The Issue Whether the applicants own the property in question? Whether the project would comply with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District contained in Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Systems, specifically Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2? Whether flood protection would be inadequate or septic tanks unsuitable or whether the public health and safety would be compromised or the ultimate purchasers be deprived of usage of the property due to inundation in violation of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes (1981), or Rule 40E-4.301(1), Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Ms. Williamson and Messrs. Leggett and Collins hold in fee simple a triangular 117.24-acre parcel in Okeechobee County as tenants in common under a warranty deed executed in their favor by one W. C. Sherman. They propose to develop the property as a trailer park (complete with airstrip) large enough to accommodate 109 trailers. To this end, soil would be dug up from the center of the property and used to raise the elevation of the surrounding land above the 100-year floodplain. (T. 47) The applicants have a dredging permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation authorizing them to excavate 629,889 cubic yards. They are proposing to dig to a depth of 76 feet below ground. This would create an 18-acre body of water ("Poe's Lake") which would overflow a V-notched weir into a county canal. The county canal would take the water to C- 38, one of the large canals to which the Kissimmee River has been relegated, at a point about 18 miles upstream from Lake Okeechobee. Runoff would wash over residential lots and roadways; the site would be graded to assure drainage into Poe's Lake. The minimum road crest elevation would be 30 feet NGVD ("[a]round twenty-nine feet" T.52), as compared to the control elevation for surface waters of 28.5 feet NGVD. WATER QUALITY The developers plan septic tanks for wastewater treatment. At the close of all the evidence, counsel for the applicants stated that sanitary sewers could be installed instead. Respondents' Proposed Recommended Order, p. With all the housing units in use, at least 10,900 gallons of effluent would seep into the ground from the tanks daily. There would be some evapotranspiration, but all the chemicals dissolved in the effluent would eventually end up in the groundwater. During the dry season, septic tank effluent would cause mounding of the groundwater and some groundwater movement toward, and eventual seepage into, Poe's Lake. The eventual result would be eutrophication and the growth of algae or macrophytes on the surface of Poe's Lake. This would cause dissolved oxygen violations in Poe's Lake. Discharges from the lake would inevitably occur, aggravating the situation in C-38, which already experiences dissolved oxygen levels below 5.0 milligrams per liter in the rainy summer months. Some fraction of the nutrients in the effluent from the septic tanks would ultimately reach Lake Okeechobee itself. The sheer depth of the excavation would create another water quality problem. Under the anaerobic conditions that would obtain at the bottom of Poe's Lake, bacteria acting on naturally occurring sulfates would produce hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and various other reduced organic nitrogen compounds. These substances are toxic to human beings and would, in some indeterminate quantity, enter the groundwater from Poe's Lake. This would affect the taste and perhaps the potability of water from any well nearby. It would be "possible to design a better system where there would be nutrient removal and a greatly reduced probability of violation of the dissolved oxygen criterion and obviation of the potential for ground water contamination." (T. 200) Installation of a baffle on the weir would serve to prevent buoyant debris from entering surface waters of the state. BASIS OF REVIEW Official recognition was taken of the "Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within the South Florid Water Management District," parts of which all parties agree pertain in the present proceedings. Among the criteria stated in this document are: 3.1.3 Waste and Wastewater Service - Potable water and wastewater facilities must be identified. The Applicant for a Surface Water Management Permit must provide information on how these services are to be provided. If wastewater disposal is accomplished on-site, additional information will normally be requested regarding separation of waste and storm systems. 3.2.1.4 Flood protection - Building floors shall be above the 100 year flood elevations, as determined from the most appropriate information, including Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Both tidal flooding and the 100 year, 3 day storm event shall be considered in determining elevations. b. Commercial and industrial projects to be subdivided for sale are required to have installed by the permittee, as a minimum, the required water quality system for one inch of runoff detention or one half inch of runoff retention from the total developed site. State standards - Projects shall be designed so that discharges will meet State water quality standards, as set forth in Chapter 17-3, Retention/detention criteria - Retention and/or detention in the overall system, including swales, lakes, canals, greenways, etc., shall be provided for one of the three following criteria or equivalent combinations thereof . . . Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of runoff from the developed project, or the total runoff from a 3-year, 1-hour rainfall event, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. Retention volume shall be provided equal to 50 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. 3.2.4.1 Discharge structures should include gratings for safety and maintenance purposes. The use of trash collection screens is desirable. Discharge structures shall include a "baffle" system to encourage discharge from the center of the water column rather than the top or bottom. 3.2.4.4.2 b. Control elevations should be no higher than 2 feet below the minimum road centerline elevation in the area served by the control device in order to protect the road subgrade. Simply detaining runoff before discharging it offsite will not insure that the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3 will be met. Whether the standards are met depends on, among other things, the composition of the runoff. FWF'S INTEREST Among the purposes of the FWF, as stated in its charter, Shall be to further advance the cause of conservation in environmental protection, to perpetuate and conserve fish and wildlife, oil, water, clean air, other resources of the State and so manage the use of all natural resources, that this generation and posterity will receive the maximum benefit from the same. (T. 248-9) Four or five thousand Floridians belong to FWF. FWF members "make use" (T. 250) of the waters of Lake Okeechobee, the Kissimmee River and specifically of the waters in C-38. PROPOSED FINDINGS CONSIDERED The applicants and FWF filed post hearing memoranda and proposed recommended orders including proposed findings of fact which have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. They have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That SFWMD deny the pending application for surface water management permit. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis J. Powers, Esquire Gunster, Yoakley, Criser & Stewart 400 South County Road Palm Beach 33480 Terrell K. Arline, Esquire 325-C Clematis Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Irene Kennedy Quincey, Esquire 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Charles P. Houston, Esquire 324 Datura Street, Suite 106 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue Whether FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the activities it proposes to conduct pursuant to proposed District SWM Permit Application No. 940606-10, WRM Permit Application No. 940606-2-D and modification to ROW Permit No. 2584 will comply with the relevant permit criteria set forth in Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., and applicable rules and criteria promulgated thereunder.
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner, 1000 Friends of Florida (1000 Friends), is a not-for-profit, tax exempt membership corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. The principal office of 1000 Friends is 926 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32314 and it also maintains an office at 3305 College Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314. Petitioner, Florida Bay Initiative, Inc. (FBII), is an entity incorporated under the laws of Florida with its principal office located at 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. Petitioner, the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association, is an association of sport fishing guides who live in the Florida Keys and is headquartered at 138 Royal Lane, Islamorada, Florida 33036. Petitioner, Michael Collins, is a private individual. His address is 138 Royal Lane, Islamorada, Florida 33036. Petitioner, Charles W. Causey, is a private individual. His address is Post Office Box 448, Islamorada, Florida 33036. Petitioner, the Florida Keys Concerned Citizens Coalition (FKCC), is a not-for-profit Florida corporation whose address is West Shore Drive, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. Petitioner, AG Intus, Inc., filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on August 9, 1996. DOAH Case 95-5524, the proceeding filed by Intus, was previously consolidated with the other cases to this proceeding. On August 12, 1996, the Intus case was severed from this proceeding and the Intus hearing cancelled. Respondent, the South Florida Water Management District (the District or SFWMD), is a public corporation in the State of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S., and Title 40E, F.A.C., as a multi-purpose water management district, with its principle office in West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), is an agency of the State of Florida. Its District Six address is 1000 N.W. 111th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33172. Intervenor, Monroe County, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. For the purposes of this proceeding the address for Monroe County is c/o Apgar and Pelham, 909 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The District, FDOT and Monroe County did not object to the standing of the Petitioners at the formal hearing and represented that they will not object to the standing in the event of an appeal. Based on the representations of the Respondents, the Petitioners were not required to put on a case as to their standing. THE THREE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FDOT has applied to the District for a Wetland Resource Management (WRM) permit, a Surface Water Management (SWM) permit, and a Right of Way (ROW) occupancy permit. On June 6, 1994, the Applicant submitted applications for surface water management and wetland resource management permits for the purpose of widening and modifying this 20.4 mile stretch of U.S. 1. The surface water management permit application is identified as Application No. 940606-10. The wetland resource management permit application is identified as Application No. 940606-2-D. On October 24, 1995, the District issued Staff Reports on Permit Application No. 960606-10 and Permit Application No. 94060-2-D. These Staff Reports recommended issuance of the permits subject to general and special conditions as specified therein. An addendum to the staff report was issued November 3, 1995. On September 27, 1994, the Applicant submitted a request to modify its existing ROW Occupancy Permit to enable it to replace the bridge where U.S. 1 crosses the C-111 Canal. The land encompassed by the ROW occupancy permit challenged in this proceeding is located in Section 16 and 17, Township 59 South, Range 39 East, Dade County, Florida. A draft right-of-way occupancy permit with standard limiting and special conditions was produced as part of a package that went to the Governing Board and others. The proposed authorization for use of the ROW is for the following: REMOVAL OF EXISTING U.S. HIGHWAY 1 BRIDGE AND REPLACEMENT WITH A NEW FIXED BRIDGE. PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SERVICE/ACCESS ROAD, 2 DETENTION PONDS, 2 CATCH BASINS, 2-15" R.C.P. OUTFALLS, BOAT RAMP WITH LOADING DOCK, PARKING AREA, PEDESTRIAN GATE AT S-197, FENCING AND WILDLIFE CROSSING ALL WITHIN THE NORTH AND SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF C-111 (STATION 938+00 - 955+00). The draft right-of-way occupancy permit modification, identified as “SFWMD PERMIT NO. MOD 2548," should correctly be identified at “SFWMD PERMIT NO. MOD 2584.” The numbers “8” and “4” were inadvertently transposed. STIPULATIONS AS TO APPLICABLE LAW The parties have accurately set forth the applicable permitting criteria and the appropriate Basis of Review in their prehearing stipulation. CRITERIA FOR ROW PERMIT Rule 40E-6.301, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: In determining whether an occupancy permit should be issued, the District shall consider whether the proposed activity: interferes with the present or future construction, alteration, operation or maintenance of the works of the District; is consistent with the policy and objectives of Chapter 373 F.S., the legislative declaration of policy contained in Section 373.016, F.S. and the state water policy, Chapter 17-40, F.A.C.; has an actual or potential negative impact upon environmentally sensitive areas, which include: wetlands; endangered or threatened species habitat; aquatic preserves; outstanding Florida waters; federal, state and privately owned parks and wildlife management areas; designated areas of critical state concern; lands purchased by federal, state and local governments for the purpose of environmental protection, water resource protection and esthetics; and lands which contain native terrestrial plant species in significant amounts. Environmentally sensitive areas include areas on and off- site that are affected by activities which occur on, or are initiated from, the District’s works; degrades water quality within the receiving water body or fails to meet the provisions of Ch. 373, F.S., the state water policy, and Ch. 40E, F.A.C.; involves a discharge of wastewater from a new wastewater source or an increased discharge from an existing wastewater source; will discharge debris or aquatic weeds into District lands or works or cause erosion or shoaling within the works of the District; is supported by financial assurances, which will ensure that the proposed activity will be conducted in accordance with Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapter 40E-6, F.A.C.; presents an increased liability risk to the District; meets the general and specific criteria in the Basis of Review which is incorporated by reference in Rule 40E- 6.091, F.A.C.; interferes with actual or potential public