The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact District is a governmental agency of the State of Florida created and empowered by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to regulate permitting and construction of water wells, and to regulate well contractors. William Bedard, Post Office Box 545, Branford, Florida 32208, is a water well contractor with license #2830. Bedard constructed a water well for Wendell Forsythe in Three Rivers Estate, Township 6 South, Range 15 East, Section 25 in Columbia County, Florida. This is within the District. Said well was a four inch water well. Said well was constructed sometime prior to July 11, 1991. Bedard applied for a permit from the District on July 11, 1991. District requested additional information from Bedard by telephone on July 11, 1991, and followed up with a letter which was mailed March 23, 1992. The additional information in the form of a survey was provided to the District on May 22, 1992. The District issued a permit for said water well on June 16, 1992, approximately 11 months after the well was drilled. Bedard had one previous violation for drilling a water well without a permit. He applied for and received an after-the-fact permit in that instance. In mitigation, Bedard offered the following facts: Wendell Forsythe (Forsythe) lives in South Florida and only comes to his property in Columbia County on weekends. Forsythe met with Bedard on the site to discuss the proposed well. Forsythe said he wanted to go forward, and Bedard advised Forsythe that he would begin on Monday after he obtained a permit from the District Office which was closed. Forsythe wanted to see the work done, and told Bedard that he would get another contractor if Bedard would not start the well right away. Bedard constructed the well and applied for a permit on the first working day after construction of said well. Before Bedard constructed the well, Forsythe told him that the site was not within the flood plain and a survey would not be required. The site was within the flood plain, and a topographic survey was required. The District asked Bedard for a survey. Bedard passed the request for the survey on to Forsythe, however, Forsythe did not provide this information until May of 1992 when he became aware that he might be liable. The District's attorney's fees and administrative costs were $970.00.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A penalty be assessed against the Respondent in the amount of $275, and and Two and one half points be assessed against the Respondent's license, No attorneys fees or costs be assessed through this administrative hearing process. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Bessinger, Esquire 10 North Columbia Street Lake City, FL 32056-1029 William Bedard Post Office Box 545 Branford, FL 32208 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3 Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether GDC has provided reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not result in violations of the Department's water quality standards. GDC contends that its proposed activities will have either a positive effect on water quality in receiving waters, or no effect at all. The Department contends that the activities would cause a degrading of water quality and contribute to violations of water quality standards that already occur in the area.
Findings Of Fact The activities proposed by GDC are located within the Melbourne-Tillman Water Control District ("MTWCD" hereafter) in southern Brevard County, Florida. The MTWCD is a special taxing district which was established in the 1920s. It comprises a total area of 98 square miles. An extensive canal and drainage ditch system was constructed by MTWCD shortly after its creation. The purpose of the system was primarily to accomplish flood control to allow agricultural activities. The system consists of numerous "finger canals," or closed-ended drainage ditches which ultimately feed into a main east-west canal known as "C- 1." Water from the C-1 canal discharges directly into a natural stream known as "Turkey Creek" at a point in close proximity to the Port Malabar Boulevard Bridge. Turkey Creek flows into the Indian River, which is a part of the Intercoastal Waterway. The discharge point of the C-1 canal into Turkey Creek is located approximately 1 1/2 miles from the Indian River. Turkey Creek, the C-1 canal, and the other canals and drainage ditches within the MTWCD are Class III waters, as described in the Rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation. GDC acquired most of the property within the MTWCD during the 1950s. GDC remains the primary landowner within the District. After it acquired the property, GDC sought to modernize the water control system. A navigational lock and dam structure has been constructed at the discharge point of the C-1 canal and Turkey Creek. This structure, known as "MS-1," serves to regulate flows into Turkey Creek and thus serves to regulate water level within C-1 and the entire drainage system. MS-1 also serves to allow navigation into C-1 via Turkey Creek from the Indian River. A number of subdrainage basins can be identified within the MTWCD depending upon which canal drains the basin into C-1. One of these basins is designated the "C-37" basin. The primary drainage canal within the C-37 basin is the C-37 canal. The C-37 canal discharges into C-1 at a point approximately 4 miles from the MS-1 structure (the discharge point of the C-1 canal into Turkey Creek) . At least 10 separate dead-end canals or drainage ditches discharge into the C-37 canal. The C-37 drainage basin encompasses approximately 12 square miles within the MTWCD. Numerous residential structures have been constructed within the C-37 basin, and more are proposed. Water quality in the canals and drainage ditches within the MTWCD is generally poor. Dissolved oxygen levels in waters within the C-37 basin are frequently below the Department of Environmental Regulation's minimum standard of five parts per million. Dissolved oxygen violations are also common in the C-1 canal, both upstream and downstream of MS-1. It does not appear that the MS-1 structure has adversely affected dissolved oxygen levels within the C-1 canal. Some improvement has been noted in dissolved oxygen levels downstream of MS-1, probably as a result of turbulence that occurs in connection with operation of the structure that serves to aerate the water. Water quality in closed-ended canal systems such as the C-37 basin and the entire MTWCD system is typically poor. Violations of the Department's dissolved oxygen standards are common in such systems. Through its application, No. 05-21282, filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation, GDC is seeking a permit to construct a water control structure and boat lock at the point where the C-37 canal meets the C-1 canal, and to widen and deepen existing canals and drainage ditches within the C-37 basin. GDC proposes to excavate approximately 1,283,302 cubic yards of material from the existing canals and to place 38,000 cubic yards of material in the C-37 canal in connection with construction of the water control structure and boat lock. The proposed structure and boat lock has been designated "MS-3." There is now a slight dogleg at the point where the C-37 canal meets the C-1 canal. GDC proposes to fill that area and to connect the canals in a more straight-line manner through MS-3. Approximately 10 miles of canals and drainage ditches within the C-37 basin would be dredged from 1 to 8 feet. The C-37 canal would be widened from its present 10-foot channel width to 100 feet. The MS-3 structure would be designed to provide navigation in the C-37 and connecting canals. The structure would also serve to control the water levels within the C-37 system. GDC has agreed with the MTWCD to obtain necessary permits and construct the MS-3 structure. The proposed MS-3 structure is a part of GDC's overall plan for upgrading the MTWCD system. The MS-3 structure would have six 20-foot adjustable weir gates. It has been designed to accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm. The structure would be utilized to maintain the level of water within the C-37 basin at an elevation of 12.5 feet n.g.u.d. during the wet season and 16.0 feet n.g.u.d. during the dry season. The dry-season level would be set high in order to conserve water within the C-37 basin. The wet-season level would be set low in order to provide flood control and a gradual discharge of runoff from the basin. Water would flow from the C-37 basin into C-1 through an overflow structure. There would be a 6-foot drop from MS-3 into the C-1 canal. Existing canals and ditches within the C-37 basin typically have 2:1 slopes. GDC proposes to maintain similar slopes, or to improve them to a 3:2 ratio. The MS-3 structure and dredging and filling operations proposed by GDC are likely to cause a deterioration of water quality within the C-37 basin and a deterioration in the quality of water that is discharged from the C-37 basin in terms of dissolved oxygen levels. This degrading of water quality is likely for seven reasons. First, the canals will be deepened. Typically deeper water bodies, especially in closed-ended canal systems such as the C-37 basin, have lower oxygen levels below the surface than do shallower water bodies. Second, the water levels which GDC proposes to maintain within the C-37 basin will increase groundwater flows into the canals and ditches, especially during the wet season. Groundwater has very low levels of dissolved oxygen. Third, increased boating activity that would result because navigation in the C-37 basin would become possible would contribute to oils and greases in the water. Increased levels of oils and greases increase biological oxygen demand and reduce dissolved oxygen levels. Fourth, the C-37 basin would become an impounded water body. The result would be less mixing of