by a motor vehicle while crossing the road. That impact is addressed in this project by the fencing, the
wildlife crossings, and the wildlife box culverts. The crossings are designed for large mammals and some species, such as the Indigo snake, will likely not use these crossings. The wildlife crossings will not entirely mimic the crossing patterns of all wildlife that need to cross U.S. 1 and will result in some wildlife habitat fragmentation. The fencing that will be erected to funnel wildlife through the crossings will fragment the habitat of some species by altering wildlife crossing patterns and blocking access of some species to certain areas of habitat. The greater weight of the evidence established that any habitat fragmentation should, when compared to existing conditions, be minimal. The District appropriately evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of using wildlife crossing and hydrological culverts and appropriately concluded that there would be a net benefit to wildlife as a result of their construction.
The District properly concluded that the culverts,
bridges and fencing located south of the C-111 canal, construction of wildlife crossings and fencing north of the C-
111 canal, construction of the hydrologic culverts, and removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway are positive secondary benefits of the project. These benefits should be considered when applying the public interest test.
The project requires the relocation of two segments of the existing pipe owned by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) around Jewfish Creek Bridge. The segments total approximately 1.5 miles.
The District inspected the area where the pipeline will be relocated to assist in determining its impact. The pipeline relocation is a temporary disturbance during construction. It is a small linear facility, which will not generate pollution in and of itself. The pipeline relocation is not expected to result in a violation of State water quality standards. The FKAA is responsible for obtaining the necessary permits for the relocation. Direct impacts to wetlands will occur in a 4 to 5 foot wide strip along the length of the relocated aqueduct.
The FKAA has submitted a permit application to the DEP for a permit to relocate the aqueduct. DEP believes that adequate mitigation can be achieved to make the project permittable. Once the FKAA submits an adequate mitigation plan, then relocation of the aqueduct will not be an adverse secondary impact caused by the U.S. 1 project. The permit for the subject project should contain a condition that the FKAA obtain a permit for the relocation of these two segments of its pipeline.
There is an existing boat ramp designed for small boats to access District canals that is located on the north side of the C-111 canal. As a result of the proposed project, it will be relocated to the southern side of the project. This relocation is a relatively minor project requiring a cut in the canal bank and a fourteen-foot wide slab for the boat ramp. When the District considered the potential impacts
associated with this relocation in conjunction with the impact of the proposed project, it was determined to be a relatively insignificant impact in terms of the project as a whole.
Relocation of the boat ramp is not expected to result in a violation of state water quality standards.
All direct, cumulative, and secondary impacts, whether positive or negative, should be considered in balancing the public interest test.
Petitioners assert that there are additional cumulative and secondary impacts that the District failed to consider. Petitioners argue that the project cannot meet permitting criteria if those additional impacts are considered. The additional impacts pertain to additional development throughout Monroe County because of the “rate of growth ordinance” (ROGO), additional development along the project corridor, impacts to the coral reefs of the Keys,
impacts to Key Deer, generalized impacts, and impacts from increased number of “day trippers." For the reasons discussed below, it is found that the District has considered all appropriate direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the project. The additional impacts that Petitioners assert should have been considered are not causally connected or directly linked to the project.
Monroe County adopted its Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") to meet the requirements of Chapter 163,
F.S. The Plan, adopted May 15, 1993, is unusual in that the County limits future growth based on a carrying capacity analysis of its hurricane evacuation clearance time. No other jurisdiction in Florida, and few others in the United States, have used a carrying capacity planning approach.
To implement the carrying capacity limitation, Monroe County determined the total number of dwelling units that could be permitted while maintaining an acceptable hurricane evacuation clearance time of 24 hours. This number of dwelling units, less an allowance for vested development and development in municipalities, was the basis for a ROGO that was adopted by the County in 1992. The ROGO allocates the available units at a uniform annual rate of growth (currently, 255 units per year). The ROGO regulates all
proposed new residential buildings, including hotels, motels, and other transient tourist accommodations as well as permanent residences.
The number of building permits that Monroe County can issue is, at present, directly related to how rapidly the County can be evacuated in the event of a hurricane. The lower the clearance time, the greater the number of permits that can be issued. The Comprehensive Plan requires that the County be able to evacuate within a 24-hour period. As of March 7, 1995, the hurricane evacuation time for Monroe County was determined to be 21.25 hours.1
The project is expected to reduce by six or seven hours the modeled hurricane evacuation capacity for Monroe County, regardless of whether it consists of three or four lanes. This is because both the three lane and four lane plans provide for two northbound lanes.
Because of the rate of growth provisions in county law, this reduction of clearance times results directly in an increase in the number of building permits that the county can issue annually.
Under ROGO, Monroe County can, with this project, issue 255 permits each year through the year 2026. Without this project, Monroe County can issue 255 permits each year only through the year 2001. Alternatively, without this project, the county can issue 88 permits each year through the year 2010 if it chooses to issue permits over a longer period of time.
Following extensive litigation before the Division of Administrative Hearings in an unrelated proceeding2, the
Administration Commission entered a final order on December 12, 1995, that approved approximately 97 percent of the Plan. In addition, the Administration Commission has published a proposed rule to bring the remainder of the Plan into compliance and assure its financial feasibility.
The central feature of the proposed rule is a five- year work program, with annual reviews by the Administration Commission. It is likely that the proposed rule will eventually result in the complete revision of the ROGO.
The proposed rule provides that Monroe County's annual rate of growth be revised within five years, no later than December 31, 2001, "to establish a rate of growth and a set of development standards that ensure that any and all new development does not exceed the capacity of the county's environment and marine systems." A carrying capacity study will comprehensively assess water quality, habitat protection, and public facility issues to determine the capacity of the Keys to sustain further development. The proposed project is but one of many factors that will be considered in future rate of growth regulations. If the expected revisions occur, it would be speculative to predict what development would be allowed.
While the studies are underway the rate of growth will remain at 255 units per year. The rate of growth will be
reviewed annually, and may be reduced a minimum of 20% if the goals of the studies are not being met.
The DCA has determined that Monroe County’s Comprehensive Plan and its land development regulations are sufficient to prevent or mitigate any potential adverse secondary impacts of the project caused by development. The DCA has consistently supported the proposed project, even in its earlier four-lane configuration, because it was consistent with Monroe County's 1986 Comprehensive Plan, and because the project would improve hurricane evacuation clearance times and improve water quality in the vicinity of the roadway. The 1986 plan supported widening of the roadway to four lanes based on projected travel demand. The DCA prefers the current, three-lane proposal to the earlier four-lane.
On September 7, 1995, the Monroe County Commission adopted Resolution 315-1995 in support of the proposed project because "it balances the needs for a widened highway with safeguards designed to address secondary impacts."
Lorenzo Aghemo, an expert in comprehensive planning, served as Monroe County Planning Director during the development of the Plan and ROGO. In Mr. Aghemo's opinion, the widening of the roadway to either three or four lanes would generate minimal growth pressure in Monroe County, particularly because the Plan limits the rate of growth.
Because the Keys are designated by Section 380.0552, F.S., as an area of critical state concern, the DCA is charged with oversight of Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan, its LDRs, and all development that takes place in Monroe County. Additionally, the Administration Commission may amend Monroe County's plan or regulations by rule (See Section 380.0552(9), F.S.). There is virtually no action that Monroe County can take related to the use of land without review and approval of a state agency.
The Administration Commission’s proposed rule demonstrates its intent to revise comprehensively Monroe County's ROGO within five years to ensure that future development does not exceed the capacity of the Keys' environmental resources. It also demonstrates the Administration Commission's intention to closely monitor growth and development in the Keys during the five-year study period.
Some of the studies required by the proposed rule are already underway: 1) the DCA has entered into a contract with the ACOE to complete the environmental carrying capacity study; 2) the HRS study of advanced on-site waste water treatment systems is underway; 3) Monroe County is developing the required Marathon central sewer facilities plan; and 4)
Monroe County and HRS have begun the cesspit identification and elimination process.
Caution should be exercised in relying on this or on any other proposed rule. Likewise, caution should be exercised in relying on changes to ROGO that may or may not occur. It is likely that the present status of the law will be changed in the near future so that future development will be based on environmental carrying capacity as opposed to hurricane evacuation clearance times. However, for the purposes of this proceeding the District should accept the fact that the issuance of future building permits is closely linked and causally related to the project. Consequently, it is found that under the present status of the law, the issuance of additional building permits in Monroe County is closely linked or causally related to the project.
Although Petitioners established that there is a causal relation between the project and the existing status of the law governing the number of building permits that can issued in the future, the evidence was insufficient to establish at a level above speculation that adverse environmental impacts will result because of the issuance of those building permits.
