Findings Of Fact Respondent, Clyde Vetter (hereafter Vetter), has made application to the Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (hereafter DER), for maintenance dredging and construction of boat docks on his property located in Isle of Capri, Collier County, Florida. Petitioner, Rosanna Loach (hereafter Loach), requested a hearing on the permit request and objected to the issuance of the permit on the grounds that the proposed project would create an offensive odor. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the proposed project poses no serious impediment to navigation and will create no adverse environmental impact. DER has recommended approval of the permit application. Loach presented the testimony of herself and other residents of the area which testimony established that each witness was concerned about possible trash from boats using the proposed facilities, noise, odors, additional boat traffic, the creation of an eyesore and resultant danger to sport fishing. There was no evidence presented which would, in fact, demonstrate that the proposed project would have an adverse environmental impact or would constitute a serious impediment to navigation.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Clifford O. Hunter, is the owner of real property located at Dekle Beach, Taylor County, Florida. Mr. Hunter's property is located at lot 53, Front Street, Dekle Beach, within section 22, township 7 south, range 7 east, Taylor County. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, dredge and fill permits involving Florida waters. Mr. Hunter lived in a home on his Dekle Beach property until a storm in March of 1993 destroyed the home. Mr. Hunter's Application for Permit. On or about June 2, 1993, Mr. Hunter applied for a wetland resource permit to rebuild his home, construct a bulkhead and fill 1750 square feet of salt marsh. The permit was designated No. 62-232123-2 by the Department. Mr. Hunter also sought approval for the construction of a dock. The dock, however, is exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule 17- 312.050(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. On July 21, 1993, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter. On August 13, 1993, Mr. Hunter filed a Request for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department contesting the denial of his permit application. The Department's Jurisdiction Over the Proposed Project. The proposed project involves dredging and filling in the waters of the State of Florida. A wetland resource permit is, therefore, required. Wetland jurisdiction of the State of Florida extends to the eastern edge of an existing concrete slab on Mr. Hunter's property from a canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's northern boundary. The canal connects with the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico surrounding Dekle Beach, except for an area extending 500 feet outward from the town limits of Dekle Beach, is within the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. The preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water (hereinafter referred to as an "OFW"). The evidence presented by the Department to support findings of fact 9, 10 and 11 was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Impact on Water Quality Standards. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Mr. Hunter has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not lower the existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department concerning adverse impacts of the proposed project on water quality standards was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Approval of Mr. Hunter's proposed project would allow the placing of fill in an intertidal area and the elimination of the portion of the intertidal area filled. Intertidal areas help maintain water quality by acting as a filter for water bodies. Mr. Hunter has obtained a variance from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which will allow him to place a septic tank on his property if the permit is granted. The septic tank will leach pollutants. Those pollutants will include nutrients, viruses and bacteria. Because the soil around the septic tank is very saturated, filtering of the pollutants will be low. Pollutants will, therefore, leach into the waters of the State of Florida and adversely impact water quality standards of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Under such circumstances, Mr. Hunter has failed to demonstrate that the project will not lower existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. Public Interest Test. Mr. Hunter failed to present evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed project will not be adverse to the public interest. Rather, the unrebutted evidence presented by the Department supports a finding that Mr. Hunter's proposed project will not be in the public interest, especially when the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, discussed, infra, are considered. Possible adverse impacts to the public interest include the following: The septic tank which Mr. Hunter will place in the 1750 square feet of filled area will allow fecal coliform, viruses and pathogens to leach into the waters of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Anyone who enters the canal could be infected from bacteria and viruses leaching from the septic tank. The conservation of fish and wildlife would also be adversely affected by the adverse impact on water quality and by the elimination of intertidal area. Recreational value of the canal would be reduced because of the adverse impact on water quality. The proposed project is for a permanent structure. Cumulative Impact. There are a number of applications