use of the District’s works or public, recreational or other facilities not within the District’s works; is consistent with local zoning and other private land uses in the area; interferes with the quality or quantity of a public or private water supply; meets applicable criteria in Chapters 40E-61 and 40E-62, F.A.C.; ROW occupancy permits typically have standard limiting conditions which are incorporated as part of the permit. The permit may also have special limiting conditions. CRITERIA FOR PERMITTING THE SWM SYSTEM Rule 40E-4.301(1), Florida Administrative Code, contains the following criteria that, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, were used by SFWMD in determining whether to permit a surface water management system: In order to obtain or modify a permit under this chapter, an applicant must give reasonable assurances that the surface water system: provides adequate flood protection and drainage, without causing over- drainage, will not cause adverse water quality and quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands regulated pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S., will not cause discharges which result in any violations, in surface waters of the state, of the standards and criteria of chapter 17-302, F.A.C., will not cause adverse on-site or off-site impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows, including impacts to sources of water supply and wetland hydrology, will not cause adverse environmental impacts, can be effectively operated and maintained, will not adversely affect public health and safety, is consistent with the State Water Policy, chapter 17-40, F.A.C., for a DRI with a signed Preliminary Development Agreement with the Florida Department of Community Affairs, pursuant to section 380.06(8), F.S., provides a surface water management system for that portion of the site approval for development which is able to operate separately from the surface water management system for the balance of the project site and still meet applicable District criteria. meets any applicable basin criteria in chapter 40E-41, F.A.C., will not otherwise be harmful to the water resources of the District, will not interfere with the legal rights of others as defined in subsection 17-40.401(8), F.A.C., is not against public policy, will meet general and specific criteria in the document described in subsection 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C., (0) will meet criteria for isolated wetlands, which are found in Appendix 7 of the document described in rule 40E- 4.091(1)(a), F.A.C., (p) will meet the criteria for above ground impoundments, which are found in Appendix 6 of the document described in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C. The SFWMD has adopted certain procedures and criteria contained in a document, referred to as “Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications Within The South Florida Water Management District” (BOR). Subsection 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C. incorporates this document by reference into Chapter 40E-4, F.A.C. The BOR is a document that is “described in subsection 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C.,” within the meaning of Rule 40E-4.301(1), F.A.C. The BOR establishes a rebuttable presumption that water quality criteria are met through specified volumetric retention and detention requirements. These performance based criteria are designed to be flexible. CRITERIA FOR THE WRM PERMIT In 1992 DEP entered into an Operating Agreement with the District, which delegated to the District responsibility for issuing wetland resource management (WRM) permits, which are required for dredge and fill activities in wetlands. Both DEP and the District implement the same wetland resource permit and MSSW permit rules. The District agrees with DEP's interpretation and application of the WRM permitting rules and non-rule policy, and applies the same when issuing such permits. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes (1991), provides the pertinent criteria that must be applied by the District in determining whether to grant or deny the WRM permit. That criteria requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. In addition, for projects in OFW, the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the project is clearly in the public interest. THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST The District is required to balance the following criteria, found at Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), in determining whether a project is clearly within the public interest: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. MITIGATION If the applicant is unable to otherwise meet the public interest test, the District shall, pursuant to Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes, “consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects which may be caused by the project . . .” The District thereafter re-evaluates the project to determine whether the project, as mitigated, meets the public interest test. The criteria for mitigation is found in Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, Title 40 E (including the Basis of Review) and Rule 62-312, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62-312.330, Florida Administrative Code, states the general criteria for evaluating mitigation proposals as follows: The goal of the mitigation proposal shall be to offset the expected adverse impact of the project that have resulted in the project being deemed unpermittable such that the resulting project with mitigation is not contrary to the public interest or, in the case of Outstanding Florida Waters, is clearly in the public interest. Each project must be separately evaluated to determine whether the proposed mitigation is sufficient. Rule 62-312.340, Florida Administrative Code, provides guidelines that are to be used in evaluating proposed mitigation projects. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA FDOT proposes to widen a 20.4 mile portion of U.S. 1 in southern Dade County and northern Monroe County. Approximately seven miles of the project area is in Monroe County and approximately thirteen miles is in Dade County. The northern terminus of the project is the intersection of U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road, which is located in Dade County south of Florida City. The southern terminus of the project is the intersection of U.S. 1 and Abaco Road on Key Largo in Monroe County. The corridor of the proposed project passes through Sections 6, 7, 16, 18, 21, 27, 28, Township 59 South, Range 39 East; Sections 24, 25, 36, Township 58 South, Range 38 East; Sections 16, 19, 30, 31, Township 58 South, Range 39 East, Sections 16, 30, 31, Township 60 South, Range 40 East; Sections 25, 26, Township 60 South, Ranges 39 East, Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida. U.S. 1 is the main highway between northern Monroe County and southern Dade County. The only other road between Monroe County and Dade County is Card Sound Road. The Florida Keys is designated as an Area of Critical State Concern, pursuant to Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes. The Dade County portion of the road, north of the C- 111 canal, lies within typical Everglades habitat, which is classified as environmentally protected lands of Dade County. Most of the project corridor in Dade County is part of or adjacent to the Everglades National Park. Valuable wetlands exist throughout the project corridor. The following bodies of water will receive discharges if the surface water management system is permitted: C-111 Canal, Jewfish Creek, Lake Surprise, Blackwater Sound, Barnes Sound, Little Blackwater Sound, Long Sound, Manatee Bay, Sarge Lake, andManatee Creek. The receiving bodies of water are Outstanding Florida Waters (OFWs) or are connected to OFWs. THE EXISTING ROADWAY As it presently exists in the project area, U.S. 1 is a two lane undivided highway with two passing zones that are each one mile in length. Each travel lane on the existing facility is twelve feet wide. The existing shoulder on either side of the road consists of four feet of pavement and six feet of grassed area. FDOT Exhibit 7 accurately depicts the existing roadway typical section. Exotic vegetation, generally limited to the areas immediately adjacent to the highway, exist throughout the project corridor. These exotic species are present because FDOT has failed to properly maintain its right of way. A clear zone is an unobstructed area that includes the shoulder of the roadway and typically extends beyond the shoulder. The purpose of the clear zone is to provide a driver who has lost control of his or her vehicle a sufficient clear recovery area to regain control of the vehicle so that it can be maneuvered back onto the road. The clear zone for the existing road is inadequate to provide a safe recovery area. There is at present a two lane bridge over Manatee Creek, a two-lane bridge crossing the C-111 Canal, a bascule bridge, which is a drawbridge, over Jewfish Creek, and a two lane causeway through Lake Surprise. The two existing passing zones are located in Dade County. The first is south of U.S. 1’s intersection with the C-111 canal between mile markers 113-115. The second passing lane is approximately four miles south of the northern terminus of the project between mile markers 120-122. Each existing passing zone is undivided and consists of two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes, with each travel lane being twelve feet in width. The shoulders in the passing zones are the same as for the typical section. A surface water management (SWM) system is defined by Rule 40E-4.021(5), Florida Administrative Code , as being "the collection of devices, improvements or natural systems whereby surface waters are controlled, impounded, or obstructed.". There is no surface water management system presently associated with the road. The roadbed is elevated approximately five feet above mean sea level according to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum and was constructed on the old railroad bed of the Florida East Coast Railroad. No hydrologic culverts have been placed within the roadbed. Consequently, surface water flow between the eastern and western sides of the road north of the C-111 Canal has been cut off. C-109 AND C-111 CANALS In the 1960's, the C-109 and C-111 canals were constructed as part of an overall water management system in the area. As a result of the roadbed and the canals, water has been impounded on the western side of U.S. 1 at a level higher than on the eastern side. Due to cutoff of waterflow by the roadbed embankment, historic freshwater flow between the eastern and western sides of the project area has been restricted, which has resulted in an adverse impact on the Everglades ecosystem north of the C-111 Canal. The restricted water flow has resulted in less fresh water being available for shorter periods of time. Consequently, aquatic life has had reduced opportunities to develop. The restricted flow also has impeded the ability of aquatic life to reach freshwater areas during times of drought. On the east side of the road marine conditions have displaced what naturally should be freshwater conditions. PROJECT HISTORY While FDOT has been aware of traffic safety and hurricane evacuations concerns on the roadway for a long time, the current project originated in 1986 when Monroe County identified this project as a need in its 1986 Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to agency practice, the proposed project was incorporated into FDOT's five year work program and a study was performed pursuant to FDOT’s Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Manual. FDOT's PD&E manual describes the process by which FDOT determines whether to construct or improve a road. The PD&E process includes an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze existing conditions, assess the need for improvement, and develop alternatives. A Draft EIS is performed and circulated for comment to governmental agencies and the public. Based upon comments and further review a Final EIS is prepared. Metric Engineering ("Metric") began the PD&E study of the project in 1988 pursuant to a contract with FDOT. Metric identified seven factors which it concluded supported the need for the project. First, the improved corridor would improve the linkage between the four lane road at the northern terminus and the four lane road at the southern terminus. Second, the project would improve navigation by replacing the existing bascule bridge at Jewfish Creek. Third, the project would improve the level of service for the road. Fourth, the project would improve the safety of the road. Fifth, the project would improve the clearance time for hurricane evacuation. Sixth, the project was consistent with the long range transportation plans adopted by Monroe County. Seventh, the project would accommodate increased traffic, which can be expected with or without the project. Based on the needs evaluation, Metric performed a corridor analysis to determine the best way to get from Florida City to Key Largo, including improving only Card Sound Road, improving only U.S. 1, or improving a combination of the two. Metric concluded that the best resolution was to improve the project corridor. Metric also analyzed various alternatives in an effort to reduce the size of the typical section of the roadway in the U.S. 1 corridor and thereby minimize environmental impacts of the project. Because of concerns from Everglades National Park that no aspects of the project construction occur within its boundaries, FDOT agreed to conduct all construction east of FDOT's existing right of way line. The conclusions of the Metric studies were memorialized in a Final EIS and Final Engineering Report published in 1992. Conclusions regarding alternatives and project needs were then incorporated into the permit application and have continued to be updated. The 1992 version of the project was for a four lane roadway with four lane bridges throughout the project corridor. Subsequent to its June 6, 1994, permit applications to the District for a four lane roadway, FDOT went through an extensive process of providing the District with additional information in an effort to provide the District with the necessary reasonable assurance that the proposed project would comply with the permit criteria. The final series of modifications contained the three lane alternative, which will be described in detail below and is now the subject of this proceeding. The three lane proposal is a compromise that FDOT agreed to in an effort to minimize the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the project. Monroe County passed Resolution No. 315-1995 on September 7, 1995, asking FDOT to build a three-lane road on a four-lane embankment. This resolution provided, in part, that “. . . Monroe County finds that the '3-lane alternative' as described in the Statement of Agency Commitments is the most viable proposal of those considered, because it balances the needs for a widened highway with