the water, increased biological oxygen demand and reduced oxygen levels. Fifth, vegetation would be removed as a result of dredging activities and as a result of boating activity made possible by the dredging activities. Vegetation serves to uptake nutrients from a water body and to improve water quality. The beneficial sorts of emergent vegetation that presently exist within the C-37 basin will have difficulty reestablishing themselves once the dredging activities are completed. This is because the water bodies will be made deeper, water levels will vary sharply and because of boating activities. Sixth, erosion of the canals and ditches is likely to continue as it has in the past. The restructuring of the slopes and the loss of vegetation are likely to increase the level of erosion. Erosion brings increased sediment into a water body. Increased sediment increases biological oxygen demand and reduces dissolved oxygen levels. Seventh, the swale system proposed by GDC to capture upland runoff before it enters the canal system is not adequate to retain pollutants from the runoff and to keep them out of the canal system. As development increases, the amount of pollutants entering the system is likely to increase, and dissolved oxygen levels are likely to be reduced. Some features of the proposed project would serve to improve dissolved oxygen levels that leave the C-37 basin. As water left the basin, it would be aerated because of the 6-foot drop that would occur. This aeration would serve to increase dissolved oxygen levels. The widening and deepening of the canals would also serve to slow the velocity of flows within the C-37 basin, and thus to allow more sediments to drop out of the water that would be passed on to the C-1 canal through MS-3. While these features would serve to improve the dissolved oxygen level in water downstream from MS-3, they would do nothing to improve dissolved oxygen levels within the C-37 basin. The project is likely to cause a deterioration of dissolved oxygen levels within the basin. The features of the project that would serve to improve dissolved oxygen levels downstream are not sufficient to overcome that deterioration and, overall, the project is likely to have a negative impact upon dissolved oxygen levels downstream from MS-3. Dissolved oxygen levels within the C-37 basin and in the C-1 canal already typically violate the Department's dissolved oxygen standards. The project proposed by GDC is likely to increase the frequency and degree of water quality violations.
The Issue The issues concern the request by Petitioner for a permit(s) to dredge in a man-made canal and to construct two boat houses and six boat slips.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns property in Marion County, Florida, from which he has legal access to a man-made canal that intersects the Oklawaha River. This river is an Outstanding Florida Water body. The canal and river are in Marion County, Florida. In November 3, 1989, Respondent received a permit application from Petitioner. This application sought approval to dredge in the man-made canal which is approximately 800 feet long. That canal is owned by the Canal Authority of Florida. The dredging activity would include removal of material at the mouth of the canal as it intersects the Oklawaha River. The applicant intends to expand by dredging the length in the landward extent of the canal from 60 feet to 120 feet and the width from 50 feet to 170 feet. In the landward extent of the dead-end canal, what is described as the boat basin, the applicant seeks approval for the construction of six boat slips and two boat houses. The relative design of the these activities and the placement of the spoil materials removed in the dredging are shown in the application to include responses to the omissions request. That application is found as the Respondent's Composite Exhibits No. 1. At present the applicant has a 30 foot pontoon boat in the dead-end canal. He has a 17 foot bass boat and his neighbor has a 24 foot pontoon boat that use the canal. With the advent of as many as six boats available for the six slips contemplated by this application, the boats would vary in length from 16 feet to 30 feet. In carrying out the dredging activities Petitioner states that he would use anchored turbidity curtains at the intersection of the canal and the Oklawaha River while dredging activities transpired. The exact location of the proposed project is the south shore of the Oklawaha River in Marion County, Florida, in Section 35, Township 14 South, Range 23 East. On June 1, 1990, Respondent noticed its intent to deny the permit. Following that denial Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing to consider his entitlement to the permit(s). The history of the dead-end canal in question is not clear from the record. Its present condition does suggest that it has existed for a considerable number of years. Its appearance does not reflect that routine maintenance has been performed to preserve its original configuration to include maintaining its original depths throughout its course. At the location where the canal intersects the Oklawaha River, the river runs in an easterly direction for a short stretch. Its flow regime at that point is quite swift. This intersection is in a bend of the river. The high energy flow at that juncture has created an undercut at the mouth of the canal and for some distance on either side. The landward extent of the canal or area of the proposed boat basin is an area which was dredged from uplands. The canal extends in an northerly direction to the river through a wetlands swamp. Spoil material from the original dredging had been placed on the east and west side of the canal. There was sufficient deposition on the west side to allow vehicular traffic. That bank of the canal provides physical access to the river. In the Petitioner's experience, at around the time of the application process the water levels in the river and canal were as low as they had been during his three years of observation. At other times during that three year period the water levels had been approximately two feet higher than the low levels described. It is, however, unclear from the record what the normal high and low ranges of water levels in the river would be at this location. Petitioner has observed that the water levels in the canal during the time in question is three feet in most of the canal except at the mouth as it intersects the river where the water level is shallower. As seen in the photographs a great deal of vegetation is present in the water in the canal causing it to be in a marsh like condition. Emergent vegetation exists in certain portions of the canal which indicates a generally permanent shallow water condition. The low water level in the mouth of the canal which has been described is only a few inches deep. The bottom of the canal where it enters the river is more substantial in compaction as compared to the rest of the canal. It is not clear when this compaction occurred, in particular whether it occurred following the original construction of the canal. Navigation is a problem for most boats in the condition of the canal as it was described at the time of hearing. Petitioner describes that he and other fishermen have navigated in the canal when the water levels were high enough to allow that navigation. The canal in its present condition serves as a habitat for wildlife. The wildlife includes blue winged teal, little blue heron, large mouth bass, bream and alligators. In order to mitigate the effects of this project Petitioner has offered to place a recycling water fall in or near the proposed boat basin to allow oxygen to be placed in that basin. This is described in the application documents. Petitioner proposes to landscape the slopes of the basin with boulders and natural vegetation. He proposes to place "no wake" signs along the canal. Notwithstanding the intent to use a turdibity curtain to protect against violations of turdibity standards in the waters in the canal and the adjacent Oklawaha River while dredging, problems of violation of Respondent's turbidity standards are expected to occur. This occurrence is probable given the relatively fast current in the river which precludes the efficient use of turbidity screens or curtains. Dead-end canals such as that envisioned in this project have water quality problems. Enlargement of the dead-end canal does not assist in addressing the problems, even taking into account the intention by Petitioner to recycle water in the proposed boat basin. The water quality standards that are likely to be violated concern dissolved oxygen and BOD (biological oxygen demand). The assurances Petitioner has given about these standards in terms of protections against violations are not reasonable assurances. The addition of six boat slips and the potential for greater use of the canal by boats other than those that presently exist creates an opportunity for other water quality violations. Those possibilities pertain to turbidity problems through the stirring of bottom sediments and a violation of standards for turbidity and nutrients through that process. Oils and greases are associated with the placement of boats in the dead-end canal and a violation of Respondent's water quality standards for oils and greases is possible. During high water events and other flushing events when water from the canal enters the river, the poor quality of that water from the canal will reduce the water quality in the receiving body of water, the Oklawaha River, potentially causing water quality violations in the river. More specifically related to the artificial water fall proposed by Petitioner, such a device is not generally found to be an acceptable solution in addressing any potential water quality problems created by the expansion of the dead-end canal system. In any event, that system of aeration only would address the dissolved oxygen