The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether 1044PVB, LLC (“Applicant”), is entitled to Environmental Resource Permit (“ERP”) No. IND-109-143282-1 from the St. Johns River Water Management District (“District”), authorizing the construction of a surface water management system to serve a proposed residential development in St. Johns County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Nancy Condron is a resident and landowner in St. Johns County. Her residence is located across Ponte Vedra Boulevard from the Project. Petitioner uses the nearby Guana River Wildlife Management Area for nature-based recreation, including hiking and bird-watching. Applicant is a foreign limited liability company and the applicant for the ERP at issue in this case. The District is an independent special district granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The Project is within the boundaries of the District. The Project Site The Project site is 17.13 acres located at 1044 Ponte Vedra Boulevard in St. Johns County, Florida. The site currently consists of forested lands on the east and west and pasture areas in the middle. There is an existing trail road that runs the length of the property and a small residence. The site has four small ponds excavated as watering holes, ranging in size from 0.04 to 0.24 acres. There are 4.41 acres of wetlands and other surface waters on the site. There is a 3.49-acre area of mixed forested wetland on the site that continues offsite to the south and west. There are also three isolated wetlands on the site, each less than a half-acre in size. The wetland system adjacent to the Project site flows to the Guana River. The Guana River is a freshwater, Class III waterbody. It is an Outstanding Florida Water, but has been designated by the Department of Environmental Protection as impaired for nutrients. The site is not used by threatened or endangered species for feeding, nesting, or breeding. The Project The proposed Project is a 22-lot, single-family subdivision. The proposed surface water management system for the Project includes curb and gutter paved roadways, storm inlets, concrete pipes, vegetated natural buffers, treatment swales, and a wet detention stormwater pond. The wet detention stormwater pond would discharge into adjacent wetlands that flow to the Guana River. Wetlands The point of discharge from the Project’s stormwater management system is not in the designated Outstanding Florida Water. Applicant proposes to fill the four ponds and the three isolated wetlands. Applicant also proposes to fill 0.28 acres of the larger wetland. The Project includes a number of upland buffers that are a minimum of 15 feet in width and average of 25 feet in width. These buffers are intended to prevent potential adverse secondary impacts to adjacent wetlands. All wetland impacts and mitigation were assessed using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-345. The UMAM assessment takes into consideration the location and landscape support, water environment, and community structure of the wetlands to be impacted. The District also considers the condition, hydrologic connection, uniqueness, location, and the fish and wildlife utilization of the wetlands and other surface waters. The District did not require mitigation for filling the artificial ponds. The District also did not require mitigation for filling the isolated wetlands because each is less than a half-acre in size. As mitigation for filling 0.28 acres of the larger wetland, Applicant would purchase 0.25 mitigation bank credits from the St. Marks Pond Mitigation Bank. The St. Marks Pond Mitigation Bank is located in the same drainage basin as the wetland area that would be filled. The District determined that purchasing the mitigation bank credits would offset the functional loss associated with filling part of the wetland. Two areas on the site where no upland buffers are proposed were assessed for secondary impacts to wetlands in the UMAM evaluation. The mitigation bank credits proposed for the Project would offset all of the adverse, direct, and secondary impacts to wetlands or surface waters associated with this Project. Because direct and secondary impacts would be fully mitigated, the Project would not cause cumulative impacts. Water Quantity A majority of the Project’s stormwater runoff would be conveyed to the wet detention pond. The wet detention pond provides water quantity protection by attenuating the post- development peak rate of discharge. Applicant modeled the pre-development peak rate of discharge and the post-development peak rate of discharge. The modeling indicated that the post-development peak rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. Section 3.3 of the Applicant's Handbook, Volume II, prohibits a reduction in the 10-year or 100-year floodplain for projects with an upstream drainage basin of five square miles or greater. The proposed Project has an upstream drainage basin of 4.6 square miles, so this criterion is not applicable. Applicant showed the Project would increase offsite flood elevations by only 0.01 feet, which is negligible. The Project would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands. Water Quality Water quality would be managed in the Project through a combination of wet detention pond, swales, and vegetative natural buffers (“VNBs”). The wet detention pond would treat a majority of the runoff from the Project. Section 8 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, contains presumptive criteria for the design of a wet detention pond. The proposed wet detention pond meets the presumptive criteria. Therefore, the detention pond is presumed to provide reasonable assurance that the water quality of receiving waters will be protected. Applicant is proposing to construct swales at the back of Lots 20, 21, and 22 to treat runoff by infiltration. Section 9 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, contains presumptive criteria for swale system design and performance. The Project meets the presumptive criteria for swales. Applicant is proposing VNBs on Lots 1 through 14. The use of VNBs is a commonly-used best management practice accepted by the District for treating stormwater runoff. Like swales, VNBs treat runoff by infiltration. Stormwater runoff from the backyards of Lots 1 through 14 would drain to the VNBs. On some of these lots, stormwater runoff from the front yards, side yards, and rooftops would also drain to the VNBs. The lots would be graded so that runoff would sheet flow to the VNBs to maximize their treatment function. The VNBs would have native soils and plants. The VNBs would have Type A soils, which are well-drained soils that provide the highest rate of infiltration and the most permeability. Petitioner contends that, because soil borings were not taken at the location of the VNBs, reasonable assurance was not provided that the VNBs would function as proposed. However, Petitioner did not show that the soils at the VNB locations were unsuitable soils. In addition, Applicant agreed to use Type A soils in the VNBs. Therefore, reasonable assurance that the VNBs would have suitable soils was provided by Applicant. Petitioner referred to a draft rule to support her contention that the proposed VNBs are not properly designed, but the draft rule has no controlling effect and is hearsay. The Applicant’s Handbook does not contain presumptive criteria for VNBs. Applicant demonstrated that the VNBs would infiltrate 80 percent of the runoff from a three-year, one-hour storm event, which is the same treatment efficiency the District requires when swales are used. Reasonable assurance was provided that the VNBs would function as proposed. Because the Project would discharge to wetlands that flow to the Guana River, a waterbody impaired by nutrients, section 2.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume II, requires Applicant to demonstrate there would be a net improvement in water quality with respect to nutrients. Applicant performed a pollutant loading analysis using the BMPTRAINS model. The BMPTRAINS model is a generally-accepted tool used by stormwater engineers for this purpose. The BMPTRAINS model incorporates the information about the pre- and post-development conditions associated with land use and impervious area. The model accounts for site-specific conditions, including the elevation of the groundwater table and storage capacity of the soil. The design of the surface water management system is then incorporated into the model to estimate the pollutant removal efficiency and estimate the average annual pollutant load that will leave the site. Applicant’s BMPTRAINS modeling indicated that the average annual post-development loading for total nitrogen and total phosphorus would be substantially less than the pre- development loading for those nutrients. Therefore, Applicant demonstrated the Project would result in a net improvement. Operation & Maintenance The Ponte Vedra Beach Preserve Homeowners Association would be the entity responsible for operation and maintenance of the stormwater management system. The wet detention pond, swales, and VNBs would be located within an easement and maintained by the homeowner’s association. Applicant and the Ponte Vedra Beach Preserve Homeowners Association have the ability to accept responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Project. Public Interest An applicant for an ERP must demonstrate that a proposed project affecting wetlands and other surface waters would not be contrary to the public interest. This determination is made by balancing seven factors found in section 10.2.3(a) through (g) of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume I. Public interest factor (a) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare, or the property of others. There is no aspect of the Project that would affect public health, safety, or welfare, except the potential for flooding. Reasonable assurance was provided by Applicant that the Project would not cause flooding. Factor (b) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The mitigation bank credits offset all of the potential adverse impacts that the proposed project would have on the conservation of fish and wildlife. Factor (c) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The parties stipulated that the Project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The record evidence shows the Project will not adversely affect the flow of water. Factor (d) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The Project would not affect fishing or recreational values in the vicinity. The mitigation bank credits offset all of the potential adverse impacts the proposed project would have on marine productivity in the vicinity. Factor (e) is whether the regulated activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature. The activities are of a permanent nature. The mitigation is also permanent. Factor (f) is whether the regulated activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project will have no effect on historical and archaeological resources. Factor (g) is the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity. The relatively small loss of functional value would be offset by the proposed mitigation. Considering and balancing these seven factors, the Project would not be contrary to the public interest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit No. IND-109-143282-1 to 1044PVB, LLC, with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report dated April 11, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen C. Ferguson, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed) Jane West, Esquire Josh Smith, Esquire Jane West Law, P.L. 6277 A1A South, Suite 101 St. Augustine, Florida 32080 (eServed) Eric Olsen, Esquire Amelia A. Savage, Esquire Hopping, Green and Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Ann B. Shortelle, Ph.D., Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC (“the Applicant”), and Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (“FECR”), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system and related activities to serve railway facilities, and a verification of exemption for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings (collectively referred to as “the project”).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Martin County and St. Lucie County are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Petitioners have substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. Intervenor Town of St. Lucie Village is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Intervenor has substantial interests that could be affected by the District’s proposed authorizations. The Applicant, All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company based in Miami. All Aboard Florida is part of a group of corporate entities formed for the principal purpose of developing and operating express passenger train service in Florida. Co-applicant Florida East Coast Railway, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company based in Jacksonville. FECR owns the existing railway corridor the passenger train service will use between Miami and Cocoa. South Florida Water Management District is a regional agency granted powers and assigned duties under chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, including powers and duties related to the regulation of construction activities in wetlands. The proposed activities are within the boundaries of the District. Background The objective of the All Aboard Florida Project is to establish express passenger train service connecting four large urban areas: Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando. Most of the passenger service route, including the portion which will pass through Martin County and St. Lucie County, will use an existing railroad right-of-way used since the late 1800s. The FECR rail corridor runs along Florida’s east coast from Miami to Jacksonville. It supported passenger and freight operations on shared double mainline tracks from 1895 to 1968. The passenger service was terminated in 1968 and portions of the double track and certain bridge structures were removed. The freight service continued and remains in operation today. The passenger service will use the FECR right-of-way from Miami to Cocoa and then turn west on a new segment to be constructed from Cocoa to Orlando. The railway corridor will be operated as a joint facility, with passenger and freight trains sharing the double mainline tracks. The Applicant is upgrading the portion of the corridor between Miami and Cocoa by, among other things, replacing existing railroad ties and tracks, reinstalling double mainline tracks, and improving grade crossings. The Applicant is also installing Positive Train Control systems which provide integrated command and control of passenger and freight train movements and allow the trains to be directed and stopped remotely or automatically in the event of operator error or disability, or an obstruction on the track. The All Aboard Florida Project is being developed in two phases, Phase I extends from Miami to West Palm Beach, and Phase II from West Palm Beach to Orlando. This proceeding involves a segment within Phase II, known as Segment D09, which runs from just north of West Palm Beach to the northern boundary of St. Lucie County. The railway corridor in Segment D09 passes through Jonathan Dickinson State Park in Martin County and the Savannas Preserve State Park, parts of which are in both Martin County and St. Lucie County. Surface waters within these state parks are Outstanding Florida Waters (“OFWs”). The railway in Segment D09 also passes over the St. Lucie River using a bridge that can be opened to allow boats to pass. The Applicant plans to run 16 round trips per day between Miami and Orlando, which is about one train an hour in each direction, starting early in the morning and continuing to mid-evening. In 2013, the District issued the Applicant an exemption under section 373.406(6), which exempts activities having only minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. The 2013 exemption covers proposed work in approximately 48 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09, and includes replacement of existing tracks and re-establishment of a second set of mainline tracks where they were historically located. The 2013 exemption covers all but 24 of the roadway crossings within Segment D09 where work is to be done in connection with the All Aboard Florida Project. In 2015, the District issued the Applicant a general permit under rule 62-330.401, which authorizes activities that are expected to cause minimal adverse impacts to water resources, for the installation of fiber optic cable along the rail bed within Segment D09. The 2013 exemption and 2015 general permit were not challenged and became final agency action. The Proposed Agency Actions The ERP Modification covers work to be done in approximately 17 of the 65 miles which make up Segment D09. The work will consist primarily of replacing existing tracks, installing new tracks, making curve modifications in some locations to accommodate faster trains, culvert modifications, and work on some fixed bridge crossings over non-navigable waters. The 2017 Exemption at issue in this proceeding covers improvements to 23 of the 24 roadway crossings that were not covered by the 2013 exemption. Proposed improvements at Southeast Florida Street in Stuart will be permitted separately. The improvements covered by the 2017 Exemption include upgrading existing safety gates and signals; installing curbs, guardrails, and sidewalks; resurfacing some existing paved surfaces; and adding some new paving. Petitioners argue that, because the District’s staff report for the ERP Modification states that the ERP does not cover work at roadway crossings, track work at roadway crossings has not been authorized. However, the staff report was referring to the roadway improvements that are described in the 2017 Exemption. The proposed track work at the roadway crossings was described in the ERP application and was reviewed and authorized by the District in the ERP Modification. “Segmentation” Petitioners claim it was improper for the District to separately review and authorize the proposed activities covered by the 2013 exemption, the 2015 general permit, the ERP Modification, and the 2017 Exemption. Petitioners contend that, as a consequence of this “segmentation” of the project, the District approved “roads to nowhere,” by which Petitioners mean that these activities do not have independent functionality. Petitioners’ argument is based on section 1.5.