The Issue The preliminary issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (District) has jurisdiction over the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) filed by the Save the Manatee Club (Club)--i.e., whether the Petition was timely or, if not, if the District has jurisdiction under principles of equitable tolling or excusable neglect.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1999, Hidden Harbor filed with the District an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) to construct and operate a surface water management system serving a proposed residential development in Lee County, Florida. In January 2001, the Club sent an email to the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) stating that it was concerned about Hidden Harbor's Application No. 991011- 13, as it might impact an area the Club would like to see as a manatee sanctuary, and was requesting copies of all FWCC documents relating to the permit. FWCC forwarded a copy of this email to the District on January 19, 2001. At the time, the Club's internet website gave the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. On April 9, 2001, the Club opened a Southwest Florida regional satellite office in Estero, Florida, and installed Laura Combs as Regional Coordinator in charge of that office. Responsibility for monitoring the Hidden Harbor application was delegated to Combs and the satellite office. Nonetheless, the Club's website continued to give the address of its main office in Maitland, Florida, as the Club's official mailing address. Combs's prior work experience with the Club was as assistant director of governmental relations in Tallahassee, Florida. In that position, she tracked legislation and actions of the Governor and Cabinet that were of interest to the Club. She had no role in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of governmental agencies. Combs's education included a bachelor's degree in English and a master's degree in urban and regional planning. She did not have specific legal education in the filing of petitions for administrative hearings on actions of state governmental agencies. On May 30, 2001, the District mailed to the Club at its Maitland office address a letter enclosing the "District's staff report covering the [Hidden Harbor] permit application [No. 991011-13]" and notifying the Club that the "recommendations as stated in the staff report [to grant the attached draft permit] will be presented to our Governing Board for consideration on June 14, 2001." The Club also was advised: Should you wish to object to the staff recommendation or file a petition, please provide written objections, petitions and/or waivers (refer to the attached "Notice of Rights") to [the District's deputy clerk]. The "Notice of Rights" addresses the procedures to be followed if you desire a public hearing or other review of the proposed agency action. You are advised, however, to be prepared to defend your position regarding the permit application when it is considered by the Governing Board for final agency action, even if you agree with the staff recommendation, as the Governing Board may take final agency action which differs materially from the proposed agency action. The Notice of Rights stated that it was intended to conform to the requirement of Section 120.569(1), Florida Statutes, to "inform the recipient of any administrative hearing or judicial review that is available under this section [120.569(1)], s. 120.57 or s. 120.68." It cautioned: Please note that this Notice of Rights is not intended to provide legal advice. Not all the legal proceedings detailed below may be an applicable or appropriate remedy. You may wish to consult an attorney regarding your legal rights. The Notice of Rights included a section entitled "Petition for Administrative Proceedings," which stated in pertinent part: A person whose substantial interests are affected by the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) action has the right to request an administrative hearing on that action. The affected person may request either a formal or an informal hearing, as set forth below. A point of entry into administrative proceedings is governed by Rules 28-106.111 and 40E-1.511, Fla. Admin. Code, (also published as an exception to the Uniform Rules of Procedure as Rule 40E-0.109), as set forth below . . .. Formal Administrative Hearing: If a genuine issue(s) of material fact is in dispute, the affected person seeking a formal hearing on a SFWMD decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. or for mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, Fla. Stat. within 21 days . . . of either written notice through mail or posting or publication of notice that the SFWMD has or intends to take final agency action. Pertinent to this case, the Notice of Rights included a verbatim reproduction of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.201, addressing required contents of a petition to initiate proceedings involving disputed issues of material fact. Rules 28-106.111, 40E-1.5111, and 40E-0.109 were not reproduced in the Notice of Rights. It is not clear from the evidence when the letter dated May 30, 2001, with attachments (the Notice Correspondence), was received in the Club's Maitland office. It was not date-stamped, as time-sensitive correspondence normally would be. Apparently, it was decided to forward the Notice Correspondence to the new satellite office in Estero for handling. Combs received the forwarded Notice Correspondence in early June 2001. This was the "first time [Combs] had been through this type of process." Combs reviewed the Notice Correspondence, eventually focusing on paragraph 1.a. of the "Petition for Administrative Proceedings" section of the Notice of Rights. She did not read any of the cited statutes and rules except for the rules reproduced verbatim as part of the Notice of Rights. Combs made conflicting statements regarding her understanding of the District's administrative process. However, it appears that she understood that the Club could file a petition within 21 days of receipt of the Notice Correspondence, or within 21 days of the "final" action of the District's Governing Board. She testified that, because the Notice Correspondence did not bear a date-stamp, it was unclear when the first 21-day time period began or ended; as a result, she decided to wait until the District's Governing Board took "final" action and file a petition within the second 21-day time period. Combs appeared at the meeting of the District's Governing Board on June 14, 2001, and spoke in opposition to issuance of the draft permit. Notwithstanding the Club's opposition, the Governing Board decided to issue the draft permit. Combs does not have authority to file petitions for administrative hearings on District actions. She consulted with her supervisor, Patricia Thompson, and they made a recommendation to the Club's governing board, which has ultimate authority to file petitions. Prior to Combs's involvement in the Hidden Harbor application, the Club had staff legal counsel, who could be consulted with respect to the filing of petitions and would advise the Club's governing board. However, the Club did not have staff legal counsel at the time of Combs's involvement and through the time of filing of this petition. (The Club now again has staff legal counsel.) Neither Combs nor Thompson saw any need to consult an attorney. It is not clear when the recommendation of Combs and Thompson was presented to the Club's governing board or when the Club's governing board made its decision to file the Petition. Neither Thompson nor any member of the Club's governing board (nor anyone else who may have participated in the decision to file the Petition) testified. Several (according to Combs, approximately 12) times after the District's Governing Board's meeting on June 14, 2001, Combs telephoned the District's offices to obtain a copy of the District's Governing Board's "final" action when it was reduced to writing. It is not clear from the evidence why several telephone calls were required. Eventually, on June 26, 2001, Combs received a copy of the permit issued to Hidden Harbor; there was no Notice of Rights attached. On July 17, 2001, the Club filed its Petition challenging the permit issued to Hidden Harbor. In the meantime, Hidden Harbor had obtained a final development order from Lee County in reliance on the Club's failure to petition for an administrative hearing. The Club is not a newcomer to Florida's administrative process. It can be officially recognized that the Club has participated in numerous proceedings before DOAH. At least one of those cases involved issues similar to those presented for determination in this case. See Conclusion of Law 32, infra.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 6th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy L. Bartin, Esquire Post Office Box 861118 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Martha M. Collins, Esquire 233 3rd Street North, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Keith W. Rizzardi, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3089 Frank R. Finch, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should grant the application of Daniel Borislow, LLC, for an after-the-fact Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and issue ERP 50-09272-P.
Findings Of Fact In 2007, Borislow bought 6.2 acres of land near the corner of Congress Avenue and Summit Boulevard in West Palm Beach. Borislow proceeded to create a soccer field on the property. The project required the addition of fill, the grading and leveling of the field and a shellrock driveway/parking area, and the installation of sod, an irrigation system, an exfiltration trench for water quality treatment, and lighting. Later in 2007, Borislow's activities came to the attention of SFWMD, which cited Borislow for conducting activities requiring an ERP without applying for and obtaining one. To resolve the enforcement action, Borislow agreed to apply for an after-the-fact ERP. Initially, SFWMD estimated primarily from aerial photography that 0.71 acres of wetlands were filled and impacted. During the permitting process, SFWMD's estimate of direct wetland impacts was reduced to 0.50 acres, and the mitigation required for direct and secondary2 wetland impacts was determined using the Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP).3 It was determined that Borislow's purchase of 0.2 of a freshwater herbaceous wetland credit in the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank would offset the project's wetland impacts. SFWMD staff determined that all ERP criteria were met.4 Spots stipulated that there are no water quality issues, that no wetland-dependent endangered or threatened species of special concern have been observed at or in the area of the project site, and that the potential use of the site by such species is minimal.5 Spots contends: SFWMD underestimated the extent of impacted wetlands (and, therefore, the amount of mitigation did not offset the wetland impacts); reasonable assurance was not given that the project will not flood the Spots property to the north, in violation of permitting criteria in Florida Administrative Code6 Chapter 40E-4 and SFWMD's Basis of Review for ERPs (BOR); and reasonable assurance was not given that water storage and conveyance capabilities would not be adversely impacted, in violation of the permitting criteria in Rule Chapter 40E-4 and the C-51 basin compensating water storage requirements of Rule Chapter 40E-41, Part III. In normal permitting, existing wetlands are delineated in accordance with Rule Chapter 62-340. In this after-the-fact permit application, former wetlands had to be estimated. Spots reasonably contends that Borislow should not benefit from having filled wetlands without an ERP. But the evidence proved that the former wetlands on the Borislow property were properly estimated. Contrary to the contention of Spots, the wetlands were not estimated on the basis of a single aerial photograph. There were numerous aerial photographs over several years, which the experts could interpret and use to make a reasonable estimate of the extent of the former wetlands on the site. Ironically, while criticizing SFWMD's alleged reliance on a single aerial photograph to determine the extent of the former wetlands, Spots relied on a single aerial photograph to claim that the former wetlands on the Borislow property were deep and larger than 0.5. acres. The photograph appeared to show standing water only on the Borislow property, but it is possible that standing water on the Spots property was obscured by vegetation. In addition, it is impossible to determine the depth of the water from the aerial photograph, and there was no evidence as to the rainfall preceding the aerial photograph. Spots provided no other evidence to support its claim that more mitigation is needed to offset the wetland impacts. On the issue of flooding the Spots property, the evidence was clear that, contrary to the drawings in the ERP, the highest elevations in the northwest corner of the Borislow property are several feet south of the Borislow/Spots property line,7 and several feet higher than the elevation at the property line,8 causing surface water to flow down this slope from the Borislow property onto the Spots property. The evidence proved that no such "back-flow" existed in that location before the project. This "back-flow" can be prevented from crossing the property line by placing a swale or railroad tie or some other similar vertical retaining wall near or on the property line. Borislow has agreed to an additional ERP condition that this be done. The Borislow property is in sub-basin 30 of the C-51 basin. Spots and its engineering expert criticized the engineering calculations used by the experts for Borislow and SFWMD to provide reasonable assurance that the project did not result in a net decrease in water storage capacity in the basin. Spots contended that the calculations incorporated pre- development elevations taken from a 2005 aerial photograph. However, the more persuasive evidence was that the elevations used in the calculations actually came from survey information on surrounding properties, including the Spots property and Summit Boulevard, plus the control elevation in nearby Lake Worth Drainage District L-5 Canal. Elevations for the former wetlands on the Borislow property were assumed to be 10 feet NGVD9 based on the actual elevations of the existing wetlands on the Spots property. The testimony of the experts for Borislow and SFWMD as to the source of the elevations used in the calculations is accepted. The engineering calculations developed by Borislow's expert and accepted by SFWMD indicated a net increase in water storage capacity as a result of grading and leveling the property.10 The calculations compared pre-development and post- development storage capacity between the water table11 and the 100-year storm elevation, which was calculated to be 14.1 feet NGVD. The evidence did not adequately explain how grading and leveling the Borislow property would increase water storage; it would seem that no change in water storage would result. The engineering calculations assumed that no fill was deposited on the property. However, the evidence was that 150 to 300 truckloads of fill, each with 17 to 18 cubic yards, for a total of 2,625 to 5,250 cubic yards, were delivered to and placed on the property. If 300 truckloads were used, this would represent as much as an acre-foot of fill.12 Although the fill would have some water storage capacity, adding that much fill to the property logically would result in a net decrease in water storage capacity in the C-51 basin. This loss was not quantified, or compensated.13 Borislow testified that the fill was used to construct a 13-foot high, 330-foot long, 30-foot wide berm along the western perimeter of the property and another large berm along the northern and southern perimeters of the soccer field.14 But other evidence does not support Borislow's testimony. According to the drawings in the ERP, there are a total of 370 feet of berms, which are required to be a minimum of six inches high to maintain elevation 13.4 feet NGVD to contain the peak stage of a 10-year, 3-day design storm.15 Based on the ground level photographs in evidence, the berms do not appear to be anywhere near 13 feet high or 30 feet wide. In any event, the evidence does not prove that the fill deposited on the property was higher than 14.1 feet NGVD. Regardless of the exact dimension of the berms, it appears that the fill was deposited in a way that would result in a net decrease in water storage capacity in the C-51 basin. SFWMD seems to suggest in its PRO that the fill should be disregarded because there were no records to confirm the dates it was delivered, or the amounts delivered, and because it might have been delivered to an adjacent property.16 But the burden of proof was on Borislow. See Conclusion of Law 16, infra. There was no evidence to prove that Borislow had the fill deposited on an adjacent property. It is more likely that the fill was deposited on the Borislow property in large part to fill the former wetland, which probably was lower than 10 feet NGVD. Spots also charged that Borislow's project essentially obstructs the previous flow of surface water from the wetlands on the Spots property into the wetlands on the Borislow property, such that surface water now backs up on the Spots property. This appears to be true. Since it appears that the wetlands on the Borislow property were lower than the wetlands on the Spots property, grading and leveling would have that effect; adding fill would exacerbate the effect. Spots also argued that the evidence did not provide reasonable assurance on the ability of Borislow's system to recover from a 10-year, three-day storm event, so as to be able to again retain the surface water runoff from a successive storm of that magnitude and duration 12 days later. But the persuasive evidence was to the contrary, primarily due to the major drainage features in the vicinity--namely, the C-51 and the L-5 canals.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that SFWMD deny Borislow's after-the-fact ERP. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of August, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Stipulation of counsel, the exhibits, and the pleadings filed herein, the following findings of fact are made: On December 11, 1998, Ms. Morro, who is the wife of Michael J. Morro, the developer of the property, filed her application with the District for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), which would authorize the construction of a surface water management system (including one wet-detention pond) to serve a 12-lot, single-family residential subdivision known as Tranquility on Lake Brantley in Seminole County, Florida. In more specific geographic terms, the project is located on the south side of Wekiva Springs Road, on Cutler Road, and on the north side of Lake Brantley near the City of Longwood. The application was assigned number 40-117-0567A-ERP. The exhibits filed herein suggest that Ms. Morro, and not Mr. Morro, owns the subject property. After determining that the Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities met the conditions for issuance of a permit and the system was consistent with its review criteria, on July 14, 1999, the District approved the application and issued Permit Number 40- 117-51722-1 (1999 Permit). However, the Permit did not authorize the construction of a retaining wall on Lot 10 of the Applicant's property. There is no record of any third party challenging the issuance of the 1999 Permit. On February 19, 2002, the Applicant submitted "as built drawings" to the District, as required by Condition 10 of the 1999 Permit, to enable the District to verify that the work was completed in compliance with the approved plans and specifications. These as-built drawings did not reflect a retaining wall on Lot 10. Mr. Adley resides and owns property at 880 Lake Brantley Drive, Longwood, Florida, which is "next to" the Morro property. It is fair to say that a less-than-harmonious relationship exists between the two neighbors. Indeed, the exhibits reflect that Mr. Adley, the Applicant, and the Applicant's surveyor "have been involved in several causes of action between them over details of development on this property," and that over the years Mr. Adley has filed numerous complaints with the District regarding alleged violations by the Applicant while she performed work under the 1999 Permit. Mr. Adley is familiar with ERPs and the process for obtaining one, having had ownership interests in businesses that have obtained ERPs from the District, and having participated in the activity undertaken to obtain the permits and then implement the activities authorized by the permits. On May 16, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a letter to Kirby A. Green, III, Executive Director of the District, citing seven issues regarding Ms. Morro's proposed subdivision and asking that he be notified, in writing, "of any modifications to the permit, request for modifications of the permit, notice of violations, change to the approved plan, changes to the Covenants and Articles of Incorporation, any other changes to the proposed construction activities and any public notices that would effect [sic] [his] right to file for an administrative hearing." Mr. Adley also indicated that he had scheduled a meeting with William E. Carlie, Jr., District Compliance Manager, to be held on May 19, 2003, "to discuss these issues with him in person." On May 29, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a letter to Duane Ottenstroer, then Chairman of the District's Governing Board, regarding "the subdivision being constructed next to [his] home." In his letter, he voiced concerns about the recorded conservation easement on the Morro property being significantly different from the easement approved by the 1999 Permit. He also complained that the Applicant had submitted false information with an application submitted to the District in 1991. Finally, he enclosed a copy of the letter previously sent to Mr. Green. On June 6, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a second letter to Mr. Carlie advising that the Applicant was violating the conditions in the 1999 Permit in five respects. The letter confirmed that Mr. Adley would again meet with District staff concerning this matter on June 11, 2003. After conducting an investigation regarding Mr. Adley's allegations of violations by the Applicant, on September 12, 2003, K. Wilford Causseaux, an engineer in the Department of Water Resources, sent a letter to the Applicant's surveyor, Michael W. Solitro (who Mr. Adley says is the former Seminole County Surveyor who loaned the Applicant money in April 1998 to develop the land and then purchased a discounted lot from the Applicant in return for "development services"), affirming the staff's finding that the "construction on [Morro's] residential property on Brantley Drive has encroached on the 100-year flood plain in the rear yard of Lot 11." Also, the letter identified the remedial steps that must be undertaken to correct three "issues associated with [the] residential construction." Finally, the letter noted that Mr. Morro had agreed to remove fill on Lot 7 that violated the "limits of construction" and return the rear-lot grading to its pre-development condition. On September 29, 2003, Mr. Adley sent a third letter to Mr. Carlie confirming that the District had not allowed the Applicant to construct a retaining wall in lieu of a swale on Lot 11 and that if the Applicant wished to construct a wall, she must apply for a modification to the 1999 Permit. The letter also noted that Mr. Carlie agreed to notify Mr. Adley "in writing of any modification to the permit," including "minor" modifications. Finally, Mr. Adley requested the status of the incorrect conservation easement recorded on the property. Apparently in response to that letter, by email dated October 10, 2003, Mr. Carlie notified District counsel that Mr. Adley "has submitted a written request for actual notice of any proposed modification of this permit, will likely object, and potentially will