water quality parameter and not other regulatory parameters. The dredging of the canal has adverse affects on the fish and wildlife presently using the waters in the canal through the adverse affect on their habitat. When the water quality is degraded as described it adversely affects public health, safety and welfare for those who use these waters. Petitioner has observed logs jamming in the curve of the river and the accumulation of sand around that area further closing the mouth of the canal. In order to keep the logs free from the canal entrance they have to be moved on a weekly or monthly basis. Petitioner would attempt to save as many trees as possible when dredging in the mouth of the canal. Petitioner intends to sod slopes where dredging occurs and to place berms to keep water from running off into the canal and to prohibit erosion in the area of the boat basin. Petitioner has in mind making it convenient for boats to turn around in the landward end of the dead-end canal and hiding those boats from the sight of persons on the river by keeping them in that area. However, Petitioner acknowledges that when boats negotiate inside the landward extent of the dead- end canal they churn up the bottom sediments and cause problems with water quality. More specifically, Petitioner's right of access to the mouth of the canal is an easement across the property of the Canal Authority of Florida. Petitioner owns the area of the boat basin which is at the far end of the canal. Activities by Petitioner in that portion of the canal about which he does not have ownership rights which violate Respondent's environmental regulations would be adverse to the interest of the Canal Authority of Florida. Petitioner intends to improve the road access along the bank of the canal as it offers access to the river. Two hundred fifty to three hundred feet of the canal length moving away from the river is through a swamp which is marshy with weeded vegetation on its slopes. The rest of the length of the canal is through an uplands. As you move up the slopes in the canal it goes from submerged to transitional to upland species of plants. It is a shallow water system where plants can live inundated or exposed. These are types of plants seen along edges of rivers or lakes where water flows slow. At the mouth of the canal, the compacted substrate has the appearance of what you would find on the edge of a deep creek or river channel. This material is compacted clay or rock with a sand overlay. The area is stabilized. The long term impact of this project is the elimination of vegetation within a marshy system thereby removing habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates and their breeding and feeding areas. In the dead-end canal systems the dissolved oxygen problems are presented by a slow moving regime of water and the suspension of nutrients and materials from the banks of the canal. The bottom materials that are stirred up by boats are transported to the river. Ordinarily canals are too deep to support the form of emergent vegetation found in some portions of the canal. The deeper the canal the more difficult the water problems, and the flushing times take longer. This is especially true with long canals such as the one at issue. This contributes to problems with violation of standards related to DO and BOD. While the canal itself is not an Outstanding Florida Water, the Oklawaha River's ambient water quality is at risk with the dredging activities contemplated by this project.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which denies the permit(s) for dredging and construction of boat slips and docks. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5734 Having considered the proposed facts of the Respondent they are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 C. W. Pardee, Jr. 2769 Northeast 32nd Place Ocala, FL 32670 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC (“the Applicant”); Ram Land Holdings, LLC (“RLH”); and J. Acquisitions Brevard, LLC (“JAB”), are entitled to the Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) issued by the St. Johns River Water Management District (“SJRWMD”) for construction and operation of certain railway facilities within the portion of the Florida East Coast Railway corridor known as Segment D08 (the “Project”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioner is a water control district organized under chapters 189 and 298, Florida Statutes. It owns and maintains the North, Main, and South Canals in Indian River County. The Petitioner manages drainage works for approximately 55,000 acres within Indian River County situated west of the Indian River Lagoon between U.S. 1 and I-95, including portions of the City of Vero Beach. The Applicant, All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Miami, Florida, formed for the principal purpose of developing and operating express passenger rail service connecting the four largest urban population centers in Southern and Central Florida--Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando. This project is known as the All Aboard Florida Project. Respondents, RAM Land Holdings, LLC, and J. Acquisitions Brevard, LLC, are third-party mitigation providers. The parties stipulated that RLH and JAB are not necessary parties to this proceeding. SJRWMD is an independent special district created by chapter 373, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District and to administer and enforce chapter 373 and the rules promulgated thereunder. The proposed project is within the boundaries of the District. The Proposed Project Most of the Applicant’s passenger service route, including the portion which will pass through Indian River County, will use an existing railroad right-of-way established in the late 1800s by Henry Flagler, the founder of the Florida East Coast Railway (“FECR”). The FECR rail corridor runs along Florida’s east coast from Miami to Jacksonville. It was designed to support passenger and freight operations on shared double mainline tracks and was in use from 1895 to 1968. The passenger service was then terminated and portions of the double track and certain bridge structures were removed. The freight service continued and remains in operation today. The Project would restore the passenger service that once existed on the FECR rail corridor. The passenger service route will utilize the FECR right-of-way from Miami to Cocoa Beach and then continue along a new segment to be constructed along a limited-access highway system which runs inland from Cocoa Beach to Orlando. The Applicant is proposing to upgrade the portion of the FECR right-of-way between Miami and Cocoa Beach by, among other things, replacing existing railroad ties and tracks and reinstalling double tracks. This proceeding involves only Segment D08 of the proposed Project. Segment D08 runs from the southern edge of Indian River County to Cocoa Beach in Brevard County. In Segment DO8, the existing FECR railway includes bridges which cross the North Canal, Main Canal, and South Canal owned and maintained by the Petitioner. The bridges are referred to as the North Canal Bridge, the Main Canal Bridge, and the South Canal Bridge. Each bridge supports a single track. The Project calls for adding new bridges alongside the three existing bridges over the canals so that the crossings will again accommodate two tracks. The Petitioner’s objections to the proposed permit are confined to the proposed bridges at the North Canal and South Canal. The new bridge at the North Canal would be constructed along the west side of the existing bridge. The new bridge at the South Canal would be constructed along the east side of the existing bridge. Obstruction of Water Flow The Petitioner’s main objection to the proposed project is that the proposed new bridges over the North Canal and South Canal are too low to allow clearance during a 100-year storm event, which would cause water flow to be obstructed. The Petitioner believes floating debris is likely to be blocked and accumulate at the bridges, causing water to back up and flood lands upstream of the bridges. The Petitioner’s Superintendent, David Gunter, testified that there were “a couple of events where debris backed up either at a bridge or a culvert.” However, he said none of the Petitioner’s ratepayers ever had a flooding event that was attributable to the FECR bridges. The new bridges would be constructed with the same low chord/beam elevations (lowest part of the bridge) as the existing bridges that would remain. For the existing bridge and the proposed new bridge over the North Canal, the low beam elevation is 13.1 feet NAVD88 (North American Vertical Datum 1988). For the existing bridge and the proposed new bridge at the South Canal, the low beam elevation is 8.5 feet NAVD88. Because the proposed new bridges would be at the same height above the canals as the existing bridges, the potential problem the Petitioner is concerned about--floating debris being trapped by the bridges--is already a potential problem. The Petitioner did not claim or present evidence to show that the new bridges would increase the probability that floating debris would be trapped, over and above the current probability for such an event. The Petitioner argued that “two wrongs don’t make a right,” and the new bridges should not be approved even though they are at the same height as the existing bridges. Obviously, the Petitioner wants the existing bridges raised, too. Based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps used by the Applicant, the 100-year flood elevation at the North Canal bridge is 11.5 feet NAVD88, or 1.6 feet below the low beam elevation of the North Canal Bridge. The 100-year flood elevation at the South Canal Bridge is 9.3 feet NAVD88, or 0.8 feet below the low beam elevation of the North Canal Bridge.1/ The Applicant’s consultants performed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the proposed