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook, Volume 1,1/ which states that applications to construct phases of a project can only be considered when each phase can be constructed, operated, and maintained totally independent of future phases. However, the activities authorized by the four agency actions are not phases of a project. They are all parts of Phase II of the All Aboard Florida Project, which is the passenger railway from West Palm Beach to Orlando. Section 1.5.2 is not interpreted or applied by the District as a prohibition against separate review and approval of related activities when they qualify under the District’s rules for exemptions, general permits, and ERPs. Much of Phase II is outside the District’s geographic boundaries and, therefore, beyond its regulatory jurisdiction. The District can only review and regulate a portion of Phase II. The District is unable to review this portion as a stand-alone railway project that can function independently from other project parts. The Proposed Stormwater Management System Where the Applicant is replacing existing tracks or re- establishing a second set of tracks, it will be laying new ties, ballast, and rail on previously-compacted earth. In those areas, no stormwater management modifications were required by the District. The Applicant’s new proposed stormwater management system will be located in a five-mile area of the corridor where an existing siding will be shifted outward and used as a third track. In this area, swales with hardened weir discharge structures and skimmers will be installed to provide stormwater treatment beyond what currently exists. The weir discharge structures will serve to prevent erosion at discharge points. The skimmers will serve to capture any floating oils or refuse. Because the FECR right-of-way is not wide enough in some three-track areas to also accommodate swales, the proposed stormwater management system was oversized in other locations to provide compensating volume. The District determined that this solution was an accepted engineering practice for linear systems such as railroads. Petitioners argue that the Applicant’s proposed stormwater management system is deficient because some of the proposed swales do not meet the definition of “swale” in section 403.803(14) as having side slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). The statute first defines a swale to include a manmade trench which has “a top width-to-depth ratio of the cross-section equal to or greater than 6:1.” The swales used in the proposed stormwater management system meet this description. Petitioners showed that the plans for one of the 46 proposed swales included some construction outside the FECR right-of-way. In response, the Applicant submitted revised plan sheets to remove the swale at issue. The Emergency Access Way The ERP application includes proposed modifications to portions of an existing unpaved emergency access way which runs along the tracks in some areas. The access way is a private dirt road for railroad-related vehicles and is sometimes used for maintenance activities. At the final hearing, Petitioners identified an inconsistency between an application document which summarizes the extent of proposed new access way construction and the individual plan sheets that depict the construction. The Applicant resolved the inconsistency by correcting the construction summary document. Petitioners also identified an individual plan sheet showing proposed access way modifications to occur outside of the FECR right-of-way. This second issue was resolved by eliminating any proposed work outside the right-of-way. Petitioners believe the proposed work on the access way was not fully described and reviewed because Petitioners believe the access way will be made continuous. However, the access way is not continuous currently and the Applicant is not proposing to make it continuous. No District rule requires the access way segments to be connected as a condition for approval of the ERP. Water Quantity Impacts An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a proposed project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, or adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The District’s design criterion to meet this requirement for water quantity management is a demonstration that the proposed stormwater system will capture the additional runoff caused during a 25-year/3-day storm event. The Applicant’s proposed stormwater system meets or exceeds this requirement. Petitioners argue that the Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance because the ERP application materials did not include a calculation of the discharge rates and velocities for water discharging from the swales during the design storm. The ERP application contains the information required to calculate the discharge rates and velocities and the Applicant’s stormwater expert, Bruce McArthur, performed the calculations and testified at the final hearing that in the areas where there will be discharges, the discharge rates and velocities would be “minor” and would not cause adverse impacts. The District’s stormwater expert, Jesse Markle, shared this opinion. Petitioners argue that this information should have been provided to the District in the permit application, but this is a de novo proceeding where new evidence to establish reasonable assurances can be presented. Petitioners did not show that Mr. McArthur is wrong. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will cause adverse water quantity impacts, flooding, or adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Water Quality Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, operation, and maintenance of a regulated project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters, such that state water quality standards would be violated. The District’s design criteria for water quality required the Applicant to show that its proposed stormwater system will capture at least 0.5 inches of runoff over the developed area. To be conservative, the Applicant designed its proposed system to capture 1.0 inch of runoff in most areas. Under District rules, if a stormwater system will directly discharge to impaired waters or OFWs, an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume is required. The proposed stormwater system will not directly discharge to either impaired waters or OFWs. In some locations, there is the potential for stormwater discharged from the proposed stormwater system to reach OFWs by overland flow, after the stormwater has been treated for water quality purposes. The Applicant designed its proposed stormwater system to provide at least an additional 50 percent of water quality treatment volume in areas where this potential exists. To ensure that the proposed construction activities do not degrade adjacent wetlands, other surface waters, or off-site areas due to erosion and sedimentation, the Applicant prepared an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Temporary silt fences and turbidity barriers will be installed and maintained around the limits of the construction. The District’s design criteria for water quality do not require an analysis of individual contaminants that can be contained in stormwater, except in circumstances that do not apply to this project. Compliance with the design criteria creates a presumption that water quality standards for all potential contaminants are met. See Applicant’s Handbook, V. II, § 4.1.1. Although not required, the Applicant provided a loading analysis for the proposed swales which could potentially discharge overland to impaired waters or OFWs. The analysis compared pre- and post-development conditions and showed there would be a net reduction in pollutant loading. Petitioners believe the pollutant loading analysis was inadequate because it did not specifically test for arsenic and petroleum hydrocarbons. However, the analysis was not required and adequate treatment is presumed. Petitioners did not conduct their own analysis to show that water quality standards would be violated. Petitioners’ expert, Patrick Dayan, believes the compaction of previously undisturbed soils in the emergency access way would increase stormwater runoff. However, he did not calculate the difference between pre- and post-construction infiltration rates at any particular location. His opinion on this point was not persuasive. Petitioners failed to prove that the proposed project will generate stormwater that will adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that state water quality standards would be violated. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project complies with District design criteria and will not cause water quality violations. Soil and Sediment Contamination Petitioners argue that the ERP Modification does not account for the disturbance of existing contaminants in soils and sediments that could be carried outside of the right-of-way and into OFWs. Petitioners’ argument is based on investigations by their geologist, Janet Peterson, who collected soil, sediment, and surface water samples at 13 sites along the FECR rail corridor in the vicinity of OFWs, or surface waters that eventually flow into OFWs. During her sampling visits, Ms. Peterson saw no visual evidence of an oil spill, fluid leak, or other release of hazardous materials. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Residential Direct Exposure Soil Cleanup Target Levels (“SCTLs”) established in rule 62-777. The SCTLs are the levels at which toxicity becomes a human health concern and the residential SCTLs assume soil ingestion of 200 mg/day for children, and 100 mg/day for adults, 350 days a year, for 30 years. Some of the soil sampling results showed exceedances of SCTLs, but the SCTLs are not applicable here because none of the sample sites are locations where children or adults would be expected to ingest soil at such levels for such lengths of time. Petitioners did not show that the contaminants are likely to migrate to locations where such exposure would occur. Ms. Peterson compared her soil sample results to the Marine Surface Water Leachability SCTLs, but she did not develop site-specific leachability-based SCTLs using DEP’s approved methodology. Nor did she show that the proposed project will cause the soils to leach the contaminants. Ms. Peterson collected sediment samples from shorelines, but not where construction activities are proposed. She compared her sediment sample results to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines (“SQAGs”). These guidelines are not water quality standards. Any exceedance of these guidelines requires further analysis to determine potential water quality impacts. Ms. Peterson did not conduct the analysis. Ms. Peterson acknowledged that there are numerous sources for these pollutants at or near her sample sites, such as high-traffic roads, vehicular bridges, commercial and industrial facilities, boatyards, and golf courses. She did not establish baselines or controls. Ms. Peterson collected surface water samples at seven sites, some of which were located outside the FECR right-of-way. The results showed levels of phosphorous and nitrogen above the criteria for nutrients at some locations. Phosphorous, nitrogen, and the other nutrients are prevalent in the waters of Martin County and St. Lucie County and come from many sources. Petitioners’ evidence focused on existing conditions and not expected impacts of the proposed project. The evidence was insufficient to prove the proposed project will cause or contribute to water quality violations. Functions Provided by Wetlands and Other Surface Waters An applicant for an ERP must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Petitioners claim the Applicant and District should not have relied on Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (“FLUCCS”) maps to identify and characterize wetlands and other habitat areas because the maps are too general and inaccurate. However, the FLUCCS maps were not used by the Applicant or District to evaluate impacts to wetlands or other habitats. The Applicant began its evaluation of impacts to wetlands and other habitat areas by field-flagging and surveying the wetland and surface water boundaries in the project area using a GPS device with sub-meter accuracy. It then digitized the GPS delineations and overlaid them with the limits of construction to evaluate anticipated direct impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. The District then verified the delineations and assessments in the field. The Applicant and District determined that there are a total of 4.71 acres of wetlands within the FECR right-of-way, including tidal mangroves, freshwater marsh, and wet prairie. They also determined the proposed project will directly impact 0.35 acres of wetlands, consisting of 0.09 acres of freshwater marsh and 0.26 acres of mangroves. Petitioners contend that the Applicant failed to account for all of the project’s wetland impacts, based on the wetland delineations made by their wetland expert, Andrew Woodruff. Most of the impacts that Mr. Woodruff believes were not accounted for are small, between 0.01 and 0.05 acres. The largest one is acres. The Applicant’s delineations are more reliable than Mr. Woodruff’s because the methodology employed by the Applicant had greater precision. It is more likely to be accurate. Petitioners argue that the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit did not authorize work in wetlands and, therefore, the impacts they cause must be evaluated in this ERP Modification. However, Petitioners did not prove that there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts associated with those authorizations. Any impacts associated with best management practices for erosion control, such as the installation of silt fences, would be temporary. The District does not include such temporary minor impacts in its direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts analyses. Most of the wetlands that would be directly impacted by the ERP Modification are degraded due to past hydrologic alterations and soil disturbances from the original construction and historical use of the FECR railway corridor, and infestation by exotic plant species. Most of these wetlands are also adjacent to disturbed uplands within or near the rail corridor. The functional values of most of the wetlands that would be affected have been reduced by these disturbances. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Secondary Impacts Section 10.2.7 of the Applicant’s Handbook requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of a proposed activity (a) will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters; (b) will not adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for bald eagles, and aquatic or wetland-dependent listed animal species for nesting or denning by these species; (c) will not cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources; and (d) additional phases for which plans have been submitted, and closely linked projects regulated under chapter 373, part IV, will not cause water quality violations or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The proposed work will be entirely within the limits of the existing railway corridor where secondary impacts to wetlands and other surface waters caused by noise, vibration, fragmentation of habitats, and barriers to wildlife have existed for decades. The preponderance of the evidence shows that any increase in these kinds of impacts would be insignificant and would not reduce the current functions being provided. Because the affected wetlands are not preferred habitat for wetland-dependent, endangered, or threatened wildlife species, or species of special concern, and no such species were observed in the area, no adverse impacts to these species are expected to occur. Petitioners contend that adverse impacts will occur to the gopher tortoise, scrub jay, and prickly apple cactus. These are not aquatic or wetland-dependent species. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows any increase in impacts to these species would be insignificant. When the train bridges are closed, boats with masts or other components that make them too tall to pass under the train bridges must wait for the bridge to open before continuing. Petitioners contend that the current “stacking” of boats waiting for the bridges to open would worsen and would adversely impact seagrass beds and the West Indian Manatee. However, it was not shown that seagrass beds are in the areas where the boats are stacking. The available manatee mortality data does not show a link between boat stacking and boat collisions with manatees. Mr. Woodruff’s opinion about increased injuries to manatees caused by increased boat stacking was speculative and unpersuasive. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the adverse effects on both listed and non-listed wildlife species, caused by faster and more numerous trains would be insignificant. The activities associated with the 2013 exemption and the 2015 general permit for fiber optic cable were based on determinations that the activities would have minimal or insignificant adverse impacts on water resources. These determinations are not subject to challenge in this proceeding. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, adversely impact the functions of wetlands or other surface waters, adversely impact the ecological value of uplands for use by listed animal species, or cause impacts to significant historical or archaeological resources. Elimination and Reduction of Impacts Under section 10.2.1.1 of the Applicant’s Handbook, if a proposed activity will result in adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters, the applicant for an ERP must implement practicable design modifications to eliminate or reduce the impacts, subject to certain exceptions that will be discussed below. Petitioners argue that this rule requires the Applicant and District to evaluate the practicability of alternative routes through the region, routes other than the existing railway corridor in Segment D09. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, that argument is rejected. The evaluation of project modifications to avoid impacts was appropriately confined to the railway corridor in Segment D09. The Applicant implemented practicable design modifications in the project area to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Those modifications included the shifting of track alignments, the elimination of certain third-track segments, and the elimination of some proposed access way modifications. However, the project qualified under both “opt out” criteria in section 10.2.1.2 of the Applicant’s Handbook so that design modifications to reduce or eliminate impacts were not required: (1) The ecological value of the functions provided by the area of wetland or surface water to be adversely affected is low, and the proposed mitigation will provide greater long-term ecological value; and (2) the applicant proposes mitigation that implements all or part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and provides greater long-term ecological value. Mitigation The Applicant proposes to mitigate for impacts to wetlands by purchasing mitigation credits from four District- approved mitigation banks: the Bluefield Ranch, Bear Point, Loxahatchee, and F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Banks. Each is a regional off-site mitigation area which implements a detailed management plan and provides regional long-term ecological value. The number of mitigation credits needed to offset loss of function from impacts to wetlands was calculated using the Modified Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (“MWRAP”) or Wetland Assessment Technique for Environmental Review (“WATER”), as prescribed in the state permit for each mitigation bank. Applying these methods, the Applicant is required to purchase mitigation credits. The Applicant proposed to mitigate the adverse impacts to freshwater marsh wetlands by purchasing 0.01 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, and 0.06 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Loxahatchee Mitigation Bank. The adverse impacts to tidal mangrove wetlands would be mitigated by purchasing 0.12 saltwater credits from the Bear Point Mitigation Bank, and 0.02 saltwater credits from the F.P.L. Everglades Mitigation Bank. The Applicant committed to purchase an additional 0.29 freshwater herbaceous credits from the Bluefield Ranch Mitigation Bank, for a total of 0.50 mitigation credits. The proposed mitigation implements a plan that will provide greater long-term ecological value than is provided by the wetlands that will be impacted. The Applicant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the project complies with the District’s mitigation requirements. Cumulative Impacts To obtain an ERP, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts to water resources. This assurance can be provided by proposing to fully mitigate the impacts within the same basin. However, when an applicant proposes mitigation in another drainage basin, the applicant must demonstrate that the regulated activity will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 acres of freshwater marsh wetlands and 0.21 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands in the St. Lucie River basin. The impacts to the freshwater marshes must be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the basin which offer freshwater herbaceous mitigation credits. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes and 0.05 acres of the mangrove wetlands in the Loxahatchee River basin. Those impacts must also be mitigated out-of-basin because there are no mitigation banks in the Loxahatchee River basin. Because some of the Applicant’s proposed mitigation must be provided out-of-basin, the ERP application included a cumulative impact analysis. The analysis evaluated whether the proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other possible development within the St. Lucie River and Loxahatchee River drainage basins, would result in unacceptable cumulative impacts considering each basin as a whole. There are approximately 10,068 acres of freshwater marshes within the St. Lucie basin, of which an estimated 4,929 acres are not preserved and would be at risk of potential future development. The proposed project will adversely impact 0.02 of those acres, which is only 0.0004 percent of the total at-risk acreage. There are about 34,000 acres of freshwater marshes within the Loxahatchee River basin, of which an estimated 7,463 acres are at risk of future development, and approximately 564 acres of tidal mangrove wetlands, of which an estimated 75 acres are at risk of future development. The project will adversely impact 0.07 acres of the freshwater marshes (0.0009 percent), and 0.05 acres of the tidal mangrove wetlands (0.0667 percent). Petitioners contend the Applicant’s analysis did not account for impacts from proposed activities authorized in the 2013 and 2015 general permit. However, Petitioners failed to prove there are unaccounted-for wetland impacts. The preponderance of the evidence supports the District’s determination that the proposed project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Public Interest When an applicant seeks authorization for a regulated activity in, on, or over wetlands or surface waters, it must provide reasonable assurance that the activity will not be contrary to the public interest, or if the activity is within or significantly degrades an OFW, is clearly in the public interest, as determined by balancing the following criteria set forth in section 373.414(1)(a): Whether the activities will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activities will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activities will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activities will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activities will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activities will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activities. The proposed work is not within an OFW, but entirely within the FECR corridor. The potential for overland flow and indirect impacts to OFWs is addressed by additional treatment of the stormwater prior to discharge. The proposed project would not significantly degrade an OFW. Therefore, the applicable inquiry is whether the project is contrary to the public interest. Factor 1: Public Safety, Safety, and Welfare Petitioners contend that the proposed project will adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare by impacting water quantity, water quality, and certain non-environmental matters such as emergency response times, traffic congestion, and potential train collisions with pedestrians and vehicles. Potential environmental impacts have been addressed above and, by a preponderance of the evidence, the District and the Applicant showed that such impacts would be insignificant or would be mitigated. As to the potential for non-environmental impacts associated with train operations, it is explained in the Conclusions of Law that the public interest test does not include consideration of non-environmental factors other than those expressly articulated in the statute, such as navigation and preservation of historical or archaeological resources. However, because evidence of non-environmental impacts was admitted at the final hearing, the issues raised by Petitioners will be briefly addressed below. The regulatory agency with specific responsibility for railroad safety is the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”). The FRA reviewed the safety features associated with the proposed passenger train operations, and approved them. Public safety will be enhanced at roadway crossings because of the proposed improvements and the use of modern technology in monitoring and managing the movement of trains. Petitioners contend that the addition of the passenger rail service will impede emergency response times in Martin County and St. Lucie County due to more frequent roadway closures. However, freight trains currently impede emergency response times due to their length and slow speed. The passenger trains will be much shorter in length and faster so that roadway crossing closures for passing passenger trains will be much shorter than for freight trains. The ERP Modification and 2017 Exemption do not affect freight train operations. The preponderance of the evidence shows that passenger rail service is unlikely to cause a material increase in the occurrence of circumstances where an emergency responder is impeded by a train. The current problem must be addressed through changes in freight train operations. Petitioners also contend that the passenger rail service will interfere with hurricane evacuation. The persuasive evidence does not support that contention. Train service would cease when a hurricane is approaching. Petitioners contend the trains will have to be “staged” on either side of the two moveable bridges while other trains cross, thereby blocking road intersections. However, this was a matter of speculation. The Applicant does not propose or want to stage trains at the bridges. Petitioners contend that the project will cause hazards to boaters on the St. Lucie River because there will be more times when the train bridge will be closed to allow the passage of passenger trains. Although there were many statistics presented about the number of boats affected, the evidence was largely anecdotal with respect to the current hazard associated with boaters waiting for the passage of freight trains and speculative as to the expected increase in the hazard if shorter and faster passenger trains are added. Factor 2: Conservation of Fish and Wildlife As previously found, the proposed activities will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project will have only insignificant adverse impacts on water resources and wildlife. Factor 3: Navigation of the Flow of Water Petitioners claim the project will hinder navigation on the St. Lucie and Loxahatchee Rivers because of the increase in bridge closures if passenger trains are added. The U.S. Coast Guard is the agency with clear authority to regulate the opening and closing of moveable train bridges over navigable waters in the interests of navigation. Petitioners’ insistence that the District address the bridge openings is novel. No instance was identified by the parties where this District, any other water management district, or DEP has attempted through an ERP to dictate how frequently a railroad bridge must open to accommodate boat traffic. The Coast Guard is currently reviewing the project’s potential impacts on navigation and will make a determination about the operation of the moveable bridges. It has already made such a determination for the moveable bridge which crosses the New River in Ft. Lauderdale. Petitioners point to section 10.2.3.3 of the Applicant’s Handbook, which states that the District can consider an applicant’s Coast Guard permit, and suggest that this shows the District is not limited to what the Coast Guard has required. However, Section 10.2.3.3 explains the navigation criterion in terms of preventing encroachments into channels and improving channel markings, neither of which encompasses the regulation of train bridges. The preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not cause harmful erosion or shoaling or adversely affect the flow of water. Factor 4: Fishing, Recreational Values, and Marine Productivity The preponderance of the evidence shows that there would be no adverse impacts or only insignificant impacts to fishing or recreational values and marine productivity. Factor 5: Permanent Impact The proposed project will have both temporary and permanent impacts. The temporary impacts include the installation of silt fences and turbidity barriers designed to reduce water quality impacts and impacts to functions provided by wetlands and surface waters. The impacts due to track installation, construction and rehabilitation of the non-moveable bridges, at-grade crossing improvements, and stormwater system improvements are permanent in nature. The permanent impacts have been minimized and mitigated. Factor 6: Historical or Archaeological Resources Petitioners do not contend that the project will adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Factor 7: Wetland Functions in Areas Affected Because the proposed work is within the limits of an existing railway corridor where impacts have been occurring for decades, and the majority of the wetlands to be affected are of a low to moderate quality, there would be only a small loss of functional values and that loss would be fully mitigated. Public Interest Summary When the seven public interest factors are considered and balanced, the proposed project is not contrary to the public interest. Even if Petitioners’ non-environmental issues are included, the project is not contrary to the public interest. Compliance With Other Permit Conditions The project is capable, based on accepted engineering and scientific principles, of performing and functioning as proposed. The Applicant demonstrated sufficient real property interests over the lands upon which project activities will be conducted. It obtained the required consent for proposed activities relating to bridge crossings over state-owned submerged lands. The Applicant provided reasonable assurance of compliance with all other applicable permit criteria. Exemption Verification for Roadway Crossings The Applicant’s ERP application included a mixture of activities which required an individual permit, as well as activities in roadway crossings which the Applicant claimed were exempt from permitting. Pursuant to section 5.5.3.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook, the Applicant requested a verification of exemption as to certain work to be done within 23 of those 24 roadway crossings. The District determined that the improvements for which an exemption was sought were exempt from permitting under rule 62-330.051(4)(c) for minor roadway safety construction, rule 62-330.051(4)(d) resurfacing of paved roads, and rule 62-330.051(10) for “construction, alteration, maintenance, removal or abandonment of recreational paths for pedestrians, bicycles, and golf carts.” The preponderance of the evidence shows the proposed work qualifies for exemption under these rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order that: approves Environmental Resource Permit Modification No. 13-05321-P on the terms and conditions set forth in the District’s Corrected Proposed Amended Staff Report of May 11, 2017; and approves the Verification of Exemption dated March 31, 2017. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, Indian Beach Manor, Section A, according to plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 22, Page 48, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with a parcel of submerged land in The Narrows in Section 30, Township 30 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida (Exhibits 8, 11, 12, 13). The real estate in question is located at Indian Rocks Beach, Florida, and abuts that portion of the Intracoastal Waterway between Clearwater Harbor and Boca Ciega Bay called The Narrows. The property in question is approximately 200 feet wide and 500 feet long consisting of some 2.3 acres. It is bounded on the east by The Narrows, with Gulf Boulevard on the west, 191st Avenue on the north, and a boat channel extending approximately 300 feet from The Narrows on the south. The land is located within the intertidal zone below the line of mean high water and is vegetated approximately 75 percent by red and black mangrove trees. At high tide, the property is completely inundated. During low tide periods, a considerable amount of firm tidal flat is exposed. Meandering through the flats are several streams that connect intracoastal waters with shallow pools enclosed by mangroves. At the northwest corner of the property on 191st Avenue is located a city-owned storm sewer pipe which spills stormwater drainage down a ditch which crosses the property add discharges on the east side (Exhibits 1, 4, 7, 9, 10, Composite Exhibit 14, testimony of Albrecht). In April, 1974, Petitioners applied to the Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County to fill Lots 1-4. After first denying the application, the board, sitting as the Pinellas a County Water and Navigation Control Authority, held a rehearing and approved the application on December 17, 1974, subject to the approval of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida. By Resolution 25-74, December 10, 1974, the town council, Indian Shores, Florida, had urged the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority to grant the permit as being in the best interests of that town in that it would eliminate a health and welfare menace to the town's citizens (Composite Exhibit 1). Petitioners then made application to the Department of Pollution Control for water quality certification under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. On April 1, 1975, they were informed by that Department that their application was denied. Petitioners then jailed a petition for review of the denial on April 8, 1975. In their Petition, it was stated that the application for water quality certification was part of a fill only and seawall permit application pending before the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. They contended that the water quality standards contained in Chapter 17-3 were not applicable to their application because there would be no discharge of any kind into state waters. The original application to fill and construct a seawall that had been pending before the Trustees was thereafter transferred to Respondent agency as part of the reorganization of state environmental agencies in 1975. On February 2, 1976, Petitioners were advised by Respondent that it intended to recommend denial to the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Regulation of Petitioners' application for a Chapter 403 and 253 permit and Water Quality Certification under P.L. 92-500 based on biological assessments of August 15, 1974, and January 28, 1975, and a water quality report of April 1) 1975. Petitioners then requested a hearing on February 6, 1976 (Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5). Respondent based its proposed denial generally on the determination that filling of the intertidal mangrove area and the navigable shallow bayous would have material adverse effects on marine life and wildlife and would not be in the best interests of conservation of marine biological resources (Exhibit 4). The property is essentially a cul de sac with less than the usual water flow exchange by tides and there is some impoundment of the water that flows through the roads and adjacent property. There is evidence of pollution of the water by reason of the culvert and ditch which drains from the northwest boundary of the property. A certain amount of wash from boat traffic along the Intracoastal Waterway undoubtedly introduces additional pollutants into the area. The property also has been used as a dumping ground to some extent and a borrow pit exists at the northwest corner of the property. Water samples taken in July, 1976, reflected pollution, primarily as to nitrogen and sulfur, in the area whore the stormwater drainage culvert empties onto the property. Filling of the land will remove much of the present pollutants caused by stormwater runoff (Testimony of Davis, Exhibit 6) In spite of the pollution of the water, the property in question is a productive mangrove system. The shallow bottoms function as feeding areas for animal life and the vegetation provides a diversified habitat for the estuary. Prop roots and pneumatophores of the red and black mangroves are covered with barnacles, oysters and other shellfish, and live oyster bars are found on the flats. Various species of red, green and brown algae vegetate the shallow streams and pools. Export of mangrove detritus which is biologically important as a basic food chain substance is very evident. An acre of mangroves can produce almost 8,000 pounds of detritus for herbivores a year which is transported out by the tide. Detritus is the sole diet for adult mullet. Marine life and wildlife observed in the area consists of a variety of fish, invertebrates, and birds (Exhibits 4 and 17, testimony of Burdett, Knight, Matthews). During the period from 1943 when the Indian Beach Manor area was platted until 1975, approximately 300 feet (about half of the platted depth of the lot) had been lost through erosion. The proposed seawall will be 5' 7" high and will tie into an existing seawall on adjoining city property to the north. Petitioners plan to create a dike four or five feet high across the eastern shore boundary of the land, pump out the water, and fill with Florida sand to elevate the land about six feet (Testimony of Albrecht, Campbell).