safeguards designed to address secondary impacts.” The secondary impacts referred to in the resolution included concerns that two southbound lanes would result in more growth. The rationale behind the resolution was that more growth would result from two southbound lanes than from one southbound lane with the proposed passing zones. In response to the request of Monroe County and in response to a similar request made by the District, FDOT notified the District by letter dated September 5, 1996 of FDOT's decision to redesign the project to change the roadway from four to three lanes. FDOT HAS MINIMIZED THE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT During the PD&E process prior to permit application FDOT studied project needs and alternative alignments, and conducted corridor analyses. FDOT originally considered a proposal that included approximately 250 acres of wetlands impacts. At the District's suggestion, FDOT revised its proposal prior to the permit application to reduce the wetland impacts and project footprint. The application submitted contained approximately 165 acres of impact. FDOT changed the typical section of the proposed roadway again after substantial interagency coordination in an effort to reduce wetlands impacts even further. FDOT agreed to reduce the footprint by changing the design of the median from 22 feet and a Jersey barrier (which is a minimum barrier) to 20 feet with a tri-beam rail barrier. The more substantial barrier was added because the median was narrowed. Additionally, instead of ten-foot paved shoulders on each side of the median, FDOT would use two-foot paved shoulders with sixteen feet of grass in the middle. These minimization efforts resulted in a wetland impacts decrease from 164 acres to 149.07 acres, the current impact of the project. Avoidance, or choosing alternate routes to avoid impacts to wetlands, was not a possible option because only wetlands and open waters exist between the northern and southern terminus of the project. FDOT explored all reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including a two lane alternative proposed by a consultant for FBII. As discussed below, FDOT did not adopt the two-lane alternative, because the alternative did not address all of FDOT's identified needs for the project. FBII prepared a report with a two-lane alternative to the proposed project. FBII's original proposal included one 12-foot northbound lane with a 10-foot paved shoulder covered with thermoplastic rumble strips to deter vehicular use of the shoulder. In the southbound direction, FBII proposed a 12-foot travel lane with a 4-foot paved shoulder, essentially the same as currently exists. That proposal was analyzed by Metric Engineering on behalf of FDOT. FDOT rejected the FBII alternative for several reasons. First, though the 10-foot northbound shoulder theoretically may be used by cars during hurricane evacuation, removal of the rumble strips would be impractical due to lack of time to do so under threat of a hurricane, and due to the costs involved. It would be unrealistic to require people to otherwise drive over the rumble strips, without removal, because they are designed to prevent such access. Using the 10-foot shoulder during an evacuation would result in there being no shoulder area to remove accident vehicles from the roadway which would otherwise threaten to restrict the flow of traffic or cease it altogether. The reduced width of the shoulder lane below the standard 12-foot lane would also decrease the flow of evacuees. FBII's proposal for a two-lane fixed-height bridge at Jewfish Creek would not completely eliminate rear-end collisions at the bridge. The two-lane alternative proposed by FBII is not a signed and sealed cross section. The proposal by FBII does not include the area necessary for a SWM system or for clear zones. FBII did not do an analysis to determine whether its proposal complies with pertinent FDOT roadway and traffic design standards or with pertinent highway safety and improvement standards. The FBII proposal does not account for removal of the Lake Surprise causeway or construction related impacts from barge traffic. FBII did not do a wetlands survey to determine the impact of its two-lane proposal. At the Final Hearing, Petitioners presented for the first time a new proposal to use "flexible diverters" to pave a third northbound lane and to block that lane from travel traffic with poles. However, no research was conducted into the feasibility of such a proposal, nor was it adequately thought out. Such a use of "flexible diverters" is unprecedented in FDOT's history, is impractical to implement, and would violate FDOT's design standards contained in its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Petitioners also presented for the first time at the Final Hearing a proposal to add an 8 to 10 foot paved northbound shoulder which could be converted to a travel lane with traffic control cones in the event of an evacuation. This plan is also not feasible, because the resulting lanes would not be wide enough to safely accommodate evacuating traffic, and because the contradiction between existing road striping and the placement of cones would likely cause accidents, which would halt evacuation. The proposals submitted by FBII do not sufficiently improve hurricane evacuation or traffic safety and, consequently, are not acceptable alternatives to the project. FDOT can do nothing else to minimize the impacts of the project and still address the needs for the project. Minimization of wetlands impacts was accomplished to the greatest extent possible. FDOT has proposed mitigation to offset the impacts that could not be avoided. THE PROPOSED PROJECT - IN GENERAL STIPULATION AS TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Petitioners stipulated that the design and construction specifications of the roadway proposed to be permitted in this case comply with all applicable design and construction standards for structural integrity, and adequately describe the three-lane divided roadway proposed to be constructed on a four-lane roadbed/embankment. PROPOSED LANES, SHOULDERS, AND MEDIAN FDOT proposes to widen the roadway in the project area to a three lane divided roadway with two northbound lanes and one southbound lane, plus three passing zones. The proposed project will be constructed on a four lane roadbed embankment. FDOT does not presently have plans to add the fourth lane to this roadway. FDOT Exhibit 8 contains an accurate description of the proposed typical section of the roadway. The typical section will consist of two twelve-foot northbound lanes with a six-foot paved shoulder and a four foot stabilized area adjacent to the paved shoulder; a twenty-foot median consisting of a two-foot paved shoulder, sixteen feet of grass and a tri-beam guardrail in the middle as a separator; and one twelve-foot southbound lane with an eight-foot paved shoulder. The proposed typical section also includes a storm water management system that will be described in more detail below. The proposed typical section includes a clear zone thirty feet in width, which is adequate. THE THREE PASSING ZONES The existing passing zone located in Dade County between mile markers 113 and 115 is one mile in length. FDOT proposes to alter this passing zone to 1.44 miles in length. The existing passing zone located in Dade County between mile markers 120 and 122 is also one mile in length. FDOT proposes to alter this passing zone to 2 miles in length. In addition, FDOT proposes to construct a 1.5 mile long passing zone between mile markers 110 and 112 in Monroe County. If permitted, the proposed project will include 2 passing zones in Dade County and 1 passing zone in Monroe County, for a total of 3 passing zones. The total length of the passing zones will equal 4.94 miles. ELEVATION There are no plans to change the elevation of the existing roadway. HYDROLOGIC CULVERTS The project contemplates the construction of 25 hydrologic culverts north of the C-111 Canal. These culverts will remain capped until further hydrological studies are completed and input from all concerned regulatory agencies can be obtained. It has not yet been determined how these culverts will be utilized to maximize the improvement to the ecosystem north of the C-111 Canal. WILDLIFE CROSSINGS INCLUDING THE C-111 BRIDGE The project contemplates the construction of three wildlife crossings north of the C-111 Canal in Dade County with fencing designed to funnel wildlife through the crossing. These crossing, sometimes referred to in the record as “panther crossings” are located between mile markers 118-119, 122-123, and 126-127 and will be constructed as overland bridges. In addition, the replacement bridge over the C-111 Canal (located between mile markers 116-117 in Dade County) is intended to serve as a wildlife crossing and will also employ fencing to funnel wildlife through the crossing. All four of these structures will be constructed as four-lane bridges, but will be striped for three lanes with rumble strips on the southbound fourth lane to discourage vehicular traffic in that lane. There will be an eight foot outside shoulder. FDOT proposes to construct 18 culverts south of the C-111 Canal for crossings by crocodiles, alligators, manatees, and other wildlife. These crossings will consist of 15 box culverts and 3 bridges. MANATEE CREEK BRIDGE The proposed bridge at Manatee Creek would be constructed as a four lane bridge, but would be striped for three lanes with rumble strips on the southbound fourth lane to discourage vehicular travel in that lane. There would be an eight foot outside shoulder. BRIDGING JEWFISH CREEK AND LAKE SURPRISE Jewfish Creek, which is part of the Intracoastal Waterway, and Lake Surprise would be bridged by a continuous structure. The Jewfish Creek bascule bridge would be replaced by a high-level four-lane fixed bridge. The Lake Surprise causeway would be replaced by a low-level four-lane bridge. The total distance for this bridging is approximately 2.35 miles. AREA OF PROJECT THAT WILL BE OPERATED WITH FOUR-LANES The three passing lanes (4.94 miles) and the bridge over Jewfish Creek and Lake Surprise (2.35 miles) would be operated with four lanes. Those areas total 7.29 miles of the 20.4 mile project corridor. Approximately 43 percent of the proposed roadway would have four lanes of pavement. Excluding the areas where the fourth lane will be blocked from travel with rumble strips, only 35 percent of the completed project will contain four travel lanes. This area consists of the three passing zones and the bridges over Jewfish Creek and Lake Surprise. THE PROPOSED SWM SYSTEM The proposed project would provide for a SWM system consisting of inlets, culverts, swales, berms and dry/wet retention areas. For the typical roadway section, runoff from the paved roadway surfaces will be directed to roadside swales designed to provide retention for 50 percent of 2.5 inches times the impervious area. The SWM system for the bridges will collect runoff in inlets and culverts and direct it to either swales or dry or wet retention ponds. The berms of the SWM system provide additional protection by restricting spills of pollutants, such as petroleum from overturned tankers or other vehicle accidents, from running into the surrounding waters. The berms and swales of the SWM are designed to catch pollutants and prevent their discharge into the surrounding waters. FDOT Exhibit 18 consists of four separate drainage reports submitted to the District in 1995 in connection with the project, one report for each section of the project. The reports accurately document the drainage calculations, the drainage design, the rationale behind the drainage design, and compliance of the design with the laws and regulations of the permitting agencies for the original four-lane proposal. On or about September 5, 1995, FDOT submitted revised drainage calculations to the District, determining the amount of stormwater treatment for the three-lane project. The revised calculations established that at least 95% percent of all stormwater runoff from the project would be captured in the proposed SWM system. Because the swale design was based on the originally proposed four-lane road, retention will be in excess of the required volume for most sections of the roadway. The required retention volume for this project is approximately 166 percent of what is required by the BOR. The surface and subsurface geology of the roadway consists of Miami oolite limestone overlain with Perrine maral. Underlying this is Thompson formation, anastasia and Key Largo limestone. Based on these constituencies, the swales proposed by the SWM system would be effective in rapidly removing heavy metals and phosphorous. The revised calculations established that approximately five percent of the project area will not have a SWM system. These areas will not have a SWM system because properly-sized retention systems in those areas can not be constructed without causing a disproportionate, adverse impact to surrounding wetlands. FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed SWM system’s total water quality treatment exceeds the District's permitting requirements and provides sufficient treatment to exceed the BOR requirements. The water discharged from the proposed system would be of higher quality than that currently discharged, which is not treated. FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed SWM system complies with the permitting criteria found in Rule 40E.301(1)(a)-(p), Florida Administrative Code. The following findings are made as to that criteria. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), F.A.C. The parties stipulated that Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), F.A.C., pertaining to flood protection and the adequacy of drainage, is not at issue in this proceeding. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), F.A.C. The quality of water being discharged from the SWM system will be of substantially higher quality than the existing discharges. Consequently, it is concluded that the system will not cause adverse water quality impacts within the meaning of Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), F.A.C. In addition, the evidence established that there will likely be less water discharged from the roadway if the project is constructed because of the amounts of water that will likely be retained in the swales that are a part of the SWM systems. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(c), F.A.C. Because the receiving bodies of water are designated Outstanding Florida Waters, the District is required to apply the DEP's most stringent water quality requirements -- the antidegredation requirements for discharge to OFWs, to this project. Those standards will be discussed in more detail below. The evidence established that the proposed project will not violate those requirements. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d), F.A.C. Impacts to sources of water are not at issue. The District reviewed the potential effect of the SWM system upon on-site and off-site impacts to surface or groundwater levels and flows. The evidence supports the District's conclusion that no adverse impacts will be caused. Petitioners failed to present any evidence on groundwater levels and flows. Consequently, it is found that the criteria found at Rule 40E-4.301(1)(d), F.A.C., has been satisfied. The 25 hydrologic culverts north of C-111 have the potential to re-establish historic surface water flow in the area. They were sized, based on rainstorm events, to help equalize water levels from one side of the road to the other. The culverts are capable of transferring water from west to east to assist in the historic restoration of flows. In order to assure the proper usage of the culverts, they will remain gated until the District develops a management plan in conjunction with other agencies. The District will determine the maintenance entity. The FKAA water main runs beneath this section of the road. As a result, there is no other more hydrologically efficient alternative for the placement of the culverts. The culverts would also provide a means for overwash from storm events, over the U.S. 1 roadbed, to flow back to its point of origin, stabilizing the roadbed and allowing release of the accumulated salt water. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e), F.A.C. In addition to providing for a net improvement in water quality, the project will offset any adverse impacts through mitigation and other environmental enhancements for which no mitigation credits are being assigned, as described below. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f), F.A.C. FDOT has a history of adequate maintenance of SWM systems, and has provided reasonable assurance that it has the staff and budget to comply with District operation and maintenance requirements. FDOT will also be able to comply with the District's requirements to control exotic plants and other foliage along project corridor. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(g), F.A.C. The SWM system will not adversely affect public health and safety. The dispute as to the public interest test focused more on the WRM permitting requirements. Findings as to the public interest test are discussed in more detail below. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(h), F.A.C. The evidence established that the SFM system is consistent with State Water Policy. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(i), F.A.C. This project does not pertain to a DRI and, consequently, this criteria is not applicable. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(j), F.A.C. There are no basin criteria applicable to this project. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(k), F.A.C. The evidence established that the SWM system will not be harmful to the water resources of the District. While there will be adverse environmental impacts caused by the project, those adverse impacts have, as will be discussed in more detail below, adequately offset by mitigation. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(l), F.A.C. This issue was not at issue in this proceeding. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(m), F.A.C. As will be discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section of this Recommended Order, the project is not against public policy. For the reasons set forth in that subsequent section, it is found that the project is clearly in the public interest. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(n), F.A.C. Rule 40E-4.091(1)(a), F.A.C., constitutes the BOR. As discussed in detail above, the SWM system complies with the BOR. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(o), F.A.C. There are no isolated wetlands pertaining to this project. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(p), F.A.C. There are no above ground impoundments, as described in Appendix 6 of the BOR, pertaining to this project. WATER QUALITY - DISCHARGES INTO OFW Because the project will involve discharges into Outstanding Florida Waters, it was necessary for FDOT to establish that the discharges from the SFW system will not degrade those OFWs. The evidence established that FDOT's proposed project complies with and exceeds applicable water quality standards and permitting criteria. There will be no significant degradation of ambient water quality as a result of the project. It is expected that there will be a net improvement in ambient water quality resulting from the proposed project, as opposed to the continued degradation if nothing is done to treat stormwater runoff. In FDOT Exhibit 46, FDOT provided baseline water quality data in the form of STORET data for waters adjacent to the project area. STORET is a centralized repository and database for water quality data throughout Florida. It is Florida's principal source of water quality data. STORET contains the best scientific database on water quality in Florida. The STORET data set forth in FDOT Exhibit 46 provided sufficient evidence on ambient water quality for the waters adjacent to the proposed project. In addition to providing the water quality data in FDOT Exhibit 46, FDOT is required by Special Permit Condition 37 to submit appropriate water quality data in the surrounding waters prior to any construction activities. SFWMD Exhibits 5 and 6 contain amendments to Proposed Agency Action made after the beginning of the formal hearing. These amendments include a requirement that an appropriate water quality monitoring plan be submitted within 30 days of the permit issuance. FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that water quality standards will be met and that there will be appropriate water quality monitoring during construction. DIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The proposed roadway design will result in the following direct impacts to wetlands adjacent to the roadway corridor: 1) the dredging of 11,028 cubic yards of material from 2.1 acres, 2) the placement of 1,689,553 cubic yards over 147.0 acres of wetlands, and 3) 6.9 acres of (potential) permanent impact due to shading and 4.1 acres (potential) of temporary impacts from the Jewfish Creek Bridge construction activities to seagrass habitat. In order to determine the project's direct impacts, the area surrounding the project was surveyed to determine the number of affected acres. This was done by using a computer aided design ("CAD") system, and by categorizing the various forms of wetlands and associated flora and fauna into the following communities: mangrove, emergent freshwater, open water, and tidal, consisting of seagrass and non-vegetated bottoms. Using these categories and the CAD system, every square foot of direct impacts were accounted for. The adverse direct wetland and surface water impacts of this project are as follows: 1) 27.83 acres Non- Vegetated Tidal Bottom; 2) 11.27 acres Seagrasses; 3) 46.85 acres Mangroves; 4) 42.35 acres Sawgrass/Cattail/Spikerush; 5) 14.31 acres Shrub Wetlands; and 6) 6.46 acres Open Fresh Water; totaling 149.07 acres. Though some wetlands to be impacted may be of lesser quality, FDOT stipulated that all wetlands to be directly impacted by the project should be considered to be high quality wetlands for the purpose of mitigating the impacts. The impacted wetlands are part of larger wetland systems. Petitioners assert that the District should have required studies as to impacts as to the larger wetland systems. The evidence established that the District appropriately considered the type and location of the wetlands involved so that additional study suggested by Petitioners was unnecessary. Petitioners also assert that impacts to isolated wetlands should have been studied. The evidence established that there will be no such impacts. SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS RECOGNIZED BY SFWMD In addition to the direct impacts of the project, the District is required to analyze secondary and cumulative impacts. A project's secondary impacts are those that, though outside of the project footprint, are very closely linked and causally related to the project. This is a "but for" test. Secondary impacts are those impacts which, if not for the proposed project, would not occur. Both positive and negative secondary impacts are considered. When there are both positive and negative secondary impacts caused by a project, the permitting agency must consider the severity of the impacts and balance these together with the other factors in the public interest test to determine whether or not the project is clearly in the public interest. WRM statutes, and DEP rules and policies pertaining to those statutes do not regulate growth or traffic increases, per se. Only if such increases are very closely linked and causally related to the project will they be considered. The District identified several secondary impacts that would be temporary in nature since they would occur while the project is being constructed. One is the use of a barge facility, primarily at Jewfish Creek, where the anchoring of the barge may result in temporary impacts to seagrass during construction. This impact is addressed by a component of the seagrass mitigation at Boca Chica, discussed below. Another impact is turbidity associated with the dredge and fill and the barge activities. That issue is appropriately addressed by permit conditions, through the use of turbidity control screens and other techniques. The District also identified secondary impacts directly associated with the project footprint that would be permanent in nature. The removal of the exotic vegetation potentially opens up the areas adjacent to the road north of the C-111 canal to off-road vehicles or four-wheel driving and the potential impacts caused by those vehicles. That impact is appropriately addressed by fencing north of the C-111 canal. When a road is widened, animals have a greater distance to travel back and forth from one side of the road to the other. A wider road exposes such animals to greater risk of being hit by a motor vehicle while crossing the road. That impact is addressed in this project by the fencing, the wildlife crossings, and the wildlife box culverts. The crossings are designed for large mammals and some species, such as the Indigo snake, will likely not use these crossings. The wildlife crossings will not entirely mimic the crossing patterns of all wildlife that need to cross U.S. 1 and will result in some wildlife habitat fragmentation. The fencing that will be erected to funnel wildlife through the crossings will fragment the habitat of some species by altering wildlife crossing patterns and blocking access of some species to certain areas of habitat. The greater weight of the evidence established that any habitat fragmentation should, when compared to existing conditions, be minimal. The District appropriately evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of using wildlife crossing and hydrological culverts and appropriately concluded that there would be a net benefit to wildlife as a result of their construction. The District properly concluded that the culverts, bridges and fencing located south of the C-111 canal, construction of wildlife crossings and fencing north of the C- 111 canal, construction of the hydrologic culverts, and removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway are positive secondary benefits of the project. These benefits should be considered when applying the public interest test. THE FKAA PIPELINE RELOCATION The project requires the relocation of two segments of the existing pipe owned by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) around Jewfish Creek Bridge. The segments total approximately 1.5 miles. The District inspected the area where the pipeline will be relocated to assist in determining its impact. The pipeline relocation is a temporary disturbance during construction. It is a small linear facility, which will not generate pollution in and of itself. The pipeline relocation is not expected to result in a violation of State water quality standards. The FKAA is responsible for obtaining the necessary permits for the relocation. Direct impacts to wetlands will occur in a 4 to 5 foot wide strip along the length of the relocated aqueduct. The FKAA has submitted a permit application to the DEP for a permit to relocate the aqueduct. DEP believes that adequate mitigation can be achieved to make the project permittable. Once the FKAA submits an adequate mitigation plan, then relocation of the aqueduct will not be an adverse secondary impact caused by the U.S. 1 project. The permit for the subject project should contain a condition that the FKAA obtain a permit for the relocation of these two segments of its pipeline. THE C-111 BOAT RAMP There is an existing boat ramp designed for small boats to access District canals that is located on the north side of the C-111 canal. As a result of the proposed project, it will be relocated to the southern side of the project. This relocation is a relatively minor project requiring a cut in the canal bank and a fourteen-foot wide slab for the boat ramp. When the District considered the potential impacts associated with this relocation in conjunction with the impact of the proposed project, it was determined to be a relatively insignificant impact in terms of the project as a whole. Relocation of the boat ramp is not expected to result in a violation of state water quality standards. All direct, cumulative, and secondary impacts, whether positive or negative, should be considered in balancing the public interest test. ARE THERE ADDITIONAL SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Petitioners assert that there are additional cumulative and secondary impacts that the District failed to consider. Petitioners argue that the project cannot meet permitting criteria if those additional impacts are considered. The additional impacts pertain to additional development throughout Monroe County because of the “rate of growth ordinance” (ROGO), additional development along the project corridor, impacts to the coral reefs of the Keys, impacts to Key Deer, generalized impacts, and impacts from increased number of “day trippers." For the reasons discussed below, it is found that the District has considered all appropriate direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the project. The additional impacts that Petitioners assert should have been considered are not causally connected or directly linked to the project. THE RATE OF GROWTH ORDINANCE Monroe County adopted its Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan") to meet the requirements of Chapter 163, F.S. The Plan, adopted May 15, 1993, is unusual in that the County limits future growth based on a carrying capacity analysis of its hurricane evacuation clearance time. No other jurisdiction in Florida, and few others in the United States, have used a carrying capacity planning approach. To implement the carrying capacity limitation, Monroe County determined the total number of dwelling units that could be permitted while maintaining an acceptable hurricane evacuation clearance time of 24 hours. This number of dwelling units, less an allowance for vested development and development