new bridges using a HEC-RAS model which was adapted to local site-specific conditions and incorporated FEMA flood level data. They determined that in a 100-year storm event, the new bridge at the North Canal would cause no more than a 0.04-foot (0.48 inches) increase in water levels immediately upstream (within 500 feet) of the bridge, and the new bridge at the South Canal would result in no more than a 0.07-foot (0.84 inches) increase in water levels immediately upstream. These were considered insignificant impacts that would not cause flooding to upstream properties. The Petitioner disputes the Applicant’s determination that there is a 1.6-foot clearance at the North Canal Bridge and a 0.8-foot clearance at the South Canal Bridge. The Petitioner asserts that the FEMA elevations used by the Applicant are not based on the best available data, and the best available data show the 100-year flood elevations are higher. The Petitioner calculated higher 100-year flood elevations using SJRWMD flood stage gages in the canal near the North bridge and the Petitioner’s own hydrologic model. The Petitioner determined that the low beam at the North Canal bridge is 0.6 feet below the 100-year flood level, and the low beam at the South Canal bridge is 1.5 feet below the 100-year flood level.2/ In other words, the Petitioner contends there is no clearance. The Petitioner’s witness, Simons, testified about why he thought FEMA did not use the Petitioner’s water level data and analysis in determining 100-year flood elevations for the FEMA flood maps, but the testimony was largely hearsay. SJRWMD’s Applicant’s Handbook refers to the use of FEMA flood level data for these kinds of analyses, but it also refers to the use of “detailed information” possessed by SJRWMD. See Section 3.3.4, A.H., Vol II. Information possessed by SJRWMD would likely include data from their own water level gages. The Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to prove their data and modeling was more accurate or reliable than FEMA data and the Applicant’s modeling. FEMA flood insurance rate maps are a standard reference in the industry. The HEC-RAS model is a generally accepted tool used by engineers for this kind of analysis. None of the parties presented evidence to make clear what is the usual or industry protocol for choosing between conflicting data of this kind in the permitting process. The Petitioner has the burden of proof on disputed issues of fact and failed to carry its burden on this disputed issue. It is found, therefore, that the Applicant’s use of FEMA data and the HEC-RAS model was reasonable. The Petitioner admitted that the 100-year flood elevation in the canals has been increasing over time because of the conversion of land uses in the area from agricultural to urban. Because the Petitioner regulates discharges to its canals, it has some responsibility for the rising water levels in its canals. The Petitioner claimed that reduced clearance was due in part to the bridges from “age, use, lack of maintenance, frugality or causes other than design.” However, the Petitioner presented no supporting evidence for this allegation in the record. In its regulatory role, the Petitioner requires a minimum clearance of one foot between a bridge’s lowest horizontal beam and the 100-year flood elevation to avoid obstruction of water flow through the canals. SJRWMD rules do not specify that bridges be designed to have a minimum clearance above the 100-year flood elevation. The applicable design standards for flood protection in the Applicant’s Handbook are set forth in Section 3.3.2(b), A.H., Vol. II, which provides in pertinent part as follows: Floodways and floodplains, and levels of flood flows or velocities of adjacent streams, impoundments or other water courses must not be altered so as to adversely impact the off-site storage and conveyance capabilities of the water resource. It is presumed a system will meet this criterion if the following are met: * * * A system may not cause a net reduction in the flood conveyance capabilities provided by a floodway except for structures elevated on pilings or traversing works. Such works, or other structures shall cause no more than a one-foot increase in the 100-year flood elevation immediately upstream and no more than one tenth of a foot increase in the 100- year flood elevation 500 feet upstream. The bridges would not cause more than a one-foot increase in the 100-year flood elevation immediately upstream or more than one tenth of a foot increase in the 100-year flood elevation 500 feet upstream. Therefore, the Applicant is presumed to have provided reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, or adversely impact the existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities of the North Canal or South Canal. The Petitioner argues that the SJRWMD criteria fail to account for floating debris. The Petitioner claims that bridge designers are obliged to follow basic design guidelines published by FDOT and other government agencies and provide clearance for floating debris, but Petitioner did not offer into evidence these “basic design standards” or prove their industry- wide acceptance.3/ SJRWMD’s engineer, Fariborz Zanganeh, stated that the potential for floating debris to be blocked by a bridge or any other traversing work is considered by SJRWMD to be an operation and maintenance issue, not a design issue. The Petitioner referred to some road bridges in the area that, upon reconstruction, were raised by county, state, or federal governments to comply with the Petitioner’s clearance requirement. First, it is noted that the Applicant does not propose to reconstruct the existing North Canal Bridge and South Canal Bridge. Second, there is a substantial difference between the effort and cost of raising a road and raising a railroad track. Raising the proposed bridges would require elevating the railroad bed for a considerable distance in each direction so that slopes comply with railway safety criteria. The Petitioner failed to prove the Project does not comply with SJRWMD flood control criteria. The Sand Bar The Petitioner also objects to the proposed bridge at the North Canal because the Petitioner contends the existing bridge pilings have caused a sand bar to form, and shoaling and erosion would likely increase with construction of additional pilings. The Petitioner believes the problem is caused by the fact that the existing and proposed pilings, which would have the same alignment, are not parallel to water flow in the canal. There are sand bars upstream of the bridge which cannot have been caused by the bridge pilings. The North Canal, which runs downstream almost due east makes a turn to the northeast under the North Canal Bridge. The record evidence, as well as generally known facts of which the Administrative Law Judge may take official recognition, establish that a change in the direction of water flow in a channel creates non-uniform flow, which can cause erosion and shoaling. The Petitioner did not present evidence to distinguish between shoaling and erosion that could be caused by the pilings and shoaling and erosion that could be caused by the turn in the canal. The Petitioner did not call a witness for this subject who had special knowledge of the science of hydraulics and no study was done by the Petitioner to confirm its theory of the cause. The Petitioner has the burden of proof on disputed issues of fact and failed to carry its burden on this disputed issue. The Applicant asserts that the conditions of the proposed permit provide for maintenance that would include “the removal of any buildup of siltation that might occur over time and potentially cause the North Canal Bridge structure to cease operating as designed.” However, whether the bridge is operating as designed would not address whether the canal is operating as designed because of shoaling. There is no condition in the proposed permit that imposes on the Applicant the duty to remove built-up sediment beneath the North Canal Bridge. It is unlikely that such a requirement can be imposed on the Applicant because it does not own or control the canal. The Petitioner claims the railroad authority denied the Petitioner access to the right-of-way when it sought permission in the past to remove the sandbar at the North Canal Bridge. Unfortunately, a permit condition that requires the Applicant to cooperate with the Indian River Water Control District in performing canal maintenance at the bridges is probably not enforceable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit No. 135214-2, with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report dated August 26, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 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 30th day of March, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Seago Group, Inc., the Applicant/Intervenor, owns a tract of land in Lee County Florida, which is completely surrounded by creeks and canals, including Indian Creek on the north. The Intervenor intends to develop the parcel and is seeking a permit from the Department to construct a bridge over Indian Creek to provide access. There is presently a cul-de-sac at the end of Indian Creek Drive on the north side of the creek. The bridge would extend Indian Creek Drive over the creek onto the applicant's property. The Intervenor held an option to purchase land for the right-of-way on the north side of the creek. The Petitioners own property adjacent to Indian Creek Drive. The Petitioner Helwig owns property upon which be resides, and which adjoins the proposed bridge site. The Petitioner Rowe owns property upon which he resides several lets up Indian Creek Drive from the proposed bridge site. The Intervenor originally made application to construct a road over Indian Creek at a different, but nearby location using a culvert rather than a bridge. The Department's staff appraised the application and recommended