Findings Of Fact Hammock Dunes is a parcel of land located on the east coast of Florida approximately half way between Daytona Beach and St. Augustine. With the exceptions of a few small parcels separated from the main area, the area in question in this case is that bounded by Malacompra Road to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and State Road A1A to the south and west. The property is cut at several places from the west boundary, State Road A1A to the east by 16th Road, Jungle Hut Road, and the approach road to the Sheraton Hotel. All of the property at issue in this hearing is owned by either Admiral or its parent company, ITT. The natural terrain is a series of ridges and swales which contain to the west, sea oats, salt palmetto, and coastal scrub in the drier areas. The lower interior ridges contain alternating growth of the above vegetation until one gets to the immediate area of State Road A1A where, because of the fill, oak and other upland vegetation is in evidence. Ditches exist on both sides of each of the cross roads mentioned above. In addition, ditches have been dug in a generally north - south direction following the ridge and swale run of the land and there is also evidence of spoil banks in the southern portion of the property resulting from the dredging of the Florida East Coast Canal. The north/south ditches in question were dug as a part of the mosquito control program carried out over several years starting in 1953 to remove the seasonal breeding ground of salt marsh mosquitoes. In addition to these north/south control ditches, there are other ditches leading away from them which form a part of that system, and there are some permanent waters on the property, primarily at the southern end near the Sheraton Hotel and at the coquina quarry. The dominant vegetation adjacent to the ditches includes a mixture of plants including weeds, disturbance plants, and persistent vegetation. Aerial photographs taken at various times over the period of the last 40 years reflect that the vegetation includes cat tails, bunch grass, wax myrtle, cabbage palms, and salt brush. Many of these ditches are encroached by the growth surrounding them. The existence of cabbage palms serves as a tool to define the swale areas because water conditions are not suitable for these plants in the swales. The swales in question, which basically were the areas in which the drainage ditches were dug, were natural and not man made. According to Dr. Durbin C. Tabb, a consultant in environmental assessment, whose work emphasizes the location, siting, and sensitivity of aquaculture projects, vegetation in areas such as this goes through a progression of species and this progression is used in relic analysis. Dr. Tabb performed a relic analysis on the area in question and based on this, as well as an analysis and examination of extensive aerial photography done of the area, he concluded that prior to the ditching activity, the plant community in the area could be described as a "wet prairie." This is an area of virtual treeless grasses and shrubs growing in an area periodically inundated by water. The zonation of the plants caused by this periodic inundation, as determined by Dr. Tabb, is consistent with wet prairie and that condition, prior to the ditching for mosquito control purposes, was consistent with mosquito breeding. In his analysis, Dr. Tabb found that numerous plants, such as cat tails, maiden cane, pickerel weed, saw grass, spike rush, soft rush, switch grass, button bush, and coastal plain willow, all of which need a moist environment, were extant in the area. Dr. Tabb also concluded that the water in the swales was primarily fresh water. In dry periods, however, in the lower areas, some salt could be sucked up from below ground by capillary action. Another survey of the area was conducted by Jeremy Tyler, the supervisor of the dredge and fill section of the Northeast District of DER, who has performed more than 3,000 jurisdictional determinations over the past 10 years, and who performed the jurisdictional determination for the property in question here. In making his determination, Mr. Tyler looked at various maps, aerial photographs, and information supplied by Admiral Corporation and conducted at least three recent on-sight visits to the property in addition to others conducted in the past. Based on all of this information available to him, Mr. Tyler concluded that certain portions of the Hammock Dunes area were exempt from DER dredge and fill permitting requirements. His conclusions were that the canal running to the intra-coastal waterway and the waterway itself were jurisdictional. Mr. Tyler determined that at least two ditches went through the uplands portion of the area as a part of the mosquito control operation. These ditches were the one at the west side of Malacompra Road which entered into the intra-coastal waterway; another was the westernmost ditch running south into the barge canal at the southeast corner of the property. Both were exempt. The third ditch in the area, that on the most eastern side, was not cut in the mosquito control operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for exemption. On the basis of this, he concluded that DER's jurisdiction extended to the sides of the jurisdictional ditch up about half way northward on the lake in the southeast corner of the property. North of that point, the ditch was cut through a non-jurisdictional uplands area. Mr. Tyler indicated that he would normally follow each ditch up-stream, but, having been made aware of the extent of the mosquito control operation, and the relationship of that operation to the ditches, he concluded that the majority of the ditches in the area were dug during the mosquito control operation and met the criteria for exemption, and, as a result, he did not have to follow them to their source. If he had not been satisfied that the mosquito control district exemption applied, he would have gone up each and every ditch to see where jurisdiction stopped. Prior to publishing an opinion as to jurisdictional limitations, ordinarily the agency will request a legal review of the proposed determination. This was done in the instant case by agency counsel Richard Lee. However, Mr. Tyler made the ultimate determination that the exemption applied in this case. He did not examine the question of whether the ditches constituted a series of lakes connected, so as to support jurisdiction, because since he was satisfied they were dug in mosquito control operations, the exemption applied which obviated any other jurisdictional issue. Robin D. Pyne, a consulting engineer in water resources, has studied the Hammock Dunes property since 1977 when his company was hired to do a water use plan for a neighboring community. Since 1979, he has had substantial opportunity to study the water situation there. Over the years, he has specifically tried to determine if standing water existed between the swales prior to the beginning of the digging of the mosquito control ditches in 1953. In doing his analysis, he relied on historical data, site topography data collections, reports of other agencies, and the work done by other experts. Considering all this, Mr. Pyne found that the soil in the Hammock Dunes area was basically well drained beach sand. Any rainfall on this area would seep in quickly and not run off, as the sand is very porous. During periods of sustained rainfall, the water table rises into the low part of some of the swales. Once the rains stop, however, the water drains off quickly through the ditches, and before they were in place, through the underground drainage which went west to east to the ocean as well as through evaporation. Extrapolation of this theory and its application to known data revealed that prior to the beginning of the mosquito control ditch program in 1953, wet soils were found in the swale bottoms only periodically and the swale bottom water level was determined by the level of the water table in the area. Generally, the swale bottoms would not be wet under average or dry weather prior to the digging of the ditches. The several mathematical calculations made by Mr. Pyne for the period prior to the ditches revealed that generally the average water table was below the bottom of the swale and there is no standing water in the bottom of a majority of the swales. Mr. Pyne concluded that the digging of the ditches may have lowered the water table by approximately one foot overall, but this would not affect his thesis. It is accepted here over that of Mr. Frazee who testified for Petitioner, and whose testimony is discussed in Para 24, infra. Other analysis was conducted by Mr. James H. Humphrey, an aerial cartographer who analyzed photographs of the area in question taken in 1943, 1952 and 1983. The use of a stereo plotter in these analyses delineated swales, ditches, roadways and other features important to the project. Based on the technical tools and procedures available to and used by him in his analysis, Mr. Humphrey is convinced the swales he identified are accurate and using his plotter, the textures of grasses, the tones of grey on the picture, and other like considerations, he was able to determine this outline. Dr. Thomas H. Patton, a geologist with a specialty in geomorphlogy, a study of why land looks as it does, and the relationship of soils to geomorphology, performed studies on the property in question to determine if the swales contained soils indicative of inundated conditions. To determine this, he looked for certain characteristics of the soils in the area to determine if the soils had been inundated for a period of time. In doing so, he first used aerial photographs to get the lay of the land from an overview standpoint defining general trends and the general outline of the land, roads, and other impacts by man. He then took soil samples from the major, the intermediate, and the minor swales and tried to get samples from between the swales to see if there was any interconnection between them. He took samples from soil across the entire width of each swale studied. Soil samples contain and maintain within themselves indications of sustained emergence or saturation. Studying these indicia can show how long the soil was dry (above the water table or below it). If the soils were inundated for a long period, they would show a preservation of a surface decomposed organic layer reflected by a dark grey to black color. This is the primary indication. There are others such as a blue-grey/green coloring of the subsurface and a mottling or sign of reduced condition. This test has been adopted by the Department of Natural Resources and the United States Corps of Engineers. Certain horizons have been defined and identified by letter. These are: O - the top, made up of leaf litter A - the elevated layer - transfer level B - just at or above the water table (normal dark brown color), and BH - the water table level - no clay or organics According to Dr. Patton, it takes a long time for the BH level to accumulate. The process is quicker in a porous soil than a dry soil and the Hammock Dunes area has porous soil. One would not find a BH horizon, however, in a saturated or inundated soil. If the soil is saturated, even a large part of the year, there would be no BH horizon. At the Hammock Dunes site, the emergent soil has a diffused, darker upper surface. Below that comes a much cleaner, greyer sand and beneath that, the zone of accumulation. Dr. Patton's survey revealed to him that soils in the swales were not inundated throughout the year. They were inundated during periods of high rainfall, but because of the porosity of the soil, would drain quickly. On the entire property, he saw only four isolated areas that could be considered wetlands. In the majority of the area, the soils appeared to be emergent soils. Most met the typical horizon picture including a BH zone. Using a specific site as an example, Dr. Patton traced to the BH horizon starting at approximately 42 inches down. The soil started lighter on top and proceeded to get darker as one went down to the zone of accumulation. That indicated that the water table was at or near 42 inches sufficiently during the year to achieve accumulation. Had the water table been nearer the surface more of the year, that would not occur. In Dr. Patton's opinion, this situation, including the water table level, stayed just about at that point all the time for at least a couple of hundred years if not for 1,000 years. This is not to say that the water table will not move during periods of drought and over rain. It will, but those periods are relatively short and the general level of water table where the BH horizon is is just about normally at 42 inches throughout the Hammock Dunes property. In preparing his analysis, Dr. Patton compared the swales work described above with the soils found in what he considered a wetlands area just north of 16th Road to see what a real wetlands soil in this area looked like. He found the latter to be black and mucky and typically wetland. He also took samples from Bonne Terre farms, which is a drained historical wetland. In this wetland, the soil was quite organic at the surface which showed sustained inundation of the surface. He also took samples at a place where Varn Lake comes close to State Road A1A and at that point, it was determined that there had been submergence, saturation, or inundation long enough to constitute a wetlands. The organic material was at a depth which indicated there that originally the area was wetlands but he cannot say when. In general, then, if the interdunal swales had been inundated prior to the dredging operation of the mosquito control ditches, there would have been organic materials still in the bottom of these swales. The time necessary to leach it out would have been several hundred years. Since the BH horizon, with its level of organic material, was located at 42 inches, this indicated that, for the most part, the Hammock Dunes areas with their swales included were not historic wetlands. Dr. Patton agreed with Mr. Pyne that the digging of the mosquito control ditches did not materially lower the water table nor does he believe that except in the worse conditions, in the rainiest of rainy seasons, that the water table in one swale was ever connected to the water table in another. In contrast to the above, Petitioner introduced testimony by various experts and residents which contradicted that referenced above. James M. Frazee, an employee of the St. Johns River Water Management District became familiar with the Hammock Dunes area in connection with a salt water intrusion problem he was working on while employed with the U.S. Geological Survey in 1978 to 1980. During that period, he entered the site at least once a month. Based on his visits at the time, he found the area in question to be a combination of relic dunes with an interdunal lake system which holds water during periods of average to high water levels. His measurements of the water depth between the ridges showed it to be anywhere from 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 feet down. This was during a period when the water table was between 5 1/2 to 6 feet above mean sea level, and was a period of above normal rainfall. During the period 1965 to 1980 there was a period of less than normal rainfall during which the water table fell from the high above to approximately 6 inches above mean sea level. Mr. Frazee contends that the interdunal swales are lakes and ditches dug by the mosquito control district have drained the area. In his opinion, were it not for these ditches, the ground in the swales would be much wetter, but Mr. Frazee cannot indicate by how much. His testimony, contradicted by that of Dr. Patton and Mr. Pyne, is not considered to be consistent with the weight of the evidence. John Labie, an employee of DER specializing in water quality assurance, is familiar with the Hammock Dunes area and examined it as to ditching by a review of numerous aerial photographs and surveys. In his study, he tried to determine what the area looked like originally. In addition to the documentation he reviewed, he also walked a great portion of the area, personally examining the property in question. On the basis of his inquiry, he concluded that the area was previously a wetlands which was dried out by the mosquito control ditches. He