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan contains land development regulations that govern all development in Monroe County. These regulations are among the most stringent in the State and are designed to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts caused by development. All development orders in Monroe County are closely scrutinized by the Department of Community Affairs to ensure compliance with applicable permitting criteria. Those regulations and the DCA’s close scrutiny are intervening factors that break any causal relation between the project and the speculative adverse environmental impacts that the Petitioners assert will be caused by future issuance of building permits by Monroe County. Petitioners failed to establish that the impacts of future development are very closely linked or causally related to the project. Consequently, it is found that such impacts are not secondary or cumulative impacts of the project. DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE PROJECT CORRIDOR
A major portion of the area next to the road has little or no development potential because it is either water, land in public ownership, or land slated for public ownership.
The areas east of the road are mostly in private ownership, but are primarily submerged lands and mangrove areas. The Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is federally owned and is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). The Southern Glades lands, located immediately west of the project and Everglades National Park (ENP) in Dade County, have been acquired by the District and are managed by the Florida Game and Freshwater fish Commission (FGFWFC). The Model Lands Basin in Dade County is in private ownership but proposed for public acquisition in the future.
The land adjoining the roadway in Dade County is designated as open area or environmentally sensitive.
Almost half of the land along Monroe County's portion of the roadway is in public ownership. At least 90% of the land in private ownership is mangroves or wetlands that cannot be developed. The small area of uplands is currently being used by a resort marina which will not be allowed to develop further under the new comprehensive plan.
There is very little potential for future development in the project area. The comprehensive plan designation for areas in Dade County are open space, and the ones in Monroe County have the conservation designation. The District's regulatory programs consider areas adjacent to the project as sensitive wetland habitats. Based on the District's regulatory authority and comprehensive plan designation for those lands, which would have to be obtained prior to obtaining a permit for development, it is very unlikely that those lands could be developed.
Florida Rock and Sand Co. (FRS) has a permit to mine approximately 1,100 acres of wetlands. As part of its mitigation program, FRS will donate this land to the District once its mining and mitigation projects are complete. The FRS mitigation lands are preserved as a permit condition and will ultimately be transferred to the District. This land will not be developed. In addition, the District established that the
U.S. 1 project and the FRS project do not constitute a cumulative impact that the District failed to consider.
The evidence established that development along the project corridor will not be a secondary or cumulative impact of the project.
The evidence was insufficient to establish a close link or causal connection between the project and the coral reef system. As reflected elsewhere, it is found that there will be no degradation of ambient water quality as a result of the project. Therefore, there is no need to resolve the conflicting testimony as to the present status of the coral reef system.
There are no key deer in the project area. The nearest key deer habitat, Big Pine Key, is approximately 70 miles from the southern terminus of the project. The evidence
is insufficient to establish that there is a very closely linked and causally related connection between the project and key deer mortality on Big Pine Key.
The Petitioners presented certain opinion testimony that the Keys cannot be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner because of potential adverse impacts of new development in Monroe County, or new boats operating in the waters of the Florida Keys. The credibility of that testimony need not be evaluated because the evidence was not sufficient to tie those generalized concerns into the specific regulatory criteria of the permitting agency. There was insufficient evidence to establish that those alleged impacts would be very closely linked or causally related to the proposed project. DAY TRIPPERS
Induced demand is new travel that occurs solely because additional capacity is added to a highway. Petitioners' transportation experts, Michael Replogle and Robert Morris, testified that FDOT's traffic studies, and FDOT's projected rate of traffic growth of approximately 3 percent annually, are incorrect because the studies do not predict the amount of "induced demand" that would result from the proposed project. Petitioners assert that induced demand would generate an unknown number of people who drive to the
Keys for the day from south Dade County, referred to as “day trippers,” will have an impact on the Keys that has not been evaluated. The assertion that this potential impact has not been analyzed is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Induced demand is accounted for in Monroe County's Long Range Transportation Plan, which was never evaluated by Mr. Replogle or Mr. Morris. The Long Range Transportation Plan was prepared by an experienced traffic engineering consulting firm, Barton-Aschman, using an FDOT- approved traffic demand model, the FSUTMS model, that includes all traffic generators and attractors, and all travel on U.S.
1 on weekdays and weekends. The FSUTMS model does not restrict demand based on the existing road capacity. The model uses an "unrestrained assignment" that incorporates the total predicted trip generation on recreational facilities, hotels, and all other attractors. The Long Range Traffic Plan was used to develop the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, which takes into consideration the projected increases in traffic and makes appropriate provisions for those increases.
FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that it has properly projected the amount of traffic for the project corridor after the project is completed and that the projected increases have been appropriately addressed by Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan.
For the reasons discussed above, it is found that there are no secondary or cumulative impacts that the District failed to consider. Petitioners also contend that the mitigation proposal is insufficient to offset the direct and secondary impacts recognized by the District.
This is a large dredge and fill project that will permanently fill 149 acres of wetlands. The wetlands that will be adversely impacted by the project include OFWs that provide a great variety of functions and serve as habitat for fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. The wetlands are unique and of high quality.
Mitigation for direct, secondary and cumulative impacts was considered as part of the permit evaluation. In- kind mitigation is considered to be most effective, but out- of-kind mitigation may be offered by the applicant where it is impractical to conduct in-kind mitigation due to historic changes in the project area or sensitivity of the habitat type for which mitigation is offered. Such mitigation is also appropriate to address regional alteration of an ecosystem, such as the Everglades ecosystem alteration caused by the original roadway embankment.
FDOT developed a conceptual mitigation plan that took into account project impacts on the freshwater, marine
and estuarine components of the ecosystems involved, as well as the impacts on threatened and endangered species of wildlife which may be affected by the project. FDOT coordinated the plan's development with the National Parks Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The conceptual mitigation plan evolved as a result of project modifications and agency comments into what is now proposed as mitigation for the project. The current proposal is summarized in FDOT Exhibit 26, consisting of Attachment H to FDOT's SWM and WRM permit applications. The timing of their construction falls into two general categories: mitigation previously permitted and concurrent mitigation. UPFRONT MITIGATION
Typically, mitigation is done concurrently with project construction rather than prior to permit issuance. Mitigation is often done afterwards because of construction timing constraints. Here, FDOT applied for and, in May 1994 received, permits to conduct mitigation prior to applying for the permits at issue, with the understanding that performance
of these activities does not require the District to issue permits for the proposed projects. A total of 385.22 acres of mitigation has already been completed.
The applicant received 203.02 mitigation credits from the District on May 12, 1994, for several mitigation projects that the applicant proposes to apply to the proposed
U.S. 1 widening project provided it is approved.
Table 2 of Attachment H to FDOT Exhibit 26 sets forth the four mitigation projects that constitutes the up- front portion of the mitigation for the project. This table sets forth the acres mitigated, the conversion factor for the mitigation, and the resulting mitigation credit awarded. The four mitigation activities already authorized are:
enhancement of the wetland habitat in the Harrison Tract located adjacent to Barnes Sound within the Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge on the north end of Key Largo (70.37 acres credit for 252.6 acres of restoration);
removal of the spoil mounds on the eastern bank of the C-111 canal east of
U.S. 1 located on the District’s ROW (10.65 acres credit);
the back filling of the C-109 canal levee located on the District ROW within the Southern Glades Save Our River project (112.7 acres credit); and
the removal of the roadside spoil mounds on the west side of U.S. 1 located between C-111 and the Dade Work Camp Road within the District’s Southern Glades Save Our Rivers Project (9.30 acres credit).
The mitigation projects pertaining to the roadside spoil removal along U.S. 1, the backfill of the C-109 Canal, and the removal of spoil along the C-111 Canal are similar projects because they each involve existing deep ditches cut through wetlands. When these deep ditches were cut, the spoil material from the ditch was deposited alongside the ditch. This resulted in areas that were previously Everglades wetlands becoming spoil, supporting the growth of exotic species and, for the most part, not exhibiting wetland functions.
FDOT is proceeding with the backfilling the C-109 canal located between mile markers 122.5 and 117, and removal of the corresponding spoil mounds created during construction of the C-109 canal. In connection with this mitigation, marsh areas, tree islands and deep water aquatic refugia have been restored. In this area, there has been considerable attraction of wildlife subsequent to restoration, including otters, alligators, and turtles, which could not previously use the habitat because the canal was too deep.
Upon completion waterflow between the east and the west will be restored, and the area will be restored to a wetland habitat from its current uplands habitat type. Backfilling of the C-109 canal is part of an interagency effort with the ACOE to restore as closely as possible to
natural conditions the flow of water in the C-111 watershed area.
C-111 mitigation includes removal of roadside spoil along the C-111 canal to restore the natural condition of the area. The mitigation was devised in coordination with the National Maine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which required mitigation for non-vegetated habitat types. Restoration also includes preserving some spoil areas as islands to maintain habitat for endangered species of plants. When the C-111 spoil mounds are scraped down, the fill will not fill the whole ditch. The ditch will, therefore, be a bit more valuable but will not be completely restored to its former elevation.
FDOT will also remove roadside spoil along the west side of U.S. 1, upon which exotic species of plants had grown, and returning the area to its original grade.