in municipalities, was the basis for a ROGO that was adopted by the County in 1992. The ROGO allocates the available units at a uniform annual rate of growth (currently, 255 units per year). The ROGO regulates all proposed new residential buildings, including hotels, motels, and other transient tourist accommodations as well as permanent residences. The number of building permits that Monroe County can issue is, at present, directly related to how rapidly the County can be evacuated in the event of a hurricane. The lower the clearance time, the greater the number of permits that can be issued. The Comprehensive Plan requires that the County be able to evacuate within a 24-hour period. As of March 7, 1995, the hurricane evacuation time for Monroe County was determined to be 21.25 hours.1 The project is expected to reduce by six or seven hours the modeled hurricane evacuation capacity for Monroe County, regardless of whether it consists of three or four lanes. This is because both the three lane and four lane plans provide for two northbound lanes. Because of the rate of growth provisions in county law, this reduction of clearance times results directly in an increase in the number of building permits that the county can issue annually. Under ROGO, Monroe County can, with this project, issue 255 permits each year through the year 2026. Without this project, Monroe County can issue 255 permits each year only through the year 2001. Alternatively, without this project, the county can issue 88 permits each year through the year 2010 if it chooses to issue permits over a longer period of time. Following extensive litigation before the Division of Administrative Hearings in an unrelated proceeding2, the Administration Commission entered a final order on December 12, 1995, that approved approximately 97 percent of the Plan. In addition, the Administration Commission has published a proposed rule to bring the remainder of the Plan into compliance and assure its financial feasibility. The central feature of the proposed rule is a five- year work program, with annual reviews by the Administration Commission. It is likely that the proposed rule will eventually result in the complete revision of the ROGO. The proposed rule provides that Monroe County's annual rate of growth be revised within five years, no later than December 31, 2001, "to establish a rate of growth and a set of development standards that ensure that any and all new development does not exceed the capacity of the county's environment and marine systems." A carrying capacity study will comprehensively assess water quality, habitat protection, and public facility issues to determine the capacity of the Keys to sustain further development. The proposed project is but one of many factors that will be considered in future rate of growth regulations. If the expected revisions occur, it would be speculative to predict what development would be allowed. While the studies are underway the rate of growth will remain at 255 units per year. The rate of growth will be reviewed annually, and may be reduced a minimum of 20% if the goals of the studies are not being met. The DCA has determined that Monroe County’s Comprehensive Plan and its land development regulations are sufficient to prevent or mitigate any potential adverse secondary impacts of the project caused by development. The DCA has consistently supported the proposed project, even in its earlier four-lane configuration, because it was consistent with Monroe County's 1986 Comprehensive Plan, and because the project would improve hurricane evacuation clearance times and improve water quality in the vicinity of the roadway. The 1986 plan supported widening of the roadway to four lanes based on projected travel demand. The DCA prefers the current, three-lane proposal to the earlier four-lane. On September 7, 1995, the Monroe County Commission adopted Resolution 315-1995 in support of the proposed project because "it balances the needs for a widened highway with safeguards designed to address secondary impacts." Lorenzo Aghemo, an expert in comprehensive planning, served as Monroe County Planning Director during the development of the Plan and ROGO. In Mr. Aghemo's opinion, the widening of the roadway to either three or four lanes would generate minimal growth pressure in Monroe County, particularly because the Plan limits the rate of growth. Because the Keys are designated by Section 380.0552, F.S., as an area of critical state concern, the DCA is charged with oversight of Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan, its LDRs, and all development that takes place in Monroe County. Additionally, the Administration Commission may amend Monroe County's plan or regulations by rule (See Section 380.0552(9), F.S.). There is virtually no action that Monroe County can take related to the use of land without review and approval of a state agency. The Administration Commission’s proposed rule demonstrates its intent to revise comprehensively Monroe County's ROGO within five years to ensure that future development does not exceed the capacity of the Keys' environmental resources. It also demonstrates the Administration Commission's intention to closely monitor growth and development in the Keys during the five-year study period. Some of the studies required by the proposed rule are already underway: 1) the DCA has entered into a contract with the ACOE to complete the environmental carrying capacity study; 2) the HRS study of advanced on-site waste water treatment systems is underway; 3) Monroe County is developing the required Marathon central sewer facilities plan; and 4) Monroe County and HRS have begun the cesspit identification and elimination process. Caution should be exercised in relying on this or on any other proposed rule. Likewise, caution should be exercised in relying on changes to ROGO that may or may not occur. It is likely that the present status of the law will be changed in the near future so that future development will be based on environmental carrying capacity as opposed to hurricane evacuation clearance times. However, for the purposes of this proceeding the District should accept the fact that the issuance of future building permits is closely linked and causally related to the project. Consequently, it is found that under the present status of the law, the issuance of additional building permits in Monroe County is closely linked or causally related to the project. MONROE COUNTY LDRS AND DCA OVERSIGHT Although Petitioners established that there is a causal relation between the project and the existing status of the law governing the number of building permits that can issued in the future, the evidence was insufficient to establish at a level above speculation that adverse environmental impacts will result because of the issuance of those building permits. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan contains land development regulations that govern all development in Monroe County. These regulations are among the most stringent in the State and are designed to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts caused by development. All development orders in Monroe County are closely scrutinized by the Department of Community Affairs to ensure compliance with applicable permitting criteria. Those regulations and the DCA’s close scrutiny are intervening factors that break any causal relation between the project and the speculative adverse environmental impacts that the Petitioners assert will be caused by future issuance of building permits by Monroe County. Petitioners failed to establish that the impacts of future development are very closely linked or causally related to the project. Consequently, it is found that such impacts are not secondary or cumulative impacts of the project. DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE PROJECT CORRIDOR A major portion of the area next to the road has little or no development potential because it is either water, land in public ownership, or land slated for public ownership. The areas east of the road are mostly in private ownership, but are primarily submerged lands and mangrove areas. The Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge is federally owned and is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Southern Glades lands, located immediately west of the project and Everglades National Park (ENP) in Dade County, have been acquired by the District and are managed by the Florida Game and Freshwater fish Commission (FGFWFC). The Model Lands Basin in Dade County is in private ownership but proposed for public acquisition in the future. The land adjoining the roadway in Dade County is designated as open area or environmentally sensitive. Almost half of the land along Monroe County's portion of the roadway is in public ownership. At least 90% of the land in private ownership is mangroves or wetlands that cannot be developed. The small area of uplands is currently being used by a resort marina which will not be allowed to develop further under the new comprehensive plan. There is very little potential for future development in the project area. The comprehensive plan designation for areas in Dade County are open space, and the ones in Monroe County have the conservation designation. The District's regulatory programs consider areas adjacent to the project as sensitive wetland habitats. Based on the District's regulatory authority and comprehensive plan designation for those lands, which would have to be obtained prior to obtaining a permit for development, it is very unlikely that those lands could be developed. Florida Rock and Sand Co. (FRS) has a permit to mine approximately 1,100 acres of wetlands. As part of its mitigation program, FRS will donate this land to the District once its mining and mitigation projects are complete. The FRS mitigation lands are preserved as a permit condition and will ultimately be transferred to the District. This land will not be developed. In addition, the District established that the U.S. 1 project and the FRS project do not constitute a cumulative impact that the District failed to consider. The evidence established that development along the project corridor will not be a secondary or cumulative impact of the project. IMPACTS ON CORAL REEF SYSTEM The evidence was insufficient to establish a close link or causal connection between the project and the coral reef system. As reflected elsewhere, it is found that there will be no degradation of ambient water quality as a result of the project. Therefore, there is no need to resolve the conflicting testimony as to the present status of the coral reef system. IMPACT ON KEY DEER There are no key deer in the project area. The nearest key deer habitat, Big Pine Key, is approximately 70 miles from the southern terminus of the project. The evidence is insufficient to establish that there is a very closely linked and causally related connection between the project and key deer mortality on Big Pine Key. GENERALIZED IMPACTS The Petitioners presented certain opinion testimony that the Keys cannot be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner because of potential adverse impacts of new development in Monroe County, or new boats operating in the waters of the Florida Keys. The credibility of that testimony need not be evaluated because the evidence was not sufficient to tie those generalized concerns into the specific regulatory criteria of the permitting agency. There was insufficient evidence to establish that those alleged impacts would be very closely linked or causally related to the proposed project. DAY TRIPPERS Induced demand is new travel that occurs solely because additional capacity is added to a highway. Petitioners' transportation experts, Michael Replogle and Robert Morris, testified that FDOT's traffic studies, and FDOT's projected rate of traffic growth of approximately 3 percent annually, are incorrect because the studies do not predict the amount of "induced demand" that would result from the proposed project. Petitioners assert that induced demand would generate an unknown number of people who drive to the Keys for the day from south Dade County, referred to as “day trippers,” will have an impact on the Keys that has not been evaluated. The assertion that this potential impact has not been analyzed is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Induced demand is accounted for in Monroe County's Long Range Transportation Plan, which was never evaluated by Mr. Replogle or Mr. Morris. The Long Range Transportation Plan was prepared by an experienced traffic engineering consulting firm, Barton-Aschman, using an FDOT- approved traffic demand model, the FSUTMS model, that includes all traffic generators and attractors, and all travel on U.S. 1 on weekdays and weekends. The FSUTMS model does not restrict demand based on the existing road capacity. The model uses an "unrestrained assignment" that incorporates the total predicted trip generation on recreational facilities, hotels, and all other attractors. The Long Range Traffic Plan was used to develop the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, which takes into consideration the projected increases in traffic and makes appropriate provisions for those increases. FDOT has provided reasonable assurances that it has properly projected the amount of traffic for the project corridor after the project is completed and that the projected increases have been appropriately addressed by Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan. MITIGATION - IN GENERAL For the reasons discussed above, it is found that there are no secondary or cumulative impacts that the District failed to consider. Petitioners also contend that the mitigation proposal is insufficient to offset the direct and secondary impacts recognized by the District. This is a large dredge and fill project that will permanently fill 149 acres of wetlands. The wetlands that will be adversely impacted by the project include OFWs that provide a great variety of functions and serve as habitat for fish and wildlife, including threatened and endangered species. The wetlands are unique and of high quality. Mitigation for direct, secondary and cumulative impacts was considered as part of the permit evaluation. In- kind mitigation is considered to be most effective, but out- of-kind mitigation may be offered by the applicant where it is impractical to conduct in-kind mitigation due to historic changes in the project area or sensitivity of the habitat type for which mitigation is offered. Such mitigation is also appropriate to address regional alteration of an ecosystem, such as the Everglades ecosystem alteration caused by the original roadway embankment. FDOT developed a conceptual mitigation plan that took into account project impacts on the freshwater, marine and estuarine components of the ecosystems involved, as well as the impacts on threatened and endangered species of wildlife which may be affected by the project. FDOT coordinated the plan's development with the National Parks Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The conceptual mitigation