admits that his depictions of historical wetlands, on the maps utilized for demonstrative purposes at the hearing, was not based on the same degree of accuracy and sophistication as was the basis for Respondent, Admiral's expert testimony. Another evaluation was conducted by botanist Sydney T. Brinson, an employee of DER, whose job includes the preparation of jurisdictional determinations based on botanical studies. She visited the site herself and determined there are at least three connections to waters of the state and from these connections into the interior of the Hammock Dunes property. She contends then, that if there were not mosquito control exemption, at least some of the ditches would, at least partway up, be jurisdictional. It is her opinion that before the ditches were put in, based on old documentation, the area was a series of coastal dunal lakes and the lakes, as they existed, did not have much plantlife in them. Relying on the U.S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey maps, which refer to much of the areas as "open water," she contends that the area was a system of coastal lakes rather than marshes. Marshes contain vegetation. Lakes generally do not. It is her further opinion that the interdunal waters, as interdunal lakes, total approximately 270 acres. Not all of these are connected at the surface. She feels that all of the individual systems north of the Florida East Coast Canal are more than 10 acres in area and would have to be over 2 inches in depth because of the fact that they are reflected as open water on the USGS maps. Based on her research, she concluded that prior to the digging of the mosquito control ditches, the area was a historic wetland. This opinion is not supported by the weight of the evidence, however. Another expert in soils science, Dar Guam Cheng, visited the site on May 9, 1985, and, in addition, reviewed a 1918 soils map of the area. Back then the area consisted of hydric soils which is a wetlands soils. All types of soils found in the area in 1918 are considered hydric (wetlands) soils. Mr. Cheng, however, took no samples himself on the Hammock Dunes property. His evaluation was based solely on the 1918 map, and is not considered to be of substantial value to the determination of this issue. Burrell Miller, a 76 year old resident of Hammock Dunes since 1979, but who either lived or visited in the area since 1917, indicated that his family homesteaded the area around Malacompra Road in 1920. During the period 1917 through 1943, he recalled, there was always water storage in the Hammock Dunes area. There was, however, not always high water except in the 1926 hurricane. There is, however, fresh water generally there every time it rains and the water generally stays level with the sea level. Mr. Miller recalls that from time to time in years past, boats were needed to cross the savannah to the beach. On other occasions one could wade in water up to one's waist. As he recalls, some of the soil was wet all of the time and never dried out. Mr. Miller's testimony, however, was fragmented and capable of numerous interpretations. It is not given the same weight as the scientific evidence presented by other parties. Nonetheless, another resident, Petitioner, Gerald Schatz, started coming to the area in 1953 and settled there in 1954. Over the years, he has gone into the Hammock Dunes area quite frequently and it is his recollection that along Malacompra Road, there always seemed to be some water, at times, up to the floor board of his pickup truck. He can recall when the mosquito control ditches were started in 1953. Even before he came to the area, Mr. Schatz' father-in- law lived there and always considered it wet. He recalls hearing others also describing the area as being wetlands. During the 1926 hurricane, it was flooded and again in 1957. Before the ditches were installed, there was, to his recollection, substantial standing water. Mr. James J. Miller, state archaeologist for Florida and very familiar with the history of the area, is familiar with the Hammock Dunes area from the work he did on a Development of Regional Impact for the area. Having reviewed records and historical documents relating to this specific area, going back as far as 1605, he concluded that there was no natural waterway extending across the Hammock Dunes area. His study, however, dealt with the issues of navigability of waters not its hydrographics and his study did not deal with the issue of wetlands. Nonetheless, it is clear from the above, that the area was neither open water or a water course at any time in recorded history. The overwhelming weight of the evidence clearly indicated that the Hammock Dunes property was not a historical wetlands within the framework and the intent of the statute or the rule. Admittedly, the area was inundated from time to time, especially after such periods of high rainfall as hurricanes, tropical storms, or above average rainy seasons. During those periods, the standing water which remained for a relatively short period of time was often of such magnitude as to come to the floor board of a pickup truck, or require the use of a skiff or other surface transport over the water to cross it. This clearly accounts for the memory of Mr. Miller as to him using boats to get to the beach and for the recollection of Mr. Schatz who remembered water coming to the floor boards of his truck On the whole, however the scientific evidence presented by Admiral Corporation, including such expert testimony as that of Dr. Patton, Dr. Tabb, Mr. Pyne, and other highly qualified scientists who visited the site and conducted reliable scientific evaluations of the area, all clearly lead to the inescapable conclusion that the area was for the most part and over the long run not a submerged wetland. There can be little question that the majority of the "swales" on Hammock Dunes were either the result of or enhanced by mosquito control ditching operations of the East Flagler Mosquito Control District over the period from 1953 through completion. Though these ditches ultimately connect with the intercoastal waterway or the Florida East Coast Canal, both of which are waters of the state, these connections, with the exception of the ditch west of Varn Lake which is admittedly not exempt, are obviously due to mosquito control activities of EFMCD. According to the best evidence available, the land in question was not a surface water body nor was it connected to a water of the state prior to the construction of the mosquito control ditch system. For the most part, the interdunal swales, which constantly hold water, are less than 10 acres in size and have an average depth of less than 2 feet of water in them throughout the year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that DER take final agency action adopting the preliminary determinations made by its Northeastern District of DER's permitting jurisdiction for the discharge of dredge and fill materials on Hammock Dunes as outlined in the DER Northeast District letter of August 9, 1984 to Admiral Corporation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 23rd day of December, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3604 In the preparation of this Recommended order, the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner and Respondent were thoroughly considered and evaluated. As listed below, the individual proposed findings were accepted or rejected by the undersigned as indicated: For the Petitioner: 1) accepted and incorporated in para 30 (a)-(e) accepted but not dispositive of any issue - 6) accepted except for the last sentence of para 6 which is argument rejected as contra the weight of the evidence accepted accepted but immaterial 10 - 12) accepted but not dispositive irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant accepted rejected as irrelevant (a) - (d) accepted - 23) accepted but not controlling 24 - 25) rejected as argument, finding of fact 26 (a) (1) - (4) accepted but not conclusive or definitive 26 (5) rejected as a summary of documentation and not a mapped Findings of Fact 26 (b) - (d) rejected as a summary of testimony and not a finding of fact rejected as a summary of testimony and not a finding of fact rejected 29 (a) - (d) rejected as argument summarization of testimony rather than Findings of Fact rejected as a summary of testimony rather than Finding of Fact accepted 32 - 36) accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence rejected as summary of testimony and not Finding of Fact rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence and argument rather than Finding of Fact rejected as summary of testimony and not Finding of Fact 1st and 2nd paras accepted, but 3rd paragraph rejected as not the better evidence rejected as argument and not Finding of Fact 43 - 44) accepted accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence accepted as to the severance of Varn Lake from the major canal but rejected as to contra to the weight of the evidence as to the historical connection rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence accepted accepted that Mr. Labie made such a "finding" but the finding is rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence 51 - 52) rejected as recitations of testimony and not Findings of Fact 53) rejected as far as categorization of the periodic wet areas as "lake systems" 54) accepted as a statement of Mr. Schatz's recollection accepted as a statement of the contents of a writing not dispositive of the issue 57 - 59) accepted 60) rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence For the Respondent: accepted accepted accepted except for the term "swales" which is used merely descriptively and not binding as to definition accepted accepted 5 (a) - (c) rejected as recitations of testimony rather than Findings of Fact 5 (d) - (8) accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's witnesses' testimony was, in general, in disagreement with that of Respondent's witnesses. However, as stated in the Recommended Order, the weight and quality of Respondent's evidence prevailed. (o) - (q) accepted not as fact but as a recitation of the evidence presented by each witness (a) - (c) accepted - 11) accepted 12) accepted COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Ross Burnaman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Lehrman & Denker Law Offices 103 North Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1736 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Timothy Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 Carlos Alvarez, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 420 First Florida Bank Bldg. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner represents the owner of the property here involved, St. John's Riverside Estates, and was authorized by the owner to prosecute this appeal (Exhibit 19). Some years ago, circa 1960, the owner of the property dredged canals in each of the two parcels here involved, but the plug between the canals and the St. Johns River was not removed. Petitioner now proposes to remove these plugs and maintenance dredge a channel from the location of the removed plug to the St. Johns River. Spoil from the maintenance dredging will be deposited on lands owned by Petitioner. The existing canals are typical dead-end canals which are stagnant at present. By removing the plugs and opening the canals to the St. Johns River, Petitioner will improve the water quality of these canals. Developing the property along the canals as residential homesites will result in additional nutrients and pollutants entering the canals from surface water runoff. Petitioner proposes to use surface water runoff as one method of flushing the canals. Other flushing action would come from tidal flow in the St. Johns River. Although there was some conflict in the testimony regarding the propriety of using the rainfall from a twenty-five year storm event in lieu of of a one-year storm event to calculate the flushing action of the canals by rainfall, use of surface water to flush the canal appears to violate the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, respecting water quality. As a condition to the development of the property, Respondent could require Petitioner to hold the surface water runoff in retention ponds to reduce the entry of pollutants into the river. If this was done, percolation and evaporation would further create a substantial reduction in flushing from this source. The St. Johns River is a Class III water body of the state. The water quality of the canals here under consideration are below the state water quality standards with respect to dissolved oxygen levels even using the samples taken during the winter months when dissolved oxygen levels are high. (Exhibits 1, 2 and 3). Generally, dissolved oxygen levels are lower at the bottom of such canals than at the surface. If the samples taken at the surface and bottom during the winter months are averaged for dissolved oxygen content, the result will be above the state minimum water quality standards. However, the dissolved oxygen of samples taken from the canals on May 5 and October 4, 1978, are predominately below the level of 5 mg/l prescribed as the minimum state standard. Removing the plugs would not result in satisfactory flushing of these canals by tidal action. Under the best assumed conditions, it would require 18 tidal cycles or 9 bays to flush 90 percent of the water from these canals by tidal action. An acceptable flushing rate is 2 to 3 days. These canals contain water hyacinths and grasses which increase the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) which reduces the dissolved oxygen level. Not only do these vegetations reduce photosynthesis by shading the water from sunlight, but also when they die and fall to the bottom, they create a high BOD. Considerable evidence was presented depicting the area, the flora and fauna of the area and the present condition of the water quality of these canals. No evidence was presented to the effect that removing the plugs and allowing interchange between the low quality waters of the canals and the higher quality waters of the St. Johns River would not degrade the water quality of the St. Johns River. Also, no evidence was presented that the residential development of the area as proposed would not increase the coliform count, detergent level, or heavy metals content of the waters of the canals which would further cause a degradation of the river water if the plugs are removed and the waters of the river and canals are interchanged.