challenge any agency action in this regard to a 120 hearing." On October 24, 2003, Mr. Carlie responded to Mr. Adley's letter of September 29, 2005, and advised him that the staff had determined that "portions of the fill placed for development of [Lot 11] are waterward of the limits of construction" and that this action "is a violation of the permit subject to enforcement action." The letter confirmed that the District understood Mr. Adley's "request to be noticed of any modifications of the reference permit" and promised that "actual notice (mailed notice to your residence) of any action this agency undertakes in this regard" would be given. Mr. Carlie further explained that some modifications to a permit could be issued by letter, while other modifications required an application, fee, and formal agency action. He indicated that the remedial steps outlined in his letter dated September 12, 2003, to Mr. Solitro "may qualify for a permit modification by letter under the provisions of section 40C-4.331 F.A.C." Finally, Mr. Carlie stated that the "District continues to understand your concern about this project and request to be noticed of any modifications of the reference permit. You will be provided actual notice (mailed notice to your residence) of any action this agency undertakes in this regard." Also on October 23, 2003, Mr. Carlie sent a second letter to Mr. Adley outlining in detail the results of the District's investigation of Mr. Adley's concerns expressed in various letters and at least two meetings with staff. On May 3, 2004, Frank J. Meeker, the District's Ombudsman, sent Mr. Adley a letter regarding a Verified Complaint dated April 1, 2004, that Mr. Adley had filed with the Executive Director. (The Verified Complaint was not included in the exhibits which accompanied the Stipulation, but a copy is attached to the Motion.) The letter responded to "six specific objections" Mr. Adley had raised concerning work on the Morro property. It also instructed the District staff to prepare, within thirty days, a letter of modification to the 1999 Permit which addressed the conservation easement, monuments, and 100- year flood elevation issues, together with a recommendation for approval or denial, and to submit the modified conservation easement to the Executive Director for approval or denial. Finally, the letter noted that Mr. Adley would receive "written notice of these actions" and an opportunity to object to these modifications. The record is unclear whether Mr. Meeker's instructions to staff resulted in a letter of modification to the 1999 Permit without further action by the Applicant, or whether it triggered an application by the Applicant to modify her 1999 Permit based upon the staff recommendations. More than likely, the latter occurred. On May 26, 2004, Mr. Meeker provided a follow-up letter to Mr. Adley in which he confirmed that Mr. Adley had been given a copy of the project plans dated June 17, 1999, used by Ms. Morro in securing the 1999 Permit. He further advised that until he received a staff survey "to determine the size of the dock [for purposes of determining if a permit was required] and the location of the red wall and retaining wall," no disposition of those issues could be made. Finally, he advised that no formal request for modification of the 1999 Permit had been filed, but if and when one was filed, he was "directing staff to supply you with a copy of such application." On July 6, 2004, Ms. Morro filed an application with the District seeking to modify her 1999 Permit. (The application noted that Mr. Morro would serve as Ms. Morro's authorized agent to secure the permit.) In the application, Ms. Morrow described the proposed activity as follows: "Alteration of permitted conservation easement[,] to remove easement from lot 11[,] and provide reserved rights for construction of 2 single family docks." This application was assigned number 10-117-51722-2. As noted above, the application did not include a provision for a retaining wall on Lot 10. However, sometime between the time the application was filed in July 2004 and January 21, 2005, the Applicant amended her application to add a request for a retaining wall. By email dated July 12, 2004, counsel for the District notified the reviewer of the application, Anthony Miller, that "I told Mr. Adley to call PDS [Permit Data Services]. Who should I contact there to see what notice was sent? Mr. Adley is going to challenge this so we need to make sure everything is done right." Mr. Miller emailed back the following response: "I have no idea. I assume it was noticed as usual through PDS to those listed to receive notices. Should we do anything more, like contacting Mr. Adley directly?" By letter dated July 15, 2004, Mr. Carlie forwarded a "complete copy" of Ms. Morro's application to Mr. Adley. The letter noted that Mr. Adley's receipt of the letter, attached materials, and notice of rights "shall serve [as] the notice you requested for the purposes of timeframes under Chapter 120, F.S." (A copy of Notice of Rights was enclosed; it set out in detail the process by which Mr. Adley could request a formal hearing.) The enclosed construction drawings did not indicate the inclusion of a retaining wall. During the staff's review process of the application, two Requests for Additional Information (RAI) were sent by the District to Mr. Morro on August 3, 2004, and January 21, 2005. Significantly, item 4 on page 2 of the RAI dated January 21, 2005, noted that "[t]he plans indicate that a retaining wall is proposed. Please provide detailed calculations, and a revised wall detail as necessary, to demonstrate that this portion of the surface water management system will function as intended." (Emphasis added) Copies of both RAIs were sent to Mr. Adley. On February 28, 2005, the Applicant filed a letter and attachments in response to the January 21, 2005 RAI, which included, among other things, plans and details prepared by a professional engineer for a retaining wall to be located landward of the 100-year floodplain, the limit of construction. The Stipulation and exhibits do not indicate whether these documents were ever provided to Mr. Adley at that time.1 However, on March 9, 2005, they were provided to his counsel for review. See Finding of Fact 21, infra. By letter dated January 21, 2005, Mr. Adley's former counsel (Timothy A. Smith, Esquire) made a public records request for inspection of "the district files relating to permit numbers 40-117-51722, 40-117-0567, and any other district permits or applications for such permits relating to the property owned by Frances and Michael Morro on Brantley Drive along the northern shore of Lake Brantley." (The letter indicates that Mr. Smith would meet District counsel in Palatka on January 25, 2005, to review this part of the records request.) The letter also requested that Mr. Smith be allowed to review all files of eleven District employees which related to the various iterations of the Morro project in 1990-1991, 1997-1998, and 1999 to present. The records pertaining to the second part of the request were apparently located in another office and were to be inspected at a later time. According to the Stipulation, in response to the public records request, on March 9, 2005, Mr. Smith reviewed all requested files in the District's main office in Palatka and the District's field office in Altamonte Springs. (As noted above, part of the records were inspected on January 25, 2005, in Palatka.) It is fair to infer that on March 9, 2005, Mr. Smith would have had the opportunity to review the Applicant's plans and details for a retaining wall filed with the District on February 28, 2005. By this time, then, Mr. Adley should have been on notice that the Applicant had modified her application and now sought to build a retaining wall. On March 30, 2005, the District, through its Altamonte Springs field office, approved Ms. Morro's application and issued Permit No. 40-117-51722-2 (2005 Permit). The 2005 Permit authorized the modification of the 1999 Permit "to include the construction of a retaining wall along the rear of Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 and the 'lot split' lot, and to amend the easement on Lots 9 and 10, to allow selective clearing and trimming of the conservation easement in accordance with a District approved landscape plan, and to exclude lands no longer under the applicant's control." On April 10, 2005, notice of the issuance of the 2005 Permit was published by Ms. Morro in the Sanford Herald, a newspaper of general circulation in Seminole County. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-1.1007(1). The Notice provided that "[p]etitions for administrative hearing on the above application must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of publication of this notice or within twenty-eight (28) days of the District depositing notice of this intent in the mail for those person to whom the District made actual notice. Failure to file a petition within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right(s) such person(s) may have to request an administrative determination (hearing) under sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. concerning the subject permit." Therefore, if notice was received by publication, petitions objecting to the issuance of a permit were due no later than May 1, 2005, or if written notice was given, petitions were due no later than May 8, 2005. The District did not send Mr. Adley written notice of its intent to issue the 2005 Permit. There is no indication in the Stipulation, exhibits, or Motion as to why notice was not sent, particularly since Mr. Adley had made numerous requests for written notice of any District action on the property, and he had been promised such notices by various District personnel since at least October 2003. On April 25, 2005, Ms. Morro began construction of the retaining wall authorized by the 2005 Permit and construction continued over the next thirty calendar days. It is fair to assume that the wall was completed on or about May 25, 2005. Also on April 25, 2005, or the day construction began, at Mr. Adley's direction, Mr. Smith (his former counsel) telephoned Mr. Carlie to inform him that construction activity on Lot 10 was taking place. Therefore, it is clear that on that date, Mr. Adley had observed that construction on the Morro property had begun. In response to Mr. Smith's telephone call, Mr. Carlie then requested that two District employees, Mr. Casseaux and David Eunice, investigate what was occurring on the Morro property. On the same date that Mr. Smith telephoned Mr. Carlie, Casseaux and Eunice inspected the Morro property and observed that a retaining wall authorized by the 2005 Permit was under construction. It is fair to infer from the stipulated facts that Mr. Carlie reported these findings to Mr. Smith within a short period of time. On an undisclosed date, but presumably within a day or so, Mr. Smith reported to Mr. Adley that he had spoken with Mr. Carlie and was told the construction was in conformance with "the Permit" but that Mr. Carlie did not specifically refer to either the 1999 Permit or the 2005 Permit as authorizing the work. The Stipulation and exhibits do not indicate whether Mr. Carlie advised counsel that the 2005 Permit had been approved. However, given the history of this dispute, it would be highly unusual for counsel not to make inquiry about the disposition of the application, or for Mr. Carlie not to provide this information during the course of their telephone conversations, particularly since Mr. Carlie was well aware of Mr. Adley's long-standing interest in the Morro project. Mr. Adley could not tell from his view of the property whether the exact location of the construction was lakeward of the limits of construction, which was the 100-year floodplain, and therefore could only rely on the District staff. Mr. Adley asserts that he did not learn of the 2005 Permit modification until July 25, 2005, through a conversation with an unidentified neighbor. Whether Mr. Adley (or his counsel) then called the District to verify the accuracy of the neighbor's information is not of record. (The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing simply alleges that "petitioner received notice of the District's action on July 25, 2005, through a conversation with a neighbor.") On August 15, 2005, or twenty-one days later, through counsel, Mr. Adley filed his initial Petition for Administrative Hearing with the District challenging the issuance of the 2005 Permit. (The Amended Petition was later filed on October 12, 2005, as a result of the striking of certain allegations in the first filing.) The District's Motion was then filed on November 16, 2005. (Action on the Motion has been delayed because of substitution of Petitioner's counsel, and delays by the parties in taking discovery and preparing the Stipulation.)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an Application to the South Florida Water Management District for Authority to Utilize Works or Land of the District filed by Respondents, Joint Facilities Board of River Oaks H.O.A. and Little Oaks H.O.A., should be approved by the South Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Arthur Pivirotto and Ann H. Pivirotto presented no evidence in this matter. Petitioners have, therefore, failed to meet their burden of proof that Right of Way Occupancy Permit Application Number 94-1005-2 should not be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order in case number 96-0870 dismissing the Petition for Formal Proceedings Per 40E-1.521 Fl. Admin. Code and 120.57 F.S. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee Florida. LARRY SART1N, 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 August, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Fleck, Esquire 6650 West Indiantown Road Suite 200 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Charles H. Burns, Esquire 1080 East Indiantown Road Jupiter, Florida 33477 Scott Allen Glazier, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Donald S. Fradley, Esquire 27 Pennock Lane Jupiter, Florida 33458 Alan J. Cooper, Esquire Tequesta Corporate Center 250 Tequesta Drive, Suite 200 Tequesta, Florida 33469 Samuel E. Poole, III, Executive Director Department of Environmental Protection South Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33146
The Issue The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making a preliminary decision to award a staff augmentation contract, Respondent acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, policy, or project specification; and, if so, whether such misstep(s) was/were clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.
Findings Of Fact The parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation2 and the evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. The Request for Proposals On July 26, 2001, the District issued Request for Proposals C-11940 (the "RFP"). The purpose of the RFP, as set forth on page one thereof, was to solicit technical and cost proposals from qualified respondents [for a staff augmentation contract.3] The South Florida Water Management District (District) is interested in establishing a single qualified information systems/technology contracting firm to provide the services defined herein on an as-needed basis. Contingent upon the responses received as a result of this Request for Proposals (RFP), the District will determine which respondent meets the required standards and qualifications through an evaluation process. The Vendor meeting the required standards and qualifications will be determined to be “pre-qualified” to provide information systems/technology services to the District. The deadline for submission of proposals in response to the RFP was Monday, August 27, 2001 at 2:30 p.m. Section 1.12 of the RFP, which is relevant to this protest, stated as follows: REJECTION OF RESPONSES The District reserves the right to reject any and all responses when such rejection is in the District's interests. Minor irregularities contained in a response may be waived by the District. A minor irregularity is a variation from the solicitation that does not affect the price of the contract or does not give a respondent an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other respondents, or does not adversely impact the interests of the District. The District further reserves the right to cancel this solicitation at any time if it is in the best interest of the District to do so. Section 1.13 of the RFP stated, in pertinent part:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the District enter a Final Order that declares DUA’s proposal to be materially non-responsive and, accordingly, rescinds the proposed award to DUA. In addition, while recognizing that the choice of remedies for invalid procurement actions is within the agency’s discretion, it is nevertheless recommended that, rather than reevaluate or reject all responsive proposals, the District award the contract to the highest-ranked responsive proposer, Syslogic. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 18th day of January, 2002.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Robert J. Simmons, Jr. (Simmons), should be issued: an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Titles 62 and 40E, Florida Administrative Code; and a Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 18-21, Florida Administrative Code. (All citations to Florida Statutes refer to the 2000 codification; all Florida Administrative Code citations are to the current version.)
Findings Of Fact The Applicant Respondent, Robert Simmons, Jr. (Simmons), is the applicant for: a consent of use of sovereign submerged lands owned by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund; and an ERP to construct a private, single-family, residential dock for access to Little Munyon Island and to fill jurisdictional wetlands on the island in order to construct a residence on the island. Simmons has offered to purchase Little Munyon Island and the 16 acres of privately-owned, mostly submerged land surrounding it for $2.6 million. Under the contract of purchase, Simmons is required to close by April 2, 2002. If the contract to purchase closes, Simmons plans to construct an 8,000 to 10,000 square-foot residence, with swimming pool, on Little Munyon Island. He estimates that the residence, once built, will be worth $12 million to $15 million. Little Munyon Island. Little Munyon Island is a 1 1/2 acre, undeveloped and unbridged island located in the Lake Worth Lagoon, which has been designated Class III waters of the state. Little Munyon Island is a natural island, one of only three in the Lake Worth Lagoon. Anasthasia rock atop the Pleistocene formation comes to the surface at the site. The island has been enlarged over the years by placement of spoil from dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) to the west of the island. In addition, due to erosion on the west and accretion on the east, the island has shifted to the east. Now the eastern edge of the accreted eastern side actually is outside the 16 acres described by the deed Simmons seeks to have conveyed to him. Little Munyon Island is located just south of the John D. MacArthur State Park and Big Munyon Island. The waters in the Park have been designated as Class II, or Outstanding Florida Waters under Florida Administrative Code Rule (Rule) 62-302.700(2)(b). The boundary of the Park is approximately 1,100 feet north of Little Munyon Island. The eastern boundary of the ICW right-of-way is located about 220 feet west of Little Munyon Island; the centerline of the ICW is about 550 feet west of the island. Singer Island is an Atlantic Ocean barrier island approximately half a mile east of Little Munyon Island. The evidence was that less of Little Munyon Island is inundated by high tides than used to be. As a result, more of the island's vegetation was native in the past. Perhaps due to the deposit of spoil material, relatively little of the island is inundated any more. As a result, exotic vegetation such as Australian pine, Brazilian pepper, and seaside mahoe has invaded and comprises about 35 percent of the island's vegetation. The native vegetation includes red, black and white mangroves, buttonwood, and cabbage palms. Although it is private property, Little Munyon Island is currently being used quite extensively by the public, without authorization from the owner. Boaters frequent the island, leaving trash and other debris behind. Visitors to the island have chopped down native vegetation, such as mangroves, in order to build campfires on the island. Boaters visiting the island for recreational activities often ground their boats around the island. Grounding and extricating boats often causes the boats' propellers to dredge up seagrasses and dig holes in seagrass beds. The Lake Worth Lagoon. The Lake Worth Lagoon is a saltwater estuary. It stretches about 21 miles south from PGA Boulevard and varies in width from about 1 to 1 1/2 miles. The Lagoon is tidally influenced twice per day through the Lake Worth Inlet, which is located about 2-3 miles south of Little Munyon Island. The Inlet connects the Lagoon with the Atlantic Ocean. There is a tidal range of 2.8 to 2.9 feet between mean high and mean low tides in the vicinity of the island. Much of the historical extent of the Lagoon has been filled, and it is located in the most urbanized portion of Palm Beach County. From 1940 to 1975, the Lagoon lost more than 87 percent of its mangroves due to shoreline development. Little Munyon Island is located roughly in the middle of a large bay in the northern part of the Lagoon, which has not been filled or bulkheaded. This bay is one of the few remaining natural areas of the Lake Worth Lagoon. The Earman River, also known as the C-17 canal, discharges into the Lake Worth Lagoon west and a little north from Little Munyon Island to the west of the ICW. The part of the Lake Worth Lagoon around Little Munyon Island is vegetated with very high quality seagrasses, including Cuban Shoal Grass (Halodule wrightii), Turtle Grass (Thalassia testudinum), Manatee Grass (Syringodium filiforme), Paddle Grass (Halophila decipiens), and Johnson Grass (Halophila johnsonii). Johnson Grass is a federally listed threatened species of seagrass, but it tolerates a range of water quality and bottom sediments and is relatively abundant in the Lake Worth Lagoon. Five of the six types of seagrasses found in the Lagoon occur in the vicinity of Little Munyon Island. The area around Little Munyon Island is the best area of seagrasses in all of Palm Beach County, and it has the highest density of seagrasses. The quality of seagrasses in the area is "as good as it gets in the Lake Worth Lagoon." The tide from the Lake Worth Inlet flows north and south through the ICW. As a result, the same waters pass both Little Munyon Island and Big Munyon Island as the tide ebbs and flows. Silt and suspended particles in the water column around Little Munyon Island could be carried by the tide to the Class II waters around Big Munyon Island. There is a high degree of biological diversity in the area around Little Munyon Island. The seagrass beds and flats around Little Munyon are a breeding ground for fish and other aquatic resources. The portion of the Lake Worth Lagoon around Little Munyon has been identified as Essential Fish Habitat by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is essential fish habitat for postlarval, juvenile, and adult brown and pink shrimp, red drum, and gray snapper. Seagrasses protect small fish and provide a food source for a whole ecosystem that starts with the seagrasses. Seagrasses provide a valuable source of oxygen, food, and shelter. One square meter of seagrass can generate 10 liters of oxygen per day. They may be one of the most prolific ecosystems in the world in terms of biomass production. The water quality in the Lake Worth Lagoon is improving due to stormwater regulation and reduction in the discharge of sewage effluent. This has caused the quality of seagrasses in the area to improve over the past 18 years. Seagrass recruitment has occurred around the area, and new kinds of seagrasses have colonized since 1983. It is reasonable to believe that seagrasses will continue to colonize around the island if water quality