for permits similar to the application filed by Mr. Hunter which have been filed by property owners of Dekle Beach whose homes were also destroyed by the March 1993 storm. If Mr. Hunter's permit application is granted, the Department will have to also grant most, if not all, of the other similar permit applications. Approximately 20 to 30 other applications involve similar requests which will allow the placement of fill and the installation of septic tanks. The resulting fill and use of septic tanks will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on the waters of the State of Florida. The cumulative impact from leaching effluent from the septic tanks on the waters of the State could be substantial. In addition to the impact on the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property, there will a cumulative negative impact on the ambient water quality of approximately 20 septic tanks on the canals and on the OFW. Errors in the Department's Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial issued by the Department contained the following errors: An incorrect description of Mr. Hunter's lot number and section number; An incorrect statement that the amount of Mr. Hunter's proposed fill would eliminate 3,200 square feet of marsh; An incorrect statement that Mr. Hunter proposed to fill his lot for a distance of 64 feet waterward. The errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial did not form any basis for the Department's denial of Mr. Hunter's application. The errors were typographical/word-processing errors. Several notices were being prepared at the same time as the Notice of Permit Denial pertaining to Mr. Hunter. The incorrect information contained in Mr. Hunter's Notice of Permit Denial was information which applied to the other notices. Other than the errors set out in finding of fact 23, the Notice of Permit Denial was accurate. Among other things, it was properly addressed to Mr. Hunter, it contained the project number assigned by the Department to Mr. Hunter's proposed project and it accurately reflected the Department's decision to deny Mr. Hunter's permit application. Mr. Hunter responded to the Notice of Permit Denial by requesting a formal administrative hearing to contest the Department's denial of his application. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Hunter received a letter from the Department which corrected the errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial. The corrections were also contained in a Notice of Correction filed in this case by the Department on December 20, 1993. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter within 90 days after his application was filed. The corrections to the Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter more than 90 days after his application was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and denying the issuance of permit number 62-232123-2 to Clifford O. Hunter. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX 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. Mr. Hunter's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 4. Although Ernest Frey, Director of District Management, Northeast District Office of the Department, did ask Mr. Hunter whether he wanted to sell his property to the State, the evidence failed to prove why Mr. Frey asked this question, that Mr. Frey asked the question in his official capacity with the Department, or that Mr. Frey made the inquiry at the direction or on behalf of the Department or the State. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that the Department denied the permit sought by Mr. Hunter because of any interest the State may have in purchasing Mr. Hunter's property. See 4. 6-8 No relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 6, 23, 28 and 30. Not a proposed finding of fact. See 8. The "aerial photo, Petitioner's exhibit 6, does not show "No vegetation behind the slab, nearly to the Mean High Water Line . . . ." Respondent's exhibit 3 does, however, show vegetation as testified to by Department witnesses. 13-14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not a proposed finding of fact. Generally correct. Mr. Hunter was not properly put on notice of "alternatives" by the Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, issued by the Department. Summation: Mr. Hunter's Summation was considered argument and was considered in this case. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 1 and 4-5. Accepted 6-7. Accepted in 8. 6-9 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 19. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 15. 17-18 Accepted in 15 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 15 and 20-21. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 22. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 15-16. Accepted in 17 and 21. 27-28 Accepted in 17. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 16. 32-33 The Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, did not put Mr. Hunter on notice that the alternatives raised by the Department at the final hearing would be an issue in this case. Those alternatives should not, therefore, form any basis for the Department's final decision. Accepted in 24-25. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 24 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford O. Hunter 1410 Ruby Street Live Oak, Florida 32060 Beth Gammie Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9730 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