that it be denied because deposits of fill around the culverts would have eliminated productive submerged creek bottoms, interfered with the ability of the aquatic habitat to support fish and wildlife populations, and eliminated shoreline vegetation which serves to filter runoff which enters the creek, thus helping to preserve good water quality in the creek. The application was withdrawn by the Intervenor before final action was taken on the Department's staff recommendations. The Intervenor thereafter filed the instant application. The application was to construct: ... A 26 ft. wide by 50 ft. long vehicular bridge constructed with 21" prestressed slabs on pile bent abutments over Indian Creek in Lee County, Florida. The application further provided: All work will be conducted on upland with no need for any equipment or material required to be in the water. All equip- ment and material will be delivered by upland access. The application did not reflect that Intervenor had previously sought a permit for the culvert constructions, but the Department was clearly aware of the previous applications and its appraisal of the bridge application was treated as a supplement to the appraisal of the culvert application. In its Notice of Intent to Issue the Permit, the Department erroneously designated the bridge as a "two-span" bridge. The application is actually for a one-span bridge. In its notice the Department added the following specific conditions: Turbidity screens shall be used during construction. Drainage at bridges approaches shall be by swale and no ditches shall be constructed. Drainage shall meet county specifications. No dredging or filling in Indian Creek. No bridge construction shall take place until ownership or easement is obtained through Mr. David Ruch's property pursuant to letters on file with the Department. The Intervenor has acceded to the specific conditions and agreed to comply with them in the event the permit is ultimately issued. All of the pilings for the proposed bridge would be constructed at or above the mean high water line of Indian Creek. Some turbidity could be expected during construction, however, the use of turbidity screens would eliminate any significant impact upon the water quality, fish and other wildlife resources of Indian Creek during construction. The only potential source of pollution from the bridge after construction would be from runoff entering Indian Creek from the bridge. The amount of runoff that would result from a 50 ft. long by 26 ft. wide bridge is negligible. The limited impact that such runoff could have upon the creek can be eliminated by having drainage flow through a swale system. Since the Intervenor has agreed to utilize a swale system, it does not appear that the bridge would have any adverse impact upon the water quality of Indian Creek or any other water body. Neither does it appear that the bridge would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. Since all bridge pilings would be constructed at or above the mean high water line, transitional zone vegetation can continue to flourish along the shoreline. The planned clearance between the creek elevation at mean high water and the bridge is seven feet. The bridge would thus impede traffic by any boats that protrude more than seven feet above the water line. This presents no significant navigational impact in Indian Creek. There are two avenues for navigating from the bridge site on Indian Creek to the Caloosahatchee River. One of these avenues is presently obstructed by a bridge with an elevation less than that proposed by the Intervenor. The other avenue is obstructed by a very shallow area that will not permit navigation by other than very small vessels. The Department in the past has denied applications to dredge that shallow area. The Intervenor and the Department have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. To the extent that these proposed findings have not been included in the foregoing Findings of Fact, they are hereby adopted as fully as if set forth herein.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc., is a land development and sales firm with principal offices located in Coral Gables, Florida. On November 12, 1980, Petitioner filed an application seeking the issuance of a permit/water quality certification by Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to authorize the excavation of four canals 525' long x 2' wide each with sixteen 10' x 35' boat moorings and to complete excavation on three partially completed canals, all lying in Sections 4 and 5, Township 665, Range 29E, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. 2/ A copy of the permit application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Petitioner's application was received by the Department on November 25, 1980, and reviewed for compliance with applicable state water quality standards, conservation criteria in Chapters 253 and 403, and rules promulgated thereunder. Additional information requested by Respondent was furnished by Petitioner in early 1981. A field appraisal of the project site was submitted by the Department staff on March 16, 1981. On April 8, 1981, the Department issued its intent to Deny the requested permit. A copy of the intent to Deny may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 6. The Department based its intention to deny the permit on the grounds (a) applicant had not provided reasonable assurance that long-term impacts of the project would not result in violation of State Water Quality Standards for all surface waters and for Class III surface waters, and specifically including the following standards: biochemical oxygen demand, detergents, oils and greases, bacteriological quality, dissolved oxygen and nutrients, (b) applicant had not affirmatively shown the project would not interfere with the conservation of marine resources, and (c) applicant had not provided an affirmative showing of the public interest which would be served by the proposed dredging. Petitioners disputed the allegations set forth in the intent to Deny and requested a formal hearing to contest the denial of its application. That request precipitated the instant hearing. The proposed project is located within Port Pine Heights, a subdivision located on the northern end of Big Pine Key which lies approximately 25 miles east-northeast from the City of Key West. More than seven hundred lots have been sold within the subdivision since 1959 although only forty homes have been built to date. Of that total, approximately fifteen homes are located in the southern half of the subdivision where the proposed project is found. Two main canal systems have been constructed in the subdivision, each having an east-west channel that opens directly to Pine Key Channel to the west, and a number of closed-end finger canals extending to the north and south. The two east-west channels and the finger canals are artificially created bodies of water. The specific project site involves the southern canal system which is approximately six thousand feet long and fifty feet wide. It has fourteen finger canals extending from its northern side, including those to be unplugged and excavated, and twelve to the south. The finger canals are 525 feet long by 25 feet wide. The canals to be dredged lie on the landward end of the east-west channel and were constructed by blasting around 1960. A cease and desist order issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in 1973 halted completion of the canals at issue and they have remained either plugged or unexcavated since that time. Petitioner wishes to undertake the proposed work so that it may complete the subdivision begun in 1959. Upon completion, the six canals will have ninety-six waterfront single-family residential homesites of which twenty have already been sold. Because many homesites have more than one lot, a saturation of the area with homes is unlikely. Additionally, the construction of homes within the subdivision has been extremely slow (only forty homes built in twenty years) and no substantial increase in that pace is expected even after the project is completed. Under applicant's proposal the excavated canals will have depths of -4 feet mean low water (MLW) at the dead end increasing to -6 feet MLW at the connection of the existing fifty foot main canal, or an average depth of five feet. The existing canals are all deeper than the proposed canals. The excavation will be done in native oolite limerock and the spoil from the canal system will be used to grade the adjacent upland and form a rip-rap shoreline above the rock level. The entire area will be enclosed by turbidity screens until all work is completed. The substrate at the location is Miami oolite, a type of limestone which is characterized by the presence of fissures and hollows. Even though some groundwater-to-canal water interchange will occur, stormwater runoff has had no deleterious effects on other areas of the canal system since residential development began in the subdivision some years ago. Additionally, oolite rock is typically filled with crevices and dead-ends which hold water or leachate and can aid in minimizing the groundwater-to-canal water interchange. A modified tidal flushing analysis was performed by Dr. John D. Wang, Jr. on behalf of Petitioner in July, 1981. 