The Issue Whether the Department should issue a dredge and fill permit to the Navy to construct an extension to an existing breakwater in the vicinity of Bayou Grande and Pensacola Bay?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Department is the agency responsible for the issuance of dredge and fill permits in the waters and wetlands of the State of Florida. The Navy is an applicant for the subject dredge and fill permit. The parties have standing to participate in this proceeding. The Application and its Review. On June 12, 1985, the Department received a dredge and fill application from the Navy requesting a permit for the construction of an 850-foot extension of a breakwater in the vicinity of Bayou Grande and Pensacola Bay. The application was received by the Northwest Florida district office of the Department The Navy filed its application on DER Form 17-1.203(1). In a letter dated January 20, 1986, to the Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers, the Bream Fishermen Association (hereinafter referred to as the "BFA"), raised several issues they believed needed to be addressed concerning the proposed project: (1) The effect on safety; (2) the effect of the existing breakwater on submerged grasses; and (3) pollution in Bayou Grande. In a letter dated January 28, 1986, to the Northwest Florida district office of the Department the BFA again expressed their concerns about the proposed project. In response to the BFA's letter of January 28, 1986, the Department asked Dr. Kenneth Exchternacht, the Department's hydrographic engineer, to evaluate the proposed project. In a memorandum dated February 20, 1986, Dr. Exchternacht requested that the Navy provide the following additional information: Provide documentation and [sic] to the tidal flow direction and amplitude in Pensacola Bay south of the proposed work area and north of the mouth to Bayou Grande for both ebb and flood. Mean current speeds and trajectories as well as maximum midtide velocites are needed. Provide estimates of the net littoral drift direction and volume to the north of the mouth of Bayou Grande and to the south of the work area along Magazine Point. The Navy performed the additional hydrographic survey requested by the Department and submitted the information to the Department. The submission of the hydrographic survey requested by the Department completed the application for the extension of the breakwater. The application submitted by the Navy was a "short-form" application. It was properly filed with the Department's district office. The proposed project does not involve in excess of 10,000 cubic yards of material to be placed in the waters of the State. The completed application involved in this proceeding was not received prior to October 1, 1984. The application as submitted by the Navy complied with the requirements of the applicable Florida Statutes and the Department's rules. The Department completed its Permit Application Appraisal on May 14, 1986 and issued an Intent to Issue with regard to the Navy's proposed project on June 4, 1986. The Petitioners timely filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging the Department's proposed intent to issue the permit requested by the Navy. The Proposed Project. The Navy has proposed a permanent extension of an existing breakwater by 850 feet. The existing breakwater was constructed in 1966. No dredge and fill permit was required by the Department or any other agency when the existing breakwater was constructed. A channel exists at the site of the existing breakwater. It runs parallel to the breakwater on its southward side. The channel has been in place since the mid-1940's. The proposed extension of the breakwater will consist of approximately 7,650 cubic yards of concrete rubble. It will cover an area of 1.12 acres. It is properly and adequately designed. As originally filed, the Navy's application reflected that the location of the breakwater was 30 degrees 21'23" Latitude and 87 degrees 15'33" Longitude. This is not the correct location of the breakwater. The correct coordinates of the breakwater and the proposed extension are 30 degrees 22'25" N Latitude and 87 degrees 15'45" W Longitude. The correct location of the project was discernable from other information in the application The breakwater is located at the entrance from Pensacola Bay to Bayou Grande at a promontory of land known as "Magazine Point". The existing channel and breakwater and the proposed extension run east and west with Pensacola Bay on the east and Bayou Grande on the west. Water Quality Standards. Bayou Grande and Pensacola Bay are Class III waters. The project will not degrade the existing water quality in Bayou Grande or Pensacola Bay or in any way increase the introduction of pollutants into Bayou Grande. Tidal waters exit Bayou Grande during ebb tide flow. They also exit Bayou Chico to the north at approximately the same time. The project will, therefore, not have a significant funneling effect allowing an increase of polluted water from Bayou Chico or any other area into Bayou Grande. The proposed project will serve to stabilize the volume exchange of water between Bayou Grande and Pensacola Bay. The size of the existing breakwater and the proposed extension will have no measurable effect on the circulation of waters in Pensacola Bay. The circulation of Pensacola Bay is controlled primarily by tide flow and secondarily by the wind. The tidal cycle of Pensacola Bay is 24.8 hours. The ebb tide, combined with the Coriolis effect, causes the water flow to hug the left or northwest bank of Pensacola Bay as it ebbs sought toward the Gulf of Mexico. The hydrographic study information provided by the Navy to the Department was sufficient to indicate that the general circulation of Pensacola Bay will not be significantly affected by the project. A hydrographic study of a bay could include numerous sampling stations collecting data over a significant period of time. Such an extensive study is not necessary or available in this proceeding. An adequate hydrographic study was submitted by the Navy to the Department. The study was conducted as requested by the Department. Based upon the hydrographic study performed by the Navy and other available information, the proposed project will not adversely affect circulation patterns in Bayou Grande or Pensacola Bay to an extent necessary to require a more comprehensive study. Any degradation in the water quality of Bayou Grande is and has been due to runoff from developed areas around the shoreline of the bayou. It is not clear what types of seagrasses have existed in Bayou Grande historically or are in existence today. Seagrasses that have existed or do exist in Bayou Grande include thallassia testidinium (turtle grass), halodule wrighti (cuban shoalweed) and ruppia maritima (widgeon grass). Turtle grass and cuban shoalweed thrive in water with a high salinity concentration. Widgeon grass prefers a lower salinity concentration. Historically, seagrasses have increased and decreased in coverage in Bayou Grande. The cause or causes of the fluctuations in the coverage of seagrasses in Bayou Grande is unknown. The evidence failed to prove that the existing breakwater has had, or that the proposed project will have, any effect on seagrasses in Bayou Grande. No studies have been conducted in the proposed project area which identify seagrasses, the extent of their growth, the effect of salinity on existing seagrasses or any causal connection between the existing breakwater or its proposed extension and the decline or increase of seagrasses. Based upon all of the evidence the proposed project should not adversely effect the salinity concentration in Bayou Grande or any seagrasses in the vicinity. With the development around Bayou Grande, if the channel were allowed to close, it is likely that the water of Bayou Grande would become extremely poor. The Public Interest. The area to be filled is shallow, bare, sandy bay bottom. There are no sea grasses in the area that will be covered by fill. The existing biological community of the area to be filled is of relatively low diversity. Only a very small number of organisms may be buried during construction of the breakwater extension. The area of the project is a high wave action area. The biological community of the immediate area of the breakwater extension is a wave stressed community. The area is not a coral reef or shellfish producing area. There are no identified endangered species located in the area of the project or Bayou Grande. The burial of any organisms will be offset by the colonization of algae and other fouling community organisms. Algae is important to the food chain by providing food to higher level organisms. The expected fouling community will be more productive and diverse than the existing sandy bottom community. Bayou Grande is an estuary and serves as a nursery for a wide variety of marine life and aquatic birds. In the distant past, marine life in Bayou Grande thrived. In the past 40 to 50 years there has been a decline in marine life in Bayou Grande. During the past 4 to 5 years Bayou Grande has improved as a nursery estuary. The evidence failed to prove that the breakwater directly affected the nursery function of Bayou Grande. The nursery function of Bayou Grande will not be adversely affected by the proposed project. The extension of the breakwater will not cause a safety hazard. The project will have a positive effect on navigation by contributing to keeping the channel open for use by boats. The water at the end of the existing breakwater is 1.7 feet deep. The depth of the water will increase to 5.9 feet at 800 feet of the proposed extension and to 10 feet at the end of the 850 feet of the proposed extension. An experienced boat operator should have little difficulty in avoiding the breakwater. The channel entrance is marked with a day marker and there is a light in the middle of the breakwater. Extension of the breakwater will help prevent boats from running aground on the shallow sandy bottom. The extension will also provide protection for small vessels seeking protection from storms. The extension will provide a windbreak from southern winds and enable vessels to more easily reach the shelter of Bayou Grande. On the night of October 19, 1986, a speedboat ran into the existing breakwater. According to a passenger on the boat, the light of the breakwater was not visible. The proposed project will not cause any harmful erosion or shoaling. The project will prevent shoaling by acting as a permeable barrier to natural sand transport. This will in turn help to keep the channel open and minimize dredging operations. The channel has been subject to repeated dredgings to maintain the channel. The last dredging took place in 1982. Bayou Grande is used for recreational purposes, including fishing and boating. The proposed project will not adversely affect the fishing and boating activities in Bayou Grande. The proposed project will not adversely affect any significant historical or archaeological resources. The Navy has been granted a permit as of January 3, 1986, to expand is marina facilities in an area adjacent to Bayou Grande. Access to the marina from Pensacola Bay is through the channel at Magazine Point. The proposed project will not adversely affect water quality standards or the public interest, even considering the permit granted to the Navy for the expansion of its marina facilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue to the Navy the dredge and fill permit applied for by the Navy pursuant to application number 17 1054501. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NUMBER 86-2880 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 This proposed "finding of fact" is a conclusion of law. 2 1. 3-4 These proposed "findings of fact" are conclusions of law. 5 3. The first sentence is accepted in paragraphs 5 and 11. The second sentence is a conclusion of law. The rest of the proposed finding of fact is irrelevant. Irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the evidence. 8 20. 9 42. 17, 42 and 51. The existing breakwater was established in 1966 and not 1969. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The exhibits referred to were not accepted into evidence. See paragraphs 32-34. Irrelevant. Although this proposed finding of fact is true, the evidence failed to prove the cause of the decline in productivity in Bayou Grande. Irrelevant. 14-18 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Navy's Proposed Finding of Fact 1 4 and 21. 2-3 20. 4 8 and 9. 5 17 and 19. 6 17. 7 46. 8 23. 9-10 Hereby accepted. 11 22. 12 18. 13 51. 14 55. 15 19. 16-19 Cumulative. 20 Irrelevant. 21 49. 22 52. 23-24 42. 25 51. 26 Irrelevant. 27 33. 28-29 37-39. 30 40. 31 33. 32 14. 33 56. 34 6 and 7. The date of the letter was January 28, 1986. 35 8. 36 9. 37 10. 38 53. 39 44 and 45. 40 Cumulative. 41-42 47. 43 12. This proposed "finding of fact" is a conclusion of law. Summary of testimony. Irrelevant. Hereby accepted. Cumulative. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 51 38. 52 44. 53 27. 54 28. 55 36. 56 25. 57 Hereby accepted. 58 35. 59 29. 60 29. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Cumulative. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant. Cumulative or irrelevant. Cumulative. 67 48. Cumulative or irrelevant. Hereby accepted. Irrelevant. 71-72 Cumulative. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact 1 4 and 19. 2 17. 3 23. 4 37. 5 38. 6 39. 7 41. 8 42 and 43. 9 33. 10-11 32. 12 30. 13 Irrelevant. 14 56. 15 50. 16 45. 17 44, 48 and 49. 18 34. 19 35. 20 25. 21 26 22 24 and 31. 23 27. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mary M. Callaway, Esquire Post Office Box 3697 Pensacola, Florida 32516 Robert Boasberg, Jr. Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy Staff Judge Advocate Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida 32508-5000 Karen Brodeen, Esquire Douglas Wyckoff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact By application filed on September 9, 1980, Respondent/Applicant, John H. Land Builders, Inc., sought a permit from Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), to conduct dredge and fill activities in an approximate one acre area located in the southeast corner of a proposed housing development in Section 10, Township 29 South, Range 19 East, in Hillsborough County, Florida. A copy of this permit application may be found as DER Composite Exhibit B. Specifically, Land sought to excavate 4,100 cubic yards of material (muck) and to backfill the area with 14,400 cubic yards of granular material from adjacent uplands to allow for development of a street and building lots in an unnamed wetland. A permit from DER is required because the project involves a wetland that is contiguous with a ditch that connects to the Palm River, all of which constitute waters of the State that are subject to dredge and fill permitting requirements. The plans have been reviewed by other state and local authorities in the Hillsborough County area, and no adverse comments have been received. After the installation is completed, the elevation of the land will be raised, and will permit five homesites to be built on the land as well as the construction of an access road to the property from an adjacent street. The installation in question is but a small part of a larger proposed housing development known as Timberlake Subdivision that will ultimately involve more than 300 homesites. However, no further dredge and fill activities under DER jurisdiction will be undertaken. The proposal of Respondent/Applicant was received by the Department and certain timely additional requests were made from the Department to the Applicant to provide information necessary to evaluate the request for permit. Applicant subsequently furnished the required information, and it may be found in DER Exhibit C. The Department performed a field inspection and review of the dredge and fill site, including the surrounding areas, to assess the impact of water quality caused by proposed dredging and filling activities in wetlands areas. It concluded that the Applicant had affirmatively provided reasonable assurance to the Department that the short-term and long-term effects of the activity would not result in violations of the water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the permit application appraisal may be found in DER Exhibit A. On January 21, 1981, DER issued its Intent to Issue a dredge and fill/water quality certification with certain conditions therein, including the requirement that future development be dependent upon separate stormwater review by the Department (DER Exhibit D). On October 20, 1980, Applicant filed a Notice of Stormwater Discharge with the Department's Southwest District Office in Tampa (DER Composite Exhibits B & F). Thereafter, the Department conducted a field inspection and review of the proposed housing development and surrounding areas to determine whether the proposed stormwater discharge would have a significant impact on water quality. Based upon the results of that inspection, which concluded that the proposed discharge would not have a significant impact on the waters of this State, the Department issued Applicant a stormwater exemption on November 7, 1980. The project site is located in an unnamed wetlands area. It is weedy and has a dense cover of primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), willow (Salix caroliniana), cattail (Typha sp.), red maple (Ace rubrum) and is overgrown with grapes vines (Vitus rotendifolia). It lies just to the north of a series of fish farms owned by Petitioner, Penisular Fisheries, Inc. Other commercial industries and single family dwellings are found south of the proposed activities. To the west and northwest lie marshlands, two old borrow pits, and Interstate Highway 4. Water runoff from the dredge and fill area will flow to the storm drainage system in the proposed street, and from there to a designated retention pond. Because there will be minor contaminants in the runoff, the water will be retained for treatment for a period of five days, which exceeds the 100 hour retention period required by DER. After treatment, the runoff will flow into a well-defined county drainage ditch west of 58th Street, travel down the ditch which lies adjacent to the fish ponds, and then meander into the existing marshland. Water runoff from the remainder of the project (excluding the dredge and fill area) will drain into the two existing borrow pit lakes which lie close to Interstate Highway 4. The designated retention pond will be located west of the project and has a controlled spill-off elevation. It will provide sufficient treatment to and cleaning of the water to insure that no violation of water quality standards will occur. A stormwater system to be constructed by Applicant will actually reduce the volume of water runoff now occurring. Reasonable assurances have been given that the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed activity will not result in violations of the water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. Based upon Use location of the point of discharge of Land's proposed stormwater discharge, the volume and frequency of discharge for which the proposed facilities are designed, and the anticipated constituents of discharge, the proposal will not have a significant impact on the water quality of the waters of this State. Accordingly, the exemption from stormwater licensing requirements was properly issued by the Department. Water quality violations which were alleged to have existed in a ditch on property adjoining the properties of Land and Petitioners were the subject of a notice of violation issued to the owners of that property. However, no notice of violation was ever issued to Land. Further, the ditch is not a part of the installation proposed by Applicant for issuance of the dredge and fill permit. Petitioners' concern is that Applicant has not given reasonable assurance that water quality standards would not be violated by the stormwater discharge and that downstream waters might be contaminated by urban runoff from the project. In reaching that conclusion, Petitioners' expert relied on a review of certain materials submitted to him by Petitioner's counsel. He did not visit the project site, nor had he reviewed drainage plans or construction drawings for drainage improvements contemplated by the notice of stormwater discharge filed by Land.