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 here presented concerns the entitlement of the Applicant/Respondent, Walker G. Miller, to construct an addition to his existing boat house of approximately 450 square feet, and an addition to his existing chain link fence, both of which are located on Lake Down, Florida. The Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, has indicated its intention to grant the permit application request and the Petitioners, Milton and Gail Hess, and David Storey and others, have opposed the Department's intention to grant the permit.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in Case No. 80-1769, Milton Hess, is an adjacent landowner to the Applicant/Respondent, Walker G. Miller, with property located on Lake Down, near Windermere, in Orange County, Florida. The Petitioners in Case No. 80-1770, David Storey and others, are also landowners on Lake Down. Applicant's parcel is located on Down Point, which is a peninsular extending from the Lakes's southern shore. The project as contemplated by the Applicant is the construction of a 15 foot by 30 foot unenclosed addition on the north side of an existing dock/boathouse combination located on Lake Down. The 450 square foot addition is to be utilized as a storage room adjacent to the boathouse portion of his existing structure. The present structure has a total surface area of approximately 825 square feet. Additionally, by amendment to the application made on August 13, 1980, Applicant proposes to construct a chain link fence from the south property line to the dock facility. Lake Down is one of the waterbodies that constitutes the Butler Chain- of Lakes. The Lake is characterized by outstanding water quality and diversified biological resources. The Chain-of Lakes is widely recognized as the outstanding aquatic resource in the State, as far as water quality is concerned. Development on Lake Down is light, with widely scattered residential units separated by expanses of citrus groves. The construction of the addition will not significantly impact Lake Down or the Butler Chain-of Lakes, either on a long-term or short-term basis. The shading effect of the structure will result in a slight decline of rooted aguatic vegetation. However, such decline should be minimal. Further, reasonable assurances have been given that the proposed project would not result in any violations of State water quality criteria or standards. The existing dock structure now obstructs a portion of the view of the lake enjoyed by Petitioner Hess. However, by constructing the proposed addition on the north side of the existing boathouse, no further impediment of the view will occur.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a permit be granted by the Department of Environmental Regulation to Walker G. Miller to construct an addition to his boathouse and a chain link Fence on Lake Down as more specifically described in his amended application. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 2nd day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: David Storey Route 3, Box 929 Orlando, Florida 32811 Jack Ezzard and Kathryn Ezzard Route 3, Box 925 Orlando, Florida 32811 Tari Kazaros Route 3, Box 924 Orlando, Florida 32811 Mrs. H. D. Barrarly Post Office Box 203 Gotha, Florida 32734 Paula M. Harrison Post Office Box 203 Gotha, Florida 32734 Ava Careton Route 3, Box 926 Orlando, Florida 32811 Nikki Clagh Route 3, Box 928 Orlando, Florida 32811 Milton and Gail Hess 4413 Down Point Lane Windermere, Florida 32786 Walker G. Miller Post Office Box 348 Windermere, Florida 32786 B. J. Heller, Esquire 644 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32804 Richard D. Lee, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Trevey is constructing condominium units on property adjacent to Oyster Creek in Charlotte County, and seeks to develop waterfront facilities for the use of condominium residents. Oyster Creek is a navigable stream flowing into Lemon Bay and thence into the Gulf of Mexico. The proposed site of Dock No. 1 is along the south bank of Oyster Creek in that portion of the stream which constitutes the main channel. Dock No. 2 would be located on a branch or loop off the main channel. The pedestrian bridge would cross this stream near the proposed site of dock No. 2 and would be part of a nature walk on Respondent Trevey's property situated on the south bank of the main channel. At some earlier time the stream was altered by the dredging of a canal which became the main channel and created the island which is the proposed site of the nature walk. In addition to this canal which forms a portion of the main channel, a network of smaller canals has been constructed on the north side of Oyster Creek, generally across from the sites of the construction proposed herein. These canals provide water access for homeowners in this area. Respondent Trevey observed some 92 boats moored in these canals. The main channel of Oyster Creak provides boater access to Lemon Hay and the Gulf of Mexico. Construction of proposed Dock No. 1 in this channel would therefore affect navigation to some degree. Dock No. 1 has a proposed length of 300 feet and a width of 4 feet. The dock would be built two to three feet away from the south bank of Oyster Creek, thus extending about six feet into the channel. The dock would be used to moor boats, on a "parallel parking" basis. Assuming a boat width of eight feet and proper mooring, protrusion into the stream would be approximately fourteen feet. Creek width in the Dock No. 1 site is about sixty feet. The water is shallow and varies with the seasons and tides. Navigation near the north bank opposite the Dock No. 1 site is not possible due to the presence of a large oyster bed. Therefore boat operators tend to maneuver their craft on the (proposed) dock side of the creek center line. The distance from the deepest part of the creek to the south bank where Dock No. 1 would be located averages about 33 feet. The