3/ The analysis investigated the mixing and circulation (flushing) of tidal water in the existing canal system and determined the quantity of water exchange between Pine Channel and the existing canal system. After the project is completed, the overall flushing characteristics and concomitant water quality in the proposed system will be significantly improved. These improved characteristics are primarily due to the new canals having a favorable ratio of MLW volume to tidal prism 4/. As such, there will be higher tidal velocities and more favorable mixing between the canals and the ocean. This is Particularly true for those canals that lie closest to Big Pine Channel. Because the overall flushing time will be reduced on almost all of the system, its ability to purge itself of unwanted constituents will also improve. The Department's concern that boat slips to be cut into the sides of the new canals will cause dead areas of water is not valid. The moorings will not affect flushing because the proposed canals are sufficiently shallow to insure good mixing. Water quality tests within the existing canal system were made by Petitioner in 1980 and 1981 and by Respondent in 1981. The results of applicant's 1981 testing may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 5, and include samplings of dissolved oxygen, temperature, oils and greases, detergents, total and fecal coliforms, biochemical demand (BOD), and nutrients. Respondent's testing included only dissolved oxygen and has been received as Respondent's Exhibit 5. Water quality sampling reflected only one total coliform and no fecal coliforms in the most developed canal in the southern canal system. Readings in the older area of the subdivision adjacent to a septic tank disclosed an extremely low bacteria count. Given the rate of growth over the past twenty years, and the almost nonexistent presence of bacteria, the proposed canals should not cause a violation of the bacteriological criterion. Measurements of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the existing canal system and offshore ambient waters were taken by both Petitioner and Respondent. Dissolved oxygen is the amount of oxygen in the water, usually measured in a liter of sea water, and is needed for respiration of animals and organisms in the water. Biochemical demand (BOD) was also measured in the existing canal system. This measures the amount of oxygen demanded by organics or organisms in the water to convert oxygen to dioxide and water. High BOD levels indicate high amounts of organic debris in the water. High BOD and a lack of dissolved oxygen would cause an anaerobic environment which would probably produce hydrogen sulfide. State water quality standards require that the concentration of dissolved oxygen "shall never be less than 4 milligrams per liter" in predominately marine waters. Rule 17-3.121(14), Florida Administrative Code. Measurements in the open canal system taken by Petitioner in August, 1980, and by Respondent in September, 1981, reflected readings of less than 4 milligrams per liter during the early morning hours. However, such readings are not unusual in natural settings such as Big Pine Key following a long period without light or photosynthesis. The values did not fall below the minimum standards in the canal system on samples taken after 10:00 a.m. Measurements taken in the ambient waters adjacent to the canal system reflected lower readings than those in the canal system. These values also increased during the later hours of the day. increased flushing in the proposed system and shallower depths will increase oxygen throughout the canals. Therefore, its construction cannot be expected to cause DO levels to drop below the present levels found in the canals and ambient waters. Indeed, the shallower canals will be strong producers of oxygen with a high degree of photosynthetic activity and will contribute oxygen to the rest of the canal system. With the exception of one BOD reading of 1.02, all were less than one unit, and may be characterized as extremely low. These levels will not be increased as a result of the proposed activity to the extent that dissolved oxygen will be depressed below 4 milligrams per liter. Oil and grease concentrations may not exceed 5 milligrams per liter under state standards. Readings taken by Petitioner in the canals and ambient waters were less than 0.01 milligrams at every station. Automobiles and boat traffic are generally the primary source of oils and greases. The Department's concern that subsequent development within the subdivision will substantially increase the input of oils and greases into the waters is speculative at best, particularly in view of the low rate of growth in the subdivision over the past twenty years, the extremely low readings in already developed areas, the fact that present concentrations would have to be multiplied 5,000 times to approach proscribed levels, and the back-sloping of lots by Petitioner to minimize stormwater runoff into the canals. Detergents are barely measureable in the existing canal system and ambient waters. In order to exceed state standards, the present levels would have to be increased at least 500 times. Although the Department expects detergents to be added to the waters through stormwater runoff and septic tank leachate, this assertion is inconsistent with present readings taken at stations near homes with septic tanks. In the context of this proceeding, nutrients may be defined as fertilizers or food for marine plants. An excess of nutrients in sea water can increase the level of biochemical demand which in turn decreases dissolved oxygen thereby causing eutrophication of the canal system. The nutrient levels of the present system are low. This was evidenced by Petitioner's measurements of ammonium, nitrates, inorganic phosphate and silicate. The low readings were present even in the older, more developed areas of the canal system. Respondent fears that development would hasten eutrophication in the canal system because bacteria and nutrients would be introduced through septic tanks and stormwater runoff. However, stormwater and septic tank leachate have had no adverse effects on the main canal system which has been in use since 1967. Indeed, continual monitoring of the system by Petitioner since 1974 reveals that the system is a thriving biological community in which nutrients are being utilized by animals at the rate the system produced them. No violation of applicable state standards is expected after the project is completed. The present canal system has a rich and diverse natural population of flora and fauna. However, all areas are not uniform in their attributes or communities. The water within the system is clear. The biological communities are more extensive and diverse within the existing canal system than offshore. Because the new canals will not exceed six feet in depth, they can be expected to develop quite extensive communities of plant life on their bottoms. Colonization of algae on the sides of the canals should occur within a few weeks after the canals are opened. The optimum level of diversity of plants and animals should be reached within four years. The amount of photosynthetic activity on the walls and bottom of the new system due to its shallow depth will contribute oxygen to the other canals within the system. The new canals will make a significant contribution to the total marine ecosystem. The method of sewage disposal utilized by homes that have been built at the subdivision is septic tanks. Septic tanks would likely be used by any new homes built in the area in the immediate future. Petitioner is willing to construct a central sewage treatment plant whenever development is sufficient to make a plant economically feasible. in Petitioner's judgment, at least thirty homes on or around the new canal system must be built before it is willing to undertake such a project. The use of septic tank by the forty homes now built in the subdivision has not caused violations of any bacteriological quality standards to date. Moreover, testing of those same standards in another canal system on Big Pine Key by Respondent disclosed that septic tank leachate had not contravened those standards. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). The addition of thirty more homes in the subdivision over an extended period of time should not increase the amount of contaminants to a level that violates state water quality standards. Petitioner commenced development of its subdivision at Port Pine Heights in 1959. The southern portion of the subdivision in which the proposed canal system is located was first platted in 1963. Five lots on the unfinished canals have been sold prior to April 3, 1970. Completion of the canals was a condition of the contracts for deed to those lots. Petitioner has unsuccessfully sought to obtain the necessary permits to complete the canal project in issue in 1974 and 1976.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Kyle Brothers Land Company, Inc. for a permit/water quality certification to excavate four dead end canals and to complete excavation of two partially constructed dead end canals on Petitioner's subdivision in Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida, be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of January, 1982, 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 20th day of January, 1982.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents Paul Crum, Sr., and Paul Crum, Jr. (the "Crums"), are entitled to the Noticed General Permit issued by the Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") for the construction of a single- family residential dock and associated structures.