The Harrison Tract is a known habitat and nesting area for American crocodiles. Its wetlands functions were altered or eliminated by prior development of the land by its original owners. Restoration includes regrading the area to restore its original wetlands functions, including habitat for young and adult crocodiles. FDOT's mitigation of the Harrison Tract also includes restoration of tidal flushing to increase
contributions of nutrients and food sources to the surrounding tidal bay system.
Crocodiles have been observed using the restored areas. FDOT has installed additional nesting berm habitat, basking habitat and shallow lagoon habitat to promote juvenile crocodile development.
The District established that the credit awarded for this mitigation and the conversion ratios utilized for determining this credit were consistent with agency practice and its pertinent rules. FDOT was given a 1:1 credit ratio for areas involving full restoration of wetlands. In other portions of the Harrison Tract mitigation involving restoration of flushing to existing wetlands, FDOT was given not full credit, but credit based on the severity of limitation of the existing wetland functions. Based on this evaluation, mitigation credits were given in a range of a 3:1 ratio for restoration of severely disrupted or non-existent wetlands to a 20:1 ration for restoration of higher quality but not fully functional wetlands. FDOT is being awarded 70 mitigation credits for the 252 acres in the Harrison Tract that are being restored or enhanced.
Based on the mitigation ratios developed by the District, additional mitigation credits were required.
Consequently, the project contemplates mitigation that will be undertaken concurrently with the construction of the project in addition to the upfront mitigation. FDOT proposes to earn these additional credits by projects involving creation and/or restoration of emergent vegetation, mangrove and seagrass habitats. FDOT’s proposal to mitigate mangrove impacts with "out of kind" mitigation of emergent vegetation habitats was viewed by the District as being necessary and appropriate because there were no sufficiently large areas of mangrove habitat suitable for restoration.
Table 7 of Attachment H to FDOT Exhibit 26 sets forth the four mitigation projects that constitutes the concurrent portion of the mitigation for the project. This table sets forth the acres mitigated, the conversion factor for the mitigation, and the resulting mitigation credit awarded. In addition, the table references certain credit for the placement of the hydrological culverts. As will be discussed later, that credit was withdrawn at the formal hearing. The four mitigation activities that will constitute the concurrent portion of the mitigation plan are:
the removal of the Lake Surprise causeway (2.90 acres credit);
the scrape down of the Jewfish Bridge approaches (0.67 acres credit);
the restoration of the FGFWFC road (10.34 acres credit); and
the Boca Chica project (27.17 acres credit)
The Lake Surprise Causeway removal mitigation involves 5.26 acres of on-site seagrass restoration and 0.54 acres of unvegetated bottom mitigation through the excavation of 52,220 cubic yards of material.
Lake Surprise historically was a shallow tidal lake supporting seagrasses before a causeway was built across the lake over the seagrasses. FDOT proposes to remove the causeway and restore the previous elevation, after which it is anticipated that seagrasses that grow on the east side of the causeway will fully recruit naturally to the excavated area.
Removing the Lake Surprise Causeway will establish
5.26 acres of seagrass, for which FDOT received 2.63 acres of on-site mitigation credit based on a 2:1 ratio. Through natural recruitment after removal of the causeway, there is a high likelihood that the entire 5.26 acres will recolonize with seagrass. FDOT minimized the seagrass impacts to the greatest extent possible. The mitigation credit pertaining to Lake Surprise does not include credit for the removal of the causeway itself. This awarded credit is for the restoration of seagrass areas.
The mitigation pertaining to the Jewfish Creek Bridge approaches proposes the scrape down of 1.33 acres of existing fill to allow the area to become recolonized with mangroves.
Boca Chica is located in southern Monroe County over one hundred miles from the southern terminus of the project. This site was chosen by FDOT as a site for seagrass mitigation project after FDOT reviewed several other potential sites. Two other sites were rejected. The area around the C-
111 canal was rejected because the land proposed for use was in private ownership. Several defunct marinas in Port Bougainville were rejected due to poor conditions not conducive to seagrass growth.
Boca Chica was finally chosen as the site because it was a large enough area with light and hydrological flow conditions conducive to seagrass growth. The evidence establishes that the Boca Chica site is the most viable for seagrass mitigation.
The seagrasses to be impacted at Lake Surprise are healthy and productive turtle grass, manatee grass and cuban shoalgrass. Turtle grass is considered an extremely valuable “climax community” of seagrasses which hold sediments in place, cleanse water quality, and forms the base of the food chain. It is valuable to sea turtles, manatees and recreationally important fish and shellfish.
The cuban shoalgrass that will colonize at Boca Chica is a pioneer colonizer species that grows in disturbed areas. It is not as valuable to the marine system as turtle
grass.
The Boca Chica seagrass mitigation permit condition proposed to offset impacts to 11.27 acres of seagrass. This will involve the removal of 306 cubic yards of sediment and hydraulically dredging approximately 1,175 cubic yards of spoil material. The proposed permit conditions state that FDOT shall provide future maintenance of the culvert areas to maintain adequate flushing.
FDOT will plant 25.92 acres of seagrasses to mitigate for the remaining 8.64 acres of impacts, for a mitigation ratio of 3:1. In addition, 8.46 acres of seagrass will be planted to mitigate for the barren bottom area that will be affected, and 1.62 additional acres will be planted to compensate for any unexpected impacts to Boca Chica based on the necessary improvements. Overall, there will be of 36 acres of seagrass mitigation by FDOT, for which FDOT is receiving 27.17 acres credit.
FDOT will also increase the water flow between the east and west lagoons of Boca Chica, and maintain the culverts connecting the two sides, in order to further promote growth of seagrass therein.
FDOT is responsible for 80% survival of each acre of seagrass mitigation, as well as monitoring once a year for five years. Based on historical data obtained from Boca Chica
during past mitigation efforts, there is a high likelihood that the entire 36 acres of mitigation will survive, and that the remaining 74 acres of the Boca Chica lagoons will experience natural recruitment of seagrass as a result of FDOT's efforts.
The FGFWFC access area was built by excavating a ditch, and putting fill on the wetlands and creating a dirt road bed. After the C-109 canal is backfilled, the access road will no longer be needed. The mitigation project will excavate the existing road bed, back fill it into the ditch, thereby recreating the wetlands that were there previously. FDOT will receive 10.34 mitigation credits based on a 1:1 ratio of acres restored.
There is no mitigation in this permit for any wetland impact beyond the direct loss of the specific 149 acres that will be dredged or filled. Mitigation was provided only for the direct, footprint impacts of the project. None of the up front mitigation involves the creation of wetlands, which entails converting areas that were not previously wetlands or open water and turning them into wetlands.
It will likely take between 20 and 50 years for the mitigation areas to achieve full functional value required by the South Florida Water Management District mitigation permit.
In the interim, there will be a net loss of wetland functional value.
With time, the proposed mitigation has a high likelihood of success. Based on FDOT's past successes in mitigation of construction-related impacts, FDOT is able to comply with permit conditions relating to best management practices associated with the construction of bridges and pilings and turbidity screens around road construction, as well as restoration of seagrasses and mangroves. Petitioners assert that the District erred in determining the credit to be given for the up-front portion of the mitigation. While it is true that the SFWMD Rules do not mention "up-front" mitigation, the District has the authority to consider all aspects of a mitigation project in weighing its relative value.
Consulting engineering inspectors have been retained by FDOT to insure that all permitting requirements are met during mitigation and construction, and that the technical special provisions for protection of threatened and endangered species are complied with by FDOT. The proposed permits contain appropriate conditions that require FDOT to monitor and maintain the mitigation areas.
FDOT will be responsible in perpetuity for maintaining the tidal flushing connection at the Boca Chica mitigation site.
Special permit condition 6 to the SWM and WRM staff reports require wetland and upland monitoring. If wetland and upland monitoring or other information demonstrate that additional adverse impacts have occurred due to this project, FDOT would be required to offset the loss of any additional wetland impacts.
The evidence established that the mitigation projects were fairly and appropriately reviewed by SFWMD and that the mitigation credits were fairly and appropriately awarded. The evidence also established that there is appropriate mitigation for the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of this project.
Mitigation credits for the 25 hydrologic culverts north of C-111 were originally included in the permit staff reports. Those mitigation credits were removed in an addendum to the staff reports, introduced as District's Exhibits 5 and 6.
These credits were not necessary to offset project impacts. After the staff report was issued, they became a
point of contention by the Petitioners because they will not be utilized until a management plan is developed. Since they were not necessary to meet mitigation requirements, the credits were removed from this project. These credits were never included in the mitigation ratios for these permit applications. The addendum removed the 9.6 credits initially contemplated for the culverts.
No credit has been awarded for the relocation of threatened and endangered species of plants, such as Joewood and Bay Cedar by FDOT from the C-111, C-109 and roadside spoil mitigation areas. These species have been relocated to tree islands constructed by FDOT on the mitigation sites, or to other areas that would not be impacted by the project.