proposed dock and moored boats would take up nearly half of this distance. Since boaters must stay near the deepest part of the channel, as well as avoid the oyster bed on the north bank, navigation around the dock and moored boats could prove difficult. A hazardous situation could occur when boats were passing in opposite directions in the dock area or when any Dock No. 1 boats were improperly moored. Operation of powerboats in the vicinity of Dock No. 2 is not feasible due to shallow waters nor is this branch of the stream utilized for access to open water. Therefore, construction of Dock No. 2 would not impede navigation. The presence in the area of a paved road, bridges, an industrial park, Petitioner's boat ramp and numerous canals contribute to degradation of water quality, disruption of wildlife and soil erosion. Studies made by Respondents established that water quality would not be further degraded by construction of the proposed facilities, nor would any wildlife or vegetation be significantly disturbed. The facilities are designed and located to avoid creating or contributing to soil erosion.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a permit to Howard Trevey for the construction of the proposed pedestrian bridge, nature walk and Dock No. 2, but deny that portion of the application pertaining to the proposed Dock No. 1. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 5th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Makela 2642 Titania Road Englewood, Florida 33533 Richard L. Smith, Esquire 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 33577 Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1991, Petitioner applied to the Respondent for a permit/water quality certification to grade and level, in stages, approximately 20,000 square feet or 0.45 acres of lake front to remove and prevent the formation of berms and depressions in the exposed lake bottom adjacent to his property. The project site is located at 3955 Placid View Drive which lies along the shoreline of Lake Placid, a natural waterbody in Highlands County, Section 24, Township 37 South, Range 29 East. Lake Placid is not an aquatic preserve, and is not an outstanding Florida water. It has been designated as a Class III waterbody. Petitioner's unsubdivided lot lies at the western end of Lake Placid. The shoreline measures approximately 203 feet. The western lot line also measures 203 feet, and fronts on Placid View Drive. The water level of Lake Placid has receded in recent years which allows large expanses of what was historically lake bottom to become beaches, lawns, and areas of habaceous marsh. The specific project which the Petitioner proposes calls for the leveling of the berms and depressions which form on the exposed lake bottom from collected water, which stagnates and permits various noxious creatures, including mosquitoes, to breed in them. The berms and depressions are approximately six inches high or deep and between one and three feet wide, and generally extend the length of the shoreline. The proposed area affected is approximately 20,000 square feet or 0.45 acres of lake front, although Petitioner proposes to actually level a much smaller area in stages of approximately 2,000 square feet on an "as needed" basis. No material other than sod in the beach area is proposed to be brought from or removed to off-site locations. Petitioner is highly sensitive to mosquito bites. The area proposed for leveling was previously cleared of vegetation without authorization. Very little revegetation of the shoreline has occurred since the area was cleared. Vegetation colonizing the beach, at present, includes pennyworts (Centella asiatica and Hydrocotyle umbellata) and water- hyssops (Bacopa sp.) Blue green algae was observed in the depressions which have formed along the shore since the clearing. Fauna observed on-site included gulls (Larus sp.), small fish in the adjacent lake shallows, and water-boatmen (Order Hemiptera) in the depressions. An area landward of the wetlands considered here was also cleared previously and is proposed to be seeded. An adjacent, uncleared shoreline was vegetated with primrose willow (Ludwigia sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), flat sedge (Cyperus odorata), and other wetland species for an almost 100% plant coverage. The Petitioner proposes to use a small tractor in leveling of the shore which will cause turbidity in the lake water. No turbidity controls were proposed by the Petitioner. Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurances that the turbidity caused by the earthmoving equipment in areas presently above water would not cause degradation of water quality in Lake Placid; would not contribute to the long-term degradation of water quality in the lake caused by upland runoff that would flow into the lake without benefit of retention or filtration by shoreland vegetation (freshwater herbaceous habitat) which would be permanently removed under Petitioner's proposal. Nutrients such a nitrogen and phosphorus and pollutants such as pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals commonly used in lawn and garden care would be included in the runoff, and would have an adverse impact on fishing and marine productivity in the lake. The project would have a minor adverse impact on erosion and soil stabilization in the area surrounding the lake. Petitioner has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner can mitigate the project by eliminating the use of heavy equipment and substitute hand equipment to smooth out ruts, berms and depressions in jurisdictional areas.