continues to improve. If conditions are right, seagrasses can spread and colonize areas where they do not now occur. The Proposed Project Initial Application In the initial application for ERP and consent of use filed on January 20, 2000, Simmons proposed to construct an L-shaped, 5,208 square foot dock made of poured concrete, 10-12 inches thick. The proposed dock's 12-foot wide access pier was to extend westward from shore for 306 feet, with a 12-foot wide terminal platform extending 140 feet to the south. The entire dock was to be elevated to 5.0' NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929). The entire dock was to be within privately-owned submerged lands, but intended mooring on the western side of the terminal platform would have been over sovereign submerged lands. Initially, the access pier was to cross the center of a sunken barge that lies approximately 240 feet off the island's western shore. In a response on March 10, 2000, to DEP's request for additional information (RAI), the footprint of the proposed dock was shifted south so that the access pier crossed just south of the sunken barge, where Simmons' seagrass consultant, CZR, said there were fewer seagrasses. This also shortened the access pier to 296 feet and reduced the overall area of the docking facility to 5,088 square feet. In addition, mooring piles to the west of the terminal platform were eliminated; as modified, four mooring piles were to be placed parallel to the terminal platform, on the eastern side. As modified, the entire dock structure and mooring area was located within the privately-owned submerged lands. The dock was specifically designed for use in construction of an 8,000 to 10,000 square-foot residence, plus swimming pool, on the island. The terminal platform was designed so that Simmons could moor barges between the terminal platform and the mooring piers and offload needed construction materials and equipment. It was contemplated that the barges would be 55 feet long by 24 feet wide and draw three and a half feet of water and that they would be maneuvered by push-boats. The dock also was designed to permanently moor a vessel 120-140 feet long drawing five and a half feet of water. Simmons intends to live with his family in the proposed new residence on Little Munyon Island. He currently owns a house on the mainland in North Palm Beach on the western side of the Lake Worth Lagoon across the ICW from Little Munyon Island. He plans to park cars and use a dock at that location and operate his boat back and forth to Little Munyon Island. This would necessitate crossing the ICW several times a day. To construct the planned residence and pool on Little Munyon Island, the application proposed construction of a retaining wall around the island, generally no more than 5 feet landward of the perimeter wetlands on the island. Approximately 28,500 square feet (0.65 acres) would be within the retaining wall. Three feet of fill would then be placed within the retaining wall to elevate the pad for the residence to about 6 feet above sea level. Filling the Island would necessitate cutting down all the vegetation inside the retaining wall and filling 0.15 acres of jurisdictional wetlands consisting of mangroves and other wetland species. In the initial application, utilities were going to be provided by directionally-drilling a forced sewer main, water line, electric, cable, phone, and natural gas line from State Road A1A on Singer Island, under sovereign submerged lands in the Lake Worth Lagoon, to Little Munyon. In concerns expressed in the RAI about resource impacts and extension of utilities to an undeveloped coastal island, Simmons deleted the subaqueous utility lines in the modification on March 10, 2000. June Modification During a low, low (spring) tide in April 2000, CZR noticed for the first time that there was a sand bar between the northern third of the sunken barge and Little Munyon Island. In June of 2000, Simmons again modified his application to shift the docking facility back north so that the access pier was aligned with the sand bar. Simmons also proposed to extend the dock out into deeper water, making the dock 376 feet long, and placing the last 33 feet of the dock and the entire terminal platform (a total of 1,230 square feet) on and over sovereign submerged lands. The terminal end of the dock was modified to be 100 feet long by 10 feet wide. The width of the access pier also reduced generally to ten feet; however, over a stretch of 70 feet of the access pier to the west of the sunken barge (where it crossed lush seagrasses), the width of permanent concrete access pier was further reduced to four feet. (Three-foot high, hinged, grated railings designed to fold down would widen the access pier to ten feet on demand. See Finding 37, infra.) These modification reduced the overall size of the docking facility to 4,240 square feet. In addition, the decking was elevated higher, to 5 feet above mean high water (MHW). The mooring piles on the east side of the terminal platform (now over lush seagrasses) were deleted. The house pad and retaining wall were not changed from the initial filing. Having dropped the idea of subaqueous utilities, Simmons proposed "self contained utilities" consisting of: Water - Well with reverse osmosis (RO) plant, as necessary, for potable water. Water for irrigation and toilets will be reused on-site treated wastewater. Drinking water will likely be bottled. Wastewater treatment - Treatment by small on-site package plant, not septic tank. Power - Solar with backup generator. No specifics or analysis of the impacts from these systems were provided, and no assurances were given that they would not pollute. The June modification also proposed mitigation for the loss of the 0.15 acres of wetlands on the island that would be filled. Simmons proposed placement of rip-rap breakwaters just landward of the existing limit of seagrass, or further landward, to provide wave and scouring protection and planting of mangrove and other species landward of the rip-rap. It was suggested that seagrasses also would propagate landward of the rip-rap. In an August 2000 response to DEP's RAI, Simmons detailed the mitigation plan. Under the plan, 350 linear feet of rip-rap breakwaters would be placed along the northwestern and southwestern shores of Little Munyon Island, and the area landward of the breakwaters would be planted with red and black mangrove and smooth cordgrass. Exotic vegetation would be removed from the mitigation areas. Under the plan, 0.31 acres of high quality wetlands would be created to mitigate for the loss of 0.15 acres of jurisdictional wetland fill. DEP Denies Application, as Modified On November 9, 2000, DEP issued a Consolidated Notice of Denial of Environmental Resource Permit and Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands. Discussion focused on impacts on seagrasses, impacts from the proposed utilities, and the mitigation plan. Although DEP noted that the size of the project was reduced from the original application, it concluded that the "dock will still have shading impacts on seagrasses, including Johnson's grass (Halophila johnsonii), a federally-listed threatened species." DEP also noted that the construction of the breakwaters could potentially impact seagrasses. Additional reasons for denial involved the utilities proposed for the uplands. DEP wrote: "The proposed utilities (RO plant, package plant) have a potential for impacts to the Lake Worth Lagoon (Class III Waters) through both a potential discharge and from long-term degradation. Also, no details on the use (short-term or permanent residency) or maintenance of the utilities was provided, both of which could affect how well the utilities function and whether they could affect water quality or habitat." DEP also noted that the proposed mitigation "does not create wetlands. It replaces 0.31 acres of submerged and intertidal habitat with 0.31 acres of mangroves and cordgrass habitat." It was also mentioned that anticipated trimming of mangroves would further reduce the value of mitigation. DEP concluded that Simmons had "not provided reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder." DEP specifically concluded the proposal did not meet the balancing criteria set forth in Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, and Rules 62-330, 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302. Third Modification and DEP Intent to Issue Simmons and his lawyer and consultant met with DEP staff in November of 2000. A site visit was made on December 8, 2000. After the meeting and site visit, Simmons proposed to further modify the project in several respects. The portion of the dock that was previously reduced to 4 feet in width was proposed to be constructed with a grated deck. The dock was elevated from 5.0 feet above MHW to 5.25 feet above MHW measured at the top of the deck. The design of the rest of the dock remained the same. No changes were proposed to the retaining wall or filling of wetlands. As for utilities, Simmons proposed the "Little Munyon Island Power and Sewerage Plan" This plan represented that 90 percent of the complex's power would be provided by solar energy, producing approximately 72 kilowatts (kW) of electricity. The plan also stated: "Water treatment both for drinking and waste waters will be processed through Atlantis Water treatment Auto Flash systems. This approach will use waste heat to evaporate and clean the water. This process will return used waters to potable with no more than 5 percent effluent. Any effluent will be secured and containerized and periodically (2xs per year) removed from the island." An "auto-flash" system creates distilled potable water using waste heat to evaporate all water from the effluent. The new Little Munyon Island Power and Sewerage Plan did not mention the use of irrigation waters on Little Munyon Island. DEP's staff reviewer understood from the new plan that there would be no wastewater irrigation on Little Munyon Island and that all waste would be processed by distillation, i.e., potable water. As for the mitigation plan, the two previously- proposed rip-rap breakwaters were modified to reduce their footprints, and the southern breakwater was moved somewhat landward at the southern end to avoid seagrasses. A third breakwater was added to the north side of the island. This increased the amount of mitigation area from 0.31 to 0.36 acres. In addition, Simmons submitted a revised mitigation plan to plant mangroves and spartina behind the breakwaters. Simmons also offered to record a conservation easement on the 16 acres of privately-owned submerged lands surrounding Little Munyon Island. DEP issued a Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands on March 12, 2001. In recommending this action, DEP's staff reviewer understood that there would be no discharge whatsoever on the island under the "Little Munyon Island Power and Sewerage Plan," and that all wastewater would be recycled and reused. Specific Condition (18) stated: "Power and wastewater service for the island shall be provided as described in the attached 'Little Munyon Island power and sewerage plan'. No discharge of effluent is authorized on the island." DEP's staff reviewer understood the permit to mean that "water, the material that comes out . . . of the other end of the waste water system" would not be discharged on the island. If DEP's staff reviewer knew Simmons was planning to use another system to treat wastewater or was planning to discharge reuse water on the island, it "would have been a concern," and he "would have questions about what that involved." He agreed that "spray irrigation would have been a concern" and would have raised issues related to the level of treatment, water quality and quantity and runoff from the upland part of the island into the waters of the Lake Worth Lagoon. The main concern would have been nutrients. In granting the revised application, DEP reversed its previous conclusions that Simmons had not complied with applicable statutory and rule criteria, and specifically found that "the Department has determined, pursuant to Section 380.0651(3)(e), F.S., that the facility is located so that it will not adversely impact Outstanding Florida Waters or Class III waters, and will not contribute to boat traffic in a manner that will adversely impact the manatee." The Challengers The proposed project is opposed by Petitioner, Singer Island Civic Association, Inc. (SICA), and by Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. (Friends). SICA and Friends are both Florida corporations. SICA commenced this proceeding by filing a verified Petition for Administrative Hearing. Friends filed a verified Petition to Intervene. It was stipulated that SICA and Friends have standing as Florida citizens under Section 403.412(5). SICA also asserted standing based on the proposed project's effects on its substantial interests and those of its members. SICA is a membership organization with 1,200 members, who reside on Singer Island. SICA has an office located at 1281 North Ocean Drive, Singer Island, Florida. It also owns submerged real property in the Lake Worth Lagoon just west of and adjacent to Singer Island. SICA's membership includes individuals and condominium associations. Several individual members and condominium association members own property that borders State Road AIA on Singer Island. Some have riparian rights to the Lake Worth Lagoon. SICA performed a survey of its members and received 330 responses. Ninety percent of those responding believed they would be affected by the proposed project. More than 75 percent said they fished in the Lagoon and believed the project would hurt fishing; 80 percent said they enjoy and study the wildlife around the Lagoon; and 72 percent believed wildlife viewing would be impacted by the project. Members of SICA use the Lake Worth Lagoon for boating, fishing, recreation, or enjoyment of wildlife. The membership and the corporation are concerned about the potential of the project to pollute the Lake Worth Lagoon and adversely affect the environmental resources of the Lagoon. SICA's purpose includes the preservation of the environmental resources of the Lake Worth Lagoon and opposition to proposals to fill the submerged lands along State Road AIA. The type of relief sought by SICA in this action is the type of relief that is proper for the corporation to seek on behalf of its members. Both SICA and a substantial number of its members are substantially affected by Simmons' proposed project. A number of issues raised by SICA and Friends were dropped by the time the parties filed their Prehearing Stipulation. SICA and Friends further refined their claims at final hearing. The remaining challenges to the project focus on turbidity and shading of seagrasses caused by the construction and operation of the project, as well as on the potential secondary impacts of utilities proposed to serve the residence on the island. Direct Impacts from Proposed Dock The proposed dock is significantly larger than a typical private, single-family dock. No other of its proportions can be found in Palm Beach County. Typically, private, single-family docks are four-feet wide and made of wood, with spaced wooden planks for decking. The proposed docking facility's size and construction technique are more typical of a commercial docking facility. A docking facility of the size and kind proposed is not required for reasonable access to Little Munyon Island. Rather, it is required for construction and maintenance of a 8,000 to 10,000 square-foot residence, plus swimming pool, that will be worth $12 million to $15 million when completed. A less intense use of the island would have fewer impacts on the environment. Alternatively, there are other ways to build a house on the island without constructing a permanent dock of this size. Simmons might be able to push a barge temporarily up to the island, construct the house and then mitigate for the temporary impacts of beaching the barge. Simmons also might be able to construct a temporary span of trusses, a system used by the Florida Department of Transportation when working on coastal islands. The amount of shading caused by a docking facility is influenced by numerous factors. But if other factors are equal, generally the larger the surface area of the dock, the more shading occurs; likewise, solid poured concrete decking shades twice as much as grated decking material. As a result, all other factors being equal, the proposed dock will produce more shade than a typical private, single-family dock. In addition, there is a halo effect around the footprint of a dock that is about 2.25 times the square footage of the dock. The area under solid concrete decking will receive no sunlight. No seagrasses will ever grow in this area, eliminating possible recruitment of seagrasses in this area. Simmons made a laudable effort to locate, configure, and orient his proposed docking facility so as to reduce the shading impact of the dock's footprint and halo effect. The use of grated material over the area of greatest seagrass cover also was appropriate. But shading impacts and halo effects were not avoided entirely. In its April 2000 biological survey, CZR depicted an area approximately 40 feet wide by 250 feet long between the west of Little Munyon Island and a sunken barge as a "barren," meaning it had no seagrasses. Clearly, sand has built up over the years in this area due to influence of the sunken barge, and parts of the sandbar may be exposed at every mean low tide. This area may be devoid of seagrasses. But other parts of the sandbar may only be exposed at every low, low (spring) tide and may not actually be "barren." An onsite inspection and video tape of the area was made by Carman Vare of the Palm Beach County Division of Environmental and Resources Management in August of 2001. This inspection and video confirmed that there were no seagrasses in the sandy area from the mean high tide line on Little Munyon Island running west along the proposed footprint of the dock for a distance of approximately 130 feet. But at a point approximately 130 feet from shore, within 5 feet north of the tape placed at the presumed centerline of the proposed dock and sandy area, Vare began to find rhizomes (roots) of Cuban Shoal Grass (Halodule wrightii) in the sediment. Rhizomes of this seagrass continued to be found out to approximately 182 feet from the shore. At that point, sparse patches of Johnson Seagrass began approximately 5-10 feet north of the tape. This type of grass continued to be found to a point roughly 205 feet from the shore. From 205 feet to 215 feet from the shore, Cuban Shoal Grass rhizomes reappeared. There were no seagrasses from 215 feet to the east edge of the barge, which is approximately 243 from the shore. The area around the barge has been scoured out by waves and currents. It is possible that Vare placed his tape somewhat north of the actual centerline of the proposed dock. It is not clear from the evidence, but a sunken piling Vare swam over at one point may have been north of the centerline of the proposed dock. Also, while no seagrasses were observed when Vare swam south of the tape, Vare did not swim further than 5 to 10 feet south of the tape, so he did not know how far south of his transect line the area was barren of seagrasses. In any event, it was clear that the entire area depicted by CZR as "barren" was not in fact completely devoid of seagrasses; there were seagrasses and seagrass rhizomes either within the footprint of the proposed dock in the 110 feet or so east of the sunken barge, or very close to the north of the footprint in that locale. The sunken barge is made of decomposing wood. It is about 30 feet wide and about 100 feet long. It is often exposed at low tides, but is submerged during high tides. While there are no seagrasses growing in the barge, the barge is providing some fish habitat. If the barge were removed, seagrasses probably would re-colonize the area. West of the barge for approximately 50 feet is a colony of lush Cuban Shoal Grass. Coverage is sparse very near the barge but quickly thickens to the west to approximately 75 percent coverage. (CZR mischaracterized the density of this grass as 30 percent, perhaps in part because CZR did not conduct its surveys during the optimal growing season). From 50 to 70 feet west of the barge, CZR found moderate (30 percent) cover of Paddle Grass (Halophila decipiens). There are no grasses from 70 to 103 feet west of the barge. However, CZR found moderate (30 percent) cover of Paddle Grass south of the proposed footprint of the access dock and east of the terminal platform, extending south past the end of the terminal platform. The proposed terminal platform is in approximately 8-9 feet of water. The sediments under the terminal platform are composed of sand, silt, clays and organic materials. There are no grasses under the proposed terminal platform. The terminal platform would be directly over lush beds of Halophila decipiens (paddle grass) and Halodule wrightii (shoal grass) if the proposed dock were shortened by 35 feet, as Simmons has suggested to avoid having to obtain consent of use of sovereign submerged lands. Secondary Impacts from Proposed Dock As indicated, Simmons plans to use the proposed docking facility for construction and maintenance of a 8,000 to 10,000 square foot residence. He plans to use 55-foot long construction barges, drawing 3-4 feet of water, to bring fill, rocks, and other construction materials to Little Munyon Island. The barges will be moored to the western side of the proposed terminal platform. The use of construction barges will cause turbidity during construction. Simmons proposes to offload tons of fill from the barge and carry this fill over the dock to Little Munyon Island. One estimate was that, if Simmons used barges 120-130 feet long and capable of hauling 300 tons of fill, he would need to deliver 27-30 barge loads of fill to the dock. There is a reasonable likelihood that some of this fill will fall into the water. Simmons provided no analysis of the impacts of offloading and delivering this much fill to the island. There was no evidence of how Simmons planned to move sand around to fill the island, or its potential to cause turbidity. The location of the proposed dock in this case complicates the navigation of barges and vessels to and from the dock. Little Munyon Island is roughly centered in the Lake Worth Lagoon; and, except for some protection from the island itself, the dock is fully exposed to wind from all directions. Meanwhile, the "sail effect" of large boats adds to the difficulty of navigating them in the wind. The proposed dock also is exposed to the full effect of the current. A tidal range of a couple of feet can cause a current of about 1-2 knots; mean tidal range in the location of the proposed dock is as much as 2.8 to 2.9 feet. Finally, the proposed dock is near the ICW, which has a lot of boat traffic and wake. All of these factors can affect maneuverability of boats, create closure problems, or push the boats away from the dock. Unless Simmons wants to run the serious risk of losing control of the construction barges and inadvertently damaging seagrass beds, he will have to use a tug with significant maneuvering power. Tugs create more hydraulic thrust than other vessels because they generate more torque. Tugs also have more prop wash than most boats because they have deeper draft and larger propellers, in the range of 3 1/2 feet in diameter. The proposed dock was designed to moor a vessel up to 120-foot long parallel to the western side of the terminal platform when not being used for construction barges. If not being used for either barges or one large vessel, the mooring could accommodate two vessels of between 50-60 feet in length. Although not contemplated or ideal, it would be physically possible to moor three large vessels west of and perpendicular to the terminal platform inside the four mooring piles located 40 feet off the terminal platform. (These piles are 33 feet apart and designed to secure the construction barges, or one large vessel, parallel to the western side of the terminal platform.) While there are railings on the access pier to discourage mooring, there are no railings on the terminal platform. It also would be possible to