FDOT also was not given mitigation credits for: (1) the wildlife crossings and the fencing that will funnel wildlife through these crossings; (2) installation of pipe culverts north of the C-111 canal and bridges and box culverts south of C-111; and which, in addition to providing a corridor for aquatic species, will increase the tidal flushing of the area; (3) the removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway, which will restore historical hydrological flow between the eastern and western sides of Lake Surprise; (4) FDOT's commitment to improve and maintain the flushing of the west lagoon culverts in Boca Chica (mitigation is in the east lagoon); and (5)
FDOT's contribution of $300,000 to assist Monroe County in performing a carrying capacity study for the County.
Additionally, FDOT will preserve the Jewfish Creek Bridge abutment, which will be preserved for local historical purposes. FDOT will prepare the Jewfish Creek Bridge pilings for an artificial reef at Long Key during construction.
It is appropriate for the SWFMD to consider, in balancing the public interest test, to consider traffic safety and hurricane evacuation.3 Because of FDOT's expertise in those areas, it is appropriate for the permitting agency to give great weight to highway safety concerns, including hurricane evacuation, presented by FDOT.
The application of the public interest test does not involve consideration of non-environmental factors other than those expressly set forth in the statutes such as navigation or preservation of historical or archaeological resources. Specifically, aesthetics, quality of life, the potential for a project to cause increased crime, and school overcrowding are not properly considered within any of the seven factors contained in Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991).
The District concluded that the project is clearly in the public interest based upon consideration and balancing
of the following factors: hurricane evacuation improvements, public safety improvements, a SWM system where no SWM system currently exists; wildlife crossings and fencing north of the C-111 canal where no such crossings or fencing currently exist; wildlife box culverts to accommodate crocodiles, alligators, manatees and marine life where no such culverts currently exist; and hydrologic culverts, which have the potential to assist in the restoration of hydrologic flows, and the mitigation projects, both upfront and concurrent.
Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to determine “[w]hether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others." The property of others is not at issue. As discussed below, the evidence clearly established that the project will greatly enhance the safety of the road during normal operations and facilitate evacuation in the event of a hurricane. There will be clear benefits to the public safety as a result of this project.
As part of the PD&E process, FDOT, through Metric, prepared "A Safety Evaluation" of the existing roadway. The safety analysis was based on FDOT accident statistics for the years 1983-1988, as well as engineering review of the conditions causing the accidents. Specifically, FDOT based
their safety analysis on the following: 1) calculation of the abnormally high accident rate on the roadway based on the rate quality control formula set forth in the FDOT Highway Safety Improvement Guidelines, and approved by the Federal Highway Administration; 2) copies of the actual crash reports filed with the Florida Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, which provided detail greater than that generally available through FDOT's own accident data reports, and which formed the basis of the collision diagram in the Safety Evaluation (FDOT Exhibits 36; and 3) and its August 1996 update thereto (FDOT Exhibit 41), on-site evaluation and review of the roadway to determine geometrics of the roadway, locations of driveway accesses and side roadways and the degrees at which roadways intersected.
Metric prepared an update of the Safety Evaluation for the years 1989-1994, to determine the continuing validity of the Safety Evaluation, as well as to review alternative proposals to the original proposed roadway configuration. In preparing the update, the recent accident data (FDOT Exhibit
37) and the underlying research in the Safety Evaluation were used by Metric Engineering in reaching its conclusions.
The Safety Evaluation performed by Metric in 1989 established high accident rates on the roadway based on a detailed segmental analysis of the roadway. In August of
1996, the Safety Evaluation was updated by Metric, which update confirmed the findings of the Safety Evaluation, and further stated that accident frequency on the Monroe County portion of the roadway exceeded the state average accident rate and the abnormally high accident rate for the years 1990 through 1994 (notwithstanding the rear-end accidents occurring at Jewfish Creek). Fatal accidents on the Dade County portion exceed the state average on the same stretch by 37 percent for the same years. The most severe accidents occur on the Dade County portion.
The Monroe County portion of the roadway exceeds the statewide average in the abnormally high accident rate four out of the last five years that FDOT studied. The Dade County portion does not exceed the accident frequency or the number of accidents, but the fatality rate in Dade County is much higher than the state average.
Presently an abnormally high accident rate exists in three locations along the project corridor, two of which are in the vicinity of the Jewfish Creek bridge. The third location is north of the bridge on Cross Key. Replacing the Jewfish Creek Bridge with the fixed-height bridge proposed by FDOT will substantially increase the safety on the project corridor. The District considered this to be an important positive element in the public interest balancing test.
The existing 2:1 slopes of the roadway make it difficult for drivers to recover from running off the roadway, resulting in a greater frequency of this type of accident. Moreover, the existing clear zone is not large enough to overcome the 2:1 slope to allow safe recovery of errant vehicles. As a result, catastrophic crashes occur rather than safe recoveries.
Also, as with hurricane evacuation discussed in the following section, actual accidents on the roadway prevent traffic from accessing or leaving the Keys, and also prevent emergency vehicles from rapidly accessing the Keys and a crash site. This occurs because there is little or no shoulder or clear zone along the sides of the road to allow emergency vehicles to efficiently access an accident site, and in the event of a severe, head-on type collision, the roadway is blocked off.
U.S. 1 through the project corridor is regarded as so unsafe for travel that Monroe County law enforcement officials call it "death alley." There are many head-on collisions due to the two-lane, no-median alignment. Law enforcement is difficult and dangerous along the roadway, because it has very few areas wide enough to allow law enforcement officials to detain driving violators. It is also
very dangerous, for the same reasons, for a driver to pull off the roadway with a broken-down vehicle.
High rates of speed and impaired drivers contribute to the accident rates along the project corridor. The efforts of law enforcement to control speeders and drunk drivers is impeded since it is practically impossible for enforcement officers to turn their vehicles around to pursue violators without running a high risk of causing an accident on their own.
The project would significantly improve safety on the roadway by reversing the problems identified in the this section, as well as the previous sections of this Recommended Order. The project would virtually eliminate head-on collisions which largely contribute to serious injuries and fatalities along the roadway. The project would also help eliminate problems with emergency vehicle access to accident sites and restoration of service in the event of accidents, and would increase the roadway's level of service as discussed below.
Improved level of service was an additional need considered by FDOT during the PD&E process. While the District did not consider the traffic level of service by itself to be weighted as part of the positive public interest criteria in this project, the impacts of resulting congestion are relevant
to the public interest consideration of traffic safety as discussed in the foregoing sections. Lower quality level of service, as presently exists on the roadway through level of service F, adversely affects the safety of the roadway. When traffic levels rise, driver frustration increases leading to drivers passing in no-passing zones and potentially resulting in head-on collisions and high-severity accidents.
Additionally, due to the narrow shoulders of the existing roadway, accident vehicles pose a threat to and impede normal traffic flow on the roadway.
The Highway Capacity Manual set the standards for traffic engineering and is used in all fifty states. The manual classifies the existing roadway as a two-lane arterial rural road. Applying the standards for measuring level of service for two-lane rural roads set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual, FDOT determined that the existing level of service on the roadway is E, which is a very poor level of service that does not meet the established standard of level of service C required by the Highway Capacity Manual. Monroe County uses a speed based method of calculating level of service. Using that method, the level of service for U.S. 1 is at an acceptable level. The parties disagree as to which method of calculating the level of service is appropriate. That conflict is resolved by finding that the method used by
FDOT is the appropriate method because of its wide acceptance and long-term use.
Traffic volume in the area of the southern terminus of the project is growing at a rate average annual rate of
3.07 percent. In the present condition of the roadway, level of service will degrade to F, or forced-flow conditions, by the year 2006.
Even with the improvements proposed by FDOT, the level of service in the northbound direction would improve to level of service B, but the level of service in the southbound direction would remain at level of service D or E due to the single southbound land configuration.
Hurricanes pose a serious threat to the safety and welfare of residents and visitors of the Keys. Monroe County is the most vulnerable hurricane-prone area in the United States because it is surrounded by tropical waters, land elevation is low throughout the islands, and the evacuation routes are limited to U.S. 1, an extended route that starts in Key West and runs to the mainland, and Card Sound Road.
The greatest potential for loss of life during a hurricane in the Keys is from storm surge. Storm surge is a dome of water near the center of a hurricane which is created by the winds on the water's surface. In a category 3, 4 or 5 storm, the entire land mass in the path of the storm will be
inundated. Because of the wind and storm surge associated with hurricanes, the best response to a hurricane warning in the Keys is to evacuate people to the mainland away from the water and the storm surge threat. Accordingly, Monroe County orders a mandatory evacuation in a category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane, and no shelters are opened.
There is little or no disagreement as to the vulnerability of the Keys to hurricanes or as to the danger posed by a hurricane. There is disagreement as to whether the proposed project is needed for improved hurricane evacuation. The conflicting evidence in this regard is resolved by the following findings, which are based on the more credible, substantial evidence.