Recommendation That Petitioners' application for a permit to fill and construct a seawall under Chapter 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Reynold Caleen, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Herman W. Goldner, Esquire P.O. Drawer 14233 St. Petersburg, FL 33733
The Issue The issue to be decided in these cases is whether Petitioner, A. Wayne Lujan (Petitioner), was entitled to issuance of five environmental resource permits (ERPs) that Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), intended to deny as stated in notices of denial dated October 25, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. Parties and Background Petitioner Lujan is the president and a director of Kay Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. (Key Haven), that owns the five parcels, which are the subject matter of this hearing. Although Key Haven owns numerous lots, it chose to submit ERP applications for the Subject Lots within the Key Haven Tenth Addition plat dated September 1966 (Plat). See Joint Exhibit 84. Joint Exhibit 84 The Subject Lots are located in an unincorporated part of the County on the northwestern edge of a body of land lying north of State Road A1A, identified on the Plat as Raccoon Key. The Subject Lots are approximately half a mile east of the city limits of Key West, Florida. The Subject Lots are all characterized by a small upland portion adjacent to Floral Avenue. The majority of the Subject Lots transition into a mangrove fringe of varying depth and submerged lands containing marine seagrasses and sponges. See Joint Exhibits 81 and 82. Joint Exhibit 81 Joint Exhibit 82 DEP is the administrative agency of the state having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources, and to administer and enforce the provisions of part II of chapter 380, part IV of chapter 373, and chapter 403, Florida Statutes. DEP also administers the provisions of Florida Administrative Code chapters 62-312 and 62-330 regarding activities in wetlands and other surface waters of the state. DEO is the state land planning agency and reviews certain permit applications for consistency with its statutory responsibilities under the Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP), which includes part II of chapter 163, and part I of chapter 380, Florida Statutes. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat. On July 26, 2018, Petitioner filed five applications for ERPs with DEP. Although certain details within each application differed, the applications all sought to authorize construction of a seawall in the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and in unnamed wetlands within the landward extent of the Gulf of Mexico, a Class III OFW, to remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, and to place fill within wetlands and other surface waters for the construction of single-family residences (Project). The minor differences in each application relate to the length of the seawall and the amount of fill necessary for each lot. Although some testimony was provided concerning the differences, no party argued that the differences were material to the determinations necessary in this proceeding. Accordingly, the factual and legal analysis for the Subject Lots and ERP applications were addressed without distinction herein. DEP forwarded a copy of the applications to DEO for its recommendation. On August 24, 2018, DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC Principles for Guiding Development (PGDs) in section 380.0552(7). DEO also objected based on inconsistencies between the Project and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and Land Development Code (LDC), which implement the PGDs. DEP's first RAI dated August 24, 2018, included DEO's objections. The first RAI notified Petitioner that DEP had concerns with the Project that included: (1) installation of the vertical seawall; (2) placement of fill within an OFW; (3) direct impacts to marine seagrass bed community without adequate mitigation; and (4) failure to provide stormwater management plans since the Project was a common plan of development. The first RAI contained 19 specific requests for additional information. On October 23, 2018, Petitioner responded to DEP's first RAI by submitting slightly revised plans. The revised Project proposed less of a vertical seawall footprint by adding rip-rap to the side seawalls as a means of containing fill. Petitioner's responses to the 19 specific requests for information can generally be categorized as follows: (1) elimination of some vertical seawalls, but not the ones on the waterward edge of the Subject Lots; (2) no change in the placement of fill; (3) Petitioner would attempt to find appropriate compensatory mitigation for the seagrass impacts; and (4) Petitioner did not consider the Project to be a common plan of development. Regarding DEO's objections, Petitioner stated that "[w]e acknowledge that the project has been forwarded to FWC [Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission] and DEO and that additional comments and information may be requested by those agencies in order to fully evaluate the application." Petitioner did not substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued a second RAI on November 21, 2018. DEO again objected in a letter dated November 26, 2018. DEP's second RAI raised the same concerns as the first RAI and acknowledged that four of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. On January 11, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's second RAI by again submitting slightly revised site plans. However, the Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. DEP issued a third RAI to Petitioner on February 8, 2019. DEO reiterated its objections by letter dated February 8, 2019. The third RAI raised the same concerns as the first and second RAIs, although DEP acknowledged that six of the 19 specific items were adequately addressed. By letter dated April 8, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's third RAI. The response again proposed slightly altered site plans from the January 2019 submissions. Petitioner essentially stated that mitigation opportunities were scarce, but had contacted the County and was looking into derelict vessel removal. However, the proposed Project remained generally unchanged, with a proposed vertical seawall on the waterward edge of the lots, rip-rap along the sides, removal of the entire mangrove fringe, and fill of the entire lots eliminating the existing marine seagrasses. As it relates to DEO's objections, Petitioner responded that "[a]fter review of the comments outlined in the [DEO] revised letter, it seems that the DEO objections are related to compliance with the provision[s] of the [Monroe] County [Comp Plan]. We will deal with those issues at the time of local permitting." Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEP issued its final RAI on May 8, 2019. DEO again objected by letter dated May 6, 2019. This final RAI raised the same concerns as the first, second, and third RAIs. DEP stated that seven of the 19 specific items were not addressed by Petitioner, and that failure to provide a complete response to the prior RAI may result in denial of the ERP applications. On August 29, 2019, Petitioner responded to DEP's final RAI by once again submitting slightly revised plans, and additional information concerning mitigation proposals. However, the Project did not change and Petitioner again failed to substantively address DEO's objections. DEO’s objection letter identified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs, seven Comp Plan policies, and six regulatory provisions of the County's LDC. DEP denied the ERP applications on October 25, 2019. The grounds for denial reiterated the issues not addressed by Petitioner's RAI responses. Specifically: (1) the failure of the Project to provide reasonable assurances concerning direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts to the marine seagrass bed community; (2) continued reliance upon construction of a vertical seawall; (3) failure to provide stormwater management information necessary given the determination that the Project constituted a common plan of development; (4) inconsistency with the FCMP as identified by DEO in its objection letters; and (5) failure to provide reasonable assurances that the Project was clearly in the public interest. Direct Impacts The Project proposed to entirely fill the Subject Lots, contain the fill with vertical seawalls and rip-rap, and construct pile-supported single-family residences. The Project would remove the entire mangrove fringe that aerials and site inspections show is a healthy mix of red, black, and white mangroves along with some green buttonwood. The shallow, open surface waters are dominated by marine seagrasses that vary in density. Petitioner did not make any design modifications to the Project that sought to reduce or eliminate direct impacts to the mangrove fringe and marine seagrasses. Petitioner's resource inventory was done using GIS aerial photography so that the aerial benthic resource surveys submitted to DEP were not ground- truthed. DEP staff conducted physical site inspections and ground-truthing inspections that included swimming in the open surface waters. DEP staff found significant marine seagrasses and sponges that were not mentioned in Petitioner's resource surveys. Depending on the lot, the Project would fill approximately 6,000 square feet of wetlands and other surface waters, i.e., 900 to 2,500 square feet of mangrove habitat and 4,000 to 4,800 square feet of marine seagrass bed habitat. The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's site plans were "vertical seawalls" because the rip-rap would not face the seawalls to the mean high water line (MHWL). The rip-rap would be placed on submerged resources inside the property lines of the Subject Lots. Also, Petitioner's final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. Vertical seawalls are prohibited in the OFW of the County. Petitioner did not affirmatively demonstrate that fill or shoreline stabilization could be accomplished by using native vegetation instead of vertical seawalls. Secondary Impacts DEP's expert witness, Ms. Mills, testified that Petitioner's ERP applications did not identify any potential secondary impacts. Ms. Mills testified that the expected secondary impacts from the Project included stormwater runoff, shading, and erosion or shoaling. Although the Project plans showed that stormwater would be collected and directed to Floral Avenue, DEP's investigation established that there is no stormwater management system on the side of Floral Avenue abutting the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and surface waters at the lot locations that were not proposed for development, e.g., Lots 36 and 38. The proposed single-family homes are piling-supported structures. Ms. Mills testified that the piling-supported structure would cause shading of the immediate adjacent resources on either side. She identified potential shading impacts to the resources of the undeveloped Lots 36 and 38. In addition, Ms. Mills identified potential erosion or shoaling impacts to the undeveloped Lots 36, 38, and unnamed lots to the left of Lot 40 since they would be surrounded by developed fill on either side. Although Mr. Swakon testified that tidal velocity is low in this area, other aspects, such as effects from wind-driven circulation, were not adequately addressed. Mitigation Petitioner was required to propose mitigation to offset remaining direct and secondary impacts after going through a reduction and elimination exercise. However, Petitioner did not propose any revisions to the Project to reduce or eliminate the direct and secondary impacts identified above. Ms. Mills explained that appropriate mitigation usually provides benefits to the same type of ecological community as the one being impacted. Petitioner's ultimate mitigation proposal was to purchase saltwater credit at a mitigation bank, the Florida Power and Light Everglades Mitigation Bank (FPL EMB). The FPL EMB is located on the mainland of Florida approximately a hundred miles away from the Subject Lots. Ms. Mills testified that saltwater credit would be appropriate to offset and replace the same ecological function of mangroves, but not to offset the submerged benthic communities that would be impacted by the Project. Mr. Swakon testified that calculation of the amount of mitigation credits included a multiplier to address secondary and cumulative impacts, the out-of-kind mitigation, and the dissimilarities in the communities. However, Ms. Mills persuasively testified that the proposed multiplier was not sufficient to justify the three aspects of impact that needed to be offset. Whether to justify dissimilarities between the ecological communities, secondary and cumulative impacts, or the distance of the mitigation site from the Project, the multiplier was not sufficient. Cumulative Impacts The Project is not within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for mitigation of impacts purposes. Accordingly, Ms. Mills testified that the plain language of a cumulative impacts analysis is considered. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Also, each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Common Plan of Development Petitioner contested DEP's conclusion that the Project was a common plan of development subject to section 2.0 of the Applicant's Handbook Volume 1 and associated stormwater management requirements. The Project would facilitate the advancement of land uses such as multiple residences, a residential subdivision, or phased site development. The Project comprised a total land area divided into multiple lots or parcels that are under common ownership or control. In total, Petitioner owns 648 lots under common ownership within the Key Haven Tenth and Eleventh Addition. The Subject Lots are all part of a residential subdivision. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project was a common plan of development. For this common plan of development, Petitioner's proposed stormwater management consisted of a cap on the proposed seawalls directing stormwater to swales on each lot. The swales would then direct stormwater to Floral Avenue with no additional treatment or management. During site inspections, DEP staff did not find any evidence of stormwater management along Floral Avenue. Seawalls and Rip-rap The seawalls depicted in the final version of Petitioner's ERP applications would be vertical seawalls because the rip-rap facing the seawall did not come above the MHWL. In addition, the final plans did not include the mooring of vessels. As found above, the Project would place fill, seawalls, and rip-rap on marine seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner failed to affirmatively demonstrate that native vegetation was not sufficient to prevent erosion. The evidence established that Petitioner did not apply for any waiver or variance of applicable ERP rule criteria. FCMP Consistency The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner refused to address DEO's objections based on a mistaken view of the criteria governing ERP applications in the County and the Florida Keys ACSC. Relevant to this proceeding, DEO exercises authority over the ACSC program. See § 380.05, Fla. Stat.; see also § 380.23(6), Fla. Stat. (Each agency charged with implementing statutes and rules that are part of the FCMP, shall be afforded an opportunity to provide DEP with its comments and determination regarding consistency of the activity with those statutes and rules.). Section 380.05(16) prohibits persons from undertaking any development within the Florida Keys ACSC, except in accordance with the PGDs. Thus DEO, as the administrator of the ACSC program, reviewed the ERP applications for consistency with applicable regulatory requirements. DEO issued objections to approval of the permits citing inconsistency with the Florida Keys ACSC PGDs; and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's Comp Plan and LDC which implement the PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with four PGDs. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, testified that the Project was inconsistent with the PGD, which provides for strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that the local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the ACSC designation. See § 380.0552(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the ERP applications were inconsistent with this PGD because the Project would impair the local government's ability to have the ACSC designation removed. Allowing development inconsistent with its regulations would hurt the local government's ability to pursue de-designation. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The second PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. See § 380.0552(7)(b), Fla. Stat. It was undisputed that the Project would result in total removal of the mangrove and buttonwood fringe on each lot and 100% destruction of existing submerged marine resources. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The third PGD cited by DEO provides for limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. See § 380.0552(7)(e), Fla. Stat. Ms. Powell testified that degradation to nearshore water quality from prior dredge and fill activity was one of the reasons for the designation of the Florida Keys as an ACSC. Additionally, as further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan policies and LDC regulations that further the goal of protecting the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys ACSC. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. The fourth PGD cited by DEO provides for protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys, and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. See § 380.0552(7)(n), Fla. Stat. As further discussed below, the Project would be inconsistent with the County's Comp Plan and LDC regulations that prohibit the use of structural fill within velocity zones. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project would be consistent with this PGD. Ms. Powell testified that DEO considered the remaining statutory PGDs, and determined they were not particularly applicable to these ERP applications. In accordance with its duties, DEO had also reviewed and approved the County's Comp Plan and LDC as consistent with the statutory PGDs. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with seven Comp Plan policies. They are Policies 102.1.1, 101.5.25, 203.1.1, 204.2.2, 204.2.3, 204.2.4, and 212.5.3. Policy 102.1.1 provides: The County shall protect submerged lands and wetlands. The open space requirement shall be one hundred (100) percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands mangroves salt ponds fresh water wetlands fresh water ponds undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights (TDRs) away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Policy 101.5.25 provides that "[t]he allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available." Policy 203.1.1 provides that "[t]he open space requirement for mangrove wetlands shall be one hundred (100) percent. No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangrove wetlands except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers and utility pilings." Policy 204.2.2 provides: To protect submerged lands and wetlands, the open space requirement shall be 100 percent of the following types of wetlands: submerged lands; mangroves; salt ponds; freshwater wetlands; freshwater ponds; and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetland only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Within one (1) year after the adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the County shall revise the LDC to include a prohibition of development in salt ponds. Policy 204.2.3 provides: No structures shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands, except for elevated, pile-supported walkways, docks, piers, and utility pilings. No fill shall be permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, or wetlands except: as specifically allowed by Objective 212.5 and subsequent Policies; to fill a manmade excavated water body, such as a canal, boat ramp, or swimming pool if the Director of Environmental Resources determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; or as needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County. Policy 204.2.4 provides: No fill or structures shall be permitted in mangroves or wetlands except as allowed by Policy 204.2.3 (as amended) and for bridges extending over mangroves or wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternative means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings such that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate, and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered. Upland areas shall include disturbed wetlands that have been lawfully converted into uplands through filling. Policy 212.5.3 provides: Bulkheads, seawalls or other hardened vertical shoreline structures shall be permitted on residential canals and altered shorelines only in the following situations: to replace an existing deteriorated bulkhead or seawall; or to stabilize a severely eroding shoreline area. DEO's expert witness, Ms. Powell, persuasively testified that the Project was inconsistent with all seven policies, because it did not protect the submerged lands and wetlands, did not provide for 100% open space within the submerged lands and wetlands, and provided for the construction of a seawall not excepted from the general prohibition. Petitioner did not present any evidence that the Project was consistent with the cited policies. Instead, Petitioner's witness, Mr. Nelson, testified that he felt certain County regulations would militate in favor of allowing the development. The main factor cited by Mr. Nelson was that the Subject Lots were designated as Tier III parcels under the County's LDC. However, designation of a parcel as Tier III did not conflict with the policies cited by DEO. The more credible and persuasive evidence concerning the Project's compliance with the Comp Plan policies was provided by Ms. Powell, who concluded that the Project was not consistent with those policies. DEO identified that the Project would be inconsistent with six sections of the County's LDC regulations. Those are sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122-4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The LDC regulations are more specific methods for implementing the Comp Plan policies outlined above. Section 118-4 provides: No development activities, except as provided for in this chapter, are permitted in submerged lands, mangroves, salt ponds, freshwater wetlands, freshwater ponds, or in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands; the open space requirement is 100 percent. Allocated density (dwelling units per acre) shall be assigned to freshwater wetlands and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands only for use as transferable development rights away from these habitats. Submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned any density or intensity. Section 118-10(e), in relevant part, provides: Mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands. All structures developed, used or occupied on land classified as mangroves, wetlands or submerged lands (all types and all levels of quality) shall be designed, located and constructed such that: Generally. Only docks and docking facilities, boat ramps, walkways, water access walkways, water observation platforms, boat shelters, nonenclosed gazebos, riprap, seawalls, bulkheads, and utility pilings shall be permitted on or over mangroves, wetlands, and submerged lands, subject to the specific restrictions of this subsection. Trimming and/or removal of mangroves shall meet Florida Department of Environmental Protection requirements. * * * (4) Placement of fill. No fill shall be permitted in any mangroves, wetlands, or submerged lands except: As specifically allowed by this Section or by Section 118- 12(k) (Bulkheads, Seawalls, Riprap) and 118-12(l) (Boat Ramps); To fill a manmade, excavated water body such as a canal, boat ramp, boat slip, boat basin or swimming pool if the County Biologist determines that such filling will not have a significant adverse impact on marine or wetland communities; As needed for shoreline stabilization or beach renourishment projects with a valid public purpose that furthers the goals of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, as determined by the County Biologist; For bridges extending over salt marsh and/or buttonwood association wetlands that are required to provide automobile or pedestrian access to lawfully established dwelling units located on upland areas within the same property for which there is no alternate means of access. Such bridges shall be elevated on pilings so that the natural movement of water, including volume, rate and direction of flow shall not be disrupted or altered; or As approved for Disturbed Salt Marsh and Buttonwood Association Wetlands with appropriate mitigation as defined by the wetland regulations of subsection (e)(6) of this Section. Section 118-12(k)(2) provides: (2) Vertical type seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only to stabilize severely eroding shorelines and only on manmade canals, channels, or basins. Such seawalls or bulkheads shall be permitted only if native vegetation and/or riprap and filter cloth is not a feasible means to control erosion. No new seawalls, bulkheads, or other hardened vertical structures shall be permitted on open water. Section 122-4(b)(5), in relevant part, provides: Coastal high-hazard areas (V zones). Within the areas of special flood hazard are areas designated as coastal high- hazard areas, which have special flood hazards associated with wave wash. The following provisions shall apply in these areas: * * * e. There shall be no fill used as structural support. Section 130-157, Maximum Permanent Residential Density and Minimum Required Open Space, provides at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Section 130-162, Maximum Densities for Hotel/Motel, Campground, Recreational Vehicle, Seasonal and Institutional Residential Uses, and Minimum Open Space, proves at note (a): (a) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available. Ms. Powell persuasively testified that the Project was not consistent with the County's LDC regulations in sections 118-4, 118-10(e), 118-12(k)(2), 122- 4(b)(5), 130-157, and 130-162. The Project was inconsistent with the cited LDC regulations because it sought to construct seawall in submerged land, fill portions of the lots subject to a 100% open space requirement, remove the entirety of the existing mangrove fringe, impair 100% of the marine seagrass resources within the Subject Lots, and utilize structural fill within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated Velocity Zone. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project did not meet the criteria of part IV of chapter 62-312 and section 380.0552. The testimony also demonstrated that Petitioner did not apply for a variance or waiver of the County's LDC regulations. Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally argued that the five applications provided reasonable assurance for issuance of individual ERPs. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the conditions for issuance under rule 62-330.301. Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management, the impacts of runoff to Floral Avenue, and runoff flowing back into the Gulf of Mexico OFW. This failure resulted in a lack of reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; would not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; and would not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Those functions would be 100% impacted and the impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. As found above, the Project would cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, adverse impacts to surface water conveyance, and the adverse impacts would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. Additional Conditions for Issuance Petitioner generally contended that the five applications provided reasonable assurance that the Project was clearly in the public interest under rule 62-330.302. However, the persuasive and credible evidence established that the Project did not satisfy a majority of the applicable additional conditions for issuance. The Project would adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because Petitioner failed to provide adequate information regarding stormwater management. DEP's site inspection found no stormwater management or treatment system on the side of Floral Avenue adjacent to the Subject Lots. Thus, the collected and directed stormwater would end up flowing back into the mangrove fringe and the OFW. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, or their habitat, as a result of the 100% impact to benthic communities, which would not be adequately offset by appropriate mitigation. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the Project would adversely affect marine productivity, the current condition, and the relative value of functions being performed by the impacted areas. Also, the Project would be permanent in nature. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner failed to provide reasonable assurance that there would not be harmful erosion or shoaling. The Project would not adversely affect or enhance any significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project would not be within a recognized cumulative impact basin of the SFWMD for mitigation of impacts purposes. Contiguous lots to the Subject Lots owned by Petitioner could be developed through similar requests in the future. Each ERP application's cumulative impact analysis would consider the other four ERP applications as in-house examples of potential future projects. Thus, Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurance that each ERP application would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioner's five ERP applications. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathryn E.D. Lewis, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Moore, Esquire Moore Bowman & Reese, P.A. Suite 100 551 North Cattlemen Road Sarasota, Florida 34232 Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Mail Station 35 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jon F. Morris, Esquire Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, Mail Station 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Valerie A. Wright, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Based upon the above testimony and the exhibits received into evidence in this cause, the undersigned Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact with regard to the issue in dispute: The applicants, as owners and lessees of 3,300 acres of land to be used for sugar cane production, propose to install a surface water management system consisting of levees, ditches, culverts, and pumps for drainage and irrigation purposes. Irrigation will be drawn from and drainage water will be discharged into Canal 51, a project works of the FCD. There is no dispute between the applicant and the FCD staff concerning the permit for water use and connection to C-51. The applicant proposes to discharge, via two 30,000 gallon per minute pumps, one inch per acre per day or 62,239 gallons per minute into C-51. The soils on the applicants' land are primarily muck types which are high in organic nitrogen. A water level of three feet below ground level, as proposed, will probably cause such nitrogen in the muck soil to decompose, resulting in soil subsidence and production of inorganic nitrogen. Nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) resulting from muck decomposition and crop fertilization may enter the water in the interior canals and cause such water to have a higher nutrient content. The water in Canal 51 now has low concentrations of nutrients, as compared with the waters in canals appurtenant to other sugar cane producing areas. There appear to be unique hydrological conditions on the land in question which may keep the drainage system flushed and nitrate-free and there is evidence that sawgrass areas act as an effective nutrient filter. There was no evidence that additional nutrients entering C-51 would be environmentally harmful or degrading to the waters in C-51, both parties admitting that further research and scientific data is needed to determine the safe level of nutrients in this area. The applicants and other interested groups have shown that the construction. and operation of a retention or impoundment area would cause an adverse economic impact upon landowners and would have an adverse economic effect upon consumers, the general labor force and the community. The FCD has not adequately demonstrated that the waters of C-51 would be degraded by the applicants' proposed project or that a 140 acre impoundment area would be a reasonable condition to impose upon the issuance of the permits in question. A water quality monitoring system, such as proposed in the original and revised staff reports, will permit the parties to determine whether the water in C-51 is being degraded by the addition of nutrients.