moor boats on the east side of the terminal platform, which would be over lush seagrass beds. Simmons plans to moor his boat there when the western side is occupied by construction barges. Boats of 50-60 feet usually have twin inboard engines that range from 400 to 600 horsepower each. They can have propellers of between 26-30 inches in diameter. The engines and propellers are installed in a declining angle on such boats with the thrust vector pointing downward toward the bottom. Boats in this size range generally of draw 4-6 feet of water depending on the size and type of the vessel. A 70- foot trawler draws 6 feet of water. Unlike outboard engines (which also typically are lower-powered), inboard engines do not turn. Larger vessels move around by employing differential power. With twin inboard engines, navigation can by accomplished by using power pulsing, using the engines at different speeds, or by making one engine push forward and the other push in reverse. Winds and currents increase the need to use pulse powering to maneuver into and away from docks. For these reasons, the operation of 50-60 foot boats even in 5-10 feet of water can disturb the bottom through hydraulic scouring. As indicated, tug boats maneuvering a barge can scour the bottom even more. DEP's staff concluded that the operation of the dock would have no effect on seagrasses and sediments and would not cause turbidity or scouring problems in part by applying a longstanding policy which assumes that turbidity will not be a concern if one foot of water is maintained between boats using a dock and the bottom. The permit contains a condition that Simmons maintain one foot below boats. The so-called one-foot rule was designed for small, outboard-powered boats. As larger and more powerful vessels have increasingly used Florida's relatively shallow waters, the rule has become antiquated and ineffective for protection of marine resources from scouring and turbidity. Certainly, it will not be effective to minimize the impacts of scouring and turbidity from vessels of the size authorized and expected to use this dock. The so-called one-foot rule also does not differentiate between types of sediments. There is a "hole" approximately under and just west of the northernmost 60 feet of the proposed terminal platform; the hole also extends to the north beyond the proposed terminal platform. The water in the "hole" is approximately 8 feet deeper than the surrounding areas. The "hole" has been there for years. It could have been caused by dredging back in the 1940s. It also is just west of where a previous dock was located and could have been caused by prop-dredging (or perhaps by a paddlewheel, which used the mid-1960s). The "hole" is a silt trap. There is approximately 5 feet of silt in the bottom of the "hole." The sediment in the hole consists of very fine particles of muck and silt, with some decomposing drift algae. The silts in the "hole" probably come from the Earman River, which drains urbanized areas of North Palm Beach and discharges into the Lake Worth Lagoon just across the Lagoon from the site. There are no seagrasses in the "hole." Neither CZR nor DEP knew the "hole" was there. CZR did not identify it on its biological survey. Simmons provided no analysis of the sediments in the hole or in the mooring area of the proposed dock. DEP provided no analysis or testimony of the effect of the sediments in the "hole" on turbidity and water quality. Silts and muck cause turbidity, which is a measure of water clarity. Re-suspended mucks and silts can impact seagrasses by reducing light penetration through the water and by settling on their leaves. Silts stirred up from the operation of tugboats and large boats at the end of the proposed dock could settle on the grasses under the 4-foot grated area and negatively impact the very seagrasses that DEP was trying to protect. Once re-suspended, sediments can persist in the water column for 20-40 minutes, depending on the currents. A knot or two of current can suspend silts for half an hour and transport them a mile away. On an incoming tide, such a current could transport re-suspended sediments toward and into MacArthur State Park, just 1,100 feet away. To determine the extent of degradation of the turbidity standard in the OFW of the State Park, DEP would have to know the background turbidity in the Park. Neither Simmons nor DEP did a hydrographic survey or any other analysis of the project for its effect on the OFW. Farther west of the proposed terminal platform, the bottom rises out of the "hole" to a depth of 8-9 feet. Starting there, and extending west all the way to the edge of the ICW, there is sparse but continuous Paddle Grass (Halophila decipiens). Allison Holzhausen, an environmental analyst with Palm Beach County, has run transects throughout the area of Lake Worth Lagoon between the proposed terminal platform and the ICW and has not found any place in that area where seagrasses did not grow. Water depths in this area do not exceed approximately 14 feet. Depending on water clarity, Paddle Grass can grow in deep waters and have been found in water up to 25 meters deep in the Atlantic Ocean off Palm Beach County. CZR provided no biological survey of the seagrass communities west of the mooring area, nor did it analyze the resources or do a bathymetric survey of the area between the proposed dock and Simmons's dock on the mainland west of the ICW. This information would be needed to determine whether the operation of Simmons's boat to and from the dock on a continuing basis would impact seagrasses and to locate the best place for a channel. If the proposed dock were shortened by 35 feet, as Simmons has suggested to avoid having to obtain consent of use, the terminal platform and mooring areas would be directly over lush seagrass beds. In addition, the water there would be just 6.4 feet, or less, at MLW (mean low water); there was no evidence of detailed bathymetric information in the area. Depths would be even lower at low, low (spring) tides. Several witnesses testified that the 7.4 foot depth in the area indicated on Sheet 3 of 5 of the Plan View in Simmon's application was at MLW. But Sheet 3 of 5 indicates that "datum is NGVD," meaning the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929, and Sheet 4 of 5 of the Plan View indicates that MLW is approximately a foot less than NGVD. Impacts on seagrasses from scouring and turbidity would be even greater if the proposed dock is shortened by 35 feet. Secondary Impacts of Wetland Fill When DEP gave notice of intent to issue the Permit, it was operating under the assumption and promise that there would be "no discharge" of wastewater on Little Munyon Island. Under the proposed "Auto-Flash" wastewater system, the only effluent would be solid "sludge," which would be removed from the island twice a year. This assumption continued into final hearing. On August 7, 2001--after the permit was issued, and just a couple of weeks before final hearing--Simmons proposed a different type of wastewater treatment system that would spray-irrigate treated wastewater. The new proposed system would provide aerobic and anaerobic treatment, filter the effluent, chlorinate it, and then spray it at a rate of up to 1,040 gallons per day onto the surface of the Little Munyon Island within approximately 50 feet of the water's edge. In effect, Simmons went back to his original proposal for a "waste water treatment/treatment by small on- site package plant not septic tank . . . water for irrigation and toilets will be re-used onsite treated wastewater." This system was rejected by DEP in its denial of November 4, 2000, because it lacked information on the facility and whether there would be a discharge. DEP's engineers did not review the system again after August 7, 2001. The disposal of treated effluent from the onsite sewage treatment plant raises legitimate concerns over the potential of the proposed utilities to impact surface waters. Simmons's engineer, John Potts, conceded that there will be nutrients in the wastewater. Nutrients from wastewater can cause algae to grow, which affects the health of seagrasses. Potts was unable to provide detail as to the amount of nutrients and other constituents of the wastewater. DEP's experts were not familiar with the criteria for reuse of treated effluent. DEP did not know the transmissivity of the fill and could not say whether treated effluent sprayed on the island would percolate through the fill and run into the Lagoon across the top of the rock strata on the island. Potts did not know how stormwater would be handled on the island; a proposed stormwater system has yet to be designed. For that reason, Potts could not say whether the sprayed treated effluent could reach the Lake Worth Lagoon. DEP also did not know how stormwater was proposed to be treated on site. The solar power system proposed in the Little Munyon Island Power and Sewage Plan would only produce only 31 kW of power and provide 19 percent of the complex's power and at peak times, not the 90 percent estimated by Simmons's consultants. In effect, the propane generator was not a "backup," as suggested, but the main power source for the house and utilities and only source of power for the wastewater treatment system, since the generator must be running to provide waste heat for the wastewater system to work. Instead of two available sources of electrical power for the wastewater treatment system in case one failed, there is really only one, the propane generator. The lack of any backup for the sewage treatment system increases its potential to fail and adversely affect surface water quality and the marine environment of the Lake Worth Lagoon. DEP did not analyze stormwater or the discharge of treated wastewater and its effect on surrounding waters, stating: "Typically we don't review storm water for single family residences." But Simmons's proposed project is not a typical single family residence. In rebuttal, Simmons put on evidence that there would be approximately 14,800 square feet between the retaining wall and the 50-foot setback line and that the depth of 1,000 gallons of sprayed treated wastewater would be only one-tenth of an inch if sprayed equally over that entire area. Evapotranspiration alone would account for the entire 1,000 gallons, according to the Basis of Review of the South Florida Water Management District. But the evidence was not clear as to how much of the 14,800 square feet between the retaining wall and the 50-foot setback would be available for spray irrigation. The weight of the evidence was that Simmons failed to provide reasonable assurances that the disposal of wastewater on the island will not have adverse impacts on the marine resources of the Lake Worth Lagoon unless a specific conditions were added to the permit: that a properly designed and constructed stormwater system be established prior to operation of the sewage treatment facility; and that backup systems and emergency procedures be established in the event of any failure of the main system.
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 denying the application of Robert Simmons, Jr., for an ERP and Consent of Use for his proposed docking facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings ___________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 16th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ernest A. Cox, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 500E West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-6161 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Rod Tennyson, Esquire 1801 Australian Avenue, Suite 101 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc. 926 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 28, Hidden Bay Subdivision, Martin County, Florida. On July 19, 1990, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a dredge and fill permit to construct on the wetland portion of his lot a single family dwelling on stilts, a garage, and a connecting driveway to an existing roadway. The application also seeks a permit to retain a roadway that was constructed on the property before the Respondent asserted jurisdiction over the property. The existing roadway is 25 feet wide and 510 feet long and remained in existence at the time of the formal hearing. The connecting driveway on the wetlands portion of the property would require 40 cubic yards of fill. The following, taken from the Notice of Permit Denial entered by Respondent, accurately describes the proposed project: The proposed project will entail the temporary placement of 500 cubit yards of clean fill in order to set piles for a proposed stilt house. Additional fill (40 cubic yards) is proposed for a driveway to access a proposed garage. Riprap is proposed along the east slope of the driveway and along the northwest slope under the proposed stilt house. In addition, 186 cubic yards of the existing unauthorized fill road is proposed to remain. Total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. Petitioner's lot fronts Bessey Creek and is located in Section 1, Township 38 South, Range 40 East, in Palm City. Petitioner's lot is located approximately 2,200 feet south of the C-23 Canal on Bessey Creek. Bessey Creek is designated a Class III water. Bessey Creek combines with other tributaries and ultimately discharges into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water. Petitioner's lot consists of 1.82 acres. Respondent has asserted jurisdiction over approximately 1.3 acres of Petitioner's lot on the grounds that it is a fresh water wetland. Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's asserted jurisdiction in this proceeding. The Respondent has jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities conducted on the portion of Petitioner's lot that is at issue in this proceeding. This project is not exempt from permitting procedures. A dredge and fill permit is required for the proposed construction. Prior to applying for this permit, Petitioner contacted James McElheny, a landscape architect, who assisted Petitioner in drawing up the plans for the house, the driveway, and the garage that Petitioner desired to construct on the property. Without being aware that a permit from the Respondent would be required, Petitioner constructed a driveway on a portion of his property that was within the permitting jurisdiction of Respondent. This driveway extended to the landward end of a boardwalk that terminated as a dock in Bessey Creek. After Petitioner became aware of the need for a permit, he removed the filled driveway to a point that Martin County and Respondent agreed was appropriate. A portion of the driveway remained on property within the permitting jurisdiction of the Respondent at the time of the formal hearing. The plan prepared by Mr. McElheny also depicted this existing, unauthorized roadway. Petitioner's application seeks, in part, a permit to retain this driveway. On June 10, 1991, Respondent issued its Notice of Permit Denial based on the Respondent's conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to provide the required assurances in Sections 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Permit Denial provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: This project is expected to have both short and long term impacts to biological resources and water quality. The total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. In addition, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to 403.919, F.S. which gives the Department the authority to examine secondary impacts, the Department has concerns about additional wetland resource and water quality impacts that may result from this project. Floodplain areas are essential to the river system and provide important functions for the environment. The floodplain serves as a buffer system in high tide and storm events. It also serves as a source of detrital input which supports the freshwater and estuarine food chains. In addition, these areas act to improve water quality by stabilizing sediment and filtering upland runoff. Long-term effects of the proposed project would include a decrease in the productivity of the system, as well as a decrease in the filtering and stabilizing capabilities of the system. Water quality degradation is also expected to occur with upland runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, sewerage and petroleum products. Floodplain wetlands also provide a habitat for a wide variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, crustaceans and mammals. This would eliminate this wetland habitat. This project is expected to be in violation of the following Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules: 403.918 Criteria for granting or denying permits 17-312.080 Standards for Issuance or Denial of Permit 17-312.300(3) Mitigation Intent 17-302.560 Criteria: Class III waters The Department has determined that the following changes to the project make the project permittable. Modify the project to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impact by: Removing the unauthorized fill road from water of the state. Relocate the proposed house to utilize as much upland area on the property as possible. Relocate the garage and access driveway to an upland area [and] eliminate or modify the garage and access road to reduce impacts. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, provides the following permitting criteria pertinent to this proceeding: A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. . . . A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. . . . (a) In determining whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others . . . the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitat; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Respondent is entitled to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project pursuant to Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: The department, in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider: The impact of the project for which the permit is sought. The impact of projects which are existing or under construction or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought. The impact of projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations. The residence that Petitioner proposes to build on the wetland portion of the property will be constructed on pilings so that the underside of the house will be 12 feet above the ground. There will be a total of 12 pilings, with each piling being 10 inches square. The "footprint" of the house will be 1,654 square feet. If the project is permitted, best management practice will require that a silt screen be erected around the construction site during construction to prevent silt runoff. The proposed site for the house is located in a natural clearing that would require minimal clearing. If the project is to be permitted in this wetland, the site selected by Petitioner is the best site with the least impact on the wetland. Petitioner would be required to remove up to two laurel oaks and seven red maple trees. These are relatively small trees, and both species are common. Petitioner would also be required to remove shrub of no particular unique value. Petitioner proposes to mitigate the removal of the trees by replanting on the property trees that were removed in a 2-1 ratio, so that 6 laurel oaks and 14 red maples would be replanted. Petitioner also proposes to revegetate the area beneath the residence, with the exception of the area required by the pilings. There are invasive, exotic plants on the property, such as Brazilian pepper, that would be removed by Petitioner and replaced by native plants. Ms. Jacqueline Kelly, the environmental specialist who reviewed this project for Respondent, visited the property approximately four times for a total of eight hours. Ms. Kelly is of the opinion that no dredge and fill activity should be permitted on jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Kelly testified that she observed several species of birds while she was on the property, including a wood stork, a great blue heron, a little blue heron, a tricolored heron, an osprey, bluejays, woodpeckers, and grackles. The wood stork is an endangered species and the little blue heron, the tricolored heron, and the osprey are species of special concern. These birds do not nest on the subject property, and they were not observed in the area of the wetland on which the proposed construction would occur. There was no testimony upon which it can be concluded that the proposed construction will stop these species from coming on to the property. Because of the slope of the terrain, the upland portion of the Petitioner's property drains away from the wetland while the portion on which the proposed construction would occur drains toward the wetland. At the formal hearing, Petitioner suggested that any concerns as to drainage from the roof of the proposed residence could be discharged onto the upland portion of the lot by gutters. In his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner proposes that a condition of the permit be that "[a] roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project." The permitting requirement contained in Section 403.918(6), Florida Statutes, pertaining to historical or archaeological resources was not at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Kelly concluded that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as to each of the remaining permitting criteria. The rationale given by Ms. Kelly for her conclusions is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence is that all reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, that were at issue in this proceeding have been provided as it pertains to the construction of the residence. The existing roadway was filled using shell rock which has stabilized. The mere existence of the roadway on the wetland property was not shown to violate any permitting criteria since this roadway does not violate water quality standards and is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner did not, however, provide reasonable assurances that the utilization of this existing roadway as either a driveway or a parking area would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that such use would not be contrary to the public interest or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that the construction of the garage or the extension of the driveway on these wetlands would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. John Meyer was of the opinion that the project should be denied because of the possible precedent that the permitting of this project may establish for other owners of wetland properties. There was no factual or legal basis established for this opinion. The permitting of this project has no value as a precedent for other projects. There was no evidence that there were other permit applications pending for other projects in wetlands, and Mr. Meyer could only recall one or two such applications ever having been filed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that speculative cumulative impacts of this project does not prohibit the permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 409.919(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order which permits Petitioner to construct the residence on stilts with the following conditions: That silt screens be erected during the actual construction to prevent silt runoff from the construction from reaching Bessey Creek. That a roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project. That Petitioner be required to mitigate for the removal of laurel oaks and red maple by replanting on the property two laurel oaks for each laurel oak removed and by replanting on the property two red maples for each red maple removed. That Petitioner be required to revegetate with native plants the area under the house except for the areas required for the stilts. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny a permit to construct a garage or extend the existing roadway. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent permit Petitioner to retain the existing roadway on the condition that the roadway not be utilized as either a driveway or as a parking area for motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of January 1994.