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation grant the requested dredge and fill permit/water quality certification to Respondent/Applicant John H. Land Builders, Inc. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order confirming the stormwater exemption issued by the Department to Respondent/Applicant on November 7, 1980. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1981.
Findings Of Fact On June 27, 1979, Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation's St. Johns River District office received an application from Petitioner John W. McPhail, Deland, Florida, for a permit to conduct dredge and fill activities on his property at Lake Johnson, DeLeon Springs, Florida. The application reflected that Petitioner desired to dredge 100 cubic yards of material Waterward of the lake mean high Water line and 100 cubic yards landward of the mean high water line, and then fill an adjacent cove area on his Property with the 200 cubic yards of material. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Lake Johnson is a small privately owned lake about fifteen acres in area. There are two distinct "lobes" of the lake which are joined by a narrow band of water. Each of these lobes is approximately seven acres in area. Some four or five houses, including, Petitioner's, are located around the lake. In the early Seventies, Petitioner dredged part of his shoreline and, in the process, too much material was inadvertently removed from the present cove area and placed in the middle of the property, which left a hump of land in the middle. The shoreline now is irregular with steep ungraded banks, and the cove area is somewhat stagnant. Petitioner wishes to restore the property by dredging the "hump" created by prior filling, and return the material to its Original location by filling the cove area. This will produce an even, sloped shoreline extending some 200 feet and improve the appearance of the lakefront. It will also reduce present maintenance Problems. (Testimony of Petitioner, Vause, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3) A field biologist in Respondent's District Dredge and Fill Permitting Section conducted an on-site inspection on August 28, 1979, and rendered a report of the inspection on October 2, 1979. He found that the dominant plant community along the banks of the shoreline consisted primarily of upland weeds and grasses such as broomsedge and bahaia grass. Additionally, primrose willow was found in that location. The vegetation along the shoreline includes maidencane and a small amount of bullrush while the open water area is predominately vegetated with water lilies. Primrose willow is a species of vegetation found in the transitional zone of a submerged land, and bullrush, maidencane, and water lily are also fresh water species of vegetation found in submerged lands, as defined in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative &ode. The water depth in the lake is approximately eight feet and the depth the water at the steep banks of the Petitioner's property is approximately three feet. Wetlands vegetation of the above types are conducive to the improvement of water quality by increasing dissolved oxygen levels after removal of polluting nutrients from the water. The removal of a significant amount of such vegetation may have a measurable adverse effect on water quality. Although Lake Johnson, a Class III body of water, presently has excellent Water quality, the vegetation along the shoreline has been removed to a degree of about ten to fifteen percent. The removal of fifteen to twenty percent or more of a shoreline in such a lake normally produces a measurable adverse effect on water quality. The dredging of material along a shoreline can produce short-term turbidity of the water. (Testimony of Vause, Respondent's Exhibits 2-3) Respondent's inspector found that although filling the cove would remove some beneficial aquatic and land vegetation, would most likely reestablish if proper sloping was maintained on the shoreline. He also noted in his report that the proposed project would restore approximately one-half acre of open water to the lake. He therefore interposed no objection to the filling aspect of the project, but believed that dredging should not be undertaken waterward of the ordinary high water line, and that the shoreline should be merely contoured without dredging. By letter of October 4, 1979, Respondent's district manager advised Petitioner of its intent to deny his application for permit for the reason that the proposed work would eliminate approximately .5 acres of wetland community and thereby degrade water quality in the areas of BOD, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. (Testimony of Vause, Respondent's Exhibits 2-4)
Recommendation That Petitioner be issued the requested permit, subject to standard conditions. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo J. Fernandez Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John W. McPhail Route 1, Box 692H Deland, Florida 32720 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION JOHN W. MCPHAIL, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2174 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION Respondent. /
The Issue The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC (“the Applicant”), and Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (“FECR”), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system and related activities to serve railway facilities, and a verification of exemption for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings (collectively referred to as “the project”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Martin County and St. Lucie County are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Petitioners have substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. Intervenor Town of St. Lucie Village is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Intervenor has substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. The Applicant, All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company based in Miami. All Aboard Florida is part of a group of corporate entities formed for the principal purpose of developing and operating express passenger train service in Florida. Co-applicant Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company based in Jacksonville. FECR owns the existing railway corridor the passenger train service will use between Miami and Cocoa. South Florida Water Management District is a regional agency granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The proposed activities are within the boundaries of the District. Background The objective of the All Aboard Florida Project is to establish express passenger train service connecting four large urban areas: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando. Most of the passenger service route, including the portion which will pass through Martin County and St. Lucie County, will use an existing railroad right-of-way used since the late 1800s. The FECR rail corridor runs along Florida’s east coast from Miami to Jacksonville. It supported passenger and freight operations on shared double mainline tracks from 1895 to 1968. The passenger service was terminated in 1968 and portions of the double track and certain bridge structures were removed. The freight service continued and remains in operation today. The passenger service will use the FECR right-of-way from Miami to Cocoa and then turn west on a new segment to be constructed from Cocoa to Orlando. The railway corridor will be operated as a joint facility, with passenger and freight trains sharing the double mainline tracks. The Applicant is upgrading the portion of the corridor between Miami and Cocoa by, among other things, replacing existing railroad ties and tracks, reinstalling double mainline tracks, and improving grade crossings. The Applicant is also installing Positive Train Control systems which provide integrated command and control of passenger and freight train movements and allow the trains to be directed and stopped remotely or automatically in the event of operator error or disability, or an obstruction on the track. The All Aboard Florida Project is being developed in two phases, Phase I extends from Miami to West Palm Beach, and Phase II from West Palm Beach to Orlando. This proceeding involves a segment within Phase II, known as Segment D09, which runs from just north of West Palm Beach to the northern boundary of St. Lucie County. The railway corridor in Segment D09 passes through Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County and the Savannas Preserve State Park, parts of which are in both Martin County and St. Lucie County. Surface waters within these state parks are Outstanding Florida Waters (“OFWs”). The railway in Segment D09 also passes over the St. Lucie River using a bridge that can be opened to allow boats to pass. The Applicant plans to run 16 round trips per day between Miami and Orlando, which is about one train an hour in each direction, starting early in the morning and continuing to mid-evening. In 2013, the District issued the Applicant an exemption under section 373.406(6), which exempts activities having only minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. The 2013 exemption covers proposed work in approximately 48 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09, and includes replacement of existing tracks and re-establishment of a second set of mainline tracks where they were historically located. The 2013 exemption covers all but 24 of the roadway crossings within Segment D09 where work is to be done in connection with the All Aboard Florida Project. In 2015, the District issued the Applicant a general permit under rule 62-330.401, which authorizes activities that are expected to cause minimal adverse impacts to water resources, for the installation of fiber optic cable along the rail bed within Segment D09. The 2013 exemption and 2015 general permit were not challenged and became final agency action. The Proposed Agency Actions The ERP Modification covers work to be done in approximately 17 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09. The work will consist primarily of replacing existing tracks, installing new tracks, making curve modifications in some locations to accommodate faster trains, culvert modifications, and work on some fixed bridge crossings over non-navigable waters. The 2017 Exemption at issue in this proceeding covers improvements to 23 of the 24 roadway crossings that were not covered by the 2013 exemption. Proposed improvements at Southeast Florida Street in Stuart will be permitted separately. The improvements covered by the 2017 Exemption include upgrading existing safety gates and signals; installing curbs, guardrails, and sidewalks; resurfacing some existing paved surfaces; and adding some new paving. Petitioners argue that, because the District’s staff report for the ERP Modification states that the ERP does not cover work at roadway crossings, track work at roadway crossings has not been authorized. However, the staff report was referring to the roadway improvements that are described in the 2017 Exemption. The proposed track work at the roadway crossings was described in the ERP application and was reviewed and authorized by the District in the ERP Modification. “Segmentation” Petitioners claim it was improper for the District to separately review and authorize the proposed activities covered by the 2013 exemption, the 2015 general permit, the ERP Modification, and the 2017 Exemption. Petitioners contend that, as a consequence of this “segmentation” of the project, the District approved “roads to nowhere,” by which Petitioners mean that these activities do not have independent functionality. Petitioners’ argument is based on section 1.5.