Findings Of Fact Background The Crums are the owners of the riparian property located at 15696 Shark Road West, Jacksonville, Florida. The Crum property is adjacent to Pumpkin Hill Creek, which lies within the Nassau River-St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve. Extending from the Crum property into Pumpkin Hill Creek is an existing wood dock approximately 90 feet long and four feet wide, with a platform near the landward end of the dock. Petitioner Brooks owns the property immediately adjacent to and north of the Crum property. Petitioner Brooks has a dock and boat lift. Petitioner Cole owns the property immediately adjacent to and southeast of the Crum property. The Cole property is located on a salt marsh and has no dock. Petitioner Jones lives approximately 3,200 feet north of the Crum property, on a tributary to Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones has fished Pumpkin Hill Creek and the surrounding waters for over 25 years. Noticed General Permits are a type of environmental resource permit granted by rule for those activities which have been determined to have minimal impacts to water resources. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427 grants by rule a general permit to construct a single family pier, along with boat lifts and terminal platforms, provided certain specific criteria are met. In August 2005, the Crums applied for a Noticed General Permit to extend their existing dock into deeper water. The Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for Noticed General Permit, but later rescinded the authorization after Petitioner Brooks complained to the Department that the landward end of the existing dock is located only 21 feet from her property boundary and, therefore, did not comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(3)(d), which requires that a dock be set back a minimum of 25 feet "inside the applicant's riparian rights lines." In November 2005, the Crums re-applied for a Noticed General Permit. Their revised plans called for removal of the existing dock and construction of a new dock extending approximately 255 feet out into Pumpkin Hill Creek. The proposed dock would be located a minimum of 25 feet inside the Crums' riparian rights lines. On December 6, 2005, the Department issued a Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Noticed General Permit for the revised dock, stating that the project satisfied the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.427, as well as the conditions for authorization to perform activities on state-owned submerged lands set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21 and for activities in an aquatic preserve under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20. In April 2006, Petitioners filed three petitions for hearing with the Department alleging that the proposed dock significantly impedes navigation by restricting access to a tidal creek and extends more waterward than necessary to access a water depth of (minus) -4 feet at mean low water, which is prohibited for docks in aquatic preserves under Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.005(3)(b)3. Petitioners attached to their petitions a copy of a bathymetric survey showing the elevations of the submerged lands in the vicinity of the proposed project. In response to the information contained in the survey, the Crums revised their plans to shorten the dock to its currently proposed length of 186.56 feet. A new Notice of Determination of Qualification for a Notice General Permit was then issued by the Department on October 16, 2006. The final dock project consists of: (a) removal of the existing wood dock; (b) construction of a four-foot wide, 186.56-foot long, single family residential dock consisting of an access pier, a 12-foot by 12-foot terminal platform, and a 14-foot by 20-foot open boat lift with catwalk (the “proposed dock”). The proposed dock will terminate where the water will be four feet deep at mean low water. Navigating in and Near the Tidal Creek To the south of the Crum property is a wide expanse of salt marsh. Within the salt marsh are unnamed tidal creeks. The mouth of one tidal creek that flows to Pumpkin Hill Creek is located approximately 90 feet south of the existing Crum dock. The tidal creek is shallow and is not navigable at or near low tide. Petitioner Jones owns an 18-foot flatboat which he sometimes keeps at his residence and sometimes at Petitioner Brooks' property. The boat draws about one foot of water. Petitioner Jones uses this boat to fish in the tidal creek located near the Crum property about ten times every month. No evidence was presented to show that Petitioner Brooks or Petitioner Cole ever navigate in or otherwise use this tidal creek. There are many other tidal creeks located in the marshes associated with Pumpkin Hill Creek. Petitioner Jones boats and fishes in most of them. Petitioner Jones said that, currently, he must wait two hours past low tide for the water depth to be sufficient for him to get into the tidal creek near the Crum property. His usual course to the creek lies just beyond the end of the existing Crum dock. He claims there is a channel there, but no channel is shown on the survey or in any of the parties' photographs. After the proposed dock is constructed, Petitioner Jones' usual course to the tidal will be obstructed. He contends that the new course he would have to take to the tidal creek will take him across shallower areas of Pumpkin Hill Creek so that he will have to wait two more hours (a total of four hours) after low tide to get into the creek. Therefore, Petitioner Jones' alleged injury is the reduction of the hours available to him to navigate in and out of the tidal creek for fishing. The existing Crum dock terminates on a broad mud flat which is exposed at mean low water. However, the bathymetric survey shows the mud flat is at a lower elevation near the end of the dock so water covers this area before it covers the rest of the mud flat. However, the bathymetric survey also shows the elevation of the bottom rising as one moves south from the existing dock. At the mouth of the tidal creek the elevation is 1.0 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum, an official, surveyed reference point). Because the tidal creek drains into the main body of Pumpkin Hill Creek, a reasonable inference can be made that the bottom elevations in the creek generally become higher (and the water depths decrease) as one moves up the creek toward dry land. Prop scars in the exposed bottom at the end of the existing dock indicate that boats have traveled over this area when the water was so shallow that the engine props were striking the bottom. Prop scarring can cause turbidity and damage to benthic organisms. The bathymetric survey indicates that mean high water in this area of Pumpkin Hill Creek is 3.03 feet NGVD, and the mean low water is -1.78 feet NGVD. The mean tidal fluctuation between mean low water and mean high water is thus 4.81 feet. Randall Armstrong, who was accepted as an expert in navigation and piloting, explained that in this area, where there are two daily tides, the water elevation will generally increase by 1/12 of the mean tidal fluctuation in the first hour after mean low water, another 2/12 of the fluctuation in the second, and 3/12 in the third hour. Applying this general rule to the tidal fluctuation here of 4.81 feet results in an estimated 1.2-foot increase in water elevation two hours after low tide and a 2.4-foot increase three hours after low tide. Based on the mean low water elevation of -1.78 feet NGVD, the water elevation would usually be about -0.6 foot NGVD two hours after low tide and 0.6 foot NGVD three hours after low tide. Therefore, the tidal creek (with a bottom elevation of 1.0 foot NGVD at the mouth) would usually be "dry" two hours after low tide and would usually have less than a foot of water three hours after low tide. That evidence contradicts Petitioner Jones' statement that he now navigates into the tidal creek two hours after low tide. That might occasionally be possible, but the bathymetric survey indicates the creek would usually be too shallow at that time. In fact, the evidence suggests that the tidal creek is only reliably navigable without causing prop scars to the bottom by using boats with very shallow draft and waiting until high tide (or shortly before or after) when the water depth at the mouth of the creek would be about two feet. It was Mr. Armstrong's opinion that the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation at the mouth of the tidal creek determines when and how long the tidal creek is navigable, and those times would not be affected by the proposed dock. He described the new course that a boater would use to navigate into the tidal creek after the proposed dock is built. He used the bathymetric survey to show that when the water is deep enough to navigate into the tidal creek, the water depth is also sufficient to navigate the new course. The proposed dock might, as Petitioner Jones alleges, cause boaters to traverse a longer section of the mudflat then they do currently. However, the more persuasive testimony supports the Crums' position that the navigability of the tidal creek is controlled by its shallowest point at the 1.0-foot NGVD elevation and that the proposed dock will not interfere with navigation of the tidal creek by requiring boaters to traverse shallower areas. Petitioner Jones testified that he regularly navigates his boat close to the existing Crum dock. The evidence does not indicate that the proposed dock would cause an unreasonable risk of collision for boaters using the new course to the tidal creek.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order that grants Noticed General Permit No. 16-253057-002-EG to the Crums. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own property located in Section 6, Township 9, Range 16 East, Gilchrist County, Florida (the "Moore property"). Mrs. Linda Bridges owns property adjacent to and south of the Moore property (the "Bridges property"). Respondent, Bridges ("Bridges"), is in possession and control of the Bridges property. Mr. Glenn Miller owns property adjacent to and south of the Bridges property (the "Miller property"). ITT-Rayonier owns property west of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "ITT property"). A dirt road runs north and south in front of and along the western border of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "road"). The road separates the ITT property, to the west, from the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties, to the east. Prior to 1989, surfacewater historically flowed in a northeasterly direction. It flowed northeasterly from the ITT property through a 24 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property. It then flowed north through a 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of the Moore property, across the Moore property, and into Weeks Lake to the north of the Moore property. In 1989, with the consent of Bridges but without a permit from the District, Petitioners began a construction plan that included the installation of two 62 inch culverts to enhance the northeasterly flow of surfacewater from the ITT property to Weeks Lake. One 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 24 inch culvert under the road forming the westerly boundary between the ITT property and the Moore and Bridges properties. The second 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 36 inch culvert on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. The second 62 inch culvert was needed so the same volume of surfacewater flowing from the ITT property through the 62 inch road culvert could continue its northerly flow from the Bridges property to the Moore property and on to Weeks Lake. Petitioners replaced the 24 inch road culvert with a 62 inch culvert but left intact the 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of their property. Thus, a greater volume of surfacewater can flow from the ITT property through the 62 inch culvert onto the Bridges property but a lesser volume of surfacewater can flow from the Bridges property through the 36 inch culvert onto the Moore property. Petitioners removed fill material from the ITT property to widen and increase the height of the road bed on the westerly boundary between the ITT and Moore properties. The heightened road bed impounds a greater volume of surfacewater on the ITT property before it flows over the road onto the Moore property. This can increase the rate of flow of surfacewater through the 62 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property under certain circumstances. Petitioners increased the depth and width of existing ditches, and added new ditches along a portion of the road bed onto the Bridges property. The increased ditch capacity further increases the volume of surfacewater that can flow onto the Bridges property. Petitioners constructed a berm running east and west on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. This increases the volume of surfacewater that can be impounded on the Bridges property without flowing onto the Moore property through areas other than the 36 inch culvert that Petitioners left intact on the southerly portion of their property. The 62 inch road culvert, increased ditch capacity, heightened road bed between the ITT and Moore properties, the berm on the southerly portion of the Moore property, and the 36 inch culvert increase the volume of surfacewater that is impounded on the Bridges property before continuing its historic northeasterly flow. Surfacewater impounded on the Bridges property floods the Bridges property and properties to the south of the Bridges property. Although flooding occurred on the Bridges property prior to the 1989 construction, flooding on the Bridges property and properties south of the Bridges property is greater since Petitioners completed construction. In addition, the ITT property drains more readily. On or about October 13, 1993, Bridges applied to the District for a General Surfacewater Management Permit to replace the 62 inch road culvert with a 24 inch culvert pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-4.2010(1)(a). A General Surfacewater Management Permit is issued for activities that have little or no potential adverse impact to surfacewater resources for the District. The application satisfied all of the criteria for the permit at issue. ITT does not object to the proposed permit even though more surfacewater will be impounded on the ITT property. Issuance of the proposed permit will approximate the flow of surfacewater that existed prior to Petitioners' installation of a 62 inch road culvert without a permit in 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Respondent, Paul Bridges', Application For Agriculture Or Forestry General Surfacewater Management Permit. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6656 Petitioners' Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1.-4. Rejected as immaterial 5. Rejected as recited testimony 6.-7. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 8. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 9.-13. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 14.-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 16.-19. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as recited testimony 23.-24. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Respondent, Paul Bridges, Proposed Findings Of Fact. Respondent, Bridges, did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, Proposed Findings Of Fact. All of the District's proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. and Jerrilyn Moore, pro se Route 2, Box 120-E Trenton, FL 32693 Paul Bridges, pro se Route 2, Box 120K-1 Trenton, FL 32693 Janice F. Bessinger, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Cole Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, FL 32056-1029 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an after-the-fact permit from Respondent for the garage and storage building erected by Petitioners within the floodway of the Suwannee River.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners are the owners of real property located at Lot 15, Suwannee Bluffs as per Plat Book 4, page 18 of the public records of Lafayette County, Florida. Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, is an agency of the State of Florida with a responsibility for surface water management within the District. Petitioners live in a home on their Suwannee River property and, in 1999, completed a garage and storage structure on the property without obtaining a permit for construction of the structure. The structure measures 35 feet by 50 feet. It is a concrete block structure on a concrete slab with a metal roof. There are three doors on one side of the structure. The remainder of the structure is enclosed. On or about March 31, 1999, Petitioners, prior to construction of the garage and storage structure, applied for an environmental resource permit for a boat ramp, which permit was subsequently granted. The entire lot of Petitioners is within the floodway of the Suwannee River. The floodway is defined as a work of Respondent's district in Rule 40B-4.3000, Florida Administrative Code. The Suwannee River flows within the boundaries of the Suwannee River Management District. On or about April 18, 2000, Notice of Violation was sent to Petitioners by Respondent. On or about June 19, 2000, Petitioners executed a Notice of Intention to construct a surface water management system for the already completed garage structure. Basically, the surface water management system envisioned by Petitioners would have consisted of modifications to the already completed garage to permit flood waters to flow through the structure. Respondent did not send any responsive formal notice of denial to Petitioners regarding such proposed intention. Instead, Respondent filed a lawsuit in July of 2000, within the 90-day period required by Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes, in circuit court against Petitioners to prevent the construction of the system. Such action by Respondent constituted denial of Petitioners' requested action. Petitioners' garage construction was in violation of Ordinance 1-87 of Lafayette County, Florida, and in fact, Petitioners received a Notice of Violation from Lafayette County, Florida, dated December 9, 1999, which has still not been resolved. Rule 40B-4.3040, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the placing of a structure in the works of a District without a works of the District development permit. Petitioners' garage structure was not permitted and was in violation of the rules of the District in force and effect at the time of its construction, notwithstanding Respondent's informal delegation of enforcement of those rules to local county governments in Respondent's district prior to July 1999. Rule 40B-4.3030 Florida Administrative Code, proscribes the issuance of a works of the District's development permit for any work structures, road, or other facilities which have the potential of individually or cumulatively reducing floodway conveyance or increasing water surface elevations above the 100-year flood elevation or increasing soil erosion. Testimony of two experts offered by Respondent at the final hearing establishes that the structure in question will cumulatively reduce floodway conveyance and increase water surface elevations above the 100 year flood elevations and potentially increase soil erosion. Adverse impacts to the public interest include the following: increased flood levels; increased scouring by debris and erosion; and increased water surface elevations above the 100 year flood elevation. The cumulative impact of allowing Petitioners' structure and other structures would magnify the problems of increased erosion, debris damage, and floodway conveyance. The cumulative impact from such construction along the water could have significant cumulative adverse impact on the waters of the State of Florida and specifically, the Suwannee River.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Suwannee River Water Management District enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and denying the issuance of an after-the-fact works of the District permit to Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce W. Robinson, Esquire Kris B. Robinson, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Bullock, P.A. Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 John L. Scott, Esquire Post Office Box 475 Branford, Florida 32008 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District 9225 County Road 49 Live Oak, Florida 32060