Findings Of Fact The petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
The Issue Whether FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the activities it proposes to conduct pursuant to proposed District SWM Permit Application No. 940606-10, WRM Permit Application No. 940606-2-D and modification to ROW Permit No. 2584 will comply with the relevant permit criteria set forth in Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., and applicable rules and criteria promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner, 1000 Friends of Florida (1000 Friends), is a not-for-profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The principal office of 1000 Friends is 926 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32314 and it also maintains an office at 3305 College Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314. Petitioner, Florida Bay Initiative, Inc. (FBII), is an entity incorporated under the laws of Florida with its principal office located at 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. Petitioner, the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association, is an association of sport fishing guides who live in the Florida Keys and is headquartered at 138 Royal Lane, Islamorada, Florida 33036. Petitioner, Michael Collins, is a private individual. His address is 138 Royal Lane, Islamorada, Florida 33036. Petitioner, Charles W. Causey, is a private individual. His address is Post Office Box 448, Islamorada, Florida 33036. Petitioner, the Florida Keys Concerned Citizens Coalition (FKCC), is a not-for-profit Florida corporation whose address is West Shore Drive, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. Petitioner, AG Intus, Inc., filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on August 9, 1996. DOAH Case 95-5524, the proceeding filed by Intus, was previously consolidated with the other cases to this proceeding. On August 12, 1996, the Intus case was severed from this proceeding and the Intus hearing cancelled. Respondent, the South Florida Water Management District (the District or SFWMD), is a public corporation in the State of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S., and Title 40E, F.A.C., as a multi-purpose water management district, with its principle office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), is an agency of the State of Florida. Its District Six address is 1000 N.W. 111th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33172. Intervenor, Monroe County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. For the purposes of this proceeding the address for Monroe County is c/o Apgar and Pelham, 909 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The District, FDOT and Monroe County did not object to the standing of the Petitioners at the formal hearing and represented that they will not object to the standing in the event of an appeal. Based on the representations of the Respondents, the Petitioners were not required to put on a case as to their standing. THE THREE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FDOT has applied to the District for a Wetland Resource Management (WRM) permit, a Surface Water Management (SWM) permit, and a Right of Way (ROW) occupancy permit. On June 6, 1994, the Applicant submitted applications for surface water management and wetland resource management permits for the purpose of widening and modifying this 20.4 mile stretch of U.S. 1. The surface water management permit application is identified as Application No. 940606-10. The wetland resource management permit application is identified as Application No. 940606-2-D. On October 24, 1995, the District issued Staff Reports on Permit Application No. 960606-10 and Permit Application No. 94060-2-D. These Staff Reports recommended issuance of the permits subject to general and special conditions as specified therein. An addendum to the staff report was issued November 3, 1995. On September 27, 1994, the Applicant submitted a request to modify its existing ROW Occupancy Permit to enable it to replace the bridge where U.S. 1 crosses the C-111 Canal. The land encompassed by the ROW occupancy permit challenged in this proceeding is located in Section 16 and 17, Township 59 South, Range 39 East, Dade County, Florida. A draft right-of-way occupancy permit with standard limiting and special conditions was produced as part of a package that went to the Governing Board and others. The proposed authorization for use of the ROW is for the following: REMOVAL OF EXISTING U.S. HIGHWAY 1 BRIDGE AND REPLACEMENT WITH A NEW FIXED BRIDGE. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SERVICE/ACCESS ROAD, 2 DETENTION PONDS, 2 CATCH BASINS, 2-15" R.C.P. OUTFALLS, BOAT RAMP WITH LOADING DOCK, PARKING AREA, PEDESTRIAN GATE AT S-197, FENCING AND WILDLIFE CROSSING ALL WITHIN THE NORTH AND SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-111 (STATION 938+00 - 955+00). The draft right-of-way occupancy permit modification, identified as “SFWMD PERMIT NO. MOD 2548," should correctly be identified at “SFWMD PERMIT NO. MOD 2584.” The numbers “8” and “4” were inadvertently transposed. STIPULATIONS AS TO APPLICABLE LAW The parties have accurately set forth the applicable permitting criteria and the appropriate Basis of Review in their prehearing stipulation. CRITERIA FOR ROW PERMIT Rule 40E-6.301, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: In determining whether an occupancy permit should be issued, the District shall consider whether the proposed activity: interferes with the present or future construction, alteration, operation or maintenance of the works of the District; is consistent with the policy and objectives of Chapter 373 F.S., the legislative declaration of policy contained in Section 373.016, F.S. and the state water policy, Chapter 17-40, F.A.C.; has an actual or potential negative impact upon environmentally sensitive areas, which include: wetlands; endangered or threatened species habitat; aquatic preserves; outstanding Florida waters; federal, state and privately owned parks and wildlife management areas; designated areas of critical state concern; lands purchased by federal, state and local governments for the purpose of environmental protection, water resource protection and esthetics; and lands which contain native terrestrial plant species in significant amounts. Environmentally sensitive areas include areas on and off- site that are affected by activities which occur on, or are initiated from, the District’s works; degrades water quality within the receiving water body or fails to meet the provisions of Ch. 373, F.S., the state water policy, and Ch. 40E, F.A.C.; involves a discharge of wastewater from a new wastewater source or an increased discharge from an existing wastewater source; will discharge debris or aquatic weeds into District lands or works or cause erosion or shoaling within the works of the District; is supported by financial assurances, which will ensure that the proposed activity will be conducted in accordance with Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapter 40E-6, F.A.C.; presents an increased liability risk to the District; meets the general and specific criteria in the Basis of Review which is incorporated by reference in Rule 40E- 6.091, F.A.C.; interferes with actual or potential public use of the District’s works or public, recreational or other facilities not within the District’s works; is consistent with local zoning and other private land uses in the area; interferes with the quality or quantity of a public or private water supply; meets applicable criteria in Chapters 40E-61 and 40E-62, F.A.C.; ROW occupancy permits typically have standard limiting conditions which are incorporated as part of the permit. The permit may also have special limiting conditions. CRITERIA FOR PERMITTING THE SWM SYSTEM Rule 40E-4.301(1), Florida Administrative Code, contains the following criteria that, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, were used by SFWMD in determining whether to permit a surface water management system: In order to obtain or modify a permit under this chapter, an applicant must give reasonable assurances that the surface water system: provides adequate flood protection and drainage, without causing over- drainage, will not cause adverse water quality and quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands regulated pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S., will not cause discharges which result in any violations, in surface waters of the state, of the standards and criteria of chapter 17-302, F.A.C., will not cause adverse on-site or off-site impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows, including impacts to sources of water supply and wetland hydrology, will not cause adverse environmental impacts, can be effectively operated and maintained, will not adversely affect public health and safety, is consistent with the State Water Policy, chapter 17-40, F.A.C., for a DRI with a signed Preliminary Development Agreement with the Florida Department of Community Affairs, pursuant to section 380.06(8), F.S., provides a surface water management system for that portion of the site approval for development which is able to operate separately from the surface water management system for the balance of the project site and still meet applicable District criteria. meets any applicable basin criteria in chapter 40E-41, F.A.C., will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources of the District, will not interfere with the legal rights of others as defined in subsection 17-40.401(8), F.A.C., is not against public policy, will meet general and specific criteria in the document described in subsection 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C., (0) will meet criteria for isolated wetlands, which are found in Appendix 7 of the document described in rule 40E- 4.091(1)(a), F.A.C., (p) will meet the criteria for above ground impoundments, which are found in Appendix 6 of the document described in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C. The SFWMD has adopted certain procedures and criteria contained in a document, referred to as “Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within The South Florida Water Management District” (BOR). Subsection 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C. incorporates this document by reference into Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C. The BOR is a document that is “described in subsection 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C.,” within the meaning of Rule 40E-4.301(1), F.A.C. The BOR establishes a rebuttable presumption that water quality criteria are met through specified volumetric retention and detention requirements. These performance based criteria are designed to be flexible. CRITERIA FOR THE WRM PERMIT In 1992 DEP entered into an Operating Agreement with the District, which delegated to the District responsibility for issuing wetland resource management (WRM) permits, which are required for dredge and fill activities in wetlands. Both DEP and the District implement the same wetland resource permit and MSSW permit rules. The District agrees with DEP's interpretation and application of the WRM permitting rules and non-rule policy, and applies the same when issuing such permits. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes (1991), provides the pertinent criteria that must be applied by the District in determining whether to grant or deny the WRM permit. That criteria requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. In addition, for projects in OFW, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest. THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST The District is required to balance the following criteria, found at Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), in determining whether a project is clearly within the public interest: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. MITIGATION If the applicant is unable to otherwise meet the public interest test, the District shall, pursuant to Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes, “consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects which may be caused by the project . . .” The District thereafter re-evaluates the project to determine whether the project, as mitigated, meets the public interest test. The criteria for mitigation is found in Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, Title 40 E (including the Basis of Review) and Rule 62-312, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-312.330, Florida Administrative Code, states the general criteria for evaluating mitigation proposals as follows: The goal of the mitigation proposal shall be to offset the expected adverse impact of the project that have resulted in the project being deemed unpermittable such that the resulting project with mitigation is not contrary to the public interest or, in the case of Outstanding Florida Waters, is clearly in the public interest. Each project must be separately evaluated to determine whether the proposed mitigation is sufficient. Rule 62-312.340, Florida Administrative Code, provides guidelines that are to be used in evaluating proposed mitigation projects. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA FDOT proposes to widen a 20.4 mile portion of U.S. 1 in southern Dade County and northern Monroe County. Approximately seven miles of the project area is in Monroe County and approximately thirteen miles is in Dade County. The northern terminus of the project is the intersection of U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road, which is located in Dade County south of Florida City. The southern terminus of the project is the intersection of U.S. 1 and Abaco Road on Key Largo in Monroe County. The corridor of the proposed project passes through Sections 6, 7, 16, 18, 21, 27, 28, Township 59 South, Range 39 East; Sections 24, 25, 36, Township 58 South, Range 38 East; Sections 16, 19, 30, 31, Township 58 South, Range 39 East, Sections 16, 30, 31, Township 60 South, Range 40 East; Sections 25, 26, Township 60 South, Ranges 39 East, Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida. U.S. 1 is the main highway between northern Monroe County and southern Dade County. The only other road between Monroe County and Dade County is Card Sound Road. The Florida Keys is designated as an Area of Critical State Concern, pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes. The Dade County portion of the road, north of the C- 111 canal, lies within typical Everglades habitat, which is classified as environmentally protected lands of Dade County. Most of the project corridor in Dade County is part of or adjacent to the Everglades National Park. Valuable wetlands exist throughout the project corridor. The following bodies of water will receive discharges if the surface water management system is permitted: C-111 Canal, Jewfish Creek, Lake Surprise, Blackwater Sound, Barnes Sound, Little Blackwater Sound, Long Sound, Manatee Bay, Sarge Lake, andManatee Creek. The receiving bodies of water are Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) or are connected to OFWs. THE EXISTING ROADWAY As it presently exists in the project area, U.S. 1 is a two lane undivided highway with two passing zones that are each one mile in length. Each travel lane on the existing facility is twelve feet wide. The existing shoulder on either side of the road consists of four feet of pavement and six feet of grassed area. FDOT Exhibit 7 accurately depicts the existing roadway typical section. Exotic vegetation, generally limited to the areas immediately adjacent to the highway, exist throughout the project corridor. These exotic species are present because FDOT has failed to properly maintain its right of way. A clear zone is an unobstructed area that includes the shoulder of the roadway and typically extends beyond the shoulder. The purpose of the clear zone is to provide a driver who has lost control of his or her vehicle a sufficient clear recovery area to regain control of the vehicle so that it can be maneuvered back onto the road. The clear zone for the existing road is inadequate to provide a safe recovery area. There is at present a two lane bridge over Manatee Creek, a two-lane bridge crossing the C-111 Canal, a bascule bridge, which is a drawbridge, over Jewfish Creek, and a two lane causeway through Lake Surprise. The two existing passing zones are located in Dade County. The first is south of U.S. 1’s intersection with the C-111 canal between mile markers 113-115. The second passing lane is approximately four miles south of the northern terminus of the project between mile markers 120-122. Each existing passing zone is undivided and consists of two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes, with each travel lane being twelve feet in width. The shoulders in the passing zones are the same as for the typical section. A surface water management (SWM) system is defined by Rule 40E-4.021(5), Florida Administrative Code , as being "the collection of devices, improvements or natural systems whereby surface waters are controlled, impounded, or obstructed.". There is no surface water management system presently associated with the road. The roadbed is elevated approximately five feet above mean sea level according to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum and was constructed on the old railroad bed of the Florida East Coast Railroad. No hydrologic culverts have been placed within the roadbed. Consequently, surface water flow between the eastern and western sides of the road north of the C-111 Canal has been cut off. C-109 AND C-111 CANALS In the 1960's, the C-109 and C-111 canals were constructed as part of an overall water management system in the area. As a result of the roadbed and the canals, water has been impounded on the western side of U.S. 1 at a level higher than on the eastern side. Due to cutoff of waterflow by the roadbed embankment, historic freshwater flow between the eastern and western sides of the project area has been restricted, which has resulted in an adverse impact on the Everglades ecosystem north of the C-111 Canal. The restricted water flow has resulted in less fresh water being available for shorter periods of time. Consequently, aquatic life has had reduced opportunities to develop. The restricted flow also has impeded the ability of aquatic life to reach freshwater areas during times of drought. On the east side of the road marine conditions have displaced what naturally should be freshwater conditions. PROJECT HISTORY While FDOT has been aware of traffic safety and hurricane evacuations concerns on the roadway for a long time, the current project originated in 1986 when Monroe County identified this project as a need in its 1986 Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to agency practice, the proposed project was incorporated into FDOT's five year work program and a study was performed pursuant to FDOT’s Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual. FDOT's PD&E manual describes the process by which FDOT determines whether to construct or improve a road. The PD&E process includes an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze existing conditions, assess the need for improvement, and develop alternatives. A Draft EIS is performed and circulated for comment to governmental agencies and the public. Based upon comments and further review a Final EIS is prepared. Metric Engineering ("Metric") began the PD&E study of the project in 1988 pursuant to a contract with FDOT. Metric identified seven factors which it concluded supported the need for the project. First, the improved corridor would improve the linkage between the four lane road at the northern terminus and the four lane road at the southern terminus. Second, the project would improve navigation by replacing the existing bascule bridge at Jewfish Creek. Third, the project would improve the level of service for the road. Fourth, the project would improve the safety of the road. Fifth, the project would improve the clearance time for hurricane evacuation. Sixth, the project was consistent with the long range transportation plans adopted by Monroe County. Seventh, the project would accommodate increased traffic, which can be expected with or without the project. Based on the needs evaluation, Metric performed a corridor analysis to determine the best way to get from Florida City to Key Largo, including improving only Card Sound Road, improving only U.S. 1, or improving a combination of the two. Metric concluded that the best resolution was to improve the project corridor. Metric also analyzed various alternatives in an effort to reduce the size of the typical section of the roadway in the U.S. 1 corridor and thereby minimize environmental impacts of the project. Because of concerns from Everglades National Park that no aspects of the project construction occur within its boundaries, FDOT agreed to conduct all construction east of FDOT's existing right of way line. The conclusions of the Metric studies were memorialized in a Final EIS and Final Engineering Report published in 1992. Conclusions regarding alternatives and project needs were then incorporated into the permit application and have continued to be updated. The 1992 version of the project was for a four lane roadway with four lane bridges throughout the project corridor. Subsequent to its June 6, 1994, permit applications to the District for a four lane roadway, FDOT went through an extensive process of providing the District with additional information in an effort to provide the District with the necessary reasonable assurance that the proposed project would comply with the permit criteria. The final series of modifications contained the three lane alternative, which will be described in detail below and is now the subject of this proceeding. The three lane proposal is a compromise that FDOT agreed to in an effort to minimize the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the project. Monroe County passed Resolution No. 315-1995 on September 7, 1995, asking FDOT to build a three-lane road on a four-lane embankment. This resolution provided, in part, that “. . . Monroe County finds that the '3-lane alternative' as described in the Statement of Agency Commitments is the most viable proposal of those considered, because it balances the needs for a widened highway with safeguards designed to address secondary impacts.” The secondary impacts referred to in the resolution included concerns that two southbound lanes would result in more growth. The rationale behind the resolution was that more growth would result from two southbound lanes than from one southbound lane with the proposed passing zones. In response to the request of Monroe County and in response to a similar request made by the District, FDOT notified the District by letter dated September 5, 1996 of FDOT's decision to redesign the project to change the roadway from four to three lanes. FDOT HAS MINIMIZED THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT During the PD&E process prior to permit application FDOT studied project needs and alternative alignments, and conducted corridor analyses. FDOT originally considered a proposal that included approximately 250 acres of wetlands impacts. At the District's suggestion, FDOT revised its proposal prior to the permit application to reduce the wetland impacts and project footprint. The application submitted contained approximately 165 acres of impact. FDOT changed the typical section of the proposed roadway again after substantial interagency coordination in an effort to reduce wetlands impacts even further. FDOT agreed to reduce the footprint by changing the design of the median from 22 feet and a Jersey barrier (which is a minimum barrier) to 20 feet with a tri-beam rail barrier. The more substantial barrier was added because the median was narrowed. Additionally, instead of ten-foot paved shoulders on each side of the median, FDOT would use two-foot paved shoulders with sixteen feet of grass in the middle. These minimization efforts resulted in a wetland impacts decrease from 164 acres to 149.07 acres, the current impact of the project. Avoidance, or choosing alternate routes to avoid impacts to wetlands, was not a possible option because only wetlands and open waters exist between the northern and southern terminus of the project. FDOT explored all reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including a two lane alternative proposed by a consultant for FBII. As discussed below, FDOT did not adopt the two-lane alternative, because the alternative did not address all of FDOT's identified needs for the project. FBII prepared a report with a two-lane alternative to the proposed project. FBII's original proposal included one 12-foot northbound lane with a 10-foot paved shoulder covered with thermoplastic rumble strips to deter vehicular use of the shoulder. In the southbound direction, FBII proposed a 12-foot travel lane with a 4-foot paved shoulder, essentially the same as currently exists. That proposal was analyzed by Metric Engineering on behalf of FDOT. FDOT rejected the FBII alternative for several reasons. First, though the 10-foot northbound shoulder theoretically may be used by cars during hurricane evacuation, removal of the rumble strips would be impractical due to lack of time to do so under threat of a hurricane, and due to the costs involved. It would be unrealistic to require people to otherwise drive over the rumble strips, without removal, because they are designed to prevent such access. Using the 10-foot shoulder during an evacuation would result in there being no shoulder area to remove accident vehicles from the roadway which would otherwise threaten to restrict the flow of traffic or cease it altogether. The reduced width of the shoulder lane below the standard 12-foot lane would also decrease the flow of evacuees. FBII's proposal for a two-lane fixed-height bridge at Jewfish Creek would not completely eliminate rear-end collisions at the bridge. The two-lane alternative proposed by FBII is not a signed and sealed cross section. The proposal by FBII does not include the area necessary for a SWM system or for clear zones. FBII did not do an analysis to determine whether its proposal complies with pertinent FDOT roadway and traffic design standards or with pertinent highway safety and improvement standards. The FBII proposal does not account for removal of the Lake Surprise causeway or construction related impacts from barge traffic. FBII did not do a wetlands survey to determine the impact of its two-lane proposal. At the Final Hearing, Petitioners presented for the first time a new proposal to use "flexible diverters" to pave a third northbound lane and to block that lane from travel traffic with poles. However, no research was conducted into the feasibility of such a proposal, nor was it adequately thought out. Such a use of "flexible diverters" is unprecedented in FDOT's history, is impractical to implement, and would violate FDOT's design standards contained in its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Petitioners also presented for the first time at the Final Hearing a proposal to add an 8 to 10 foot paved northbound shoulder which could be converted to a travel lane with traffic control cones in the event of an evacuation. This plan is also not feasible, because the resulting lanes would not be wide enough to safely accommodate evacuating traffic, and because the contradiction between existing road striping and the placement of cones would likely cause accidents, which would halt evacuation. The proposals submitted by FBII do not sufficiently improve hurricane evacuation or traffic safety and, consequently, are not acceptable alternatives to the project. FDOT can do nothing else to minimize the impacts of the project and still address the needs for the project. Minimization of wetlands impacts was accomplished to the greatest extent possible. FDOT has proposed mitigation to offset the impacts that could not be avoided. THE PROPOSED PROJECT - IN GENERAL STIPULATION AS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Petitioners stipulated that the design and construction specifications of the roadway proposed to be permitted in this case comply with all applicable