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for Wetland Resource Regulation permit be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 ths 8th day of March, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Mr. Vincent J. Woeppel 3955 Placid View Drive Lake Placid, Florida 33852 Daniel H. Thompson Department of Environmental Regulation Acting General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact On September 1, 1976, Dennis E. Andrews, trustee of the Fannin Springs Trust (hereinafter "Trust"), applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit under Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and for water quality certification under Public Law 92-500, for the construction of a floating barricade across Fannin Springs Run near its entrance to the Suwannee River in Levy County, Florida. Fannin Springs Run extends to Fannin Springs and the outer limits of the springs are about 400 feet from the Suwannee River. The Trust, composed of four trustees, owns the land surrounding the springs and extending to the river. This property is not commercialized, but permission is periodically granted to church and civic groups to use it for social and money- making purposes. In such instances, the particular group operates a soft drink concession stand and charges fifty cents admission to swimmers using the Trust dock and beach area at the springs. However, the Trust insists that any such groups carry liability insurance to indemnify it against any injuries arising from the use of the land and facilities. The property is not open to the general public unless incident to one of the above authorized uses. (Testimony of Usher, Exhibit 6) The proposed floating barrier would be constructed of styrofoam ballast with a wood frame approximately five feet wide and eighteen inches high to be moored on either side of the run by cables secured on the banks. The purpose of the barricade is to prevent boats from proceeding into the springs where a hazard to swimmers has existed for some time. Some of these craft have customarily maneuvered in and around the main swimming area known as the "boil" and utilized the Trust facilities, including dock and beach area, without permission or otherwise paying the concession fee, thus creating hard feelings between the swimming and boating groups. The presence of the boats also causes resentment by those on shore due to the litter composed of beer cans and the like deposited by their occupants. During summer weekends and holidays, the area becomes quite congested with perhaps several hundred individuals enjoying the springs, together with as many as one hundred boats in the area. Incidents have arisen in the past involving reckless boat operation in the springs. Some were reported to the Levy County Sheriff's Office; however, the former sheriff was unable to verify any of the complaints made to his office. It is conceded by all parties to the proceeding, and those members of the public who testified, that a definite safety hazard exists in the area. (Testimony of Usher, Berry, Hartley, Dean, Brown, Judah, Bancroft, Shifflette, A. Andrews, Locke, Exhibits 1, 2, 6) After receiving the permit application, Marcia Elder, an environmental specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulation, inspected the site and concluded that there was a definite need for the barricade, but that the proposed location, approximately 110 feet from the mouth of the "run," would effectively constitute a denial of public access to the springs. She therefore concluded that a diagonal barrier across the springs would serve the same purpose of safety to swimmers, but also provide the necessary access to those arriving by boats. She further determined that such a barrier would create no adverse effects on water quality or plant and animal life and other natural resources to any appreciable extent. (Testimony of Elder, Exhibit 7) Based on Elder's investigation, the Department of Environmental Regulation indicated to the Trust its intent to deny the application. After the parties were unable to resolve the matter informally, the Trust filed a petition for an administrative hearing on September 1, 1976. Formal notification of the Department's intent to deny the application was stated in a letter of December 7, 1976, which advised the Trust that the proposed denial was based on the fact that the barricade would not allow navigation into Fannin Springs, but would create a navigational hazard or a serious impediment to navigation on navigable waters, so as to be contrary to the public interest. (Exhibit 8) The petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer. Subsequent to the filing of the petition in this Division, the parties negotiated further and arrived at a compromise settlement of the matter. It was agreed that if the Trust would place the barrier across the run at a point closer to the springs than previously requested, the necessary permit would be granted. Petitioners Berry and Bancroft, who had previously objected to any barrier at all, were notified by a letter of the Department, dated April 29, 1977, of the Department's intent to issue the modified permit. Thereafter, on May 11, 1977, they petitioned the Department of Environmental Regulation for a hearing, claiming that the proposed barrier would create a navigational hazard, impede navigation and not be in the public interest. The petition further alleged that the contemplated location of the barrier would be in an area where the water would be too deep for children to have access to the shallow water of the swimming area beyond the barrier. At the hearing, however, petitioners acknowledged the existence of a swimming hazard at the springs and Ms. Bancroft agreed that a diagonal barrier as originally proposed by Elder would be unobjectionable. (Testimony of Berry, Bancroft, Petition) If the barrier is placed across the run as