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume 1,1/ which states that applications to construct phases of a project can only be considered when each phase can be constructed, operated, and maintained totally independent of future phases. However, the activities authorized by the four agency actions are not phases of a project. They are all parts of Phase II of the All Aboard Florida Project, which is the passenger railway from West Palm Beach to Orlando. Section 1.5.2 is not interpreted or applied by the District as a prohibition against separate review and approval of related activities when they qualify under the District’s rules for exemptions, general permits, and ERPs. Much of Phase II is outside the District’s geographic boundaries and, therefore, beyond its regulatory jurisdiction. The District can only review and regulate a portion of Phase II. The District is unable to review this portion as a stand-alone railway project that can function independently from other project parts. The Proposed Stormwater Management System Where the Applicant is replacing existing tracks or re- establishing a second set of tracks, it will be laying new ties, ballast, and rail on previously-compacted earth. In those areas, no stormwater management modifications were required by the District. The Applicant’s new proposed stormwater management system will be located in a five-mile area of the corridor where an existing siding will be shifted outward and used as a third track. In this area, swales with hardened weir discharge structures and skimmers will be installed to provide stormwater treatment beyond what currently exists. The weir discharge structures will serve to prevent erosion at discharge points. The skimmers will serve to capture any floating oils or refuse. Because the FECR right-of-way is not wide enough in some three-track areas to also accommodate swales, the proposed stormwater management system was oversized in other locations to provide compensating volume. The District determined that this solution was an accepted engineering practice for linear systems such as railroads. Petitioners argue that the Applicant’s proposed stormwater management system is deficient because some of the proposed swales do not meet the definition of “swale” in section 403.803(14) as having side slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). The statute first defines a swale to include a manmade trench which has “a top width-to-depth ratio of the cross-section equal to or greater than 6:1.” The swales used in the proposed stormwater management system meet this description. Petitioners showed that the plans for one of the 46 proposed swales included some construction outside the FECR right-of-way. In response, the Applicant submitted revised plan sheets to remove the swale at issue. The Emergency Access Way The ERP application includes proposed modifications to portions of an existing unpaved emergency access way which runs along the tracks in some areas. The access way is a private dirt road for railroad-related vehicles and is sometimes used for maintenance activities. At the final hearing, Petitioners identified an inconsistency between an application document which summarizes the extent of proposed new access way construction and the individual plan sheets that depict the construction. The Applicant resolved the inconsistency by correcting the construction summary document. Petitioners also identified an individual plan sheet showing proposed access way modifications to occur outside of the FECR right-of-way. This second issue was resolved by eliminating any proposed work outside the right-of-way. Petitioners believe the proposed work on the access way was not fully described and reviewed because Petitioners believe the access way will be made continuous. However, the access way is not continuous currently and the Applicant is not proposing to make it continuous. No District rule requires the access way segments to be connected as a condition for approval of the ERP. Water Quantity Impacts An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, or adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The District’s design criterion to meet this requirement for water quantity management is a demonstration that the proposed stormwater system will capture the additional runoff caused during a 25-year/3-day storm event. The Applicant’s proposed stormwater system meets or exceeds this requirement. Petitioners argue that the Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance because the ERP application materials did not include a calculation of the discharge rates and velocities for water discharging from the swales during the design storm. The ERP application contains the information required to calculate the discharge rates and velocities and the Applicant’s stormwater expert, Bruce McArthur, performed the calculations and testified at the final hearing that in the areas where there will be discharges, the discharge rates and velocities would be “minor” and would not cause adverse impacts. The District’s stormwater expert, Jesse Markle, shared this opinion. Petitioners argue that this information should have been provided to the District in the permit application, but this is a de novo proceeding where new evidence to establish reasonable assurances can be presented. Petitioners did not show that Mr. McArthur is wrong. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will cause adverse water quantity impacts, flooding, or adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a regulated project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters, such that state water quality standards would be violated. The District’s design criteria for water quality required the Applicant to show that its proposed stormwater system will capture at least 0.5 inches of runoff over the developed area. To be conservative, the Applicant designed its proposed system to capture 1.0 inch of runoff in most areas. Under District rules, if a stormwater system will directly discharge to impaired waters or OFWs, an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume is required. The proposed stormwater system will not directly discharge to either impaired waters or OFWs. In some locations, there is the potential for stormwater discharged from the proposed stormwater system to reach OFWs by overland flow, after the stormwater has been treated for water quality purposes. The Applicant designed its proposed stormwater system to provide at least an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume in areas where this potential exists. To ensure that the proposed construction activities do not degrade adjacent wetlands, other surface waters, or off-site areas due to erosion and sedimentation, the Applicant prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Temporary silt fences and turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained around the limits of the construction. The District’s design criteria for water quality do not require an analysis of individual contaminants that can be contained in stormwater, except in circumstances that do not apply to this project. Compliance with the design criteria creates a presumption that water quality standards for all potential contaminants are met. See Applicant’s Handbook, V. II, § 4.1.1. Although not required, the Applicant provided a loading analysis for the proposed swales which could potentially discharge overland to impaired waters or OFWs. The analysis compared pre- and post-development conditions and showed there would be a net reduction in pollutant loading. Petitioners believe the pollutant loading analysis was inadequate because it did not specifically test for arsenic and petroleum hydrocarbons. However, the analysis was not required and adequate treatment is presumed. Petitioners did not conduct their own analysis to show that water quality standards would be violated. Petitioners’ expert, Patrick Dayan, believes the compaction of previously undisturbed soils in the emergency access way would increase stormwater runoff. However, he did not calculate the difference between pre- and post-construction infiltration rates at any particular location. His opinion on this point was not persuasive. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will generate stormwater that will adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards would be violated. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project complies with District design criteria and will not cause water quality violations. Soil and Sediment Contamination Petitioners argue that the ERP Modification does not account for the disturbance of existing contaminants in soils and sediments that could be carried outside of the right-of-way and into OFWs. Petitioners’ argument is based on investigations by their geologist, Janet Peterson, who collected soil, sediment, and surface water samples at 13 sites along the FECR rail corridor in the vicinity of OFWs, or surface waters that eventually flow into OFWs. During her sampling visits, Ms. Peterson saw no visual evidence of an oil spill, fluid leak, or other release of hazardous materials. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Residential Direct Exposure Soil Cleanup Target Levels (“SCTLs”) established in rule 62-777. The SCTLs are the levels at which toxicity becomes a human health concern and the residential SCTLs assume soil ingestion of 200 mg/day for children, and 100 mg/day for adults, 350 days a year, for 30 years. Some of the soil sampling results showed exceedances of SCTLs, but the SCTLs are not applicable here because none of the sample sites are locations where children or adults would be expected to ingest soil at such levels for such lengths of time. Petitioners did not show that the contaminants are likely to migrate to locations where such exposure would occur. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Marine Surface Water Leachability SCTLs, but she did not develop site-specific leachability-based SCTLs using DEP’s approved methodology. Nor did she show that the proposed project will cause the soils to leach the contaminants. Ms. Peterson collected sediment samples from shorelines, but not where construction activities are proposed. She compared her sediment sample results to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (“SQAGs”). These guidelines are not water quality standards. Any exceedance of these guidelines requires further analysis to determine potential water quality impacts. Ms. Peterson did not conduct the analysis. Ms. Peterson acknowledged that there are numerous sources for these pollutants at or near her sample sites, such as high-traffic roads, vehicular bridges, commercial and industrial facilities, boatyards, and golf courses. She did not establish baselines or controls. Ms. Peterson collected surface water samples at seven sites, some of which were located outside the FECR right-of-way. The results showed levels of phosphorous and nitrogen above the criteria for nutrients at some locations. Phosphorous, nitrogen, and the other nutrients are prevalent in the waters of Martin County and St. Lucie County and come from many sources. Petitioners’ evidence focused on existing conditions and not expected impacts of the proposed project. The evidence was insufficient to prove the proposed project will cause or contribute to water quality violations. Functions Provided by Wetlands and Other Surface Waters An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Petitioners claim the Applicant and District should not have relied on Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (“FLUCCS”) maps to identify and characterize wetlands and other habitat areas because the maps are too general and inaccurate. However, the FLUCCS maps were not used by the Applicant or District to evaluate impacts to wetlands or other habitats. The Applicant began its evaluation of impacts to wetlands and other habitat areas by field-flagging and surveying the wetland and surface water boundaries in the project area using a GPS device with sub-meter accuracy. It then digitized the GPS delineations and overlaid them with the limits of construction to evaluate anticipated direct impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. The District then verified the delineations and assessments in the field. The Applicant and District determined that there are a total of 4.71 acres of wetlands within the FECR right-of-way, including tidal mangroves, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie. They also determined the proposed project will directly impact 0.35 acres of wetlands, consisting of 0.09 acres of freshwater marsh and 0.26 acres of mangroves. Petitioners contend that the Applicant failed to account for all of the project’s wetland impacts, based on the wetland delineations made by their wetland expert, Andrew Woodruff. Most of the impacts that Mr. Woodruff believes were not accounted for are small, between 0.01 and 0.05 acres. The largest one is acres. The Applicant’s delineations are more reliable than Mr. Woodruff’s because the methodology employed by the Applicant had greater precision. It is more likely to be accurate. Petitioners argue that the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit did not authorize work in wetlands and, therefore, the impacts they cause must be evaluated in this ERP Modification. However, Petitioners did not prove that there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts associated with those authorizations. Any impacts associated with best management practices for erosion control, such as the installation of silt fences, would be temporary. The District does not include such temporary minor impacts in its direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts analyses. Most of the wetlands that would be directly impacted by the ERP Modification are degraded due to past hydrologic alterations and soil disturbances from the original construction and historical use of the FECR railway corridor, and infestation by exotic plant species. Most of these wetlands are also adjacent to disturbed uplands within or near the rail corridor. The functional values of most of the wetlands that would be affected have been reduced by these disturbances. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Secondary Impacts Section 10.2.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of a proposed activity (a) will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters; (b) will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for bald eagles, and aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting or denning by these species; (c) will not cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources; and (d) additional phases for which plans have been submitted, and closely linked projects regulated under chapter 373, part IV, will not cause water quality violations or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The proposed work will be entirely within the limits of the existing railway corridor where secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters caused by noise, vibration, fragmentation of habitats, and barriers to wildlife have existed for decades. The preponderance of the evidence shows that any increase in these kinds of impacts would be insignificant and would not reduce the current functions being provided. Because the affected wetlands are not preferred habitat for wetland-dependent, endangered, or threatened wildlife species, or species of special concern, and no such species were observed in the area, no adverse impacts to these species are expected to occur. Petitioners contend that adverse impacts will occur to the gopher tortoise, scrub jay, and prickly apple cactus. These are not aquatic or wetland-dependent species. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows any increase in impacts to these species would be insignificant. When the train bridges are closed, boats with masts or other components that make them too tall to pass under the train bridges must wait for the bridge to open before continuing. Petitioners contend that the current “stacking” of boats waiting for the bridges to open would worsen and would adversely impact seagrass beds and the West Indian Manatee. However, it was not shown that seagrass beds are in the areas where the boats are stacking. The available manatee mortality data does not show a link between boat stacking and boat collisions with manatees. Mr. Woodruff’s opinion about increased injuries to manatees caused by increased boat stacking was speculative and unpersuasive. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the adverse effects on both listed and non-listed wildlife species, caused by faster and more numerous trains would be insignificant. The activities associated with the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit for fiber optic cable were based on determinations that the activities would have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. These determinations are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters, adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for use by listed animal species, or cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Under section 10.2.1.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, if a proposed activity will result in adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, the applicant for an ERP must implement practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce the impacts, subject to certain exceptions that will be discussed below. Petitioners argue that this rule requires the Applicant and District to evaluate the practicability of alternative routes through the region, routes other than the existing railway corridor in Segment D09. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, that argument is rejected. The evaluation of project modifications to avoid impacts was appropriately confined to the railway corridor in Segment D09. The Applicant implemented practicable design modifications in the project area to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Those modifications included the shifting of track alignments, the elimination of certain third-track segments, and the elimination of some proposed access way modifications. However, the project qualified under both “opt out” criteria in section 10.2.1.