design and construction standards for structural integrity, and adequately describe the three-lane divided roadway proposed to be constructed on a four-lane roadbed/embankment. PROPOSED LANES, SHOULDERS, AND MEDIAN FDOT proposes to widen the roadway in the project area to a three lane divided roadway with two northbound lanes and one southbound lane, plus three passing zones. The proposed project will be constructed on a four lane roadbed embankment. FDOT does not presently have plans to add the fourth lane to this roadway. FDOT Exhibit 8 contains an accurate description of the proposed typical section of the roadway. The typical section will consist of two twelve-foot northbound lanes with a six-foot paved shoulder and a four foot stabilized area adjacent to the paved shoulder; a twenty-foot median consisting of a two-foot paved shoulder, sixteen feet of grass and a tri-beam guardrail in the middle as a separator; and one twelve-foot southbound lane with an eight-foot paved shoulder. The proposed typical section also includes a storm water management system that will be described in more detail below. The proposed typical section includes a clear zone thirty feet in width, which is adequate. THE THREE PASSING ZONES The existing passing zone located in Dade County between mile markers 113 and 115 is one mile in length. FDOT proposes to alter this passing zone to 1.44 miles in length. The existing passing zone located in Dade County between mile markers 120 and 122 is also one mile in length. FDOT proposes to alter this passing zone to 2 miles in length. In addition, FDOT proposes to construct a 1.5 mile long passing zone between mile markers 110 and 112 in Monroe County. If permitted, the proposed project will include 2 passing zones in Dade County and 1 passing zone in Monroe County, for a total of 3 passing zones. The total length of the passing zones will equal 4.94 miles. ELEVATION There are no plans to change the elevation of the existing roadway. HYDROLOGIC CULVERTS The project contemplates the construction of 25 hydrologic culverts north of the C-111 Canal. These culverts will remain capped until further hydrological studies are completed and input from all concerned regulatory agencies can be obtained. It has not yet been determined how these culverts will be utilized to maximize the improvement to the ecosystem north of the C-111 Canal. WILDLIFE CROSSINGS INCLUDING THE C-111 BRIDGE The project contemplates the construction of three wildlife crossings north of the C-111 Canal in Dade County with fencing designed to funnel wildlife through the crossing. These crossing, sometimes referred to in the record as “panther crossings” are located between mile markers 118-119, 122-123, and 126-127 and will be constructed as overland bridges. In addition, the replacement bridge over the C-111 Canal (located between mile markers 116-117 in Dade County) is intended to serve as a wildlife crossing and will also employ fencing to funnel wildlife through the crossing. All four of these structures will be constructed as four-lane bridges, but will be striped for three lanes with rumble strips on the southbound fourth lane to discourage vehicular traffic in that lane. There will be an eight foot outside shoulder. FDOT proposes to construct 18 culverts south of the C-111 Canal for crossings by crocodiles, alligators, manatees, and other wildlife. These crossings will consist of 15 box culverts and 3 bridges. MANATEE CREEK BRIDGE The proposed bridge at Manatee Creek would be constructed as a four lane bridge, but would be striped for three lanes with rumble strips on the southbound fourth lane to discourage vehicular travel in that lane. There would be an eight foot outside shoulder. BRIDGING JEWFISH CREEK AND LAKE SURPRISE Jewfish Creek, which is part of the Intracoastal Waterway, and Lake Surprise would be bridged by a continuous structure. The Jewfish Creek bascule bridge would be replaced by a high-level four-lane fixed bridge. The Lake Surprise causeway would be replaced by a low-level four-lane bridge. The total distance for this bridging is approximately 2.35 miles. AREA OF PROJECT THAT WILL BE OPERATED WITH FOUR-LANES The three passing lanes (4.94 miles) and the bridge over Jewfish Creek and Lake Surprise (2.35 miles) would be operated with four lanes. Those areas total 7.29 miles of the 20.4 mile project corridor. Approximately 43 percent of the proposed roadway would have four lanes of pavement. Excluding the areas where the fourth lane will be blocked from travel with rumble strips, only 35 percent of the completed project will contain four travel lanes. This area consists of the three passing zones and the bridges over Jewfish Creek and Lake Surprise. THE PROPOSED SWM SYSTEM The proposed project would provide for a SWM system consisting of inlets, culverts, swales, berms and dry/wet retention areas. For the typical roadway section, runoff from the paved roadway surfaces will be directed to roadside swales designed to provide retention for 50 percent of 2.5 inches times the impervious area. The SWM system for the bridges will collect runoff in inlets and culverts and direct it to either swales or dry or wet retention ponds. The berms of the SWM system provide additional protection by restricting spills of pollutants, such as petroleum from overturned tankers or other vehicle accidents, from running into the surrounding waters. The berms and swales of the SWM are designed to catch pollutants and prevent their discharge into the surrounding waters. FDOT Exhibit 18 consists of four separate drainage reports submitted to the District in 1995 in connection with the project, one report for each section of the project. The reports accurately document the drainage calculations, the drainage design, the rationale behind the drainage design, and compliance of the design with the laws and regulations of the permitting agencies for the original four-lane proposal. On or about September 5, 1995, FDOT submitted revised drainage calculations to the District, determining the amount of stormwater treatment for the three-lane project. The revised calculations established that at least 95% percent of all stormwater runoff from the project would be captured in the proposed SWM system. Because the swale design was based on the originally proposed four-lane road, retention will be in excess of the required volume for most sections of the roadway. The required retention volume for this project is approximately 166 percent of what is required by the BOR. The surface and subsurface geology of the roadway consists of Miami oolite limestone overlain with Perrine maral. Underlying this is Thompson formation, anastasia and Key Largo limestone. Based on these constituencies, the swales proposed by the SWM system would be effective in rapidly removing heavy metals and phosphorous. The revised calculations established that approximately five percent of the project area will not have a SWM system. These areas will not have a SWM system because properly-sized retention systems in those areas can not be constructed without causing a disproportionate, adverse impact to surrounding wetlands. FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed SWM system’s total water quality treatment exceeds the District's permitting requirements and provides sufficient treatment to exceed the BOR requirements. The water discharged from the proposed system would be of higher quality than that currently discharged, which is not treated. FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed SWM system complies with the permitting criteria found in Rule 40E.301(1)(a)-(p), Florida Administrative Code. The following findings are made as to that criteria. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), F.A.C. The parties stipulated that Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), F.A.C., pertaining to flood protection and the adequacy of drainage, is not at issue in this proceeding. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), F.A.C. The quality of water being discharged from the SWM system will be of substantially higher quality than the existing discharges. Consequently, it is concluded that the system will not cause adverse water quality impacts within the meaning of Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), F.A.C. In addition, the evidence established that there will likely be less water discharged from the roadway if the project is constructed because of the amounts of water that will likely be retained in the swales that are a part of the SWM systems. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c), F.A.C. Because the receiving bodies of water are designated Outstanding Florida Waters, the District is required to apply the DEP's most stringent water quality requirements -- the antidegredation requirements for discharge to OFWs, to this project. Those standards will be discussed in more detail below. The evidence established that the proposed project will not violate those requirements. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d), F.A.C. Impacts to sources of water are not at issue. The District reviewed the potential effect of the SWM system upon on-site and off-site impacts to surface or groundwater levels and flows. The evidence supports the District's conclusion that no adverse impacts will be caused. Petitioners failed to present any evidence on groundwater levels and flows. Consequently, it is found that the criteria found at Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d), F.A.C., has been satisfied. The 25 hydrologic culverts north of C-111 have the potential to re-establish historic surface water flow in the area. They were sized, based on rainstorm events, to help equalize water levels from one side of the road to the other. The culverts are capable of transferring water from west to east to assist in the historic restoration of flows. In order to assure the proper usage of the culverts, they will remain gated until the District develops a management plan in conjunction with other agencies. The District will determine the maintenance entity. The FKAA water main runs beneath this section of the road. As a result, there is no other more hydrologically efficient alternative for the placement of the culverts. The culverts would also provide a means for overwash from storm events, over the U.S. 1 roadbed, to flow back to its point of origin, stabilizing the roadbed and allowing release of the accumulated salt water. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e), F.A.C. In addition to providing for a net improvement in water quality, the project will offset any adverse impacts through mitigation and other environmental enhancements for which no mitigation credits are being assigned, as described below. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), F.A.C. FDOT has a history of adequate maintenance of SWM systems, and has provided reasonable assurance that it has the staff and budget to comply with District operation and maintenance requirements. FDOT will also be able to comply with the District's requirements to control exotic plants and other foliage along project corridor. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g), F.A.C. The SWM system will not adversely affect public health and safety. The dispute as to the public interest test focused more on the WRM permitting requirements. Findings as to the public interest test are discussed in more detail below. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(h), F.A.C. The evidence established that the SFM system is consistent with State Water Policy. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i), F.A.C. This project does not pertain to a DRI and, consequently, this criteria is not applicable. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j), F.A.C. There are no basin criteria applicable to this project. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(k), F.A.C. The evidence established that the SWM system will not be harmful to the water resources of the District. While there will be adverse environmental impacts caused by the project, those adverse impacts have, as will be discussed in more detail below, adequately offset by mitigation. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(l), F.A.C. This issue was not at issue in this proceeding. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(m), F.A.C. As will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this Recommended Order, the project is not against public policy. For the reasons set forth in that subsequent section, it is found that the project is clearly in the public interest. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(n), F.A.C. Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C., constitutes the BOR. As discussed in detail above, the SWM system complies with the BOR. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(o), F.A.C. There are no isolated wetlands pertaining to this project. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(p), F.A.C. There are no above ground impoundments, as described in Appendix 6 of the BOR, pertaining to this project. WATER QUALITY - DISCHARGES INTO OFW Because the project will involve discharges into Outstanding Florida Waters, it was necessary for FDOT to establish that the discharges from the SFW system will not degrade those OFWs. The evidence established that FDOT's proposed project complies with and exceeds applicable water quality standards and permitting criteria. There will be no significant degradation of ambient water quality as a result of the project. It is expected that there will be a net improvement in ambient water quality resulting from the proposed project, as opposed to the continued degradation if nothing is done to treat stormwater runoff. In FDOT Exhibit 46, FDOT provided baseline water quality data in the form of STORET data for waters adjacent to the project area. STORET is a centralized repository and database for water quality data throughout Florida. It is Florida's principal source of water quality data. STORET contains the best scientific database on water quality in Florida. The STORET data set forth in FDOT Exhibit 46 provided sufficient evidence on ambient water quality for the waters adjacent to the proposed project. In addition to providing the water quality data in FDOT Exhibit 46, FDOT is required by Special Permit Condition 37 to submit appropriate water quality data in the surrounding waters prior to any construction activities. SFWMD Exhibits 5 and 6 contain amendments to Proposed Agency Action made after the beginning of the formal hearing. These amendments include a requirement that an appropriate water quality monitoring plan be submitted within 30 days of the permit issuance. FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will be met and that there will be appropriate water quality monitoring during construction. DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The proposed roadway design will result in the following direct impacts to wetlands adjacent to the roadway corridor: 1) the dredging of 11,028 cubic yards of material from 2.1 acres, 2) the placement of 1,689,553 cubic yards over 147.0 acres of wetlands, and 3) 6.9 acres of (potential) permanent impact due to shading and 4.1 acres (potential) of temporary impacts from the Jewfish Creek Bridge construction activities to seagrass habitat. In order to determine the project's direct impacts, the area surrounding the project was surveyed to determine the number of affected acres. This was done by using a computer aided design ("CAD") system, and by categorizing the various forms of wetlands and associated flora and fauna into the following communities: mangrove, emergent freshwater, open water, and tidal, consisting of seagrass and non-vegetated bottoms. Using these categories and the CAD system, every square foot of direct impacts were accounted for. The adverse direct wetland and surface water impacts of this project are as follows: 1) 27.83 acres Non- Vegetated Tidal Bottom; 2) 11.27 acres Seagrasses; 3) 46.85 acres Mangroves; 4) 42.35 acres Sawgrass/Cattail/Spikerush; 5) 14.31 acres Shrub Wetlands; and 6) 6.46 acres Open Fresh Water; totaling 149.07 acres. Though some wetlands to be impacted may be of lesser quality, FDOT stipulated that all wetlands to be directly impacted by the project should be considered to be high quality wetlands for the purpose of mitigating the impacts. The impacted wetlands are part of larger wetland systems. Petitioners assert that the District should have required studies as to impacts as to the larger wetland systems. The evidence established that the District appropriately considered the type and location of the wetlands involved so that additional study suggested by Petitioners was unnecessary. Petitioners also assert that impacts to isolated wetlands should have been studied. The evidence established that there will be no such impacts. SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RECOGNIZED BY SFWMD In addition to the direct impacts of the project, the District is required to analyze secondary and cumulative impacts. A project's secondary impacts are those that, though outside of the project footprint, are very closely linked and causally related to the project. This is a "but for" test. Secondary impacts are those impacts which, if not for the proposed project, would not occur. Both positive and negative secondary impacts are considered. When there are both positive and negative secondary impacts caused by a project, the permitting agency must consider the severity of the impacts and balance these together with the other factors in the public interest test to determine whether or not the project is clearly in the public interest. WRM statutes, and DEP rules and policies pertaining to those statutes do not regulate growth or traffic increases, per se. Only if such increases are very closely linked and causally related to the project will they be considered. The District identified several secondary impacts that would be temporary in nature since they would occur while the project is being constructed. One is the use of a barge facility, primarily at Jewfish Creek, where the anchoring of the barge may result in temporary impacts to seagrass during construction. This impact is addressed by a component of the seagrass mitigation at Boca Chica, discussed below. Another impact is turbidity associated with the dredge and fill and the barge activities. That issue is appropriately addressed by permit conditions, through the use of turbidity control screens and other techniques. The District also identified secondary impacts directly associated with the project footprint that would be permanent in nature. The removal of the exotic vegetation potentially opens up the areas adjacent to the road north of the C-111 canal to off-road vehicles or four-wheel driving and the potential impacts caused by those vehicles. That impact is appropriately addressed by fencing north of the C-111 canal. When a road is widened, animals have a greater distance to travel back and forth from one side of the road to the other. A wider road exposes such animals to greater risk of being hit by a motor vehicle while crossing the road. That impact is addressed in this project by the fencing, the wildlife crossings, and the wildlife box culverts. The crossings are designed for large mammals and some species, such as the Indigo snake, will likely not use these crossings. The wildlife crossings will not entirely mimic the crossing patterns of all wildlife that need to cross U.S. 1 and will result in some wildlife habitat fragmentation. The fencing that will be erected to funnel wildlife through the crossings will fragment the habitat of some species by altering wildlife crossing patterns and blocking access of some species to certain areas of habitat. The greater weight of the evidence established that any habitat fragmentation should, when compared to existing conditions, be minimal. The District appropriately evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of using wildlife crossing and hydrological culverts and appropriately concluded that there would be a net benefit to wildlife as a result of their construction. The District properly concluded that the culverts, bridges and fencing located south of the C-111 canal, construction of wildlife crossings and fencing north of the C- 111 canal, construction of the hydrologic culverts, and removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway are positive secondary benefits of the project. These benefits should be considered when applying the public interest test. THE FKAA PIPELINE RELOCATION The project requires the relocation of two segments of the existing pipe owned by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) around Jewfish Creek Bridge. The segments total approximately 1.5 miles. The District inspected the area where the pipeline will be relocated to assist in determining its impact. The pipeline relocation is a temporary disturbance during construction. It is a small linear facility, which will not generate pollution in and of itself. The pipeline relocation is not expected to result in a violation of State water quality standards. The FKAA is responsible for obtaining the necessary permits for the relocation. Direct impacts to wetlands will occur in a 4 to 5 foot wide strip along the length of the relocated aqueduct. The FKAA has submitted a permit application to the DEP for a permit to relocate the aqueduct. DEP believes that adequate mitigation can be achieved to make the project permittable. Once the FKAA submits an adequate mitigation plan, then relocation of the aqueduct will not be an adverse secondary impact caused by the U.S. 1 project. The permit for the subject project should contain a condition that the FKAA obtain a permit for the relocation of these two segments of its pipeline. THE C-111 BOAT RAMP There is an existing boat ramp designed for small boats to access District canals that is located on the north side of the C-111 canal. As a result of the proposed project, it will be relocated to the southern side of the project. This relocation is a relatively minor project requiring a cut in the canal bank and a fourteen-foot wide slab for the boat ramp. When the District considered the potential impacts associated with this relocation in conjunction with the impact of the proposed project, it was determined to be a relatively insignificant impact in terms of the project as a whole. Relocation of the boat ramp is not expected to result in a violation of state water quality standards. All direct, cumulative, and secondary impacts, whether positive or negative, should be considered in balancing the public interest test. ARE THERE ADDITIONAL SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Petitioners assert that there are additional cumulative and secondary impacts that the District failed to consider. Petitioners argue that the project cannot meet permitting criteria if those additional impacts are considered. The additional impacts pertain to additional development throughout Monroe County because of the “rate of growth ordinance” (ROGO), additional development along the project corridor, impacts to the coral reefs of the Keys, impacts to Key Deer, generalized impacts, and impacts from increased number of “day trippers." For the reasons discussed below, it is found that the District has considered all appropriate direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the project. The additional impacts that Petitioners assert should have been considered are not causally connected or directly linked to the project. THE RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE Monroe County adopted its Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") to meet the requirements of Chapter 163, F.S. The Plan, adopted May 15, 1993, is unusual in that the County limits future growth based on a carrying capacity analysis of its hurricane evacuation clearance time. No other jurisdiction in Florida, and few others in the United States, have used a carrying capacity planning approach. To implement the carrying capacity limitation, Monroe County determined the total number of dwelling units that could be permitted while maintaining an acceptable hurricane evacuation clearance time of 24 hours. This number of dwelling units, less an allowance for vested development and development in municipalities, was the basis for a ROGO that was adopted by the County in 1992. The ROGO allocates the available units at a uniform annual rate of growth (currently, 255 units per year). The ROGO regulates all proposed new residential buildings, including hotels, motels, and other transient tourist accommodations as well as permanent residences. The number of building permits that Monroe County can issue is, at present, directly related to how rapidly the County can be evacuated in the event of a hurricane. The lower the clearance time, the greater the number of permits that can be issued. The Comprehensive Plan requires that the County be able to evacuate within a 24-hour period. As of March 7, 1995, the hurricane evacuation time for Monroe County was determined to be 21.25 hours.1 The project is expected to reduce by six or seven hours the modeled hurricane evacuation capacity for Monroe County, regardless of whether it consists of three or four lanes. This is because both the three lane and four lane plans provide for two northbound lanes. Because of the rate of growth provisions in county law, this reduction of clearance times results directly in an increase in the number of building permits that the county can issue annually. Under ROGO, Monroe County can, with this project, issue 255 permits each year through the year 2026. Without this project, Monroe County can issue 255 permits each year only through the year 2001. Alternatively, without this project, the county can issue 88 permits each year through the year 2010 if it chooses to issue permits over a longer period of time. Following extensive litigation before the Division of Administrative Hearings in an unrelated proceeding2, the Administration Commission entered a final order on December 12, 1995, that approved approximately 97 percent of the Plan. In addition, the Administration Commission has published a proposed rule to bring the remainder of the Plan into compliance and assure its financial feasibility. The central feature of the proposed rule is a five- year work program, with annual reviews by the Administration Commission. It is likely that the proposed rule will eventually result in the complete revision of the ROGO. The proposed rule provides that Monroe County's annual rate of growth be revised within five years, no later than December 31, 2001, "to establish a rate of growth and a set of development standards that ensure that any and all new development does not exceed the capacity of the county's environment and marine systems." A carrying capacity study will comprehensively assess water quality, habitat protection, and public facility issues to determine the capacity of the Keys to sustain further development. The proposed project is but one of many factors that will be considered in future rate of growth regulations. If the expected revisions occur, it would be speculative to predict what development would be allowed. While the studies are underway the rate of growth will remain at 255 units per year. The rate of growth will be reviewed annually, and may be reduced a minimum of 20% if the goals of the studies are not being met. The DCA has determined that Monroe County’s Comprehensive Plan and its land development regulations are sufficient to prevent or mitigate any potential adverse secondary impacts of the project caused by development. The DCA has consistently supported the proposed project, even in its earlier four-lane configuration, because it was consistent with Monroe County's 1986 Comprehensive Plan, and because the project would improve hurricane evacuation clearance times and improve water quality in the vicinity of the roadway. The 1986 plan supported widening of the roadway to four lanes based on projected travel demand. The DCA prefers the current, three-lane proposal to the earlier four-lane. On September 7, 1995, the Monroe County Commission adopted Resolution 315-1995 in support of the proposed project because "it balances the needs for a widened highway with safeguards designed to address secondary impacts." Lorenzo Aghemo, an expert in comprehensive planning, served as Monroe County Planning Director during the development of the Plan and ROGO. In Mr. Aghemo's opinion, the widening of the roadway to either three or four lanes would generate minimal growth pressure in Monroe County, particularly because the Plan limits the rate of growth. Because the Keys are designated by Section 380.0552, F.S., as an area of critical state concern, the DCA is charged with oversight of Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan, its LDRs, and all development that takes place in Monroe County. Additionally, the Administration Commission may amend Monroe County's plan or regulations by rule (See Section 380.0552(9), F.S.). There is virtually no action that Monroe County can take related to the use of land without review and approval of a state agency. The Administration Commission’s proposed rule demonstrates its intent to revise comprehensively Monroe County's ROGO within five years to ensure that future development does not exceed the capacity of the Keys' environmental resources. It also demonstrates the Administration Commission's intention to closely monitor growth and development in the Keys during the five-year study period. Some of the studies required by the proposed rule are already underway: 1) the DCA has entered into a contract with the ACOE to complete the environmental carrying capacity study; 2) the HRS study of advanced on-site waste water treatment systems is underway; 3) Monroe County is developing the required Marathon central sewer facilities plan; and 4) Monroe County and HRS have begun the cesspit identification and elimination process. Caution should be exercised in relying on this or on any other proposed rule. Likewise, caution should be exercised in relying on changes to ROGO that may or may not occur. It is likely that the present status of the law will be changed in the near future so that future development will be based on environmental carrying capacity as opposed to hurricane evacuation clearance times. However, for the purposes of this proceeding the District should accept the fact that the issuance of future building permits is closely linked and causally related to the project. Consequently, it is found that under the present status of the law, the issuance of additional building permits in Monroe County is closely linked or causally related to the project. MONROE COUNTY LDRS AND DCA OVERSIGHT Although Petitioners established that there is a causal relation between the project and the existing status of the law governing the number of building permits that can issued in the future, the evidence was insufficient to establish at a level above speculation that adverse environmental impacts will result because of the issuance of those building permits. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan contains land development regulations that govern all development in Monroe County. These regulations are among the most stringent in the State and are designed to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts caused by development. All development orders in Monroe County are closely scrutinized by the Department of Community Affairs to ensure compliance with applicable permitting criteria. Those regulations and the DCA’s close scrutiny are intervening factors that break any causal relation between the project and the speculative adverse environmental impacts that the Petitioners assert will be caused by future issuance of building permits by Monroe County. Petitioners failed to establish that the impacts of future development are very closely linked or causally related to the project. Consequently, it is found that such impacts are not secondary or cumulative impacts of the project. DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE PROJECT CORRIDOR A major portion of the area next to the road has little or no development potential because it is either water, land in public ownership, or land slated for public ownership. The areas east of the road are mostly in private ownership, but are primarily submerged lands and mangrove areas. The Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is federally owned and is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Southern Glades lands, located immediately west of the project and Everglades National Park (ENP) in Dade County, have been acquired by the District and are managed by the Florida Game and Freshwater fish Commission (FGFWFC). The Model Lands Basin in Dade County is in private ownership but proposed for public acquisition in the future. The land adjoining the roadway in Dade County is designated as open area or environmentally sensitive. Almost half of the land along Monroe County's portion of the roadway is in public ownership. At least 90% of the land in private ownership is mangroves or wetlands that cannot be developed. The small area of uplands is currently being used by a resort marina which will not be allowed to develop further under the new comprehensive plan. There is very little potential for future development in the project area. The comprehensive plan designation for areas in Dade County are open space, and the ones in Monroe County have the conservation designation. The District's regulatory programs consider areas adjacent to the project as sensitive wetland habitats. Based on the District's regulatory authority and comprehensive plan designation for those lands, which would have to be obtained prior to obtaining a permit for development, it is very unlikely that those lands could be developed. Florida Rock and Sand Co. (FRS) has a permit to mine approximately 1,100 acres of wetlands. As part of its mitigation program, FRS will donate this land to the District once its mining and mitigation projects are complete. The FRS mitigation lands are preserved as a permit condition and will ultimately be transferred to the District. This land will not be developed. In addition, the District established that the U.S. 1 project and the FRS project do not constitute a cumulative impact that the District failed to consider. The evidence established that development along the project corridor will not be a secondary or cumulative impact of the project. IMPACTS ON CORAL REEF SYSTEM The evidence was insufficient to establish a close link or causal connection between the project and the coral reef system. As reflected elsewhere, it is found that there will be no degradation of ambient water quality as a result of the project. Therefore, there is no need to resolve the conflicting testimony as to the present status of the coral reef system. IMPACT ON KEY DEER There are no key deer in the project area. The nearest key deer habitat, Big Pine Key, is approximately 70 miles from the southern terminus of the project. The evidence is insufficient to establish that there is a very closely linked and causally related connection between the project and key deer mortality on Big Pine Key. GENERALIZED IMPACTS The Petitioners presented certain opinion testimony that the Keys cannot be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner because of potential adverse impacts of new development in Monroe County, or new boats operating in the waters of the Florida Keys. The credibility of that testimony need not be evaluated because the evidence was not sufficient to tie those generalized concerns into the specific regulatory criteria of the permitting agency. There was insufficient evidence to establish that those alleged impacts would be very closely linked or causally related to the proposed project. DAY TRIPPERS Induced demand is new travel that occurs solely because additional capacity is added to a highway. Petitioners' transportation experts, Michael Replogle and Robert Morris, testified that FDOT's traffic studies, and FDOT's projected rate of traffic growth of approximately 3 percent annually, are incorrect because the studies do not predict the amount of "induced demand" that would result from the proposed project. Petitioners assert that induced demand would generate an unknown number of people who drive to the Keys for the day from south Dade County, referred to as “day trippers,” will have an impact on the Keys that has not been evaluated. The assertion that this potential impact has not been analyzed is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Induced demand is accounted for in Monroe County's Long Range Transportation Plan, which was never evaluated by Mr. Replogle or Mr. Morris. The Long Range Transportation Plan was prepared by an experienced traffic engineering consulting firm, Barton-Aschman, using an FDOT- approved traffic demand model, the FSUTMS model, that includes all traffic generators and attractors, and all travel on U.S. 1 on weekdays and weekends. The FSUTMS model does not restrict demand based on the existing road capacity. The model uses an "unrestrained assignment" that incorporates the total predicted trip generation on recreational facilities, hotels, and all other attractors. The Long Range Traffic Plan was used to develop the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, which takes into consideration the projected increases in traffic and makes appropriate provisions for those increases. FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that it has properly projected the amount of traffic for the project corridor after the project is completed and that the projected increases have been appropriately addressed by Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan. MITIGATION - IN GENERAL For the reasons discussed above, it is found that there are no secondary or cumulative impacts that the District failed to consider. Petitioners also contend that the mitigation proposal is insufficient to offset the direct and secondary impacts recognized by the District. This is a large dredge and fill project that will permanently fill 149 acres of wetlands. The wetlands that will be adversely impacted by the project include OFWs that provide a great variety of functions and serve as habitat for fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. The wetlands are unique and of high quality. Mitigation for direct, secondary and cumulative impacts was considered as part of the permit evaluation. In- kind mitigation is considered to be most effective, but out- of-kind mitigation may be offered by the applicant where it is impractical to conduct in-kind mitigation due to historic changes in the project area or sensitivity of the habitat type for which mitigation is offered. Such mitigation is also appropriate to address regional alteration of an ecosystem, such as the Everglades ecosystem alteration caused by the original roadway embankment. FDOT developed a conceptual mitigation plan that took into account project impacts on the freshwater, marine and estuarine components of the ecosystems involved, as well as the impacts on threatened and endangered species of wildlife which may be affected by the project. FDOT coordinated the plan's development with the National Parks Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The conceptual mitigation plan evolved as a result of project modifications and agency comments into what is now proposed as mitigation for the project. The current proposal is summarized in FDOT Exhibit 26, consisting of Attachment H to FDOT's SWM and WRM permit applications. The timing of their construction falls into two general categories: mitigation previously permitted and concurrent mitigation. UPFRONT MITIGATION Typically, mitigation is done concurrently with project construction rather than prior to permit issuance. Mitigation is often done afterwards because of construction timing constraints. Here, FDOT applied for and, in May 1994 received, permits to conduct mitigation prior to applying for the permits at issue, with the understanding that performance of these activities does not require the District to issue permits for the proposed projects. A total of 385.22 acres of mitigation has already been completed. The applicant received 203.02 mitigation credits from the District on May 12, 1994, for several mitigation projects that the applicant proposes to apply to the proposed U.S. 1 widening project provided it is approved. Table 2 of Attachment H to FDOT Exhibit 26 sets forth the four mitigation projects that constitutes the up- front portion of the mitigation for the project. This table sets forth the acres mitigated, the conversion factor for the mitigation, and the resulting mitigation credit awarded. The four mitigation activities already authorized are: enhancement of the wetland habitat in the Harrison Tract located adjacent to Barnes Sound within the Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge on the north end of Key Largo (70.37 acres credit for 252.6 acres of restoration); removal of the spoil mounds on the eastern bank of the C-111 canal east of U.S. 1 located on the District’s ROW (10.65 acres credit); the back filling of the C-109 canal levee located on the District ROW within the Southern Glades Save Our River project (112.7 acres credit); and the removal of the roadside spoil mounds on the west side of U.S. 1 located between C-111 and the Dade Work Camp Road within the District’s Southern Glades Save Our Rivers Project (9.30 acres credit). The mitigation projects pertaining to the roadside spoil removal along U.S. 1, the backfill of the C-109 Canal, and the removal of spoil along the C-111 Canal are similar projects because they each involve existing deep ditches cut through wetlands. When these deep ditches were cut, the spoil material from the ditch was deposited alongside the ditch. This resulted in areas that were previously Everglades wetlands becoming spoil, supporting the growth of exotic species and, for the most part, not exhibiting wetland functions. FDOT is proceeding with the backfilling the C-109 canal located between mile markers 122.5 and 117, and removal of the corresponding spoil mounds created during construction of the C-109 canal. In connection with this mitigation, marsh areas, tree islands and deep water aquatic refugia have been restored. In this area, there has been considerable attraction of wildlife subsequent to restoration, including otters, alligators, and turtles, which could not previously use the habitat because the canal was too deep. Upon completion waterflow between the east and the west will be restored, and the area will be restored to a wetland habitat from its current uplands habitat type. Backfilling of the C-109 canal is part of an interagency effort with the ACOE to restore as closely as possible to natural conditions the flow of water in the C-111 watershed area. C-111 mitigation includes removal of roadside spoil along the C-111 canal to restore the natural condition of the area. The mitigation was devised in coordination with the National Maine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which required mitigation for non-vegetated habitat types. Restoration also includes preserving some spoil areas as islands to maintain habitat for endangered species of plants. When the C-111 spoil mounds are scraped down, the fill will not fill the whole ditch. The ditch will, therefore, be a bit more valuable but will not be completely restored to its former elevation. FDOT will also remove roadside spoil along the west side of U.S. 1, upon which exotic species of plants had grown, and returning the area to its original grade. The Harrison Tract is a known habitat and nesting area for American crocodiles. Its wetlands functions were altered or eliminated by prior development of the land by its original owners. Restoration includes regrading the area to restore its original wetlands functions, including habitat for young and adult crocodiles. FDOT's mitigation of the Harrison Tract also includes restoration of tidal flushing to increase contributions of nutrients and food sources to the surrounding tidal bay system. Crocodiles have been observed using the restored areas. FDOT has installed additional nesting berm habitat, basking habitat and shallow lagoon habitat to promote juvenile crocodile development. The District established that the credit awarded for this mitigation and the conversion ratios utilized for determining this credit were consistent with agency practice and its pertinent rules. FDOT was given a 1:1 credit ratio for areas involving full restoration of wetlands. In other portions of the Harrison Tract mitigation involving restoration of flushing to existing wetlands, FDOT was given not full credit, but credit based on the severity of limitation of the existing wetland functions. Based on this evaluation, mitigation credits were given in a range of a 3:1 ratio for restoration of severely disrupted or non-existent wetlands to a 20:1 ration for restoration of higher quality but not fully functional wetlands. FDOT is being awarded 70 mitigation credits for the 252 acres in the Harrison Tract that are being restored or enhanced. CONCURRENT MITIGATION Based on the mitigation ratios developed by the District, additional mitigation credits were required. Consequently, the project contemplates mitigation that will be undertaken concurrently with the construction of the project in addition to the upfront mitigation. FDOT proposes to earn these additional credits by projects involving creation and/or restoration of emergent vegetation, mangrove and seagrass habitats. FDOT’s proposal to mitigate mangrove impacts with "out of kind" mitigation of emergent vegetation habitats was viewed by the District as being necessary and appropriate because there were no sufficiently large areas of mangrove habitat suitable for restoration. Table 7 of Attachment H to FDOT Exhibit 26 sets forth the four mitigation projects that constitutes the concurrent portion of the mitigation for the project. This table sets forth the acres mitigated, the conversion factor for the mitigation, and the resulting mitigation credit awarded. In addition, the table references certain credit for the placement of the hydrological culverts. As will be discussed later, that credit was withdrawn at the formal hearing. The four mitigation activities that will constitute the concurrent portion of the mitigation plan are: the removal of the Lake Surprise causeway (2.90 acres credit); the scrape down of the Jewfish Bridge approaches (0.67 acres credit); the restoration of the FGFWFC road (10.34 acres credit); and the Boca Chica project (27.17 acres credit) The Lake Surprise Causeway removal mitigation involves 5.26 acres of on-site seagrass restoration and 0.54 acres of unvegetated bottom mitigation through the excavation of 52,220 cubic yards of material. Lake Surprise historically was a shallow tidal lake supporting seagrasses before a causeway was built across the lake over the seagrasses. FDOT proposes to remove the causeway and restore the previous elevation, after which it is anticipated that seagrasses that grow on the east side of the causeway will fully recruit naturally to the excavated area. Removing the Lake Surprise Causeway will establish 5.26 acres of seagrass, for which FDOT received 2.63 acres of on-site mitigation credit based on a 2:1 ratio. Through natural recruitment after removal of the causeway, there is a high likelihood that the entire 5.26 acres will recolonize with seagrass. FDOT minimized the seagrass impacts to the greatest extent possible. The mitigation credit pertaining to Lake Surprise does not include credit for the removal of the causeway itself. This awarded credit is for the restoration of seagrass areas. The mitigation pertaining to the Jewfish Creek Bridge approaches proposes the scrape down of 1.33 acres of existing fill to allow the area to become recolonized with mangroves. Boca Chica is located in southern Monroe County over one hundred miles from the southern terminus of the project. This site was chosen by FDOT as a site for seagrass mitigation project after FDOT reviewed several other potential sites. Two other sites were rejected. The area around the C- 111 canal was rejected because the land proposed for use was in private ownership. Several defunct marinas in Port Bougainville were rejected due to poor conditions not conducive to seagrass growth. Boca Chica was finally chosen as the site because it was a large enough area with light and hydrological flow conditions conducive to seagrass growth. The evidence establishes that the Boca Chica site is the most viable for seagrass mitigation. The seagrasses to be impacted at Lake Surprise are healthy and productive turtle grass, manatee grass and cuban shoalgrass. Turtle grass is considered an extremely valuable “climax community” of seagrasses which hold sediments in place, cleanse water quality, and forms the base of the food chain. It is valuable to sea turtles, manatees and recreationally important fish and shellfish. The cuban shoalgrass that will colonize at Boca Chica is a pioneer colonizer species that grows in disturbed areas. It is not as valuable to the marine system as turtle grass. The Boca Chica seagrass mitigation permit condition proposed to offset impacts to 11.27 acres of seagrass. This will involve the removal of 306 cubic yards of sediment and hydraulically dredging approximately 1,175 cubic yards of spoil material. The proposed permit conditions state that FDOT shall provide future maintenance of the culvert areas to maintain adequate flushing. FDOT will plant 25.92 acres of seagrasses to mitigate for the remaining 8.64 acres of impacts, for a mitigation ratio of 3:1. In addition, 8.46 acres of seagrass will be planted to mitigate for the barren bottom area that will be affected, and 1.62 additional acres will be planted to compensate for any unexpected impacts to Boca Chica based on the necessary improvements. Overall, there will be of 36 acres of seagrass mitigation by FDOT, for which FDOT is receiving 27.17 acres credit. FDOT will also increase the water flow between the east and west lagoons of Boca Chica, and maintain the culverts connecting the two sides, in order to further promote growth of seagrass therein. FDOT is responsible for 80% survival of each acre of seagrass mitigation, as well as monitoring once a year for five years. Based on historical data obtained from Boca Chica during past mitigation efforts, there is a high likelihood that the entire 36 acres of mitigation will survive, and that the remaining 74 acres of the Boca Chica lagoons will experience natural recruitment of seagrass as a result of FDOT's efforts. The FGFWFC access area was built by excavating a ditch, and putting fill on the wetlands and creating a dirt road bed. After the C-109 canal is backfilled, the access road will no longer be needed. The mitigation project will excavate the existing road bed, back fill it into the ditch, thereby recreating the wetlands that were there previously. FDOT will receive 10.34 mitigation credits based on a 1:1 ratio of acres restored. EVALUATION OF MITIGATION There is no mitigation in this permit for any wetland impact beyond the direct loss of the specific 149 acres that will be dredged or filled. Mitigation was provided only for the direct, footprint impacts of the project. None of the up front mitigation involves the creation of wetlands, which entails converting areas that were not previously wetlands or open water and turning them into wetlands. It will likely take between 20 and 50 years for the mitigation areas to achieve full functional value required by the South Florida Water Management District mitigation permit. In the interim, there will be a net loss of wetland functional value. With time, the proposed mitigation has a high likelihood of success. Based on FDOT's past successes in mitigation of construction-related impacts, FDOT is able to comply with permit conditions relating to best management practices associated with the construction of bridges and pilings and turbidity screens around road construction, as well as restoration of seagrasses and mangroves. Petitioners assert that the District erred in determining the credit to be given for the up-front portion of the mitigation. While it is true that the SFWMD Rules do not mention "up-front" mitigation, the District has the authority to consider all aspects of a mitigation project in weighing its relative value. Consulting engineering inspectors have been retained by FDOT to insure that all permitting requirements are met during mitigation and construction, and that the technical special provisions for protection of threatened and endangered species are complied with by FDOT. The proposed permits contain appropriate conditions that require FDOT to monitor and maintain the mitigation areas. FDOT will be responsible in perpetuity for maintaining the tidal flushing connection at the Boca Chica mitigation site. Special permit condition 6 to the SWM and WRM staff reports require wetland and upland monitoring. If wetland and upland monitoring or other information demonstrate that additional adverse impacts have occurred due to this project, FDOT would be required to offset the loss of any additional wetland impacts. MITIGATION IS APPROPRIATE The evidence established that the mitigation projects were fairly and appropriately reviewed by SFWMD and that the mitigation credits were fairly and appropriately awarded. The evidence also established that there is appropriate mitigation for the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of this project. ACTIVITIES NOT RECEIVING MITIGATION CREDIT Mitigation credits for the 25 hydrologic culverts north of C-111 were originally included in the permit staff reports. Those mitigation credits were removed in an addendum to the staff reports, introduced as District's Exhibits 5 and 6. These credits were not necessary to offset project impacts. After the staff report was issued, they became a point of contention by the Petitioners because they will not be utilized until a management plan is developed. Since they were not necessary to meet mitigation requirements, the credits were removed from this project. These credits were never included in the mitigation ratios for these permit applications. The addendum removed the 9.6 credits initially contemplated for the culverts. No credit has been awarded for the relocation of threatened and endangered species of plants, such as Joewood and Bay Cedar by FDOT from the C-111, C-109 and roadside spoil mitigation areas. These species have been relocated to tree islands constructed by FDOT on the mitigation sites, or to other areas that would not be impacted by the project. FDOT also was not given mitigation credits for: (1) the wildlife crossings and the fencing that will funnel wildlife through these crossings; (2) installation of pipe culverts north of the C-111 canal and bridges and box culverts south of C-111; and which, in addition to providing a corridor for aquatic species, will increase the tidal flushing of the area; (3) the removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway, which will restore historical hydrological flow between the eastern and western sides of Lake Surprise; (4) FDOT's commitment to improve and maintain the flushing of the west lagoon culverts in Boca Chica (mitigation is in the east lagoon); and (5) FDOT's contribution of $300,000 to assist Monroe County in performing a carrying capacity study for the County. Additionally, FDOT will preserve the Jewfish Creek Bridge abutment, which will be preserved for local historical purposes. FDOT will prepare the Jewfish Creek Bridge pilings for an artificial reef at Long Key during construction. THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST It is appropriate for the SWFMD to consider, in balancing the public interest test, to consider traffic safety and hurricane evacuation.3 Because of FDOT's expertise in those areas, it is appropriate for the permitting agency to give great weight to highway safety concerns, including hurricane evacuation, presented by FDOT. The application of the public interest test does not involve consideration of non-environmental factors other than those expressly set forth in the statutes such as navigation or preservation of historical or archaeological resources. Specifically, aesthetics, quality of life, the potential for a project to cause increased crime, and school overcrowding are not properly considered within any of the seven factors