The existing road does not have sufficient hurricane evacuation capacity to meet the present and projected future needs of Monroe County residents and visitors. In current hurricane evacuations, the two northbound lanes on U.S. 1 between mile marker 90 and 106 are split at Key Largo. Sixty percent of the traffic is directed up the northbound lane of U.S. 1; forty percent of the traffic is diverted onto the northbound lane of Card Sound Road. One southbound lane of U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road must remain open for emergency vehicles to reach an accident or a disabled vehicle, or to bring emergency supplies into the Keys.
Improving the roadway is critical to the success of Monroe County's hurricane evacuation plan. FDOT relied on hurricane evacuation and needs modeling performed by Monroe County and the ACOE to confirm the need for improvements. All of the models used indicated that the project corridor is the controlling roadway segment for improving hurricane evacuation of the Keys. Additionally, FDOT relied on the Lewis Report of January 15, 1993, a study commissioned by the Governor of Florida. Recommendation No. 17 of the Lewis report recommends that FDOT expedite the design and construction of the project, which is viewed as being critical for increasing the rate of emergency evacuation. Dr. Robert Sheets, former director of the National Hurricane Center, testified that the failure to make improvements to the roadway would be "unconscionable." Dr. Sheets and Billy Wagner, the Director of Emergency Management for Monroe County, presented very compelling and very persuasive testimony that this project is essential for hurricane evacuation purposes.
The proposed project is the minimum transportation
improvement that will achieve a significant improvement in evacuation safety and clearance time. With the present two- lane configuration and narrow shoulders, evacuating traffic would be halted completely by a vehicle breakdown or an accident blocking one lane. Replacement of the Jewfish Creek
Bridge will also facilitate the hurricane evacuation need for the project.
In addition to improving the rate of evacuation, the project will make an evacuation safer. Emergency personnel cannot reach accidents on the roadway during an evacuation because, in certain segments, no roadbed exists adjacent to the northbound lane. A second northbound lane and wider road shoulders would enable disabled vehicles to be serviced and removed from the highway. The proposed changes to the road would improve emergency vehicles' access to an accident scene.
The elevation of the roadway at Lake Surprise is so low that it can be flooded easily by a storm. The proposed project would replace the existing muck bed of the roadway with more stable material. The existing roadway is subject to settling and washout during storm events, which reduce the safety of the roadway itself and reduce the evacuation capacity of the roadway. If washout occurs, moving equipment to the islands for recovery efforts following a hurricane will be difficult or impossible. The proposed project will prevent erosion and reduce the effects of storm surge and wave action on the road during a hurricane.
When the project has been completed, three lanes of evacuating traffic, two lanes from U. S. 1 and a third from
Card Sound Road, will converge at Florida City. Representatives of FDOT, the Monroe County Sheriff's Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Monroe County Emergency Management have planned to manage the northbound traffic when it reaches Florida City during an evacuation. Several feasible alternatives exist, but additional planning is needed to prevent a monumental bottleneck at the northern terminus of the project. While it is clear that this project will not resolve all problems that exist as to hurricane evacuation, it is also clear that this project is essential to improve hurricane evacuation.
Section 403.918(2)(a)2, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats.”
The District considered the effect of the direct loss of dredging and filling 149.07 acres of wetland. As set forth in previous sections, it is found that this loss will be offset by the mitigation.
For use during construction of the project, FDOT will adhere to technical special provisions and special permit conditions 9 through 13 to protect manatees, crocodiles, alligators, indigo snakes, marine turtles, and valuable trees,
palms and other wildlife, to minimize or preclude any impacts to those species. Additionally, any osprey nests around the Jewfish Creek Bridge area at the time of construction will be relocated by FDOT if necessary.
As part of the development of the FEIS, as required by the Federal Highway Administration under the National Environmental Protection Act, FDOT obtained official letters of concurrence from the USFWS and NMFS that the project would cause no adverse impacts to endangered species under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
That process also established the project's consistency with Florida Coastal Zone Management Program, as determined by the State Clearinghouse within the Office of the Governor, in coordination with DEP, the Department of National Resources and FGFWFC.
The project also contains provisions to impact positively or enhance the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species and their habitat, as described below. These were positive factors that further helped neutralize and offset the 149.07 acres of direct impacts. In addition, FDOT is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the fencing along the entire project corridor, discussed below, and report to the District on that effectiveness. If the District determines that the fencing
could be more effective, it may require FDOT to implement those suggestions.
South of the C-111 canal, construction of box culverts and bridges addresses impacts to the American crocodile, a listed endangered species. Problems were identified with placement of existing culverts, which did not provide enough clear space and which caused the crocodile to cross over the roadway rather than through the culvert. To address this problem, 15 larger box culverts and three bridges will be placed within the roadway. These provide the necessary clear space to allow the crocodile to safely pass under rather than over the road. The location of the box culverts was chosen by reviewing crocodile mortalities associated with road crossings. Placement of these box culverts and bridges will also improve the hydrological flow of water within the project area, provide a crossing area for manatees, and allow greater dispersal of the crocodile population throughout Florida Bay.
Species expected to use these box culverts include
aquatic and aquatic water dependent species in the area. They were primarily targeted for crocodiles, alligators, and manatees, but certain fishes, turtles, frogs and other species in the wetlands along the project corridor will utilize the culverts.
The box culverts will have 100 feet of wingback fencing extending north and south of each culvert. The intent of the wingback fencing is to funnel wildlife into the box culverts. Intermittent or wingback fencing is appropriate south of the C-111 canal for two primary reasons. First, the animals which will be guided into the box culverts are aquatic dependent. The area south of the C-111 canal is primarily water, washed mangrove areas and tidal creeks. Crocodiles tend to move in tidal creeks. Second, it was not possible to ensure continuous fencing along all portions of the project south of the C-111 canal because there are existing businesses. It could not be assured that these businesses would keep a gate closed.
The project originally proposed continuous fencing alongside the road where it abuts ENP. Continuous fencing was initially proposed because the initial application included a solid concrete barrier down the median of the road. If a crocodile did enter the road from the side with discontinuous fencing, after crossing one lane the crocodile would hit the barrier, but then easily find its way back to the area it came from. However, the project was later modified to include a tri-beam barrier because it lessens the footprint of the project and thereby lessens the wetland impact. Since the current application does not include a continuous barrier down
the middle of the road, if a crocodile enters the road it would cross the tri-beam barrier, go across another lane of roadway before hitting a continuous fence. The animal would then run up and down that fence with nowhere to go except back across the road again. This would increase their exposure to a road kill.
With the installation of bridges and culverts along the southern portions of the project corridor, there is no need for continuous fencing because aquatic wildlife, such as the American crocodile, will tend to follow the flow of water through the culverts rather than climb over the roadway.
The FGFWFC and ENP oppose continuous fencing and prefer intermittent fencing south of C-111 canal since the project now includes a tri-beam barrier.
Positive benefits also include construction of panther crossings at four locations north of the C-111 canal to account for impacts to the Florida panther, a listed endangered species, in the vicinity of the project, along with continuous fencing on both sides of the road north of the C-
111 canal. The crossings will be placed at locations that show historical use by wildlife, including areas at the Dade County Correctional Institute access roadway, the water control structure on the C-109 canal, and the berm of the C-
111 canal. The wildlife crossings are indicated by blue dots on FDOT's Exhibit 1.
FDOT underwent years of extensive coordination with the environmental regulatory and resource agencies to design a project that would accommodate their ecosystem management plans. The location of the wildlife crossings was based upon radio telemetry data, collected from radio-collared panthers, and their typical corridor movement. The location was further chosen based on input from the USFWS and the FGFWFC.
The continuous fencing north of the C-111 canal will prevent wildlife from crossing the road, and instead force them to use the wildlife crossings. The crossings were designed for panther use, the panthers being the shyest animal in the area. If panthers can be accommodated, then other threatened and endangered species and other wildlife are expected to use them. DOT studies of the effectiveness of wildlife crossings, with fencing, including crossings installed on Alligator Alley, establish that wildlife will use the crossings, both singly and in groups, and that the crossings substantially reduce, if not eliminate, automobile- related mortality of wildlife. Documented wildlife include panthers, wild turkeys, wading birds, alligators, deer, bobcats, black bears and raccoons.
Section 403.918(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.”
The replacement of the bascule bridge at Jewfish Creek with a 65-foot high fixed-height bridge will be a benefit to navigation. Because Jewfish Creek is part of the intracoastal waterway, the existing bridge has to be frequently raised or lowered to accommodate marine traffic. Because of the age of the existing structure, frequent breakdowns have been experienced. Marine traffic is stopped or delayed if the bridge cannot be raised or if there is a delay in raising the bridge. Vehicular traffic is stopped while the bridge is raised.