agreed to by the Department and the Trust, it would be close to the mouth of the springs in an area of varying depths of 6 to 8 feet and at times 20 feet. The width of the run where the barrier is contemplated is approximately 110 feet. If boats are stopped in that area, congestion would result and boat passengers attempting to swim to the shallow water near the beach or to the land would be endangered by the boat traffic. It is possible, also, that fees would be charged such individuals to exit on the land of the Trust. If the diagonal barrier were permitted, there would be a much larger area for the use of boats, and access to the swimming area would be greatly facilitated. (Testimony of Usher, Berry, Dilger, Seykera, Judy) On July 19, 1977, the Board of County Commissioners of Levy County, Florida, passed a resolution stating that an extremely dangerous situation existed at Fannin Springs because of boaters encroaching upon swimmers. The resolution further stated that application would be made to the Division of Marine Resources of the Department of Natural Resources for the purpose of having Fannin Springs declared a restrictive area pursuant to Section 371.522, Florida Statutes, and having a floating barrier erected at the mouth of the springs to prevent boats from entering the swimming area. (Exhibit 5) On August 22, 1977, the Trust agreed to abide by the provisions of a proposed Department of the Army Corp of Engineers permit to install the barricade at a position across Fannin Springs Run 170 feet from the Suwannee River, subject to providing upland access when the barricade is installed and not charging a fee for the use of the barricade provided upland facilities are not used. (Exhibit 3)
Recommendation That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a modified permit as set forth above to Fannin Springs Trust to construct a floating barrier in the Fannin Springs area, pursuant to Section 403.813(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4.29(e), Florida Administrative Code. Done and Entered this 29th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1977. COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William D. Ryals, Esquire Post Office Drawer J Gainesville, Florida 32602 Mrs. Thomas Berry 8375 35th Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Ms. Julia Bancroft 1414 Cleveland Street Apartment No. 1 Clearwater, Florida 33515 Appendix A List of Public Witnesses Name Address Bruce W. Dilger Suwannee River on U.S. 19 Camp Ground Old Town, Florida 32600 Mrs. Carl Shifflette Executive Vice President Suwannee River Citizens Assoc. Bell, Florida Peggy Seykora Route 3, Box 35 Old Town, Florida 32680 A.D. Andrews Post Office Box 1126 Chiefland, Florida 32626 Wayne C. Locke Post Office Box 147 Chiefland, Florida Fred Judy Route 3 Old Town, Florida
Findings Of Fact By application filed on October 29, 1980, Respondent/Applicant, Harvey B. Ulano, sought the issuance of a permit from Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, to authorize the construction of a private pier for mooring a sailboat at 2640 Northwest Collins Cove Road, Stuart, Florida. A copy of the permit application may be found as DER Exhibit 1. The property in question lies on the North Fork of the St. Lucie River in St. Lucie County. The River is classified as a Class III Water of the Sate. Respondent/Applicant's proposal was received by the Department and reviewed for compliance with applicable State water quality standards. The Department concluded that all statutory and rule requirements, criteria, standards and provisions had been met, including those pertaining to biological productivity impact, water quality and navigation. On January 23, 1981, the Department issued its Letter of Intent to Issue a permit with certain conditions therein, including a prohibition against any dredging and filling associated with the project, the required restoration of submerged lands disturbed by construction activities to their original configuration, the employment of an effective means of turbidity control, and a prohibition against live aboards on boats docked at the pier. A copy of the Letter of Intent to Issue may be found as DER Exhibit 2. The applicant intends to construct a 276 foot long pier from an existing concrete retaining wall on his property which fronts the St. Lucie River. The pier will be built at a perpendicular angle with the shoreline and will be 6 feet wide for the first 240 feet, and 12 feet wide for the remainder of its length. There will be no building or boathouse constructed on the dock, nor will pilings extend above the docking until the area where the boats will be tied. The river is approximately 1500 to 2000 feet wide at the proposed project site. However, the depth of the water close to the shoreline is not sufficient to moor larger boats at low tide. Therefore, it is necessary that the length of the pier be 276 feet in order to insure a minimum 3-foot water depth at all times. Applicant's lot is odd-shaped in size. The waterfront footage is approximately 135 feet. Its sides measure approximately 330 feet on the north boundary and 200 feet on the south. The property of Petitioner, Werner Jungmann, adjoins that of Applicant on the south side and also fronts the river. The pier will be constructed on the northwest corner of Ulano's property, which is the most distant point from Jungmann. Because of the odd shapes of the Applicant's and Petitioner's lots, the end of the pier will project slightly within the lakeward extension of Jungmann's property line. However, the design of the pier is such that it should not obstruct or impair the view of the river now enjoyed by the Petitioner. Navigation in the river and existing channel adjacent to the pier will not be affected by the proposed activity. The shallow water depth in the river next to the shoreline already precludes movements by boats close to the shore. The Department has imposed certain conditions upon the construction and future use of the pier (DER Exhibit 2). These conditions, together with the plans submitted by Applicant (DER Exhibit 1), constitute reasonable assurances 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, and that the proposed activity will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards, rules or regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue Respondent/Applicant, Harvey B. Ulano, a permit to construct a private pier for mooring a sailboat on the North Fork, St. Lucie River, subject to those conditions set forth in the Department's Letter of Intent to Issue dated February 23, 1981. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernon N. Sidaway, III, Esquire Post Office Box 3388 Fort Pierce, Florida 33454 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward B. Galante, Esquire Suite 310 Florida National Bank Building 301 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 33494
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner and developer of real property in Brevard County, Florida. On February 17, 1982, Petitioner filed with DER an application for a permit to construct three docks in the Indian River adjacent to its property. Subsequently, Petitioner withdrew its three-dock application and re- filed its application seeking approval for one dock pursuant to the exemption requirements contained in Rule 17-4.04(9)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The permit for the exempt dock was received by Petitioner on October 1, 1982. Petitioner then filed an application to construct three new docks, while retaining the exempt dock, by application dated November 4, 1982. DER issued an intent to deny this permit application. The three docks which Petitioner proposes to construct are designed to provide a total of 58 mooring slips. The docks are proposed to be constructed in the Indian River adjacent to Petitioner's upland development which is designed to contain 214 units at build-out. Construction of the three docks will involve expenditure of approximately 845,000, and provide approximately five jobs. At the site of the proposed dock construction, the Indian River is navigable, and is classified as a Class II water body. The area of the Indian River in which the proposed docks are to be constructed has been conditionally approved for shellfish harvesting by the Department of Natural Resources. Sampling conducted by both Petitioner and DER confirm the presence of edible clams on the project site and in adjacent areas. Clams are filter feeders which ingest water and entrap suspended particles which are utilized as food. Any contaminants contained in water ingested by clams are concentrated inside the clam until naturally purged. Human consumption of contaminated clams poses a public health hazard. Petitioner proposes to construct the docks by driving pilings into the river bottom with an air-driven hammer. As the air hammer drives the piling into the soil, it displaces the soil beneath the pilings, and densifies it into the shear zone on both sides of the pile. The piles are supposed to be driven approximately four to five feet into the river bottom. The construction and operation of the marina is not expected to diminish the amount of benthic activity in the project area. The habitat provided by pilings is expected to more than offset the loss of the area displaced by their installation. However, the potential for contamination of shellfish in the project area by fecal coliform bacteria and other pollutants will be significantly increased. Although the number of shellfish might not be severely impacted, their fitness for human consumption by virtue of ingestion of pollutants associated with operation of the facility is expected. In order to attempt to offset this expected impact, Petitioner has proposed several restrictions on persons utilizing the docking facilities. Among these are prohibiting detergents for washing boats; prohibiting dockside fueling facilities; prohibiting discharge of bilge water from inboard craft into the river; prohibiting the use of toilet facilities onboard water craft; and requiring boats and equipment to be maintained in good order. Petitioner proposes to have on-site personnel or a subsequently formed condominium association to enforce these requirements; however, no specific workable mechanism for enforcing these procedures was established of record by Petitioner. Petitioner submitted testimony concerning water quality sampling performed in the project area and in areas adjacent to the proposed site. However, no analysis was conducted over and extended period of time to show existing water quality, or to give any credible comparison between the proposed site and other nonresidential marinas in the area. Further, Petitioner conducted no analysis of bottom sediments in the proposed project area in order to determine the type and extent of any pollutants existing on-site which could be expected to be re-suspended in the water column as a result of intense marine activity. These omissions are significant in view of the fact that the waters of the Indian River in this area have been approved for shellfish harvesting. There are several existing marinas and boat ramps within close proximity to the Petitioner's development. Consequently, both the general public and residents at the development have ample access to the waters of Indian River and its surroundings. Petitioner has made no showing of any hardship which would justify the granting of a variance from DER permitting requirements.