Recommendation Based upon the above cited testimony, evidence, findings of fact and conclusions off law, the following recommendations are made: It is recommended that a water use permit, a Surface water management permit and a right-of-way occupancy permit be issued, all in accordance with the recommendations and conditions set forth in the original Staff Report dated August 5, 1975, attached hereto as Exhibit A. It is recommended that the additional requirement of a 140-acre retention area set forth in the Revised Staff Report be rejected. It is further recommended that an additional condition be attached to the surface water management permit. That condition would be to have such permit expire at the same time as the water use permit; to wit: July 15, 1977, so as to allow the FCD and the applicants sufficient time to collect further data on the effect of nutrients on the waters of C-51 and compare said data with the information derived from the monitoring program required under the permits. If such data and comparisons sufficiently demonstrate that the waters of C-51 will be degraded by the applicants' project, a retention area requirement would then be a reasonable condition to the reissuance of a permit. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George H. Bailey, Esquire JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A. 601 Flagler Drive Court Post Office Drawer E West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John Wheeler, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the record owner of Lot 11, Block 4 and Lot 12, Block 2 of Ramrod Shores Marina Section subdivision on Ramrod Key in Monroe County, Florida. These lots lie across Angelfish Road from each other. They both lie across Mariposa Road from Torch Ramrod Channel which leads into Niles Channel which leads into the Gulf of Mexico to the north; to the south Torch Ramrod Channel leads into Newfound Harbor which opens onto the Atlantic Ocean. Mariposa Road appears on a subdivision plat filed in the official records of Monroe County in 1960, and on revisions of the original plat, one of which was filed in 1963, and the more recent of which was filed in 1969. On the two earlier plats, it is recited that "[r]oads shown hereon not previously dedicated or owned by the State or County are hereby dedicated to the perpetual use of the public." The evidence did not show whether Monroe County or any other governmental body had accepted the dedication of Mariposa Road. Cape Sable Corporation, a predecessor in title to petitioner, trucked in oolite fill to construct Mariposa Road; and repaired the road after occasional washouts, a practice which petitioner's immediate predecessor in title, James Brown, continued. Because the rock which was used to build Mariposa Road is loosely packed, water from the channel percolates through the road even when it is not high enough to move across the road in a sheet, which sometimes happens. There are also low lying places in the road through which tidal waters flow onto petitioner's property. Salt water up to a foot deep regularly stands on petitioner's property, which is overgrown with spider mangroves and red mangroves. The mangroves stabilize the shoreline on account of their root systems, which also serve to filter out certain substances which would otherwise run off into the channel. Decaying plant matter produced by the mangroves supports various microorganisms which constitute an early link in the food chain that results in commercial fisheries. Killifish, needlefish, jelly fish and wading birds all frequent petitioner's property in its present state. Covering petitioner's lots with fill would destroy or displace the marine life now flourishing there. Respondent has requested James Brown to remove the fill along Mariposa Road, citing Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the Army Corps of Engineers has taken similar action under applicable federal laws. Mr. Brown evinced an intent at the hearing not to comply with these requests, but to work instead to persuade Monroe County to blacktop Mariposa Road. Paving Mariposa Road with blacktop would involve compacting rock or otherwise creating an underbed impermeable to water. Mr. Brown envisions Mariposa Road being upgraded to the level of State Road 4, which it intersects, before being paved. If Mariposa Road were upgraded and paved in this fashion, it would act as a dam keeping tidal waters out of petitioner's lots, unless culverts were installed. In the event Mariposa Road is upgraded and paved and no culverts are installed, the marine habitat which now exists on petitioner's property would be doomed and filling the lots would hasten the process at worst.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for fill permit unless and until Mariposa Road is upgraded, without installation of culverts, and paved, so that it acts as a dam impervious to the waters of Torch Ramrod Channel. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Edward B. Johnson, Jr., Esquire 410 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Mr. Louis F. Hubener, Esquire Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FRANCIS X. ATWATER, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1409 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Clifford O. Hunter, is the owner of real property located at Dekle Beach, Taylor County, Florida. Mr. Hunter's property is located at lot 53, Front Street, Dekle Beach, within section 22, township 7 south, range 7 east, Taylor County. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, dredge and fill permits involving Florida waters. Mr. Hunter lived in a home on his Dekle Beach property until a storm in March of 1993 destroyed the home. Mr. Hunter's Application for Permit. On or about June 2, 1993, Mr. Hunter applied for a wetland resource permit to rebuild his home, construct a bulkhead and fill 1750 square feet of salt marsh. The permit was designated No. 62-232123-2 by the Department. Mr. Hunter also sought approval for the construction of a dock. The dock, however, is exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule 17- 312.050(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. On July 21, 1993, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter. On August 13, 1993, Mr. Hunter filed a Request for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department contesting the denial of his permit application. The Department's Jurisdiction Over the Proposed Project. The proposed project involves dredging and filling in the waters of the State of Florida. A wetland resource permit is, therefore, required. Wetland jurisdiction of the State of Florida extends to the eastern edge of an existing concrete slab on Mr. Hunter's property from a canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's northern boundary. The canal connects with the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico surrounding Dekle Beach, except for an area extending 500 feet outward from the town limits of Dekle Beach, is within the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. The preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water (hereinafter referred to as an "OFW"). The evidence presented by the Department to support findings of fact 9, 10 and 11 was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Impact on Water Quality Standards. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Mr. Hunter has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not lower the existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department concerning adverse impacts of the proposed project on water quality standards was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Approval of Mr. Hunter's proposed project would allow the placing of fill in an intertidal area and the elimination of the portion of the intertidal area filled. Intertidal areas help maintain water quality by acting as a filter for water bodies. Mr. Hunter has obtained a variance from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which will allow him to place a septic tank on his property if the permit is granted. The septic tank will leach pollutants. Those pollutants will include nutrients, viruses and bacteria. Because the soil around the septic tank is very saturated, filtering of the pollutants will be low. Pollutants will, therefore, leach into the waters of the State of Florida and adversely impact water quality standards of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Under such circumstances, Mr. Hunter has failed to demonstrate that the project will not lower existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. Public Interest Test. Mr. Hunter failed to present evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed project will not be adverse to the public interest. Rather, the unrebutted evidence presented by the Department supports a finding that Mr. Hunter's proposed project will not be in the public interest, especially when the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, discussed, infra, are considered. Possible adverse impacts to the public interest include the following: The septic tank which Mr. Hunter will place in the 1750 square feet of filled area will allow fecal coliform, viruses and pathogens to leach into the waters of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Anyone who enters the canal could be infected from bacteria and viruses leaching from the septic tank. The conservation of fish and wildlife would also be adversely affected by the adverse impact on water quality and by the elimination of intertidal area. Recreational value of the canal would be reduced because of the adverse impact on water quality. The proposed project is for a permanent structure. Cumulative Impact. There are a number of applications for permits similar to the application filed by Mr. Hunter which have been filed by property owners of Dekle Beach whose homes were also destroyed by the March 1993 storm. If Mr. Hunter's permit application is granted, the Department will have to also grant most, if not all, of the other similar permit applications. Approximately 20 to 30 other applications involve similar requests which will allow the placement of fill and the installation of septic tanks. The resulting fill and use of septic tanks will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on the waters of the State of Florida. The cumulative impact from leaching effluent from the septic tanks on the waters of the State could be substantial. In addition to the impact on the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property, there will a cumulative negative impact on the ambient water quality of approximately 20 septic tanks on the canals and on the OFW. Errors in the Department's Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial issued by the Department contained the following errors: An incorrect description of Mr. Hunter's lot number and section number; An incorrect statement that the amount of Mr. Hunter's proposed fill would eliminate 3,200 square feet of marsh; An incorrect statement that Mr. Hunter proposed to fill his lot for a distance of 64 feet waterward. The errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial did not form any basis for the Department's denial of Mr. Hunter's application. The errors were typographical/word-processing errors. Several notices were being prepared at the same time as the Notice of Permit Denial pertaining to Mr. Hunter. The incorrect information contained in Mr. Hunter's Notice of Permit Denial was information which applied to the other notices. Other than the errors set out in finding of fact 23, the Notice of Permit Denial was accurate. Among other things, it was properly addressed to Mr. Hunter, it contained the project number assigned by the Department to Mr. Hunter's proposed project and it accurately reflected the Department's decision to deny Mr. Hunter's permit application. Mr. Hunter responded to the Notice of Permit Denial by requesting a formal administrative hearing to contest the Department's denial of his application. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Hunter received a letter from the Department which corrected the errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial. The corrections were also contained in a Notice of Correction filed in this case by the Department on December 20, 1993. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter within 90 days after his application was filed. The corrections to the Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter more than 90 days after his application was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and denying the issuance of permit number 62-232123-2 to Clifford O. Hunter. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Hunter's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 4. Although Ernest Frey, Director of District Management, Northeast District Office of the Department, did ask Mr. Hunter whether he wanted to sell his property to the State, the evidence failed to prove why Mr. Frey asked this question, that Mr. Frey asked the question in his official capacity with the Department, or that Mr. Frey made the inquiry at the direction or on behalf of the Department or the State. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that the Department denied the permit sought by Mr. Hunter because of any interest the State may have in purchasing Mr. Hunter's property. See 4. 6-8 No relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 6, 23, 28 and 30. Not a proposed finding of fact. See 8. The "aerial photo, Petitioner's exhibit 6, does not show "No vegetation behind the slab, nearly to the Mean High Water Line . . . ." Respondent's exhibit 3 does, however, show vegetation as testified to by Department witnesses. 13-14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not a proposed finding of fact. Generally correct. Mr. Hunter was not properly put on notice of "alternatives" by the Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, issued by the Department. Summation: Mr. Hunter's Summation was considered argument and was considered in this case. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 1 and 4-5. Accepted 6-7. Accepted in 8. 6-9 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 19. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 15. 17-18 Accepted in 15 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 15 and 20-21. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 22. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 15-16. Accepted in 17 and 21. 27-28 Accepted in 17. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 16. 32-33 The Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, did not put Mr. Hunter on notice that the alternatives raised by the Department at the final hearing would be an issue in this case. Those alternatives should not, therefore, form any basis for the Department's final decision. Accepted in 24-25. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 24 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford O. Hunter 1410 Ruby Street Live Oak, Florida 32060 Beth Gammie Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9730 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The County applied on August 24, 1979, for a permit to construct a swimming beach on the southwest shore of Sylvan Lake in the northwest part of Seminole County, Florida. On December 4, 1979, the Department gave notice of its intent to grant the permit. As proposed, the beach would be 150 feet in length along the shoreline and be approximately 65 feet deep, 40 feet on the land side of the waterline and 25 feet on the lake side of the shore waterline. Three dock structures are also proposed. The first is a boat dock to be 6 feet wide, which will extend into the lake for 25 feet with a 15 foot "L" at its end. In addition, a 6 foot wide, 20 foot long fishing pier is proposed with a 6 by 20 foot "T" on its end. Finally, the County proposes constructing a 6 foot wide 15 foot long aquatic study platform that would terminate in a 6 by 30 foot "T". The County plans to remove vegetation from an area of 150 feet long by 25 feet. As agreed at the hearing, this removal would be by hand only.. No machinery would be used. The site of the project is owned by the County. As part of its application, the County agrees to leave undisturbed 2,630 feet of the remaining shoreline it owns. At the present time approximately 20 percent of the lake's total shoreline is occupied by developed residential property. Many of the homeowners have removed the vegetation from their shorelines. The County's agreement not to alter 90 percent of its shoreline would therefore be beneficial to preserving the natural state of the lake. Sylvan Lake is an oligotropic spring-fed lake of 160 acres. Its well vegetated shoreline alternates between large grassy marshes and well-defined uplands. The lake bottom in the project site is firm sand with little potential for causing a turbidity problem. The lake has excellent water quality. It is a valuable habitat for fish and aquatic dependent birds and mammals. The vegetation along the shoreline of the project site consist of sawgrass, pickerelweed, and some arrowhead on the land side with spatterdock and mats of floating maidencane on the water side. In a freshwater closed system such as this lake the rooted emergent plants are vital to maintaining the quality of the water. The plants stabilize nutrients, expert oxygen and keep the water cool. The removal of this vegetation from a 150 foot strip will have an adverse but insignificant impact on the biological resources and the water quality of the lake. The construction of the fishing pier, boat dock, and observation platform will have no lasting environmental impact and the limited turbidity which may be generated during their construction can be well contained by the use of turbidity curtains. The swimming beach is a part of the County's plan for a diverse recreational park to provide the public with facilities for nature trails, baseball, picnicking, etc. The water classification of Sylvan Lake is Class III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1979). In this proceeding the Respondent, County, has the burden of proving that it has given reasonable assurances that the short term and long term effects of the proposed project will not result in violations of the water quality standards of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Section 17- 4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code; Dowdy v. Department of Environmental Regulation, Case No. 79-219, Recommended Order (DOAH July 19, 1979). That burden has been carried. The water quality standards of a Class III body such as Sylvan Lake are set out in Section 17-3.09, Florida Administrative Code. There is a preponderance of competent and substantial evidence that those standards in either the long term or in the short term will not be violated by the proposed project. The requisite reasonable assurances have therefore been given by the applicant. Hand removal of aquatic vegetation from a 150 foot strip of shoreline on a 186 acre lake, will have at most, a de minimus impact on the marine life, water quality or neighboring biota of Sylvan Lake. The applicant has met the criteria for the issuance of a permit, pursuant to Section 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation determining that the requested dredge and fill permit be issued subject to the usual conditions and subject to the applicant's stipulation that any vegetation removal will be performed by hand and subject to any conditions contained in the Notice of Intent To Issue Permit. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of April, 1980. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. & Mrs. Gilbert Lee Swartz Route 1, Box 228 DD South Sylvan Lake Drive Sanford, FL 32771 Nikki Clayton Seminole County Courthouse Room 302, 301 N. Park Avenue Sanford, FL 32771 Segundo J. Fernandez, Esq. and Stanley J. Niego, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Mr. Raymond Lipton Route 1, Box 60-A Longwood, FL 32750