plan evolved as a result of project modifications and agency comments into what is now proposed as mitigation for the project. The current proposal is summarized in FDOT Exhibit 26, consisting of Attachment H to FDOT's SWM and WRM permit applications. The timing of their construction falls into two general categories: mitigation previously permitted and concurrent mitigation. UPFRONT MITIGATION Typically, mitigation is done concurrently with project construction rather than prior to permit issuance. Mitigation is often done afterwards because of construction timing constraints. Here, FDOT applied for and, in May 1994 received, permits to conduct mitigation prior to applying for the permits at issue, with the understanding that performance of these activities does not require the District to issue permits for the proposed projects. A total of 385.22 acres of mitigation has already been completed. The applicant received 203.02 mitigation credits from the District on May 12, 1994, for several mitigation projects that the applicant proposes to apply to the proposed U.S. 1 widening project provided it is approved. Table 2 of Attachment H to FDOT Exhibit 26 sets forth the four mitigation projects that constitutes the up- front portion of the mitigation for the project. This table sets forth the acres mitigated, the conversion factor for the mitigation, and the resulting mitigation credit awarded. The four mitigation activities already authorized are: enhancement of the wetland habitat in the Harrison Tract located adjacent to Barnes Sound within the Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge on the north end of Key Largo (70.37 acres credit for 252.6 acres of restoration); removal of the spoil mounds on the eastern bank of the C-111 canal east of U.S. 1 located on the District’s ROW (10.65 acres credit); the back filling of the C-109 canal levee located on the District ROW within the Southern Glades Save Our River project (112.7 acres credit); and the removal of the roadside spoil mounds on the west side of U.S. 1 located between C-111 and the Dade Work Camp Road within the District’s Southern Glades Save Our Rivers Project (9.30 acres credit). The mitigation projects pertaining to the roadside spoil removal along U.S. 1, the backfill of the C-109 Canal, and the removal of spoil along the C-111 Canal are similar projects because they each involve existing deep ditches cut through wetlands. When these deep ditches were cut, the spoil material from the ditch was deposited alongside the ditch. This resulted in areas that were previously Everglades wetlands becoming spoil, supporting the growth of exotic species and, for the most part, not exhibiting wetland functions. FDOT is proceeding with the backfilling the C-109 canal located between mile markers 122.5 and 117, and removal of the corresponding spoil mounds created during construction of the C-109 canal. In connection with this mitigation, marsh areas, tree islands and deep water aquatic refugia have been restored. In this area, there has been considerable attraction of wildlife subsequent to restoration, including otters, alligators, and turtles, which could not previously use the habitat because the canal was too deep. Upon completion waterflow between the east and the west will be restored, and the area will be restored to a wetland habitat from its current uplands habitat type. Backfilling of the C-109 canal is part of an interagency effort with the ACOE to restore as closely as possible to natural conditions the flow of water in the C-111 watershed area. C-111 mitigation includes removal of roadside spoil along the C-111 canal to restore the natural condition of the area. The mitigation was devised in coordination with the National Maine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which required mitigation for non-vegetated habitat types. Restoration also includes preserving some spoil areas as islands to maintain habitat for endangered species of plants. When the C-111 spoil mounds are scraped down, the fill will not fill the whole ditch. The ditch will, therefore, be a bit more valuable but will not be completely restored to its former elevation. FDOT will also remove roadside spoil along the west side of U.S. 1, upon which exotic species of plants had grown, and returning the area to its original grade. The Harrison Tract is a known habitat and nesting area for American crocodiles. Its wetlands functions were altered or eliminated by prior development of the land by its original owners. Restoration includes regrading the area to restore its original wetlands functions, including habitat for young and adult crocodiles. FDOT's mitigation of the Harrison Tract also includes restoration of tidal flushing to increase contributions of nutrients and food sources to the surrounding tidal bay system. Crocodiles have been observed using the restored areas. FDOT has installed additional nesting berm habitat, basking habitat and shallow lagoon habitat to promote juvenile crocodile development. The District established that the credit awarded for this mitigation and the conversion ratios utilized for determining this credit were consistent with agency practice and its pertinent rules. FDOT was given a 1:1 credit ratio for areas involving full restoration of wetlands. In other portions of the Harrison Tract mitigation involving restoration of flushing to existing wetlands, FDOT was given not full credit, but credit based on the severity of limitation of the existing wetland functions. Based on this evaluation, mitigation credits were given in a range of a 3:1 ratio for restoration of severely disrupted or non-existent wetlands to a 20:1 ration for restoration of higher quality but not fully functional wetlands. FDOT is being awarded 70 mitigation credits for the 252 acres in the Harrison Tract that are being restored or enhanced. CONCURRENT MITIGATION Based on the mitigation ratios developed by the District, additional mitigation credits were required. Consequently, the project contemplates mitigation that will be undertaken concurrently with the construction of the project in addition to the upfront mitigation. FDOT proposes to earn these additional credits by projects involving creation and/or restoration of emergent vegetation, mangrove and seagrass habitats. FDOT’s proposal to mitigate mangrove impacts with "out of kind" mitigation of emergent vegetation habitats was viewed by the District as being necessary and appropriate because there were no sufficiently large areas of mangrove habitat suitable for restoration. Table 7 of Attachment H to FDOT Exhibit 26 sets forth the four mitigation projects that constitutes the concurrent portion of the mitigation for the project. This table sets forth the acres mitigated, the conversion factor for the mitigation, and the resulting mitigation credit awarded. In addition, the table references certain credit for the placement of the hydrological culverts. As will be discussed later, that credit was withdrawn at the formal hearing. The four mitigation activities that will constitute the concurrent portion of the mitigation plan are: the removal of the Lake Surprise causeway (2.90 acres credit); the scrape down of the Jewfish Bridge approaches (0.67 acres credit); the restoration of the FGFWFC road (10.34 acres credit); and the Boca Chica project (27.17 acres credit) The Lake Surprise Causeway removal mitigation involves 5.26 acres of on-site seagrass restoration and 0.54 acres of unvegetated bottom mitigation through the excavation of 52,220 cubic yards of material. Lake Surprise historically was a shallow tidal lake supporting seagrasses before a causeway was built across the lake over the seagrasses. FDOT proposes to remove the causeway and restore the previous elevation, after which it is anticipated that seagrasses that grow on the east side of the causeway will fully recruit naturally to the excavated area. Removing the Lake Surprise Causeway will establish 5.26 acres of seagrass, for which FDOT received 2.63 acres of on-site mitigation credit based on a 2:1 ratio. Through natural recruitment after removal of the causeway, there is a high likelihood that the entire 5.26 acres will recolonize with seagrass. FDOT minimized the seagrass impacts to the greatest extent possible. The mitigation credit pertaining to Lake Surprise does not include credit for the removal of the causeway itself. This awarded credit is for the restoration of seagrass areas. The mitigation pertaining to the Jewfish Creek Bridge approaches proposes the scrape down of 1.33 acres of existing fill to allow the area to become recolonized with mangroves. Boca Chica is located in southern Monroe County over one hundred miles from the southern terminus of the project. This site was chosen by FDOT as a site for seagrass mitigation project after FDOT reviewed several other potential sites. Two other sites were rejected. The area around the C- 111 canal was rejected because the land proposed for use was in private ownership. Several defunct marinas in Port Bougainville were rejected due to poor conditions not conducive to seagrass growth. Boca Chica was finally chosen as the site because it was a large enough area with light and hydrological flow conditions conducive to seagrass growth. The evidence establishes that the Boca Chica site is the most viable for seagrass mitigation. The seagrasses to be impacted at Lake Surprise are healthy and productive turtle grass, manatee grass and cuban shoalgrass. Turtle grass is considered an extremely valuable “climax community” of seagrasses which hold sediments in place, cleanse water quality, and forms the base of the food chain. It is valuable to sea turtles, manatees and recreationally important fish and shellfish. The cuban shoalgrass that will colonize at Boca Chica is a pioneer colonizer species that grows in disturbed areas. It is not as valuable to the marine system as turtle grass. The Boca Chica seagrass mitigation permit condition proposed to offset impacts to 11.27 acres of seagrass. This will involve the removal of 306 cubic yards of sediment and hydraulically dredging approximately 1,175 cubic yards of spoil material. The proposed permit conditions state that FDOT shall provide future maintenance of the culvert areas to maintain adequate flushing. FDOT will plant 25.92 acres of seagrasses to mitigate for the remaining 8.64 acres of impacts, for a mitigation ratio of 3:1. In addition, 8.46 acres of seagrass will be planted to mitigate for the barren bottom area that will be affected, and 1.62 additional acres will be planted to compensate for any unexpected impacts to Boca Chica based on the necessary improvements. Overall, there will be of 36 acres of seagrass mitigation by FDOT, for which FDOT is receiving 27.17 acres credit. FDOT will also increase the water flow between the east and west lagoons of Boca Chica, and maintain the culverts connecting the two sides, in order to further promote growth of seagrass therein. FDOT is responsible for 80% survival of each acre of seagrass mitigation, as well as monitoring once a year for five years. Based on historical data obtained from Boca Chica during past mitigation efforts, there is a high likelihood that the entire 36 acres of mitigation will survive, and that the remaining 74 acres of the Boca Chica lagoons will experience natural recruitment of seagrass as a result of FDOT's efforts. The FGFWFC access area was built by excavating a ditch, and putting fill on the wetlands and creating a dirt road bed. After the C-109 canal is backfilled, the access road will no longer be needed. The mitigation project will excavate the existing road bed, back fill it into the ditch, thereby recreating the wetlands that were there previously. FDOT will receive 10.34 mitigation credits based on a 1:1 ratio of acres restored. EVALUATION OF MITIGATION There is no mitigation in this permit for any wetland impact beyond the direct loss of the specific 149 acres that will be dredged or filled. Mitigation was provided only for the direct, footprint impacts of the project. None of the up front mitigation involves the creation of wetlands, which entails converting areas that were not previously wetlands or open water and turning them into wetlands. It will likely take between 20 and 50 years for the mitigation areas to achieve full functional value required by the South Florida Water Management District mitigation permit. In the interim, there will be a net loss of wetland functional value. With time, the proposed mitigation has a high likelihood of success. Based on FDOT's past successes in mitigation of construction-related impacts, FDOT is able to comply with permit conditions relating to best management practices associated with the construction of bridges and pilings and turbidity screens around road construction, as well as restoration of seagrasses and mangroves. Petitioners assert that the District erred in determining the credit to be given for the up-front portion of the mitigation. While it is true that the SFWMD Rules do not mention "up-front" mitigation, the District has the authority to consider all aspects of a mitigation project in weighing its relative value. Consulting engineering inspectors have been retained by FDOT to insure that all permitting requirements are met during mitigation and construction, and that the technical special provisions for protection of threatened and endangered species are complied with by FDOT. The proposed permits contain appropriate conditions that require FDOT to monitor and maintain the mitigation areas. FDOT will be responsible in perpetuity for maintaining the tidal flushing connection at the Boca Chica mitigation site. Special permit condition 6 to the SWM and WRM staff reports require wetland and upland monitoring. If wetland and upland monitoring or other information demonstrate that additional adverse impacts have occurred due to this project, FDOT would be required to offset the loss of any additional wetland impacts. MITIGATION IS APPROPRIATE The evidence established that the mitigation projects were fairly and appropriately reviewed by SFWMD and that the mitigation credits were fairly and appropriately awarded. The evidence also established that there is appropriate mitigation for the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of this project. ACTIVITIES NOT RECEIVING MITIGATION CREDIT Mitigation credits for the 25 hydrologic culverts north of C-111 were originally included in the permit staff reports. Those mitigation credits were removed in an addendum to the staff reports, introduced as District's Exhibits 5 and 6. These credits were not necessary to offset project impacts. After the staff report was issued, they became a point of contention by the Petitioners because they will not be utilized until a management plan is developed. Since they were not necessary to meet mitigation requirements, the credits were removed from this project. These credits were never included in the mitigation ratios for these permit applications. The addendum removed the 9.6 credits initially contemplated for the culverts. No credit has been awarded for the relocation of threatened and endangered