Regarding the flow of water, the project incorporates wildlife box culverts and bridges, which will improve tidal flushing and the flow of water south of the C-
111 canal. The District considered this to be a positive consideration under the public interest test. The 25 hydrologic culverts north of the C-111 canal were also a positive factor in the test because the culverts provide future water management capability.
Erosion and shoaling are neutral factors in the public interest test because the permit conditions contain a
plan to control erosion and shoaling during construction and to provide for road stabilization after construction. In addition, there is a positive factor regarding shoaling in that the roadway area now has a lot of storm action, causing problems with erosion on the side of the road. The project provides for road stabilization, which is a neutral to positive factor in the public interest test.
Section 403.918(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity of the project.”
A positive factor pertaining to marine productivity is the box culverts and bridges south of C-111, which will allow marine species to travel beneath the road to access the water on both sides of the road. Removal of the causeway along Lake Surprise opens that water body back up to one contiguous system, which is also a positive factor.
The seagrass mitigation addressed in previous sections will also improve marine productivity and provide habitat for fish.
Section 403.918(2)(a)5, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature.”
The project is permanent, though some construction impacts are temporary in nature. Once temporary impacts have ended and the project is complete, the project will be a positive benefit, because of the construction of the SWM system, culverts, animal underpasses and other benefits as set forth above.
Section 403.918(2)(a)6, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061.” This factor is not at issue.
Section 403.918(2)(a)7, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[t]he current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.”
A percentage of wetlands immediately adjacent to the road are impacted by exotic vegetation. Areas further out are part of a significant wetland ecosystem and are considered high quality. This project contains an exotic control program
within FDOT's right of way, which is a positive consideration in the public interest test.
Wetlands are currently receiving untreated storm water, which runs off the road immediately into the adjacent wetlands and water bodies without treatment. The project will include a SWM system where none currently exists as is detailed in the previous sections. This is a positive factor in the public interest test.
The direct impacts of the project on 149 acres of wetlands alongside the roadway is not as large or significant as the impact caused by placement of the original embankment and resulting cut off of the eastern and western portions of the Everglades north of the C-111 canal. Overall, the concurrent and upfront mitigation efforts of FDOT are of regional significance and benefit to Everglades ecosystem by helping to repair the damage caused by the original embankment.
The District appropriately weighed all considerations in determining that the project is clearly in the public interest. The greater weight of the competent, credible evidence established that the project is clearly in the public interest.
The land encompassed by the ROW permit has been properly adopted as a "work" of the District, requiring District authorization via a ROW Permit Modification to FDOT.
The District's real property interest in the C-111 ROW applicable to the ROW permit modification consists of both fee simple and easement interests.
The evidence is clear that DOT's application for the permit modification was thoroughly reviewed by the District, consistent with the District's established ROW permit review process.
The District presented uncontroverted evidence and expert testimony to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that issuance of the permit modification to FDOT is consistent with all applicable District statutes, rules and other criteria, including the District's conditions for issuance of ROW Permits set forth in Rule 40E-6.301, F.A.C. FBII offered no evidence or testimony to the contrary. FUTURE MODIFICATIONS
Modifying the project at a later date to pave a second southbound lane would require a District ERP permit. The addition of impervious surface triggers the District's SWM jurisdiction in this regard.
However, FDOT established that that it had no current plans for further widening. The permit conditions
require secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the increased capacity be addressed in accordance with the rules and criteria in effect at the time of any application for future widening. In addition, the permits require that FDOT must comply with any more stringent water quality criteria in effect at the time of any future widening.
At the Final Hearing, the District issued an Addendum to Staff Report for each of the SWM and WRM permits. The amendments made non-substantive changes to the District's staff reports regarding fencing along the roadway, performance of a study of fencing on the roadway by FDOT, water quality sampling along the roadway, assignment of mitigation credits, and other technical changes in wording for purposes of clarification. The changes set forth in the District's Exhibits 5 and 6 do not create impacts to the environment beyond those addressed elsewhere herein.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S. (Supp. 1996).
The Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, F.S., was substantially revised by Chapter 96-159, Laws of
Florida, effective October 1, 1996. Those revisions have had no effect on the findings made and the conclusions reached.
The parties have entered into a stipulation regarding law applicable to this proceeding. That stipulation is accepted and incorporated by reference into this Recommended Order.
In a proceeding that challenges the issuance of a permit, the applicant has the burden of proof to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, entitlement to the requested permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
The ultimate question of whether reasonable assurance has been provided applies to both the SWM permit and the WRM permit and is a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. See generally, 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990), (reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest is ultimately a question of law for DER to determine). Rule 40E-4.301, F.A.C., requires that in order to obtain a permit "an applicant [for a SWM permit] must give reasonable assurance" that the specific permitting criteria will be met. As discussed in the Findings of Fact section of
this Recommended Order, FDOT has provided those reasonable assurances.
The Petitioners did not challenge the right of the District to impose additional conditions at the formal hearing in the form of District Exhibits 5 and 6. Since this is a de novo proceeding meant to formulate final agency action, such amendments are permitted. See, Manatee County v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 429 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), petition for rev. denied, 438 So.2d 883 (Fla. 1983). The proposed amendments to the permit conditions here are not substantial changes. The District has the discretion to alter its position during this de novo proceeding, even after the beginning of the formal hearing. The conditions reflected by District Exhibits 5 and 6 should be incorporated as conditions of the permits.
Respondents established by a preponderance of the evidence that FDOT has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will comply with the BOR.
FDOT has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project's SWM system will comply with the criteria for issuance found in Rule 40E-4.301(1), F.A.C. FDOT has provided reasonable assurance that the SWM system will result in a net improvement in water quality.
Rule 62-302.300, F.A.C. establishes the antidegradation policy for the state. Rule 62-4.242, F.A.C., establishes antidegradation permitting requirements. FDOT has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed WRM activities and SWM system will meet state water quality standards set forth in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., including the antidegradation requirements.
Issuance of a WRM permit is based upon an applicant's providing reasonable assurance that the project will comply with the permit criteria contained in Section 403.918, F.S. (1991), and rules promulgated thereunder. The applicant must first demonstrate that DEP water quality standards will not be violated. Section 403.918(1), F.S. (1991). FDOT has met that burden in this proceeding.
Since the project takes place in an OFW, the permitting agency must then determine that the project is clearly in the public interest, based upon a consideration and balancing of the seven factors set forth in §403.918(2)(a), F.S. (1991).
In applying the public interest test, the District must take into account not only the direct impacts of this project, but also secondary and cumulative impacts. See Conservancy, Inc., v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, 580 So.2d 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). If the applicant is unable to otherwise
meet the public interest criteria, the permitting agency "shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse impacts which may be caused by the project." Section 403.918(2)(b), F.S. (1991). The permitting agency then re-weighs the public interest criteria to determine whether the project, with mitigation, is clearly in the public interest.
In Calossa Property Owners Association, Inc. v.
Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the court recognized that the "cumulative impact" analysis is required only where there is a "reasonable likelihood' of a similar project application in the same geographical location in the future." Id. at 526.
The secondary impact analysis was judicially created in the case of del Campo v. State Department of Environmental Regulation, 452 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). There the court instructed DER, in reviewing a dredge and fill permit for a bridge, to consider not only the wetland impacts of the bridge construction but also the potential impacts on the island to be bridged.
The most recent and clearest statement of the secondary impact test can be found in Conservancy, supra, 580 So.2d at 778. The court there stated:
[F]or purposes of applying and balancing the statutory public interest criteria in
§403.918 [the DER's policy is] to look at the actual jurisdictional area to be dredged and filled, and any other relevant activities that are very closely linked or causally related to the proposed dredging and filling. [Emphasis added.]
In addition, the impacts must be those within the regulatory jurisdiction of the permitting agency. The most recent and comprehensive analysis of the public interest test that is to be applied in this proceeding can be found in Van Wagoner v. Department of Transportation, 18 FALR 2277 (DEP 1996). At issue was whether DEP "should broadly consider public interest factors such as public happiness, aesthetics, and other 'wide-ranging' considerations, such as preserving the 'pace of island life' and 'the sense of scale between that which is manmade and that which is natural.'" Id. at 2285. The DEP rejected that approach, holding that the list of seven factors in Section 403.918(2)(a), F.S. (1991), was exclusive and exhaustive.
The permitting agency cannot consider non- environmental factors to reject a project under the "public health, safety, or welfare or property of others" prong of the public interest test. See, Miller v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 504 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Taylor v. Cedar Key Sewage District, 590 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Grove Island, Ltd. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 454 So.2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Council of the
Lower Keys v. Charlie Toppino and Sons, Inc., 429 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1983). The public interest test is limited in scope to only the seven factors set forth in Section 403.918(2)(a), F.S.
District jurisdiction over secondary impacts under the SWM and WRM programs are carried out simultaneously.