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook so that design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts were not required: (1) The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or surface water to be adversely affected is low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value; and (2) the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and provides greater long-term ecological value. Mitigation The Applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands by purchasing mitigation credits from four District- approved mitigation banks: the Bluefield Ranch, Bear Point, Loxahatchee, and F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Banks. Each is a regional off-site mitigation area which implements a detailed management plan and provides regional long-term ecological value. The number of mitigation credits needed to offset loss of function from impacts to wetlands was calculated using the Modified Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (“MWRAP”) or Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review (“WATER”), as prescribed in the state permit for each mitigation bank. Applying these methods, the Applicant is required to purchase mitigation credits. The Applicant proposed to mitigate the adverse impacts to freshwater marsh wetlands by purchasing 0.01 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, and 0.06 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. The adverse impacts to tidal mangrove wetlands would be mitigated by purchasing 0.12 saltwater credits from the Bear Point Mitigation Bank, and 0.02 saltwater credits from the F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Bank. The Applicant committed to purchase an additional 0.29 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, for a total of 0.50 mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation implements a plan that will provide greater long-term ecological value than is provided by the wetlands that will be impacted. The Applicant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the project complies with the District’s mitigation requirements. Cumulative Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to water resources. This assurance can be provided by proposing to fully mitigate the impacts within the same basin. However, when an applicant proposes mitigation in another drainage basin, the applicant must demonstrate that the regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 acres of freshwater marsh wetlands and 0.21 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands in the St. Lucie River basin. The impacts to the freshwater marshes must be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the basin which offer freshwater herbaceous mitigation credits. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes and 0.05 acres of the mangrove wetlands in the Loxahatchee River basin. Those impacts must also be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the Loxahatchee River basin. Because some of the Applicant’s proposed mitigation must be provided out-of-basin, the ERP application included a cumulative impact analysis. The analysis evaluated whether the proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other possible development within the St. Lucie River and Loxahatchee River drainage basins, would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts considering each basin as a whole. There are approximately 10,068 acres of freshwater marshes within the St. Lucie basin, of which an estimated 4,929 acres are not preserved and would be at risk of potential future development. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 of those acres, which is only 0.0004 percent of the total at-risk acreage. There are about 34,000 acres of freshwater marshes within the Loxahatchee River basin, of which an estimated 7,463 acres are at risk of future development, and approximately 564 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands, of which an estimated 75 acres are at risk of future development. The project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes (0.0009 percent), and 0.05 acres of the tidal mangrove wetlands (0.0667 percent). Petitioners contend the Applicant’s analysis did not account for impacts from proposed activities authorized in the 2013 and 2015 general permit. However, Petitioners failed to prove there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination that the proposed project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Public Interest When an applicant seeks authorization for a regulated activity in, on, or over wetlands or surface waters, it must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not be contrary to the public interest, or if the activity is within or significantly degrades an OFW, is clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria set forth in section 373.414(1)(a): Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activities. The proposed work is not within an OFW, but entirely within the FECR corridor. The potential for overland flow and indirect impacts to OFWs is addressed by additional treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge. The proposed project would not significantly degrade an OFW. Therefore, the applicable inquiry is whether the project is contrary to the public interest. Factor 1: Public Safety, Safety, and Welfare Petitioners contend that the proposed project will adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare by impacting water quantity, water quality, and certain non-environmental matters such as emergency response times, traffic congestion, and potential train collisions with pedestrians and vehicles. Potential environmental impacts have been addressed above and, by a preponderance of the evidence, the District and the Applicant showed that such impacts would be insignificant or would be mitigated. As to the potential for non-environmental impacts associated with train operations, it is explained in the Conclusions of Law that the public interest test does not include consideration of non-environmental factors other than those expressly articulated in the statute, such as navigation and preservation of historical or archaeological resources. However, because evidence of non-environmental impacts was admitted at the final hearing, the issues raised by Petitioners will be briefly addressed below. The regulatory agency with specific responsibility for railroad safety is the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”). The FRA reviewed the safety features associated with the proposed passenger train operations, and approved them. Public safety will be enhanced at roadway crossings because of the proposed improvements and the use of modern technology in monitoring and managing the movement of trains. Petitioners contend that the addition of the passenger rail service will impede emergency response times in Martin County and St. Lucie County due to more frequent roadway closures. However, freight trains currently impede emergency response times due to their length and slow speed. The passenger trains will be much shorter in length and faster so that roadway crossing closures for passing passenger trains will be much shorter than for freight trains. The ERP Modification and 2017 Exemption do not affect freight train operations. The preponderance of the evidence shows that passenger rail service is unlikely to cause a material increase in the occurrence of circumstances where an emergency responder is impeded by a train. The current problem must be addressed through changes in freight train operations. Petitioners also contend that the passenger rail service will interfere with hurricane evacuation. The persuasive evidence does not support that contention. Train service would cease when a hurricane is approaching. Petitioners contend the trains will have to be “staged” on either side of the two moveable bridges while other trains cross, thereby blocking road intersections. However, this was a matter of speculation. The Applicant does not propose or want to stage trains at the bridges. Petitioners contend that the project will cause hazards to boaters on the St. Lucie River because there will be more times when the train bridge will be closed to allow the passage of passenger trains. Although there were many statistics presented about the number of boats affected, the evidence was largely anecdotal with respect to the current hazard associated with boaters waiting for the passage of freight trains and speculative as to the expected increase in the hazard if shorter and faster passenger trains are added. Factor 2: Conservation of Fish and Wildlife As previously found, the proposed activities will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project will have only insignificant adverse impacts on water resources and wildlife. Factor 3: Navigation of the Flow of Water Petitioners claim the project will hinder navigation on the St. Lucie and Loxahatchee Rivers because of the increase in bridge closures if passenger trains are added. The U.S. Coast Guard is the agency with clear authority to regulate the opening and closing of moveable train bridges over navigable waters in the interests of navigation. Petitioners’ insistence that the District address the bridge openings is novel. No instance was identified by the parties where this District, any other water management district, or DEP has attempted through an ERP to dictate how frequently a railroad bridge must open to accommodate boat traffic. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing the project’s potential impacts on navigation and will make a determination about the operation of the moveable bridges. It has already made such a determination for the moveable bridge which crosses the New River in Ft. Lauderdale. Petitioners point to section 10.2.3.3 of the Applicant’s Handbook, which states that the District can consider an applicant’s Coast Guard permit, and suggest that this shows the District is not limited to what the Coast Guard has required. However, Section 10.2.3.3 explains the navigation criterion in terms of preventing encroachments into channels and improving channel markings, neither of which encompasses the regulation of train bridges. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not cause harmful erosion or shoaling or adversely affect the flow of water. Factor 4: Fishing, Recreational Values, and Marine Productivity The preponderance of the evidence shows that there would be no adverse impacts or only insignificant impacts to fishing or recreational values and marine productivity. Factor 5: Permanent Impact The proposed project will have both temporary and permanent impacts. The temporary impacts include the installation of silt fences and turbidity barriers designed to reduce water quality impacts and impacts to functions provided by wetlands and surface waters. The impacts due to track installation, construction and rehabilitation of the non-moveable bridges, at-grade crossing improvements, and stormwater system improvements are permanent in nature. The permanent impacts have been minimized and mitigated. Factor 6: Historical or Archaeological Resources Petitioners do not contend that the project will adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Factor 7: Wetland Functions in Areas Affected Because the proposed work is within the limits of an existing railway corridor where impacts have been occurring for decades, and the majority of the wetlands to be affected are of a low to moderate quality, there would be only a small loss of functional values and that loss would be fully mitigated. Public Interest Summary When the seven public interest factors are considered and balanced, the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Even if Petitioners’ non-environmental issues are included, the project is not contrary to the public interest. Compliance With Other Permit Conditions The project is capable, based on accepted engineering and scientific principles, of performing and functioning as proposed. The Applicant demonstrated sufficient real property interests over the lands upon which project activities will be conducted. It obtained the required consent for proposed activities relating to bridge crossings over state-owned submerged lands. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all other applicable permit criteria. Exemption Verification for Roadway Crossings The Applicant’s ERP application included a mixture of activities which required an individual permit, as well as activities in roadway crossings which the Applicant claimed were exempt from permitting. Pursuant to section 5.5.3.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook, the Applicant requested a verification of exemption as to certain work to be done within 23 of those 24 roadway crossings. The District determined that the improvements for which an exemption was sought were exempt from permitting under rule 62-330.051(4)(c) for minor roadway safety construction, rule 62-330.051(4)(d) resurfacing of paved roads, and rule 62-330.051(10) for “construction, alteration, maintenance, removal or abandonment of recreational paths for pedestrians, bicycles, and golf carts.” The preponderance of the evidence shows the proposed work qualifies for exemption under these rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order that: approves Environmental Resource Permit Modification No. 13-05321-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the District’s Corrected Proposed Amended Staff Report of May 11, 2017; and approves the Verification of Exemption dated March 31, 2017. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2017.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Florida Power & Light Company (“FPL”), is entitled to a water use permit issued by the South Florida Water Management District (“District”) to withdraw water for use at FPL’s Turkey Point Power Plant in Miami-Dade County.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Tropical Audubon is a Florida not-for-profit corporation incorporated more than one year prior to the date FPL filed its permit application. Tropical Audubon was formed for the purpose of protecting the environment, fish and wildlife resources, and air and water quality. Its mission is to “conserve and restore South Florida’s ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity.” Tropical Audubon has approximately 465 members. More than 25 reside in Miami-Dade County. A substantial number of Tropical Audubon’s members use the area near Turkey Point for recreational activities, including wildlife observation. The District is a multi-purpose water management district with powers and duties set forth in chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 40E and 62- 40.410, including powers and duties related to the regulation of consumptive uses of water. Its principal office is located at 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. FPL is a regulated public utility which provides electric service to its customers in 35 Florida counties. FPL owns and operates the Turkey Point Power Plant, an electric power generating facility located in unincorporated southeastern Miami- Dade County and within the boundaries of the District. Background FPL’s Turkey Point property is located 25 miles south of Miami and is situated on the coastline adjacent to Biscayne Bay. The property covers about 9,400 acres. The Turkey Point Power Plant consists of five electric generating units. Units 1 and 2 are gas and oil-fired boilers. Unit 2 has been decommissioned. Units 3 and 4 are nuclear units. Unit 5 is a combined cycle gas turbine unit. Construction of Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as the Turkey Point Cooling Canal System (“CCS”), predated the enactment of the PPSA. However, Units 3 and 4 were certified under the PPSA in 2008 when they were uprated to increase their steam- electric generating capacity. Unit 5 was certified under the PPSA in 2005. Units 1 and 2 originally used once-through cooling, which involved taking water from Biscayne Bay and discharging it back into the Bay. In 1971, following a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, FPL signed a Consent Decree that required FPL to construct the CCS, a closed-loop cooling canal system, to eliminate heated, surface water discharges to Biscayne Bay and Card Sound. The CCS is a 5,900-acre network of canals which dissipate heat from the water used in the operation of Units 3 and 4, as well as Unit 1 when in operation. The CCS functions like a large radiator, which uses evaporation, convective heat transfer, and radiated heat loss to lower the water