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted No Notice General Environmental Resource Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 247 within Unit of Development 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, pursuant to permitting criteria of Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, Chapters 40E-40 and 40E-400, Florida Administrative Code, and the South Florida Water Management District's "Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications Within the South Florida Water Management District--November 1996."
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Royal Palm Beach Colony (Royal Palm), is a limited partnership registered and authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Respondent, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, as a water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Intervenor, 1000 Friends of Florida, Inc., is a not- for-profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Intervenor, Indian Trail Improvement District (ITID), is a special district of the State of Florida established by special act of the Legislature, Chapter 57-646, Laws of Florida, and operating pursuant to applicable provisions of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, as well as special acts of the Legislature. Royal Palm owns approximately 171 lots within Unit of Development 11 of ITID (Unit 11) in Palm Beach County, Florida. Each lot is approximately 1.25 acres. Not all of the lots owned by Royal Palm in Unit 11 are contiguous. Unit 11 is a rural subdivision within ITID, in which there are numerous private property owners. The property of Royal Palm that is the subject of dispute is comprised of three lots, Lots 61, 245, and 247. Unit 11 is within the C-18 Basin. Prior to the construction of the C-18 Canal, the area was typically drained by sheet flow to the north. Because of the flat topography, the drainage in the C-18 Basin is poor; therefore, following periods of heavy rainfall much of the land is inundated. Unit 11 contains an extensive amount of wetlands. There are currently no habitable structures within Unit 11. It consists of vacant lots with an interconnected network of roads, canals, and roadside swales. On August 15, 1975, SFWMD's predecessor, The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District, issued ITID a surface water management permit, Permit No. 50-00136-S (the 1975 permit) for construction and operation of a surface water management system serving Unit 11. The permit authorizes discharge from Unit 11 to the west leg of the C-18 canal via three culverts. In 1988, SFWMD undertook a comprehensive examination of the C-18 Basin, which resulted in a publication entitled "Technical Publication 88-11, Flood Management Study of the C- 18 Basin, August, 1988." The study documented that the western leg of the C-18 canal lacked capacity to accept the permitted discharge from Unit 11. SFWMD determined that the development of Unit 11's flood control and water quantity management system according to Permit No. 50-00136-S would be inconsistent with the overall objectives of SFWMD, harmful to the water resources and the public's health, safety, and welfare, and to the policies and purposes of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and not in the best interest of future residents of Unit 11. SFWMD and ITID entered into a consent agreement concerning Unit 11 on July 7, 1989 (the Consent Agreement). SFWMD and ITID agreed that ITID would apply for, process, and obtain a modification of Permit No. 50-00136-S to address and resolve SFWMD's flooding and water quality concerns. In addition, ITID was to construct the surface water management system authorized in the permit modification in accordance with the terms of the permit. ITID received a permit from SFWMD in 1990 authorizing modifications to the surface water management system in order to address the issues identified in the Consent Agreement, namely potential flooding of homes constructed for future residents of Unit 11. The improvements approved in the 1990 permit were never implemented, and the permit expired. In 1992, ITID proposed a different modification to the surface water management system that proposed an impoundment for retention of stormwater. The permit application was recommended for denial by SFWMD staff, but has never been presented to the SFWMD Governing Board for final agency action. The problems regarding the water quality and flooding problems set forth in the Consent Agreement have not been remedied. On December 4, 1997, Royal Palm obtained variances from the Palm Beach County Health Department (the Health Department), granting Royal Palm the right under certain specified conditions to construct on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTD Systems) on Lots 61, 245, and 247. Originally, the Health Department had denied Royal Palm's request for permission to construct the OSTD Systems on lots 61, 245, and 247 on the grounds that the lots were located in an area subject to frequent flooding and the drainage in the subdivision had not been constructed in accordance with SFWMD's requirements. Subsequent to the granting of the variance, Royal Palm revised its site plans for the three lots, and those revised plans have not been reviewed by the Health Department for compliance with applicable rules. On March 19, 1998, Royal Palm notified SFWMD that Royal Palm was entitled to a No Notice General Permit (NNGP) for Lots 61, 245, and 247 for activities in uplands pursuant to Rule 40E-400.315, Florida Administrative Code. On April 9, 1998, SFWMD issued its agency action by letter that informed Royal Palm that SFWMD staff had determined that the three lots did not qualify for a NNGP. The letter stated the reasons for denial as follows: Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is not part of a larger common plan of development. See Rule 40E- 400.315(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Royal Palm Colony is the owner of approximately 170 lots within Unit 11 of the Indian Trail Improvement District, and the three proposed lots appear to be merely part of this large common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system with use of septic systems and the associated lack of water quality treatment will not cause pollution in violation of water quality standards. See Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e), and 40E-400.215(11), Fla. Admin. Code. There is not a viable or functioning stormwater management system in place or proposed to provide reasonable assurance that the septic systems would properly function. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including, but not limited to, significant interference with the construction and operation of a regional stormwater system needed for adequate flood protection and stormwater treatment in the Unit 11 area. See Rule 40E-400.301(1)(f), Fla. Admin. Code. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(a), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse flooding to on-site and or/or (sic) off-site properties. See Rule 40E- 4.301(10)(b), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurances have not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. See Rule 40E-4.301(10)(c), Fla. Admin. Code. The proposed project adds impervious area and eliminates water storage. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that construction and/or operation of the proposed system will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species and other surface waters. See Rule 40-4.301(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. This consideration is especially relevant when considering the larger common plan of development. Reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that the proposed system or project is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. See Rule 40E- 4.301(1)(i), Fla. Admin. Code. On April 23, 1998, Royal Palm filed its Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with the clerk of SFWMD, initiating this proceeding. Rule 40E-400.315(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, is intended to authorize only very minor activities that have no potential to cause harm to water resources. Because the NNGP is issued by rule, SFWMD does not typically review projects that are conducted pursuant to a NNGP. A NNGP does not authorize projects that are part of a common plan of development or sale. In determining whether an activity is within a larger common plan of development, SFWMD staff look to see whether the project has shared infrastructure that facilitates development, such as canals, swales, and roads. A surface water management is in place in Unit 11. It consists of roads, swales, and drainage canals. The system drains to the C-18 canal via three culverts. The system was put into place as a result of the issuance of the 1975 permit, but there have been no modifications to the system as required by the Consent Agreement. During the last ten years ITID has done minimal maintenance to the system. A common road network within Unit 11 provides access to each of the three lots. The lots will depend on the swales and drainage canals as part of overall stormwater management system that serves Unit 11. Unit 11 is a common plan of development. Accordingly, the activities proposed by Royal Palm, filling in order to construct three single family houses with driveways, mounded septic tank systems, and wells within Unit 11 are not authorized pursuant to a NNGP. Royal Palm's predecessor company originally owned all the lots in Unit 11. Royal Palm is presently liquidating its assets. Royal Palm selected the three lots at issue in this case for permitting for individual homes because the lots represented a good overview of the different types of Royal Palm's holdings in the area. If Royal Palm is able to build homes on the three lots and depending on the market conditions and other outside factors, Royal Palm will make a decision on how to liquidate the other 168 lots in Unit 11. It is anticipated that the construction of the homes on the lots at issue will involve placement of fill. Land development, including the placement of fill, displaces stormwater that would, on a property in its natural condition, pond on the surface or soak into the ground. In order to determine whether a project complies with the flood protection criteria, SFWMD staff must consider the effect the proposed land development has off-site, and the effects surrounding lands may have on the lot to be developed. The flood routing calculations provided by Royal Palm in its application did not provide any analysis of how discharges from surrounding properties would affect the performance of the surface water management systems constructed on the lots at issue. Nor did Royal Palm address the potential for flooding of off-site properties by stormwater displaced by fill and impervious areas that are contemplated on Lots 61, 245, and 247. The three lots are not hydrologically separate from the remainder of Unit 11. Royal Palm's failure to include a detailed analysis of the surrounding area also precluded SFWMD from making a determination as to the impacts of the proposed activities upon existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The proposed projects are single family houses. It is reasonable to expect that some discharge of untreated stormwater runoff from the system directly into wetlands and other surface water will occur. For Lots 245, 247, and 61, the proposed stormwater management system includes a dry detention area. Considering the topographic information for this site, part of the runoff from the fill area will not flow into the dry detention area but will flow untreated directly into wetlands and other surface waters. The runoff could reasonably be expected to include oils, grease, and petroleum from the driveway area and herbicide and pesticides from the yard area. The untreated runoff could pose an adverse impact. Development adjacent to wetlands has the potential to disrupt the usage of those wetlands by wildlife. Section 4.2.7 of the Basis of Review provides that secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities are not considered adverse if buffers with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet are provided abutting those wetlands. In certain circumstances, additional measures are necessary. The Basis of Review provides that buffers must be in undisturbed condition, except that drainage features can be located in the buffer if their construction and operation will not negatively impact the wetlands. The design drawings for Lots 245 and 247 demonstrate that the buffers are not undisturbed because fill will be placed in the buffer areas. There is no treatment system in place for the roads in Unit 11; thus, there is a potential for untreated runoff from the roads, which could contain oils, grease, and petroleum constituents, to reach wetlands or surface waters. The roads in Unit 11 are sometimes under water and will require increased maintenance to correct erosion from increased vehicular traffic. Road maintenance and grading present the potential to discharge sediment laden water into adjacent wetlands. This threat is particularly great in Unit 11 because many of the roads go directly through wetlands. The engineering calculations submitted by Royal Palm anticipate that the elevation of the roads will be raised. Raising the elevations will require additional fill, and because several roads in Unit 11 go through wetlands, additional filling of wetlands can be anticipated. Section 6.9(a) of the Basis of Review, requires that residential projects must have the calculated ability to discharge a sufficient volume of stormwater such that the system can return to the control elevation within 12 days of a design storm event. Royal Palm failed to provide information demonstrating that the storage volume provided by the systems proposed for the three lots can be recovered and therefore available for subsequent storm events. Without an adequate understanding of the functioning of the overall surface stormwater management system in Unit 11, it is impossible to determine the amount of time necessary for the systems on the three lots to bleed down to control elevation. In order to allow access to the three lots from the roads, fill must be placed in the roadside swales. Because the elevation of the roadside swales is below the seasonal high water table, they are defined as other surface waters. The swales are depressional areas that support an abundance of obligate wetland vegetation; thus, they are encompassed within the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. Thus, the project will involve direct impacts to wetlands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Royal Palm Beach Colony, L.P.'s application for No Notice General Permits for Lots 61, 245, and 237. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 9th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel H. Poole, III, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Teresa J. Moore, Esquire Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen & Quentel, P.A. 777 South Flagler Drive Suite 300 East West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 1000 Friends of Florida Post Office Box 5948 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles F. Schoesch, Esquire Caldwell & Pacetti 234 Royal Palm Way, Suite 300 Palm Beach, Florida 33480
The Issue The ultimate issue to be addressed in this proceeding is whether the Applicants should be granted a dredge and fill permit. Petitioner contends that the Applicants have failed to provide reasonable assurances that the short-term and long-term effects of their proposed activities will not result in violations of the Department's water quality standards for both surface water and groundwater. The Applicants and the Department contend that reasonable assurances have been provided.