The issuance of WRM and SWM permits includes an analysis of impacts that activities at the project site have upon listed wildlife species that are dependent upon the wetlands being impacted, which has been done in this proceeding. Since the project's stormwater system and WRM activities involve essentially the same footprint -- a roadway entirely surrounded by wetlands or open waters -- the secondary analysis for both the SWM and WRM permits should also be considered essentially the same.
The secondary impacts test does not require FDOT to prove that no secondary impacts will occur. Rather, it requires the District to weigh evidence as to cumulative and secondary impacts with other public interest factors in determining whether a project satisfies the public interest criteria contained in Section 403.918, F.S. (1991).
The evidence provides reasonable assurance that Petitioners' alleged additional adverse secondary impacts on water quality, habitat, and significant wildlife species not
recognized by the District are not very closely linked or causally related to the proposed project. There was no showing that any of the alleged adverse impacts would not occur but for the proposed project. Many of the alleged adverse impacts are remote or speculative.
A central question in this proceeding is whether it is reasonable for FDOT and the District to rely on the land development regulations of Monroe County and the oversight of development in Monroe County at the state and federal levels in evaluating the adverse impacts that may be caused by future development. It is concluded that such reliance is reasonable and that, as reflected by the findings of fact, those factors break the causal connection between the adverse impacts of future development and the project.
As reflected in the findings of fact, FDOT has provided reasonable assurance that it has complied with the avoidance and minimization requirements of Rule 62-312.302(3), F.A.C.
FDOT has demonstrated reasonable assurance that the project as proposed addresses all cumulative and secondary impacts of the project and the District established that it has properly evaluated all direct, secondary and cumulative impacts of the project.
Whether there is sufficient mitigation is a conclusion of law that the agency head has final authority to determine. The general criteria for evaluating mitigation proposals is contained in Rule 62-312.330, F.A.C:
The goal of the mitigation proposal shall be to offset the expected adverse impact of the project that have resulted in the project being deemed unpermittable such that the resulting project with mitigation is not contrary to the public interest or, in the case of Outstanding Florida Waters, is clearly in the public interest.
Mitigation rules do not provide explicit criteria as to exact size and nature of mitigation, but instead provide general guidance. As Rule 62-312.340, F.A.C., observes, "The Department recognizes that each mitigation proposal must be evaluated on a case by case basis." Rule 62-312.340 then proceeds to provide this guidance as to a number of criteria. In subsection (1) the rule states that offsetting adverse impacts should "usually be addressed through protection, enhancement or creation of the same type of waters," but adds that other types of waters may be considered where "the waters being affected have been significantly altered by human activity or other factors." Subsection (2) addresses mitigation ratios for created waters by providing a "guideline
. . . for preliminary planning purposes only," and lists a variety of criteria for determining whether more or less mitigation is appropriate, including length of time within
which mitigation will be effective, type of waters, likelihood of mitigation success, current condition versus proposed character and quality of wetlands to be created, presence of nuisance or exotic species, and changing waters from one type to another. Subsection (3) recognizes the appropriateness of enhancement as mitigation, with higher ratios required based upon various specified criteria. Subsection (4) requires that the mitigation areas be protected. Subsection (5) requires that mitigation plans include a requirement that exotic and nuisance species be removed from the mitigation area.
Subsection (6) provides that "mitigation activities off-site are not generally acceptable," but also recognizes, "There are some instances where on-site mitigation may not be possible or may be restricted, such as, but not limited to, road projects and utility corridors." Further guidance is provided in this subsection for the adequacy of off-site mitigation.
FDOT has provided reasonable assurance that the upfront and concurrent mitigation for the proposed project offsets the expected adverse impacts of the project that would otherwise render the project unpermittable. This mitigation addresses all primary, secondary and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. The ratios proposed are consistent both with those contained in Rule 62-313.340, F.A.C., and with DEP and District policies interpreting Section 403.918(2), F.S.
(1991), and the implementing rules. The nature and extent of the mitigation has been appropriately evaluated by the District.
In weighing the public interest factors, the District is entitled to evaluate all relevant factors pertaining to mitigation. Petitioners did not establish that the District gave unwarranted credit for the upfront portion of the project.
As reflected by the Findings of Fact, FDOT has provided reasonable assurance that the project, as mitigated, is clearly in the public interest.
The evidence established that the application for the ROW permit complies with all District permitting criteria. Given that the evidence shows that the project (including widening the bridge at the C-111 canal) is clearly in the public interest, that the permit would modify an existing ROW permit, that the size of the easement being requested is quite small compared with the size of the project as a whole, that the modified permit would provide for improved recreational opportunities, and that application of the rule criteria involves a balancing of public policy objectives, it would make no sense for the District Governing Board to grant SWM and WRM permits to construct the project but then deny FDOT the requested modifications to its a ROW occupancy permit, the
effect of which would be to enable construction of the entire project except for that portion of it crossing the C-111 canal.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order that issues the three permits challenged in this proceeding (SWM Permit No. 940606-10, WRM Permit No. 9460606-2-D, and ROW Permit No. 2584) subject to the conditions contained in the staff reports on the SWM permit application and the WRM permit application and subject to the additional permit conditions reflected by District Exhibits 5 and 6 and by the Findings of Fact pertaining to the permit for the relocation of the FKAA pipe.
DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
___________________________________
CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON
Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative
Hearings
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
this 11th day of April, 1997.
1 The projected evacuation clearance times were based on studies and calculations Don Lewis of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan. Mr. Lewis is an expert in evacuation planning, calculations are credible and well-supported. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, the undersigned accepts that the clearance time is 21.25 hours. It should be noted, however, that Robert Morris, an expert traffic planner called by Petitioner FKCC testified that Monroe County can be evacuated much more quickly than that. If Mr. Morris’ testimony is accepted, the project would have little or no effect on the number of building permits that can be issued by Monroe County under its rate of growth ordinance.
2 DOAH Case 91-1932GM.
3 The final order of DEP in Vanwagoner v. FDOT, 18 FALR 2277 (DEP 1996), discussed more fully in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, fairly represents DEP's present interpretation of the public interest test.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Richard Grosso, Esquire Shepard Broad Law Center Civil Law Clinic
3305 College Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314
Terrell K. Arline, Legal Director 1000 Friends of Florida
Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5948
Dionè Carroll, Esquire Dexter Lehtinen, Esquire Lehtinen and O’Donnell
7700 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 303
Miami, Florida 33516
Gregg Goldfarb, Esquire
19 West Flagler Street, Suite 707 Miami, Florida 33130
Susan Roeder Martin, Esquire John J. Fumero, Esquire Scott Glazier, Esquire Office of Counsel
South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Holiday Hunt Russell, Esquire Berger and Davis, P.A.
215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 705 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Robert Apgar, Esquire Jay Paul, Esquire Apgar and Pelham
909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Samuel E. Poole, III, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road
Post Office Box 24680
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation
562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
1 The projected evacuation clearance times were based on studies and calculations Don Lewis of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan. Mr. Lewis is an expert in evacuation planning, calculations are credible and well-supported. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, the undersigned accepts that the clearance time is 21.25 hours. It should be noted, however, that Robert Morris, an expert traffic planner called by Petitioner FKCC testified that Monroe County can be evacuated much more quickly than that. If Mr. Morris’ testimony is accepted, the project would have little or no effect on the number of building permits that can be issued by Monroe County under its rate of growth ordinance.