temperature. Circulating water pumps provide for counter-clockwise flow of water from the discharge canal, down through the western side of the CCS, and then back up the eastern side of the CCS to the power plant. The full circuit from discharge to intake takes about 48 hours. The CCS does not directly discharge to surface water, but water can enter or leave the CCS by groundwater seepage because the canals are not lined. Additions of water into the CCS include plant process water, rainfall, stormwater runoff, and groundwater seepage. In addition to the Consent Decree, FPL entered into an agreement with the District’s predecessor agency in 1972 to address the operation of the CCS. The agreement has been updated, with the most recent version being the Fifth Supplemental Agreement, executed in 2009. Pursuant to the Fifth Supplemental Agreement, FPL implemented an extensive surface water and groundwater monitoring program in and around the CCS. Since 2010, FPL has collected monitoring data for water levels, fluid density, salt concentrations, and conductivity from 42 groundwater monitoring wells. FPL also collects water level data at seven locations within the CCS on an hourly basis. In 2013 and 2014, monitoring data showed water quality decreased in the CCS, with increased salinity, algae blooms, and suspended solids in the water. Decreased water quality reduced heat dissipation, so water temperatures increased. FPL was authorized by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate the CCS with water temperatures as high as 100 degrees Fahrenheit (F). In 2014, water temperatures exceeding 100 degrees caused plant shutdowns. As a result, FPL requested and the NRC allowed the maximum operating temperature of CCS water to be raised to 104 degrees. Higher water temperatures cause more evaporation and because the evaporation of water leaves its salt content behind, the salinity of the water in the CCS increased. Water in the CCS became “hypersaline,” having chloride concentrations greater than 35 Practical Salinity Units (PSU), which is the average salinity of seawater. Because hypersaline water is denser and heavier than the naturally occurring groundwater, it sinks down through the CCS canals into the Biscayne Aquifer and down through the aquifer to a confining layer that separates the Biscayne Aquifer from the Floridan Aquifer, about 80 feet below the CCS. When the hypersaline water reaches the bottom of the Biscayne Aquifer, it moves laterally in all directions. However, the primary focus of the District and the DEP has been on the western movement of the hypersaline water because of the potential harm to existing legal uses of water and offsite land uses to the west. The hypersaline “plume” has migrated two to three miles west of the CCS. In August 2014, FPL requested and the District issued an emergency order to withdraw water from the L-31E Canal and discharge it to the CCS to reduce salinity and temperature. FPL withdrew water over a 21-day period in September and October, an average of 43 mgd, and observed reductions in salinity, algae blooms, and temperatures within the CCS. With the combination of rainfall and water from the L-31E Canal, CCS salinity levels were reduced by about 20 practical salinity units (PSU). When the proposed permit that is the subject of this case was challenged, FPL sought and obtained another emergency order to use water from the L-31E Canal during the 2015 rainy season (June 1 to November 30). Use of water from the L-31E Canal in 2015 reduced temperature and salinity levels in the CCS. Salinity declined from 95 PSU to 60 PSU. On December 23, 2014, the DEP issued an Administrative Order (“AO”) which, among other things, directs FPL to submit a Salinity Management Plan with the primary goal of “reduc[ing] the hypersalinity of the CCS to abate westward movement of CCS groundwater into class G-II groundwaters of the State.” The Proposed Permit FPL applied for the water use permit at issue in this case so it could continue to use water from the L-31E Canal for reducing temperature and salinity in the CCS. The proposed water use permit would authorize FPL to pump up to 100 million gallons per day during the period June 1 through November 30 in 2015 and 2016.1/ The permit prohibits withdrawals during the June through November period if they would interfere with the water reservation for Nearshore Central Biscayne Bay, which was established by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-10.061. The proposed project involves installation of three pumps and pipes to transfer water from the L-31E North Canal to the L-31E Canal where it would flow south to a point where two pumps would withdraw the water and discharge it through two pipes into the CCS. The permit would allow FPL to withdraw up to 100 million gallons per day (“mgd”). The proposed permit does not identify temperature or salinity objectives, but FPL would be required to submit weekly water temperature and salinity data to demonstrate that the water use is reducing the temperature and salinity of the water within the CCS. Tropical Audubon contends the proposed project is not entitled to a permit because it would harm the natural resources of Biscayne Bay, would increase saltwater intrusion, is not limited to the amount of water needed, and is inconsistent with the 2008 Certification Order and the 2014 AO. Biscayne Bay Biscayne Bay was a tidal estuary before human changes, as described above, reduced freshwater inflows to the Bay. Now the Bay has salinity levels characteristic of a marine lagoon. Salinity levels historically varied across Biscayne Bay, but now the salinity levels are higher. The species richness of Biscayne Bay has been reduced by the reduction of freshwater inflows; that is, the observed numbers of some animals and the areal extent of some plants have been reduced. The reservation of water for Nearshore Central Biscayne Bay is for a geographic area which generally follows the shoreline along Biscayne Bay and extends 500 meters from the shoreline. It is a small fraction of the total area of the Bay. Tropical Audubon stipulated that FPL’s proposed water use would not interfere with the water reservation for Nearshore Central Biscayne Bay, but it contends the reservation does not account for all of the freshwater needs of the Bay. Tropical Audubon’s expert, Dr. Lodge, suggested that the areal extent of “lower salinity grass beds” would increase with fresh water inputs exceeding the water reservation, which would benefit the species that use these grass beds. Neither the reservation rule nor the evidence presented by Tropical Audubon indicates what amount of freshwater is needed for all of Biscayne Bay. Tropical Audubon’s position is simply that more freshwater flow into Biscayne Bay is better than less and FPL’s proposed water withdrawal from the L-31E Canal will result in less freshwater reaching Biscayne Bay. Respondents stipulated that a substantial number of Tropical Audubon’s members have substantial interests in recreational uses in and near Biscayne Bay, but Respondents did not stipulate that the proposed project affected those interests. Tropical Audubon presented little evidence to demonstrate the proposed water use could affect its members’ substantial interests. Instead, it devoted almost all of its efforts at the final hearing and in its proposed recommended order to addressing matters that would not affect Tropical Audubon’s members, such as saltwater intrusion or inconsistency with the Certification Order. Tropical Audubon’s three-part proposition for harm to the substantial interests of its members is that (1) taking fresh water out of the L-31E Canal will deprive Biscayne Bay of fresh water that would otherwise flow to the Bay; (2) there will be a resulting reduction in the biological health of the Bay; and (3) the reduction in biological health will be noticed by Tropical Audubon’s members and will materially diminish their recreational enjoyment of the Bay. However, Dr. Lodge, was unable to say what effect FPL’s proposed water use (in two wet seasons) would have on the Bay. The effect could be de minimis. It could be undiscernible to a member of Tropical Audubon who is recreating on or near the Bay. Tropical Audubon failed to prove the proposed water use would have more than a de minimis effect on the environmental resources of Biscayne Bay. Therefore, it failed to prove non- compliance with any District permit requirement applicable to protection of Biscayne Bay and its natural resources. Saline Water Intrusion Section 3.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook requires that a water withdrawal must not cause harmful saline water intrusion. The saline water interface is generally where groundwater with greater than 10,000 milligrams per liter total dissolved solids (“mg/L TDS”) meets groundwater with less than 10,000 mg/L TDS. Because DEP classifies groundwater with less than 10,000 mg/L TDS as G-II groundwater and groundwater with greater than 10,000 mg/L TDS as G-III groundwater, the saline water interface can also be described as the interface between G-II and G-III groundwater. The location of the saltwater interface is affected by many factors, such as rainfall. “Saltwater intrusion” usually describes the human-induced landward movement of the saline water interface that has resulted from drainage structures, fresh water withdrawals, and other activities that have reduced the volume and, therefore, reduced the “push” of fresh groundwater toward the coast. Saltwater intrusion is considered harmful to water resources in large part because of its effect on land uses. Saltwater intrusion prevents or makes significantly more difficult future land uses that typically require withdraw and use of fresh groundwater, such as agriculture. For existing land uses that rely on withdraw of fresh groundwater, saltwater intrusion “contaminates” the water supply and can make the land uses no longer practicable. The hypersaline plume extends two or three miles west of the CCS and continues to move westward. It is pushing the saline water interface, which is now four or five miles west of the CCS, futher west. The saline water interface is moving westward at the rate of 400 to 600 feet per year. The CCS is causing harmful saline water intrusion. The factual dispute in this proceeding is whether the proposed use of water from the L-31E Canal increases the current intrusion problem. The parties also have a legal dispute about the scope of the District’s review regarding saline water intrusion: whether the District’s review is confined to the impacts of the withdrawal, itself, or whether the District must also consider the impacts of the use of the water after the withdrawal (discharging it into the CCS). The criteria in the Applicant’s Handbook focus the District’s review on the effects of a proposed withdrawal. With regard to saline water intrusion, the District evaluates whether the withdrawal will cause lateral or vertical migration of saline water. The District determined that FPL’s withdrawal from the L- 31E Canal would not cause the migration of saline water. That determination was not disputed by Tropical Audubon. Tropical Audubon contends the District must also determine whether FPL’s use of the water--discharging it into the CCS--would cause harmful saline water intrusion by pushing the saline water interface more landward. The District permit reviewer testified that, in determining whether FPL’s proposed project was consistent with the public interest, he considered the expected benefits of lowering salinity and temperature in the CCS, as well as reducing the hypersaline plume and its impacts on saline water intrusion.2/ As explained in the Conclusions of Law, this analyses is required to determine whether FPL’s proposed water use is consistent with the public interest. FPL used a water/salt budget model for the CCS to quantify the volume of water and mass of salt entering and exiting the CCS over time. The water/salt budget model was run for dry and average weather conditions and multiple withdrawal rates. In each scenario, the model results showed that the greater the volume of water pumped into the CCS, the greater the reduction of salinity in the CCS. The District performed groundwater modeling which showed that freshening of the groundwater would occur rapidly in the upper portion of the Biscayne aquifer near the CCS. The model showed no adverse impacts and some slight improvements in water quality in all areas except for one temporary effect at one monitor well. Based on modeling results and monitoring well data, it was the opinion of the District’s principal scientist, Mr. Giddings, that the addition of water from the L-31E Canal would not increase the western movement of the saline interface. FPL’s expert hydrologist, Mr. Burns, agreed. Tropical Audubon’s expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Martin, opined that the addition of L-31E water into the CCS would increase the westward migration of the hypersaline water in the Biscayne Aquifer and the saline water interface. It was his opinion that the addition of freshwater into the CCS would increase the water levels and the “driving head” within the CCS and thereby increase the downward push against the hypersaline plume, pushing it westward at a greater rate. Mr. Martin did not know what the increase in the rate of western movement would be. Mr. Martin conducted no modeling or other analysis to substantiate his opinion about the increase in driving head, and it appeared he did not take into account how the driving head would be affected by reducing the density of the water in the CCS. Reducing the density of the water would offset the effects of raising the water level. Mr. Martin’s opinion that adding water from the L-31E Canal would push the saline water interface westward was also based on his assumption that the fresher water moving downward from the CCS would not mix with the hypersaline water. However, this opinion was not supported by modeling as was the contrary opinions of Mr. Giddings and Mr. Burns. Monitoring data collected during the period in which FPL has added fresher water to the CCS indicates that mixing is occurring and that head differences in the CCS do not appear to affect chloride levels at distance. FPL provided reasonable assurance that the proposed water use would not increase the rate of saline water intrusion. Existing Legal Uses, Offsite Land Uses, and Pollution Tropical Audubon does not contend the withdrawal of water from the L-31E Canal would interfere with existing legal uses of water, adversely affect off-site land uses, or cause pollution. However, similar to its claim regarding harmful saline water intrusion, Tropical Audubon claims the proposed discharge of the water into the CCS would interfere with existing legal uses of water, harm offsite land uses, and cause pollution. These claims are derived from Tropical Audubon’s belief that discharging freshwater into the CCS would increase the rate of saline water intrusion. Because Tropical Audubon failed to prove the proposed water would increase saline water intrusion, there is no need to address the derivative claims. Conflict with the Conditions of Certification Tropical Audubon asserts that the proposed water use is inconsistent with the DEP National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for the Turkey Point Plant and with the Fifth Supplemental Agreement between FPL and the District. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, it is normally beyond the scope of a permit proceeding to claim the conditions of another permit would be violated. However, because the NPDES permit and the Fifth Supplemental Agreement are incorporated into or addressed in the 2008 Certification Order for Turkey Point, and the PPSA preempts all other environmental permitting associated with an electric power plant, it is relevant in this proceeding to determine whether the proposed water use would conflict with the conditions of certification for the Turkey Point Power Plant. It is also explained in the Conclusions of Law that the Administrative Law Judge’s consideration of potential conflict must be based on a conflict ascertainable from the plain meaning of the Certification Order, NPDES permit, and Fifth Supplemental Agreement. There has been no determination of conflict by the Siting Board or DEP. In fact, DEP has determined there is no conflict between the proposed water use permit and the NPDES permit. The fact that the NPDES permit describes the CCS as a closed-loop system does not create an irreconcilable conflict. The requirement for a closed-loop system was to terminate a system that had surface discharges of heated water to Biscayne Bay and replace it with a system that circulates water through the power plant with no surface discharges to the Bay. The CCS would still be a closed-loop system with the additions of water from the L-31E Canal because it would still have no surface discharges to Biscayne Bay. The fact that the NPDES permit does not mention the discharge of water from the L-31E Canal into the CCS does not create an irreconcilable conflict. The NPDES permit also does not address rainfall inputs to the CCS. The NPDES permit addresses industrial waste inputs. Water from the L-31E Canal, like rainwater, is not a waste input. The fact that the CCS will operate differently with the addition of L-31E water does not create an irreconcilable conflict. The manner in which water from the L-31E Canal would change the operation of the CCS is not different from the way variable rainfall constantly changes the operation of the CCS. The NPDES permit does not specifically prohibit the introduction of other water into the CCS. DEP determined that the addition of L-31E water would not require a modification of the NPDES permit because it would not change the effluent limits or monitoring requirements of the permit. Tropical Audubon asserts that the proposed permit is inconsistent with the Fifth Supplemental Agreement between the District and FPL. It points to a requirement in the agreement to “operate the interceptor ditch system to restrict movement of the water from the cooling water system westward of Levee 31 E adjacent to the cooling water system to those amounts which would occur without the existence of the cooling canal system.” The interceptor ditch is a ditch running along the western border of CCS, which was intended to intercept hypersaline groundwater and prevent it from moving further westward. It has failed to prevent the western movement of hypersaline water. Tropical Audubon did not show the proposed water use would affect the operation of the interceptor ditch. Therefore, Tropical Audubon failed to prove there is an irreconcilable conflict between the proposed water use permit and the Fifth Supplemental Agreement. Conflict with the DEP Administrative Order Tropical Audubon asserts that the proposed permit is inconsistent with an AO issued by DEP in December 2014 to address CCS salinity issues. However, the AO is not yet in effect and is not a part of the 2008 Certification Order. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, FPL’s compliance with the AO cannot be made a condition of compliance with the proposed water use permit. Furthermore, Tropical Audubon failed to demonstrate there is a conflict between the AO and the proposed water use. Summary In summary, FPL provided reasonable assurance that the proposed water use would comply with all applicable permit criteria. Tropical Audubon did not meet its burden to prove otherwise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that South Florida Water Management District issue a final order that grants the proposed Individual Water Use Permit (No. 13-05856-W) to Florida Power & Light Company. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jack E. Moore is the owner of real property in Fort Myers Beach known as Lot 9 of Indian Bayou, a subdivision in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 24 East, Lee County, Florida. Moore's property is bordered on the north by the waters of Indian Bayou and Estero Bay. The northern portions of Moore's property are vegetated by juvenile and mature red and black mangroves. Red and black mangrove are the dominant species of vegetation on the northernmost portions of the property, waterward of the fill pad on which Moore's house is built. On April 19, 1983, Petitioner applied to DER for a permit to dredge approximately 1480 cubic yards to a depth of 4' mean low water to create a boat basin behind his house on the property referenced above, and to construct a walkway and fishing dock encompassing approximately 1,235 square feet. The proposed project lies and would be performed in waters of the State of Florida. On April 25, 1983, DER notified Petitioner that his application was incomplete and that certain specified information was necessary to evaluate the application and to deem it complete. On May 24, 1983, DER received additional information from Petitioner, in response to its request. However, certain information was still lacking, including aerial photographs, a hydrographic survey, and consent from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the use of state-owned lands which may be involved in the project. On June 1, 1983, DER notified Petitioner that all of the requested information had not been submitted. Petitioner did not respond to DER's correspondence. On July 19, 1983, DER requested Petitioner to notify DER if he wanted to proceed with his application. Petitioner responded on August 1, 1983, that he needed additional time to supply requested information. On September 20, 1983, Petitioner sought advice from DER about whether he could delete the dredging portion of his project and get approval only for the proposed walkway and dock. DER responded by letter on September 28, 1983, notifying Petitioner that the proposal was a major modification of his application, and enclosing a form to be submitted to DER along with such modification. The letter notified Petitioner that even if only the dock was sought to be permitted, DNR approval would still be required, and DER has no control over the DNR approval process. Petitioner did not contact DER in response to its latest correspondences. On November 28, 1983, DER then issued a notice of intent to deny the application for Petitioner's failure to provide necessary information which would render the application complete and fully reviewable by the DER staff. Petitioner has still not provided aerial photographs, a hydrographic survey, or DNR approval to DER, and offered no such evidence at hearing. The aerial photographs are necessary to review the project's potential impacts on surrounding properties and water bodies. The hydrographic survey is essential since Petitioner is proposing to entrain a large body of water which may not be able to meet State water quality standards. DNR approval is required by statute before DER can issue a permit that may involve state-owned lands. The Petitioner's testimony and evidence merely established his belief that he originally thought the dock and channel project exempt, that he thought settlement of federal litigation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and his predecessor in title, permitted the installation of his rip-rap seawall and fill and that, at DER's behest, he later dismantled the dock and partially refilled the hand-dug channel leading to it. Nowhere in Petitioner's case was evidence offered of reasonable assurances that the "pollution events, envisioned by the authority cited below, will not occur, nor that DNR approval of the use of State submerged lands for the project has been secured.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the record owner of Lot 11, Block 4 and Lot 12, Block 2 of Ramrod Shores Marina Section subdivision on Ramrod Key in Monroe County, Florida. These lots lie across Angelfish Road from each other. They both lie across Mariposa Road from Torch Ramrod Channel which leads into Niles Channel which leads into the Gulf of Mexico to the north; to the south Torch Ramrod Channel leads into Newfound Harbor which opens onto the Atlantic Ocean. Mariposa Road appears on a subdivision plat filed in the official records of Monroe County in 1960, and on revisions of the original plat, one of which was filed in 1963, and the more recent of which was filed in 1969. On the two earlier plats, it is recited that "[r]oads shown hereon not previously dedicated or owned by the State or County are hereby dedicated to the perpetual use of the public." The evidence did not show whether Monroe County or any other governmental body had accepted the dedication of Mariposa Road. Cape Sable Corporation, a predecessor in title to petitioner, trucked in oolite fill to construct Mariposa Road; and repaired the road after occasional washouts, a practice which petitioner's immediate predecessor in title, James Brown, continued. Because the rock which was used to build Mariposa Road is loosely packed, water from the channel percolates through the road even when it is not high enough to move across the road in a sheet, which sometimes happens. There are also low lying places in the road through which tidal waters flow onto petitioner's property. Salt water up to a foot deep regularly stands on petitioner's property, which is overgrown with spider mangroves and red mangroves. The mangroves stabilize the shoreline on account of their root systems, which also serve to filter out certain substances which would otherwise run off into the channel. Decaying plant matter produced by the mangroves supports various microorganisms which constitute an early link in the food chain that results in commercial fisheries. Killifish, needlefish, jelly fish and wading birds all frequent petitioner's property in its present state. Covering petitioner's lots with fill would destroy or displace the marine life now flourishing there. Respondent has requested James Brown to remove the fill along Mariposa Road, citing Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the Army Corps of Engineers has taken similar action under applicable federal laws. Mr. Brown evinced an intent at the hearing not to comply with these requests, but to work instead to persuade Monroe County to blacktop Mariposa Road. Paving Mariposa Road with blacktop would involve compacting rock or otherwise creating an underbed impermeable to water. Mr. Brown envisions Mariposa Road being upgraded to the level of State Road 4, which it intersects, before being paved. If Mariposa Road were upgraded and paved in this fashion, it would act as a dam keeping tidal waters out of petitioner's lots, unless culverts were installed. In the event Mariposa Road is upgraded and paved and no culverts are installed, the marine habitat which now exists on petitioner's property would be doomed and filling the lots would hasten the process at worst.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for fill permit unless and until Mariposa Road is upgraded, without installation of culverts, and paved, so that it acts as a dam impervious to the waters of Torch Ramrod Channel. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edward B. Johnson, Jr., Esquire 410 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Mr. Louis F. Hubener, Esquire Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FRANCIS X. ATWATER, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1409 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
The Issue This case arises out of the denial by the Department of Environmental Regulation of an application by the Petitioner to construct a 24-slip marina on Bayou Chico in Pensacola, Florida. At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his on behalf and offered and had admitted into evidence one exhibit. The Respondent called as its only witness, Jeremy Craft, and offered and had admitted into evidence four exhibits. Counsel for the Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer. To the extent that those proposed findings and conclusions are inconsistent with this order, they were rejected as not being supported by the evidence or as unnecessary to a resolution of this cause.
Findings Of Fact On March 18, 1982, Petitioner applied for a permit to dredge approximately 78,480 cubic yards from Bayou Chico and an unnamed embayment adjacent to the Bayou. The proposed project site is located in Pensacola, Florida, Bayou Chico in Section 59, Township 2 South, Range 30 West. Specifically, the project site is located on the south side of Bayou Chico just north of the Barrancas Avenue Bridge. On April 15, 1982, the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, sent a completeness summary to the Petitioner requesting additional information before the application or permit could be processed. Over a period of approximately a year and a half, Department of Environmental Regulation conferred with Petitioner concerning the proposed project and a number of different plans were discussed. In July of 1983, Petitioner submitted the July 11, 1983 plan, with modifications, and withdrew all prior plans. It is this plan which is the subject of this hearing. A field appraisal of the proposed site was made by Department of Environmental Regulation on December 25, 1982. On August 31, 1983, Department of Environmental Regulation issued an Intent to Deny the Petitioner's permit application. The Intent to Deny encompassed all plans and revisions submitted by the Petitioner, Department of Environmental Regulation based its denial on Petitioner's failure to give reasonable assurances that water quality standards would not be violated by his project. The Department's denial also asserted that the project would also result in matters adverse to the public interest. The final proposal submitted by the Petitioner sought a permit to dredge a strip 100 feet wide by 450 feet long to a depth of 6 feet. This strip is adjacent to a spit or strip of land which separates Chico Bayou from the emboyment. This plan was subsequently modified to include dredging an additional 100 to 150 feet along the full length of the strip. This additional dredging would take the dredged area out to the deep water of Chico Bayou and was intended to eliminate a channeling effect. The purpose of the dredging is to enable the Petitioner to construct a marina or docking facility along the split. The marina would include 24 slips. The proposed dredge area gradually slopes from the shoreline to five and six foot depths 200 to 250 feet from the spit. The water in the embayment is highly polluted and at one time was used as a holding pond for mahogany logs because the wood-boring worms could not survive in the water. Bayou Chico is also very polluted and fails to meet the water quality standards found in Rule 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, for the parameters lead, cadmium, copper, and aluminum among others. The bayou has for many years been used for boat and barge traffic. Jeremy Craft testified on behalf of DER and his opinions as to the impact of the project on water quality and marine life were uncontroverted. In Mr. Craft's opinion, the dredging proposed by the Petitioner would result in further degradation of the water quality in Bayou Chico by eliminating important shallow areas and underwater grasses. The deepening of the dredged area would limit the amount of oxygen available to the water in the bayou thereby harming the aquatic life by freeing many of the heavy metals which are presently bound in the sediments in the bayou. The shallow areas are the most important areas in cleansing the water. With increased oxidation, the biota survive better and the water is better cleansed. Freeing the heavy metals would allow their introduction into the food chain and accumulation in living organisms. The Petitioner has not informed DER of his specific dock specifications, stormwater plans, upland development plans, or dredge disposal plans. The type of dock will determine the type of boating traffic and this will indicate the amount and content of stormwater discharge. Because of the contaminated nature of the spoil, the Petitioner must provide reasonable assurances that the spoil and spoil water will be properly retained. Petitioner testified on his own behalf but did not present any evidence relating to the impact the proposed prod act would have on water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for a permit as set forth in the Intent to Deny previously issued by the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of May 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Thulman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Joe Pair 1200 Mahogany Mill Road Pensacola, Florida 32907 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