Findings Of Fact The Applicants are the owners of a 1,248-acre parcel of land located at the intersection of State Road 710 and State Road 711 in northern Palm Beach County, Florida. The Applicants are proposing to develop an industrial park known as "Palm Beach Park of Commerce" (PBPC). PBPC will provide sites for tenants to carry on various commercial and industrial activities. In order to prepare the site for development, the Applicants have designed a surface water management system. In order to develop the system, the Applicants must conduct dredging and filling activities in areas where the Department of Environmental Regulation has permitting jurisdiction. The Petitioner is an association of home owners within a single family residential development known as "Caloosa." The development is located to the southeast of the proposed PBPC. Surface and ground water flows from the PBPC site are toward Caloosa. Residents of Caloosa and members of the Petitioner are entirely dependent on private individual wells for their drinking water. The surficial aquifer is the only viable source of drinking water. The proposed PBPC surface water management system would allow water to drain from the site into an excavated canal which would essentially follow the perimeter of the site. The canal would discharge at the southeast corner of the site into the Caloosa Canal, which runs through the Caloosa residential development. The Caloosa Canal is designated as a Class III water body. The Caloosa Canal drains into the "C-18 Canal," which is maintained by the South Florida Water Management District. The point at which the Caloosa Canal discharges into the C-18 Canal is approximately 2.4 miles from the PBPC site. The C-18 Canal is designated as a Class I water body. The C-18 Canal ultimately discharges into the Loxahatchee River Basin, a Class II water body, which is located approximately 12.9 miles from the PBPC site. It is possible that during some periods of the year, water from the PBPC site would ultimately find its way to the Jonathan Dickinson park, where water has been designated as "outstanding Florida waters." It is approximately 13.2 miles from the PBPC site to the Jonathan Dickinson Park. The PBPC site is a high, marginal, stressed Everglades system. It is a prairie or pine flatwood area. During periods of heavy rainfall, water covers most of the site. During dry periods, there is standing water only in depressions. Approximately 200 acres of the site are inundated with water during a sufficient portion of the year to support predominantly wetland vegetation. Approximately 24 acres of the wetlands on the site are directly connected to drainage ditches that presently rim the site. The ditches are connected to the Caloosa Canal so that these 24 acres are ultimately connected through canal systems to the Loxahatchee River. These wetland areas, which will be hereafter referenced as "jurisdictional wetlands," are the only wetland areas other than the existing drainage ditches over which the Department of Environmental Regulation asserts jurisdiction under its Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code. As a part of its surface water management system, the Applicants propose to maintain 133.7 acres of the wetlands on the site in their natural condition. These wetland areas would be incorporated into the surface water management system so that surface water would flow into the wetlands, then through culverts or drainage ditches into the perimeter canal. The remaining wetlands on the site, including all of the "jurisdictional wetlands," would be filled. The wetlands on the PBPC site perform a significant water quality function. The wetlands serve as a filtration system. Wetland vegetation removes nutrients and turbidity from surface water before it is discharged into the canals and ultimately into the Loxahatchee River. The wetlands that the Applicants propose to preserve on the site would continue to perform that beneficial function. In order to mitigate the loss of the wetlands that would be filled, the Applicants propose to create approximately 85 acres of new wetland areas and to vegetate these areas. These artificially created wetlands, if properly constructed, vegetated and maintained, would perform the same beneficial functions as the natural wetland communities. The Applicants have proposed to introduce several safeguards into their water management system to assure that the quality of surface and ground water in the area will not be adversely impacted. The preservation of 133 acres of natural wetland areas and the creation of approximately 85 acres of artificial wetland areas is one of these safeguards. In addition, the surface water management system includes the creation of swales around water bodies so that the first one inch of stormwater runoff on the site will not drain directly into surface water bodies. By retaining the first one inch of runoff, pollutants contained in stormwater runoff will be retained on the site and will not enter surface or ground waters. Each commercial or industrial site at PBPC will be required to retain an additional one inch of stormwater runoff on the individual site. This will serve to filter pollutants out of stormwater runoff even before the runoff reaches the overall surface water management system in which one inch of runoff will also be retained on site. The Applicants have also agreed to establish a surface water quality management program to prohibit the discharge of any industrial waste into the surface water management system and to have the surface water management system maintained by the Northern Palm Beach Water Control District. There are further safeguards proposed by the Applicants. The Applicants have agreed to prohibit the most potentially hazardous industrial activities from being undertaken on the site. Applicants have also agreed to require each individual site plan to be reviewed by local government, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Department of Environmental Regulation so that potential water quality problems connected with site-specific uses can be identified and, if necessary, prohibited. The Applicants have agreed to establish an environmental liaison officer whose function will be to monitor all development on the site and report routinely to local government, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Department of Environmental Regulation regarding environmental issues. In order that any potential groundwater pollution can be detected and, if necessary, steps taken to remove pollutants from the groundwater, the Applicants have agreed to establish well- monitoring systems for the project as a whole and for individual sites. Individual site plans have not yet been formulated. It is not practical or possible to design water monitoring programs for the individual sites at this time. Once the nature of activities at a site are known, monitoring programs can be effectively set up and maintained. In the event that surface or ground water contamination occurs, it can be detected through monitoring programs, and the contaminants can be removed. The Applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the short-term and long-term effects of the construction of the PBPC water management system will not result in violations of the Department's water quality standards for surface or ground water. By use of turbidity screens during construction, short-term impacts will be negligible. Absent any construction on the site beyond the creation of the surface water management system, it is likely that the quality of water leaving the PBPC site will be as good or better than at present. Since the Applicants have not yet located tenants or made individual site plans for commercial and industrial activities within PBPC, it is not possible to determine if some specific activity in the future could operate to cause violations of the Department's water quality standards. In order that there be such assurances, the Applicants have agreed to subject individual site plans to review by local government, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Department of Environmental Regulation. In the event that a future tenant is not able to provide required assurances, the use can and should be prohibited, and can be prohibited by regulatory agencies as a condition of permits issued to the Applicants. Water quality violations presently occur in the Caloosa Canal and the C-18 Canal. The safeguards proposed by Applicants reasonably assure that the implementation of the proposed water management system will not exacerbate or cotribute to these violations. There is approximately an 11-square-mile area which drains into the Caloosa Canal through the outfall at the southeast corner of the PBPC site. The PBPC site constitutes approximately two square miles of this area. The remaining nine square miles are located to the north and west of the PBPC site. These off-site areas are undeveloped and have an ecology very similar to the presently undeveloped PBPC site. The evidence would not establish a finding that development of these off-site parcels together with development of the PBPC site would cumulatively result in water quality violations of surface or ground waters. The Applicants will be required to obtain permits to construct a wastewater treatment facility on the PBPC site. Whether any proposed wastewater treatment system will meet the standards of regulatory agencies would appropriately be considered in later proceedings. Similarly, individual tenants will, in some cases, be required to operate wastewater treatment systems that pretreat industrial waste before it is introduced into the system-wide wastewater treatment system or before it is otherwise removed from the site. These systems would also be subject to future permitting proceedings. Some of the potential activities that could be carried on by tenants at the PBPC involve the use of volatile organic compounds and other hazardous toxic substances. If proper techniques are not followed for the handling of such substances, or if some accident occurs, the substances could be introduced into the surface and ground waters. Review of each individual site plan and the establishing of systems for properly handling toxic substances can reduce the possibility of incidents occurring. Human frailties existing as they do, however, it is not unlikely that such an incident will occur. If such an incident occurs, it is vitally important that the contamination of surface or ground water be quickly detected and that steps be taken to remove the contaminant. The establishing of proper monitoring systems can reasonably assure that the contamination is identified. Techniques do exist for removing contaminants from surface and ground waters. Since individual tenants and site plans have not yet been established, it is not possible to make any finding as to whether any individual tenant or site plan might operate in such a manner as to cause violations of the Department's water quality standards. It is therefore appropriate that individual tenants and site plans be subjected to further review by appropriate regulatory agencies before they are permitted to operate on the PBPC site. The Applicants have agreed to such a review process. Since surface water flows into the Caloosa Canal can be controlled through the outfall structure at the southeast corner of the PBPC site, it appears practical to isolate any contaminant that might enter the surface water and to remove it. Groundwater flows in the aquifer lying below the PBPC site are very slow--less than one-tenth of one foot per day. Given such flow rates, it is likely that any contaminants that enter the groundwater can be detected and effectively removed. Even given the implementation of the best procedures for handling toxic substances, the best monitoring program for detecting accidental releases of the substances, and the best systems for removing the substances from surface and ground waters, there is some possibility that an accident could occur, that a contaminant would not be detected, and that violations of the Department's water quality standards could occur as a result in the Caloosa Canal or in the groundwater which underlies the Caloosa development and provides drinking water to residents there. The result of such an incident could have very serious impacts. The introduction of toxic substances into the surface waters could cause a substantial damage as far downstream as the Loxahatchee River Basin. Contamination of the groundwater could result in a loss of water supply to residents or in serious public health consequences. While such possibilities exist, they appear unlikely given the safeguards that have been proposed for PBPC. The Applicants do not propose to undertake any dredging or filling activities in any navigable waters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order issuing a permit to Caleffe Investment, Ltd., Worthington Enterprises, Inc., to conduct the dredging and filling activities proposed by the Applicants. To ensure that state water quality standards will not be violated, the conditions cited in the Department's Intent to Issue notice dated October 22, 1982, should be made a part of the permit. In addition, the following conditions should be made a part of the permit: All individual site plans within PBPC should be subject to the Department's permitting processes in accordance with Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, and other provisions of Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, as may apply. The Applicants should be required to post bond in a sufficient amount to assure proper implementation and operation of monitoring systems for individual sites and to assure that adequate funds are available to remove and properly treat contaminants that might enter surface or ground waters as a result of accidents. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Randall E. Denker, Esquire Lehrman & Denker Post Office Box 1736 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dennis R. Erdley, Esquire Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert M. Rhodes, Esquire Terry E. Lewis, Esquire James Hauser, Esquire Messer, Rhodes & Vickers Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Alan J. Ciklin, Esquire Boose & Ciklin 8th Floor - The Concourse 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Tracy Sharpe, Esquire Farish, Farish & Romani 316 First Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Liz Cloud, Chief Administrative Code Bureau Department of State The Capitol, Suite 1802 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carroll Webb, Esquire Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