2 DOAH Case xxx
3 The final order of DEP in Vanwagoner v. FDOT, 18 FALR 2277 (DEP 1996), discussed more fully in the Conclusions of Law section of this Recommended Order, fairly represents DEP's present interpretation of the public interest test.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 29, 1997 | (DOT) Response to Motion to Remand filed. |
| Jun. 23, 1997 | (SFWMD) Notice of Entry of Final Order No. SFWMD 97-68 FOF-SWM/WR/ROW filed. |
| Apr. 15, 1997 | Request for copy of the R.O., check enclosed from Dagy Johnson filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1997 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 09/04-27/96 & 10/22-30/96 & 11/06-07/96. |
| Feb. 11, 1997 | Florida Keys Citizens Coalition Notice of Filing (for case no. 95-5527) filed. |
| Feb. 10, 1997 | Florida Keys Citizens Coalition Notice of Filing; 2 (University of South Florida, Department of Psychology, Lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study, Carnot Nelson); 3 Transportation Model Support Document Lower Southeast Florida Hurricane Eva |
| Feb. 10, 1997 | (From D. Carroll) Findings of Fact; Disk Petitioners` Findings of Fact w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 27, 1997 | Letter to CA from T. Arline Re: Enclosing a clean version of Petitioners` findings of fact w/enclosure; Disk filed. |
| Jan. 27, 1997 | South Florida Water Management District`s Proposed Recommended Order w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 24, 1997 | Joint Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Petitioners, Florida Bay Initiative, Inc., Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association, Michael Collins, Charles W. Causey, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., and the Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc |
| Jan. 24, 1997 | Notice of Filing; Proposed Recommended Order of Florida Department of Transportation and Monroe County; Proposed Recommended Order of Florida Department of Transportation and Monroe County; Notice of Filing Respondents` Joint Proposed Findings of Fact; |
| Jan. 14, 1997 | Order Granting Extension of Time sent out. (PRO`s due by 1/24/97) |
| Jan. 09, 1997 | Petitioners, Florida Bay Initiative, Inc., Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association, Michael Collins, Charles W. Causey, 1000 Friends of Florida, and the Florida Keys Citizens Coalition, Inc. Agreed to Motion for Extension of Time for All Parties to File |
| Jan. 03, 1997 | (2 Volumes) Transcript w/cover letter (No Disk enclosed) filed. |
| Dec. 30, 1996 | Volume 1 Dated 11/7/96; Volume 1 Dated 10/29/96; Volume II Transcript(Tagged) (No Disk Enclosed) filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1996 | (Volume I 10/22/96 & 10/23/96, Volume II 10/22/96) Transcript ; (cc:) Transcript of excerpted proceedings 9/27/96 ; Transcript (cc: 9/25/95) filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1996 | (Volume I through V) Transcript filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1996 | (Volume I for 11/6/96 & 10/24/96) (Volume II for 10/23/96 & 11/6/96) Transcript filed. |
| Dec. 05, 1996 | FDOT Trial Exhibits; Calendar filed. |
| Nov. 25, 1996 | Volume I through XVI Transcript ; Transcript of Proceedings September 24, 1996 ; Transcript of Proceedings September 26, 1996 ; (3 Volumes) Excerpt of Proceedings ; Cover letter from S. Martin filed. |
| Nov. 12, 1996 | 1000 Friends of Florida Exhibit 46 ; Cover Letter filed. |
| Nov. 12, 1996 | (DOT) Exhibits (8 boxes, tagged) filed. |
| Nov. 08, 1996 | (4) Letters to M. Lyons, M. LaRue, V. Prieto & J. Winter & CC: Parties of Record from CA (re: acknowledgement of participation in DOAH #95-5527) sent out. |
| Nov. 06, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 29, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 11/6/96; 10:00am; Miami. |
| Oct. 25, 1996 | Letter to CA from Robert Apgar (RE: reservation of hearing room) filed. |
| Oct. 22, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 10/29/96; 10:00am; Ft. Lauderdale. |
| Oct. 21, 1996 | Florida Bay Initiative`s Response In Opposition to Monroe County`s Motion to Suppress Deposition of Commissioner Keith Douglas and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 21, 1996 | Subpoena Duces Tecum (from D. Carroll); Return of Service filed. |
| Oct. 18, 1996 | Florida Bay Initiative`s Response In Opposition to Monroe County`s Motion to Quash Subpoena of Commissioner Keith Douglas and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 16, 1996 | (Bay Initiative) Notice of Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 15, 1996 | Monroe County`s and Incorporated Memorandum to Suppress Deposition of Commissioner Keith Douglass and Response to Petitioner Florida Bay Initiative, Et Al.`s Motion for Admission of Deposition Transcript filed. |
| Oct. 11, 1996 | Subpoena Duces Tecum (from D. Carroll); Affidavit of Service filed. |
| Oct. 07, 1996 | Ltr. to C. Harrington from S. Martin re: hearing room conformation filed. |
| Oct. 07, 1996 | (From D. Carroll) Motion for Admission of Deposition Transcript as Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof; Deposition of Keith Douglass filed. |
| Oct. 07, 1996 | Monroe County`s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Quash Subpoena of Commissioner Keith Douglas filed. |
| Oct. 04, 1996 | Letter to CA from Dione Carroll (RE: copies of deposition of Keith Douglass) (filed via facsimile). |
| Oct. 04, 1996 | Notice of Hearing and Order Setting Procedure sent out. (hearing set for Oct. 22-25, 29-31 & Nov. 1, 1996; 10:00am; Ft. Lauderdale) |
| Oct. 04, 1996 | Affidavit of Service; (Dione Carroll) Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| Sep. 24, 1996 | CASE STATUS DOCKETED: Hearing Partially Held, continued to date not certain. |
| Sep. 20, 1996 | Letter to CA from Richard Smith (RE: recommendations for solving problems on U.S. #1) (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 16, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 9/24/96; 8:30am; Marathon. |
| Sep. 09, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 9/16/96; 10:00am; Ft. Lauderdale. |
| Sep. 05, 1996 | Florida Department of Transportation`s Second Amendment to Witness and Exhibit List; Florida Department of Transportation`s Amendment to Witness and Exhibit List filed. |
| Sep. 04, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 9/9/96; 10:00am; Ft. Lauderdale. |
| Sep. 03, 1996 | Petitioner`s Joint Consolidated Response to Florida Department of Transportation`s Motion In Limine and Memorandum of Law and South Florida Water Management District`s Notice of Intent to Rely (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 03, 1996 | Petitioner`s Amendment to Witness and Exhibit List (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 03, 1996 | Parties Joint Prehearing Stipulation; Cover Letter (filed via facsimile). |
| Sep. 03, 1996 | South Florida Water Management District`s Motion in Limine; Notice of Amended Proposed Agency Action; Notice of Intent to Rely filed. |
| Aug. 30, 1996 | Florida Department of Transportation`s Second Amendment to Witness and Exhibit List; (Respondent) Motion In Limine; (Petitioner) Memorandum of Law In Support of Motion In Limine (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 30, 1996 | (Petitioners) Pretrial Stipulation Requirements of Florida Bay Initiative, Et Al (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 30, 1996 | Parties` Joint Prehearing Stipulation (unsigned); South Florida Water Management District Final Witness and Exhibit List; Copies of Statutes, Rules and Regulations; Cover letter from S. Martin filed. |
| Aug. 30, 1996 | Letter to CA from Terrell K. Arline (RE: response to Ms. Martin's letter of August 29, 1996, regarding joint prehearing stipulation); CC: Letter to Susan Martin from Terrell Arline filed. |
| Aug. 29, 1996 | Letter to D. Horan & CC: Parties of Record from CA (Re: Hearing Reset for 9/4/96) sent out. |
| Aug. 29, 1996 | Florida Department of Transportation`s Amendment to Witness and Exhibit List (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 28, 1996 | (Florida Bay Initiative) Witness List (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 28, 1996 | (DOT) Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Aug. 28, 1996 | Memo to CA from Bob Apgar (RE: hearing dates, time and location) (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 28, 1996 | Florida Department of Transportation`s Witness and Exhibit List (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 27, 1996 | Monroe County`s Final List of Witnesses/Exhibits filed. |
| Aug. 27, 1996 | Letter to CA from Bob Apgar (RE: enclosing hearing schedule) (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 27, 1996 | Letter to CA from Debbie Horan (RE: request to change hearing date to September 4, 1996) (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 23, 1996 | (DOT) Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition Duces Tecum (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 23, 1996 | Memo to CA from Dan Thompson (RE: prehearing conference call) (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 22, 1996 | Letter to CA from Susan Roeder Martin (RE: availability for prehearing conference) (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 22, 1996 | Letter to Hearing Officer from S. Martin Re: Date available for prehearing conference filed. |
| Aug. 16, 1996 | (Respondent) Response to Motion to Relocate (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 16, 1996 | South Florida Water Management District`s Motion In Opposition to Motion to Relocate (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 16, 1996 | (Florida Keys) Notice of Hearing (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 13, 1996 | (DOT) Motion for Prehearing Conference filed. |
| Aug. 12, 1996 | Order Closing File DOAH Case No 95-5524 only sent out. |
| Aug. 12, 1996 | Response and Objections of Florida Department of Transportation to 1000 Friends of Florida`s Second Request for Admissions; Monroe County`s Response to 1000 Friends of Florida`s Second Request for Admissions filed. |
| Aug. 12, 1996 | Order sent out. (Motion to Compel granted.) |
| Dec. 04, 1995 | Order Granting Consolidation sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-5524, 95-5525, 95-5526, 95-5527) |
| Dec. 04, 1995 | (Susan Roeder Martin) Parties` Amended Joint Response to Initial Order w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 01, 1995 | (Susan Roeder Martin) Notice of Related Cases and Motion to Consolidate (with DOAH Case No/s. 95-5524, 95-5525, 95-5526, 96-5527); Parties` Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Nov. 28, 1995 | South Florida Water Management District`s Motion to Strike filed. |
| Nov. 21, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Nov. 17, 1995 | Request for Assignment of Hearing Officer and Notice of Preservation of Record, (Exhibits); Agency Intent to Issue; Florida Keys Citizens Coalition Petition for Formal Hearing; Statement Of Compliance With Rule 40E-1.521 Florida Administrative Code; Cover |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 20, 1997 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 11, 1997 | Recommended Order | FDOT's application to SFWMD for SWM, WRM, and row permits to widen US 1 between south Dade and northern Monroe Counties should be granted. |