contained in Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The District concluded that the project is clearly in the public interest based upon consideration and balancing of the following factors: hurricane evacuation improvements, public safety improvements, a SWM system where no SWM system currently exists; wildlife crossings and fencing north of the C-111 canal where no such crossings or fencing currently exist; wildlife box culverts to accommodate crocodiles, alligators, manatees and marine life where no such culverts currently exist; and hydrologic culverts, which have the potential to assist in the restoration of hydrologic flows, and the mitigation projects, both upfront and concurrent. SECTION 403.918(2)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to determine “[w]hether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others." The property of others is not at issue. As discussed below, the evidence clearly established that the project will greatly enhance the safety of the road during normal operations and facilitate evacuation in the event of a hurricane. There will be clear benefits to the public safety as a result of this project. As part of the PD&E process, FDOT, through Metric, prepared "A Safety Evaluation" of the existing roadway. The safety analysis was based on FDOT accident statistics for the years 1983-1988, as well as engineering review of the conditions causing the accidents. Specifically, FDOT based their safety analysis on the following: 1) calculation of the abnormally high accident rate on the roadway based on the rate quality control formula set forth in the FDOT Highway Safety Improvement Guidelines, and approved by the Federal Highway Administration; 2) copies of the actual crash reports filed with the Florida Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, which provided detail greater than that generally available through FDOT's own accident data reports, and which formed the basis of the collision diagram in the Safety Evaluation (FDOT Exhibits 36; and 3) and its August 1996 update thereto (FDOT Exhibit 41), on-site evaluation and review of the roadway to determine geometrics of the roadway, locations of driveway accesses and side roadways and the degrees at which roadways intersected. Metric prepared an update of the Safety Evaluation for the years 1989-1994, to determine the continuing validity of the Safety Evaluation, as well as to review alternative proposals to the original proposed roadway configuration. In preparing the update, the recent accident data (FDOT Exhibit 37) and the underlying research in the Safety Evaluation were used by Metric Engineering in reaching its conclusions. The Safety Evaluation performed by Metric in 1989 established high accident rates on the roadway based on a detailed segmental analysis of the roadway. In August of 1996, the Safety Evaluation was updated by Metric, which update confirmed the findings of the Safety Evaluation, and further stated that accident frequency on the Monroe County portion of the roadway exceeded the state average accident rate and the abnormally high accident rate for the years 1990 through 1994 (notwithstanding the rear-end accidents occurring at Jewfish Creek). Fatal accidents on the Dade County portion exceed the state average on the same stretch by 37 percent for the same years. The most severe accidents occur on the Dade County portion. The Monroe County portion of the roadway exceeds the statewide average in the abnormally high accident rate four out of the last five years that FDOT studied. The Dade County portion does not exceed the accident frequency or the number of accidents, but the fatality rate in Dade County is much higher than the state average. Presently an abnormally high accident rate exists in three locations along the project corridor, two of which are in the vicinity of the Jewfish Creek bridge. The third location is north of the bridge on Cross Key. Replacing the Jewfish Creek Bridge with the fixed-height bridge proposed by FDOT will substantially increase the safety on the project corridor. The District considered this to be an important positive element in the public interest balancing test. The existing 2:1 slopes of the roadway make it difficult for drivers to recover from running off the roadway, resulting in a greater frequency of this type of accident. Moreover, the existing clear zone is not large enough to overcome the 2:1 slope to allow safe recovery of errant vehicles. As a result, catastrophic crashes occur rather than safe recoveries. Also, as with hurricane evacuation discussed in the following section, actual accidents on the roadway prevent traffic from accessing or leaving the Keys, and also prevent emergency vehicles from rapidly accessing the Keys and a crash site. This occurs because there is little or no shoulder or clear zone along the sides of the road to allow emergency vehicles to efficiently access an accident site, and in the event of a severe, head-on type collision, the roadway is blocked off. U.S. 1 through the project corridor is regarded as so unsafe for travel that Monroe County law enforcement officials call it "death alley." There are many head-on collisions due to the two-lane, no-median alignment. Law enforcement is difficult and dangerous along the roadway, because it has very few areas wide enough to allow law enforcement officials to detain driving violators. It is also very dangerous, for the same reasons, for a driver to pull off the roadway with a broken-down vehicle. High rates of speed and impaired drivers contribute to the accident rates along the project corridor. The efforts of law enforcement to control speeders and drunk drivers is impeded since it is practically impossible for enforcement officers to turn their vehicles around to pursue violators without running a high risk of causing an accident on their own. The project would significantly improve safety on the roadway by reversing the problems identified in the this section, as well as the previous sections of this Recommended Order. The project would virtually eliminate head-on collisions which largely contribute to serious injuries and fatalities along the roadway. The project would also help eliminate problems with emergency vehicle access to accident sites and restoration of service in the event of accidents, and would increase the roadway's level of service as discussed below. Improved level of service was an additional need considered by FDOT during the PD&E process. While the District did not consider the traffic level of service by itself to be weighted as part of the positive public interest criteria in this project, the impacts of resulting congestion are relevant to the public interest consideration of traffic safety as discussed in the foregoing sections. Lower quality level of service, as presently exists on the roadway through level of service F, adversely affects the safety of the roadway. When traffic levels rise, driver frustration increases leading to drivers passing in no-passing zones and potentially resulting in head-on collisions and high-severity accidents. Additionally, due to the narrow shoulders of the existing roadway, accident vehicles pose a threat to and impede normal traffic flow on the roadway. The Highway Capacity Manual set the standards for traffic engineering and is used in all fifty states. The manual classifies the existing roadway as a two-lane arterial rural road. Applying the standards for measuring level of service for two-lane rural roads set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual, FDOT determined that the existing level of service on the roadway is E, which is a very poor level of service that does not meet the established standard of level of service C required by the Highway Capacity Manual. Monroe County uses a speed based method of calculating level of service. Using that method, the level of service for U.S. 1 is at an acceptable level. The parties disagree as to which method of calculating the level of service is appropriate. That conflict is resolved by finding that the method used by FDOT is the appropriate method because of its wide acceptance and long-term use. Traffic volume in the area of the southern terminus of the project is growing at a rate average annual rate of 3.07 percent. In the present condition of the roadway, level of service will degrade to F, or forced-flow conditions, by the year 2006. Even with the improvements proposed by FDOT, the level of service in the northbound direction would improve to level of service B, but the level of service in the southbound direction would remain at level of service D or E due to the single southbound land configuration. Hurricanes pose a serious threat to the safety and welfare of residents and visitors of the Keys. Monroe County is the most vulnerable hurricane-prone area in the United States because it is surrounded by tropical waters, land elevation is low throughout the islands, and the evacuation routes are limited to U.S. 1, an extended route that starts in Key West and runs to the mainland, and Card Sound Road. The greatest potential for loss of life during a hurricane in the Keys is from storm surge. Storm surge is a dome of water near the center of a hurricane which is created by the winds on the water's surface. In a category 3, 4 or 5 storm, the entire land mass in the path of the storm will be inundated. Because of the wind and storm surge associated with hurricanes, the best response to a hurricane warning in the Keys is to evacuate people to the mainland away from the water and the storm surge threat. Accordingly, Monroe County orders a mandatory evacuation in a category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane, and no shelters are opened. There is little or no disagreement as to the vulnerability of the Keys to hurricanes or as to the danger posed by a hurricane. There is disagreement as to whether the proposed project is needed for improved hurricane evacuation. The conflicting evidence in this regard is resolved by the following findings, which are based on the more credible, substantial evidence. The existing road does not have sufficient hurricane evacuation capacity to meet the present and projected future needs of Monroe County residents and visitors. In current hurricane evacuations, the two northbound lanes on U.S. 1 between mile marker 90 and 106 are split at Key Largo. Sixty percent of the traffic is directed up the northbound lane of U.S. 1; forty percent of the traffic is diverted onto the northbound lane of Card Sound Road. One southbound lane of U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road must remain open for emergency vehicles to reach an accident or a disabled vehicle, or to bring emergency supplies into the Keys. Improving the roadway is critical to the success of Monroe County's hurricane evacuation plan. FDOT relied on hurricane evacuation and needs modeling performed by Monroe County and the ACOE to confirm the need for improvements. All of the models used indicated that the project corridor is the controlling roadway segment for improving hurricane evacuation of the Keys. Additionally, FDOT relied on the Lewis Report of January 15, 1993, a study commissioned by the Governor of Florida. Recommendation No. 17 of the Lewis report recommends that FDOT expedite the design and construction of the project, which is viewed as being critical for increasing the rate of emergency evacuation. Dr. Robert Sheets, former director of the National Hurricane Center, testified that the failure to make improvements to the roadway would be "unconscionable." Dr. Sheets and Billy Wagner, the Director of Emergency Management for Monroe County, presented very compelling and very persuasive testimony that this project is essential for hurricane evacuation purposes. The proposed project is the minimum transportation improvement that will achieve a significant improvement in evacuation safety and clearance time. With the present two- lane configuration and narrow shoulders, evacuating traffic would be halted completely by a vehicle breakdown or an accident blocking one lane. Replacement of the Jewfish Creek Bridge will also facilitate the hurricane evacuation need for the project. In addition to improving the rate of evacuation, the project will make an evacuation safer. Emergency personnel cannot reach accidents on the roadway during an evacuation because, in certain segments, no roadbed exists adjacent to the northbound lane. A second northbound lane and wider road shoulders would enable disabled vehicles to be serviced and removed from the highway. The proposed changes to the road would improve emergency vehicles' access to an accident scene. The elevation of the roadway at Lake Surprise is so low that it can be flooded easily by a storm. The proposed project would replace the existing muck bed of the roadway with more stable material. The existing roadway is subject to settling and washout during storm events, which reduce the safety of the roadway itself and reduce the evacuation capacity of the roadway. If washout occurs, moving equipment to the islands for recovery efforts following a hurricane will be difficult or impossible. The proposed project will prevent erosion and reduce the effects of storm surge and wave action on the road during a hurricane. When the project has been completed, three lanes of evacuating traffic, two lanes from U. S. 1 and a third from Card Sound Road, will converge at Florida City. Representatives of FDOT, the Monroe County Sheriff's Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Monroe County Emergency Management have planned to manage the northbound traffic when it reaches Florida City during an evacuation. Several feasible alternatives exist, but additional planning is needed to prevent a monumental bottleneck at the northern terminus of the project. While it is clear that this project will not resolve all problems that exist as to hurricane evacuation, it is also clear that this project is essential to improve hurricane evacuation. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)2, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)2, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats.” The District considered the effect of the direct loss of dredging and filling 149.07 acres of wetland. As set forth in previous sections, it is found that this loss will be offset by the mitigation. For use during construction of the project, FDOT will adhere to technical special provisions and special permit conditions 9 through 13 to protect manatees, crocodiles, alligators, indigo snakes, marine turtles, and valuable trees, palms and other wildlife, to minimize or preclude any impacts to those species. Additionally, any osprey nests around the Jewfish Creek Bridge area at the time of construction will be relocated by FDOT if necessary. As part of the development of the FEIS, as required by the Federal Highway Administration under the National Environmental Protection Act, FDOT obtained official letters of concurrence from the USFWS and NMFS that the project would cause no adverse impacts to endangered species under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. That process also established the project's consistency with Florida Coastal Zone Management Program, as determined by the State Clearinghouse within the Office of the Governor, in coordination with DEP, the Department of National Resources and FGFWFC. The project also contains provisions to impact positively or enhance the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species and their habitat, as described below. These were positive factors that further helped neutralize and offset the 149.07 acres of direct impacts. In addition, FDOT is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the fencing along the entire project corridor, discussed below, and report to the District on that effectiveness. If the District determines that the fencing could be more effective, it may require FDOT to implement those suggestions. South of the C-111 canal, construction of box culverts and bridges addresses impacts to the American crocodile, a listed endangered species. Problems were identified with placement of existing culverts, which did not provide enough clear space and which caused the crocodile to cross over the roadway rather than through the culvert. To address this problem, 15 larger box culverts and three bridges will be placed within the roadway. These provide the necessary clear space to allow the crocodile to safely pass under rather than over the road. The location of the box culverts was chosen by reviewing crocodile mortalities associated with road crossings. Placement of these box culverts and bridges will also improve the hydrological flow of water within the project area, provide a crossing area for manatees, and allow greater dispersal of the crocodile population throughout Florida Bay. Species expected to use these box culverts include aquatic and aquatic water dependent species in the area. They were primarily targeted for crocodiles, alligators, and manatees, but certain fishes, turtles, frogs and other species in the wetlands along the project corridor will utilize the culverts. The box culverts will have 100 feet of wingback fencing extending north and south of each culvert. The intent of the wingback fencing is to funnel wildlife into the box culverts. Intermittent or wingback fencing is appropriate south of the C-111 canal for two primary reasons. First, the animals which will be guided into the box culverts are aquatic dependent. The area south of the C-111 canal is primarily water, washed mangrove areas and tidal creeks. Crocodiles tend to move in tidal creeks. Second, it was not possible to ensure continuous fencing along all portions of the project south of the C-111 canal because there are existing businesses. It could not be assured that these businesses would keep a gate closed. The project originally proposed continuous fencing alongside the road where it abuts ENP. Continuous fencing was initially proposed because the initial application included a solid concrete barrier down the median of the road. If a crocodile did enter the road from the side with discontinuous fencing, after crossing one lane the crocodile would hit the barrier, but then easily find its way back to the area it came from. However, the project was later modified to include a tri-beam barrier because it lessens the footprint of the project and thereby lessens the wetland impact. Since the current application does not include a continuous barrier down the middle of the road, if a crocodile enters the road it would cross the tri-beam barrier, go across another lane of roadway before hitting a continuous fence. The animal would then run up and down that fence with nowhere to go except back across the road again. This would increase their exposure to a road kill. With the installation of bridges and culverts along the southern portions of the project corridor, there is no need for continuous fencing because aquatic wildlife, such as the American crocodile, will tend to follow the flow of water through the culverts rather than climb over the roadway. The FGFWFC and ENP oppose continuous fencing and prefer intermittent fencing south of C-111 canal since the project now includes a tri-beam barrier. Positive benefits also include construction of panther crossings at four locations north of the C-111 canal to account for impacts to the Florida panther, a listed endangered species, in the vicinity of the project, along with continuous fencing on both sides of the road north of the C- 111 canal. The crossings will be placed at locations that show historical use by wildlife, including areas at the Dade County Correctional Institute access roadway, the water control structure on the C-109 canal, and the berm of the C- 111 canal. The wildlife crossings are indicated by blue dots on FDOT's Exhibit 1. FDOT underwent years of extensive coordination with the environmental regulatory and resource agencies to design a project that would accommodate their ecosystem management plans. The location of the wildlife crossings was based upon radio telemetry data, collected from radio-collared panthers, and their typical corridor movement. The location was further chosen based on input from the USFWS and the FGFWFC. The continuous fencing north of the C-111 canal will prevent wildlife from crossing the road, and instead force them to use the wildlife crossings. The crossings were designed for panther use, the panthers being the shyest animal in the area. If panthers can be accommodated, then other threatened and endangered species and other wildlife are expected to use them. DOT studies of the effectiveness of wildlife crossings, with fencing, including crossings installed on Alligator Alley, establish that wildlife will use the crossings, both singly and in groups, and that the crossings substantially reduce, if not eliminate, automobile- related mortality of wildlife. Documented wildlife include panthers, wild turkeys, wading birds, alligators, deer, bobcats, black bears and raccoons. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)3, FLORIDA STATUES Section 403.918(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.” The replacement of the bascule bridge at Jewfish Creek with a 65-foot high fixed-height bridge will be a benefit to navigation. Because Jewfish Creek is part of the intracoastal waterway, the existing bridge has to be frequently raised or lowered to accommodate marine traffic. Because of the age of the existing structure, frequent breakdowns have been experienced. Marine traffic is stopped or delayed if the bridge cannot be raised or if there is a delay in raising the bridge. Vehicular traffic is stopped while the bridge is raised. Regarding the flow of water, the project incorporates wildlife box culverts and bridges, which will improve tidal flushing and the flow of water south of the C- 111 canal. The District considered this to be a positive consideration under the public interest test. The 25 hydrologic culverts north of the C-111 canal were also a positive factor in the test because the culverts provide future water management capability. Erosion and shoaling are neutral factors in the public interest test because the permit conditions contain a plan to control erosion and shoaling during construction and to provide for road stabilization after construction. In addition, there is a positive factor regarding shoaling in that the roadway area now has a lot of storm action, causing problems with erosion on the side of the road. The project provides for road stabilization, which is a neutral to positive factor in the public interest test. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)4, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity of the project.” A positive factor pertaining to marine productivity is the box culverts and bridges south of C-111, which will allow marine species to travel beneath the road to access the water on both sides of the road. Removal of the causeway along Lake Surprise opens that water body back up to one contiguous system, which is also a positive factor. The seagrass mitigation addressed in previous sections will also improve marine productivity and provide habitat for fish. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)5, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)5, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature.” The project is permanent, though some construction impacts are temporary in nature. Once temporary impacts have ended and the project is complete, the project will be a positive benefit, because of the construction of the SWM system, culverts, animal underpasses and other benefits as set forth above. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)6, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)6, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061.” This factor is not at issue. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)7, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)7, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[t]he current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.” A percentage of wetlands immediately adjacent to the road are impacted by exotic vegetation. Areas further out are part of a significant wetland ecosystem and are considered high quality. This project contains an exotic control program within FDOT's right of way, which is a positive consideration in the public interest test. Wetlands are currently receiving untreated storm water, which runs off the road immediately into the adjacent wetlands and water bodies without treatment. The project will include a SWM system where none currently exists as is detailed in the previous sections. This is a positive factor in the public interest test. The direct impacts of the project on 149 acres of wetlands alongside the roadway is not as large or significant as the impact caused by placement of the original embankment and resulting cut off of the eastern and western portions of the Everglades north of the C-111 canal. Overall, the concurrent and upfront mitigation efforts of FDOT are of regional significance and benefit to Everglades ecosystem by helping to repair the damage caused by the original embankment. THE PROJECT IS CLEARLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST The District appropriately weighed all considerations in determining that the project is clearly in the public interest. The greater weight of the competent, credible evidence established that the project is clearly in the public interest. RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT APPLICATION The land encompassed by the ROW permit has been properly adopted as a "work" of the District, requiring District authorization via a ROW Permit Modification to FDOT. The District's real property interest in the C-111 ROW applicable to the ROW permit modification consists of both fee simple and easement interests. The evidence is clear that DOT's application for the permit modification was thoroughly reviewed by the District, consistent with the District's established ROW permit review process. The District presented uncontroverted evidence and expert testimony to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that issuance of the permit modification to FDOT is consistent with all applicable District statutes, rules and other criteria, including the District's conditions for issuance of ROW Permits set forth in Rule 40E-6.301, F.A.C. FBII offered no evidence or testimony to the contrary. FUTURE MODIFICATIONS Modifying the project at a later date to pave a second southbound lane would require a District ERP permit. The addition of impervious surface triggers the District's SWM jurisdiction in this regard. However, FDOT established that that it had no current plans for further widening. The permit conditions require secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the increased capacity be addressed in accordance with the rules and criteria in effect at the time of any application for future widening. In addition, the permits require that FDOT must comply with any more stringent water quality criteria in effect at the time of any future widening. MODIFICATIONS AT THE FINAL HEARING At the Final Hearing, the District issued an Addendum to Staff Report for each of the SWM and WRM permits. The amendments made non-substantive changes to the District's staff reports regarding fencing along the roadway, performance of a study of fencing on the roadway by FDOT, water quality sampling along the roadway, assignment of mitigation credits, and other technical changes in wording for purposes of clarification. The changes set forth in the District's Exhibits 5 and 6 do not create impacts to the environment beyond those addressed elsewhere herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order that issues the three permits challenged in this proceeding (SWM Permit No. 940606-10, WRM Permit No. 9460606-2-D, and ROW Permit No. 2584) subject to the conditions contained in the staff reports on the SWM permit application and the WRM permit application and subject to the additional permit conditions reflected by District Exhibits 5 and 6 and by the Findings of Fact pertaining to the permit for the relocation of the FKAA pipe. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 11th day of April, 1997.