species of plants, such as Joewood and Bay Cedar by FDOT from the C-111, C-109 and roadside spoil mitigation areas. These species have been relocated to tree islands constructed by FDOT on the mitigation sites, or to other areas that would not be impacted by the project. FDOT also was not given mitigation credits for: (1) the wildlife crossings and the fencing that will funnel wildlife through these crossings; (2) installation of pipe culverts north of the C-111 canal and bridges and box culverts south of C-111; and which, in addition to providing a corridor for aquatic species, will increase the tidal flushing of the area; (3) the removal of the Lake Surprise Causeway, which will restore historical hydrological flow between the eastern and western sides of Lake Surprise; (4) FDOT's commitment to improve and maintain the flushing of the west lagoon culverts in Boca Chica (mitigation is in the east lagoon); and (5) FDOT's contribution of $300,000 to assist Monroe County in performing a carrying capacity study for the County. Additionally, FDOT will preserve the Jewfish Creek Bridge abutment, which will be preserved for local historical purposes. FDOT will prepare the Jewfish Creek Bridge pilings for an artificial reef at Long Key during construction. THE PUBLIC INTEREST TEST It is appropriate for the SWFMD to consider, in balancing the public interest test, to consider traffic safety and hurricane evacuation.3 Because of FDOT's expertise in those areas, it is appropriate for the permitting agency to give great weight to highway safety concerns, including hurricane evacuation, presented by FDOT. The application of the public interest test does not involve consideration of non-environmental factors other than those expressly set forth in the statutes such as navigation or preservation of historical or archaeological resources. Specifically, aesthetics, quality of life, the potential for a project to cause increased crime, and school overcrowding are not properly considered within any of the seven factors contained in Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). The District concluded that the project is clearly in the public interest based upon consideration and balancing of the following factors: hurricane evacuation improvements, public safety improvements, a SWM system where no SWM system currently exists; wildlife crossings and fencing north of the C-111 canal where no such crossings or fencing currently exist; wildlife box culverts to accommodate crocodiles, alligators, manatees and marine life where no such culverts currently exist; and hydrologic culverts, which have the potential to assist in the restoration of hydrologic flows, and the mitigation projects, both upfront and concurrent. SECTION 403.918(2)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to determine “[w]hether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others." The property of others is not at issue. As discussed below, the evidence clearly established that the project will greatly enhance the safety of the road during normal operations and facilitate evacuation in the event of a hurricane. There will be clear benefits to the public safety as a result of this project. As part of the PD&E process, FDOT, through Metric, prepared "A Safety Evaluation" of the existing roadway. The safety analysis was based on FDOT accident statistics for the years 1983-1988, as well as engineering review of the conditions causing the accidents. Specifically, FDOT based their safety analysis on the following: 1) calculation of the abnormally high accident rate on the roadway based on the rate quality control formula set forth in the FDOT Highway Safety Improvement Guidelines, and approved by the Federal Highway Administration; 2) copies of the actual crash reports filed with the Florida Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, which provided detail greater than that generally available through FDOT's own accident data reports, and which formed the basis of the collision diagram in the Safety Evaluation (FDOT Exhibits 36; and 3) and its August 1996 update thereto (FDOT Exhibit 41), on-site evaluation and review of the roadway to determine geometrics of the roadway, locations of driveway accesses and side roadways and the degrees at which roadways intersected. Metric prepared an update of the Safety Evaluation for the years 1989-1994, to determine the continuing validity of the Safety Evaluation, as well as to review alternative proposals to the original proposed roadway configuration. In preparing the update, the recent accident data (FDOT Exhibit 37) and the underlying research in the Safety Evaluation were used by Metric Engineering in reaching its conclusions. The Safety Evaluation performed by Metric in 1989 established high accident rates on the roadway based on a detailed segmental analysis of the roadway. In August of 1996, the Safety Evaluation was updated by Metric, which update confirmed the findings of the Safety Evaluation, and further stated that accident frequency on the Monroe County portion of the roadway exceeded the state average accident rate and the abnormally high accident rate for the years 1990 through 1994 (notwithstanding the rear-end accidents occurring at Jewfish Creek). Fatal accidents on the Dade County portion exceed the state average on the same stretch by 37 percent for the same years. The most severe accidents occur on the Dade County portion. The Monroe County portion of the roadway exceeds the statewide average in the abnormally high accident rate four out of the last five years that FDOT studied. The Dade County portion does not exceed the accident frequency or the number of accidents, but the fatality rate in Dade County is much higher than the state average. Presently an abnormally high accident rate exists in three locations along the project corridor, two of which are in the vicinity of the Jewfish Creek bridge. The third location is north of the bridge on Cross Key. Replacing the Jewfish Creek Bridge with the fixed-height bridge proposed by FDOT will substantially increase the safety on the project corridor. The District considered this to be an important positive element in the public interest balancing test. The existing 2:1 slopes of the roadway make it difficult for drivers to recover from running off the roadway, resulting in a greater frequency of this type of accident. Moreover, the existing clear zone is not large enough to overcome the 2:1 slope to allow safe recovery of errant vehicles. As a result, catastrophic crashes occur rather than safe recoveries. Also, as with hurricane evacuation discussed in the following section, actual accidents on the roadway prevent traffic from accessing or leaving the Keys, and also prevent emergency vehicles from rapidly accessing the Keys and a crash site. This occurs because there is little or no shoulder or clear zone along the sides of the road to allow emergency vehicles to efficiently access an accident site, and in the event of a severe, head-on type collision, the roadway is blocked off. U.S. 1 through the project corridor is regarded as so unsafe for travel that Monroe County law enforcement officials call it "death alley." There are many head-on collisions due to the two-lane, no-median alignment. Law enforcement is difficult and dangerous along the roadway, because it has very few areas wide enough to allow law enforcement officials to detain driving violators. It is also very dangerous, for the same reasons, for a driver to pull off the roadway with a broken-down vehicle. High rates of speed and impaired drivers contribute to the accident rates along the project corridor. The efforts of law enforcement to control speeders and drunk drivers is impeded since it is practically impossible for enforcement officers to turn their vehicles around to pursue violators without running a high risk of causing an accident on their own. The project would significantly improve safety on the roadway by reversing the problems identified in the this section, as well as the previous sections of this Recommended Order. The project would virtually eliminate head-on collisions which largely contribute to serious injuries and fatalities along the roadway. The project would also help eliminate problems with emergency vehicle access to accident sites and restoration of service in the event of accidents, and would increase the roadway's level of service as discussed below. Improved level of service was an additional need considered by FDOT during the PD&E process. While the District did not consider the traffic level of service by itself to be weighted as part of the positive public interest criteria in this project, the impacts of resulting congestion are relevant to the public interest consideration of traffic safety as discussed in the foregoing sections. Lower quality level of service, as presently exists on the roadway through level of service F, adversely affects the safety of the roadway. When traffic levels rise, driver frustration increases leading to drivers passing in no-passing zones and potentially resulting in head-on collisions and high-severity accidents. Additionally, due to the narrow shoulders of the existing roadway, accident vehicles pose a threat to and impede normal traffic flow on the roadway. The Highway Capacity Manual set the standards for traffic engineering and is used in all fifty states. The manual classifies the existing roadway as a two-lane arterial rural road. Applying the standards for measuring level of service for two-lane rural roads set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual, FDOT determined that the existing level of service on the roadway is E, which is a very poor level of service that does not meet the established standard of level of service C required by the Highway Capacity Manual. Monroe County uses a speed based method of calculating level of service. Using that method, the level of service for U.S. 1 is at an acceptable level. The parties disagree as to which method of calculating the level of service is appropriate. That conflict is resolved by finding that the method used by FDOT is the appropriate method because of its wide acceptance and long-term use. Traffic volume in the area of the southern terminus of the project is growing at a rate average annual rate of 3.07 percent. In the present condition of the roadway, level of service will degrade to F, or forced-flow conditions, by the year 2006. Even with the improvements proposed by FDOT, the level of service in the northbound direction would improve to level of service B, but the level of service in the southbound direction would remain at level of service D or E due to the single southbound land configuration. Hurricanes pose a serious threat to the safety and welfare of residents and visitors of the Keys. Monroe County is the most vulnerable hurricane-prone area in the United States because it is surrounded by tropical waters, land elevation is low throughout the islands, and the evacuation routes are limited to U.S. 1, an extended route that starts in Key West and runs to the mainland, and Card Sound Road. The greatest potential for loss of life during a hurricane in the Keys is from storm surge. Storm surge is a dome of water near the center of a hurricane which is created by the winds on the water's surface. In a category 3, 4 or 5 storm, the entire land mass in the path of the storm will be inundated. Because of the wind and storm surge associated with hurricanes, the best response to a hurricane warning in the Keys is to evacuate people to the mainland away from the water and the storm surge threat. Accordingly, Monroe County orders a mandatory evacuation in a category 3, 4, or 5 hurricane, and no shelters are opened. There is little or no disagreement as to the vulnerability of the Keys to hurricanes or as to the danger posed by a hurricane. There is disagreement as to whether the proposed project is needed for improved hurricane evacuation. The conflicting evidence in this regard is resolved by the following findings, which are based on the more credible, substantial evidence. The existing road does not have sufficient hurricane evacuation capacity to meet the present and projected future needs of Monroe County residents and visitors. In current hurricane evacuations, the two northbound lanes on U.S. 1 between mile marker 90 and 106 are split at Key Largo. Sixty percent of the traffic is directed up the northbound lane of U.S. 1; forty percent of the traffic is diverted onto the northbound lane of Card Sound Road. One southbound lane of U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road must remain open for emergency vehicles to reach an accident or a disabled vehicle, or to bring emergency supplies into the Keys. Improving the roadway is critical to the success of Monroe County's hurricane evacuation plan. FDOT relied on hurricane evacuation and needs modeling performed by Monroe County and the ACOE to confirm the need for improvements. All of the models used indicated that the project corridor is the controlling roadway segment for improving hurricane evacuation of the Keys. Additionally, FDOT relied on the Lewis Report of January 15, 1993, a study commissioned by the Governor of Florida. Recommendation No. 17 of the Lewis report recommends that FDOT expedite the design and construction of the project, which is viewed as being critical for increasing the rate of emergency evacuation. Dr. Robert Sheets, former director of the National Hurricane Center, testified that the failure to make improvements to the roadway would be "unconscionable." Dr. Sheets and Billy Wagner, the Director of Emergency Management for Monroe County, presented very compelling and very persuasive testimony that this project is essential for hurricane evacuation purposes. The proposed project is the minimum transportation improvement that will achieve a significant improvement in evacuation safety and clearance time. With the present two- lane configuration and narrow shoulders, evacuating traffic would be halted completely by a vehicle breakdown or an accident blocking one lane. Replacement of the Jewfish Creek Bridge will also facilitate the hurricane evacuation need for the project. In addition to improving the rate of evacuation, the project will make an evacuation safer. Emergency personnel cannot reach accidents on the roadway during an evacuation because, in certain segments, no roadbed exists adjacent to the northbound lane. A second northbound lane and wider road shoulders would enable disabled vehicles to be serviced and removed from the highway. The proposed changes to the road would improve emergency vehicles' access to an accident scene. The elevation of the roadway at Lake Surprise is so low that it can be flooded easily by a storm. The proposed project would replace the existing muck bed of the roadway with more stable material. The existing roadway is subject to settling and washout during storm events, which reduce the safety of the roadway itself and reduce the evacuation capacity of the roadway. If washout occurs, moving equipment to the islands for recovery efforts following a hurricane will be difficult or impossible. The proposed project will prevent erosion and reduce the effects of storm surge and wave action on the road during a hurricane. When the project has been completed, three lanes of evacuating traffic, two lanes from U. S. 1 and a third from Card Sound Road, will converge at Florida City. Representatives of FDOT, the Monroe County Sheriff's Department, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Monroe County Emergency Management have planned to manage the northbound traffic when it reaches Florida City during an evacuation. Several feasible alternatives exist, but additional planning is needed to prevent a monumental bottleneck at the northern terminus of the project. While it is clear that this project will not resolve all problems that exist as to hurricane evacuation, it is also clear that this project is essential to improve hurricane evacuation. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)2, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)2, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats.” The District considered the effect of the direct loss of dredging and filling 149.07 acres of wetland. As set forth in previous sections, it is found that this loss will be offset by the mitigation. For use during construction of the project, FDOT will adhere to technical special provisions and special permit conditions 9 through 13 to protect manatees, crocodiles, alligators, indigo snakes, marine turtles, and valuable trees, palms and other wildlife, to minimize or preclude any impacts to those species. Additionally, any osprey nests around the Jewfish Creek Bridge area at the time of construction will be relocated by FDOT if necessary. As part of the development of the FEIS, as required by the Federal Highway Administration under the National Environmental Protection Act, FDOT obtained official letters of concurrence from the USFWS and NMFS that the project would cause no adverse impacts to endangered species under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. That process also established the project's consistency with Florida Coastal Zone Management Program, as determined by the State Clearinghouse within the Office of the Governor, in coordination with DEP, the Department of National Resources and FGFWFC. The project also contains provisions to impact positively or enhance the conservation of fish and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species and their habitat, as described below. These were positive factors that further helped neutralize and offset the 149.07 acres of direct impacts. In addition, FDOT is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the fencing along the entire project corridor, discussed below, and report to the District on that effectiveness. If the District determines that the fencing could be more effective, it may require FDOT to implement those suggestions. South of the C-111 canal, construction of box culverts and bridges addresses impacts to the American crocodile, a listed endangered species. Problems were identified with placement of existing culverts, which did not provide enough clear space and which caused the crocodile to cross over the roadway rather than through the culvert. To address this problem, 15 larger box culverts and three bridges will be placed within the roadway. These provide the necessary clear space to allow the crocodile to safely pass under rather than over the road. The location of the box culverts was chosen by reviewing crocodile mortalities associated with road crossings. Placement of these box culverts and bridges will also improve the hydrological flow of water within the project area, provide a crossing area for manatees, and allow greater dispersal of the crocodile population throughout Florida Bay. Species expected to use these box culverts include aquatic and aquatic water dependent species in the area. They were primarily targeted for crocodiles, alligators, and manatees, but certain fishes, turtles, frogs and other species in the wetlands along the project corridor will utilize the culverts. The box culverts will have 100 feet of wingback fencing extending north and south of each culvert. The intent of the wingback fencing is to funnel wildlife into the box culverts. Intermittent or wingback fencing is appropriate south of the C-111 canal for two primary reasons. First, the animals which will be guided into the box culverts are aquatic dependent. The area south of the C-111 canal is primarily water, washed mangrove areas and tidal creeks. Crocodiles tend to move in tidal creeks. Second, it was not possible to ensure continuous fencing along all portions of the project south of the C-111 canal because there are existing businesses. It could not be assured that these businesses would keep a gate closed. The project originally proposed continuous fencing alongside the road where it abuts ENP. Continuous fencing was initially proposed because the initial application included a solid concrete barrier down the median of the road. If a crocodile did enter the road from the side with discontinuous fencing, after crossing one lane the crocodile would hit the barrier, but then easily find its way back to the area it came from. However, the project was later modified to include a tri-beam barrier because it lessens the footprint of the project and thereby lessens the wetland impact. Since the current application does not include a continuous barrier down the middle of the road, if a crocodile enters the road it would cross the tri-beam barrier, go across another lane of roadway before hitting a continuous fence. The animal would then run up and down that fence with nowhere to go except back across the road again. This would increase their exposure to a road kill. With the installation of bridges and culverts along the southern portions of the project corridor, there is no need for continuous fencing because aquatic wildlife, such as the American crocodile, will tend to follow the flow of water through the culverts rather than climb over the roadway. The FGFWFC and ENP oppose continuous fencing and prefer intermittent fencing south of C-111 canal since the project now includes a tri-beam barrier. Positive benefits also include construction of panther crossings at four locations north of the C-111 canal to account for impacts to the Florida panther, a listed endangered species, in the vicinity of the project, along with continuous fencing on both sides of the road north of the C- 111 canal. The crossings will be placed at locations that show historical use by wildlife, including areas at the Dade County Correctional Institute access roadway, the water control structure on the C-109 canal, and the berm of the C- 111 canal. The wildlife crossings are indicated by blue dots on FDOT's Exhibit 1. FDOT underwent years of extensive coordination with the environmental regulatory and resource agencies to design a project that would accommodate their ecosystem management plans. The location of the wildlife crossings was based upon radio telemetry data, collected from radio-collared panthers, and their typical corridor movement. The location was further chosen based on input from the USFWS and the FGFWFC. The continuous fencing north of the C-111 canal will prevent wildlife from crossing the road, and instead force them to use the wildlife crossings. The crossings were designed for panther use, the panthers being the shyest animal in the area. If panthers can be accommodated, then other threatened and endangered species and other wildlife are expected to use them. DOT studies of the effectiveness of wildlife crossings, with fencing, including crossings installed on Alligator Alley, establish that wildlife will use the crossings, both singly and in groups, and that the crossings substantially reduce, if not eliminate, automobile- related mortality of wildlife. Documented wildlife include panthers, wild turkeys, wading birds, alligators, deer, bobcats, black bears and raccoons. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)3, FLORIDA STATUES Section 403.918(2)(a)3, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.” The replacement of the bascule bridge at Jewfish Creek with a 65-foot high fixed-height bridge will be a benefit to navigation. Because Jewfish Creek is part of the intracoastal waterway, the existing bridge has to be frequently raised or lowered to accommodate marine traffic. Because of the age of the existing structure, frequent breakdowns have been experienced. Marine traffic is stopped or delayed if the bridge cannot be raised or if there is a delay in raising the bridge. Vehicular traffic is stopped while the bridge is raised. Regarding the flow of water, the project incorporates wildlife box culverts and bridges, which will improve tidal flushing and the flow of water south of the C- 111 canal. The District considered this to be a positive consideration under the public interest test. The 25 hydrologic culverts north of the C-111 canal were also a positive factor in the test because the culverts provide future water management capability. Erosion and shoaling are neutral factors in the public interest test because the permit conditions contain a plan to control erosion and shoaling during construction and to provide for road stabilization after construction. In addition, there is a positive factor regarding shoaling in that the roadway area now has a lot of storm action, causing problems with erosion on the side of the road. The project provides for road stabilization, which is a neutral to positive factor in the public interest test. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)4, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity of the project.” A positive factor pertaining to marine productivity is the box culverts and bridges south of C-111, which will allow marine species to travel beneath the road to access the water on both sides of the road. Removal of the causeway along Lake Surprise opens that water body back up to one contiguous system, which is also a positive factor. The seagrass mitigation addressed in previous sections will also improve marine productivity and provide habitat for fish. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)5, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)5, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature.” The project is permanent, though some construction impacts are temporary in nature. Once temporary impacts have ended and the project is complete, the project will be a positive benefit, because of the construction of the SWM system, culverts, animal underpasses and other benefits as set forth above. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)6, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)6, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[w]hether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061.” This factor is not at issue. SECTION 403.918(2)(a)7, FLORIDA STATUTES Section 403.918(2)(a)7, Florida Statutes, requires the permitting agency to consider “[t]he current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity.” A percentage of wetlands immediately adjacent to the road are impacted by exotic vegetation. Areas further out are part of a significant wetland ecosystem and are considered high quality. This project contains an exotic control program within FDOT's right of way, which is a positive consideration in the public interest test. Wetlands are currently receiving untreated storm water, which runs off the road immediately into the adjacent wetlands and water bodies without treatment. The project will include a SWM system where none currently exists as is detailed in the previous sections. This is a positive factor in the public interest test. The direct impacts of the project on 149 acres of wetlands alongside the roadway is not as large or significant as the impact caused by placement of the original embankment and resulting cut off of the eastern and western portions of the Everglades north of the C-111 canal. Overall, the concurrent and upfront mitigation efforts of FDOT are of regional significance and benefit to Everglades ecosystem by helping to repair the damage caused by the original embankment. THE PROJECT IS CLEARLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST The District appropriately weighed all considerations in determining that the project is clearly in the public interest. The greater weight of the competent, credible evidence established that the project is clearly in the public interest. RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT APPLICATION The land encompassed by the ROW permit has been properly adopted as a "work" of the District, requiring District authorization via a ROW Permit Modification to FDOT. The District's real property interest in the C-111 ROW applicable to the ROW permit modification consists of both fee simple and easement interests. The evidence is clear that DOT's application for the permit modification was thoroughly reviewed by the District, consistent with the District's established ROW permit review process. The District presented uncontroverted evidence and expert testimony to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that issuance of the permit modification to FDOT is consistent with all applicable District statutes, rules and other criteria, including the District's conditions for issuance of ROW Permits set forth in Rule 40E-6.301, F.A.C. FBII offered no evidence or testimony to the contrary. FUTURE MODIFICATIONS Modifying the project at a later date to pave a second southbound lane would require a District ERP permit. The addition of impervious surface triggers the District's SWM jurisdiction in this regard. However, FDOT established that that it had no current plans for further widening. The permit conditions require secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the increased capacity be addressed in accordance with the rules and criteria in effect at the time of any application for future widening. In addition, the permits require that FDOT must comply with any more stringent water quality criteria in effect at the time of any future widening. MODIFICATIONS AT THE FINAL HEARING At the Final Hearing, the District issued an Addendum to Staff Report for each of the SWM and WRM permits. The amendments made non-substantive changes to the District's staff reports regarding fencing along the roadway, performance of a study of fencing on the roadway by FDOT, water quality sampling along the roadway, assignment of mitigation credits, and other technical changes in wording for purposes of clarification. The changes set forth in the District's Exhibits 5 and 6 do not create impacts to the environment beyond those addressed elsewhere herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Governing Board of the South Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order that issues the three permits challenged in this proceeding (SWM Permit No. 940606-10, WRM Permit No. 9460606-2-D, and ROW Permit No. 2584) subject to the conditions contained in the staff reports on the SWM permit application and the WRM permit application and subject to the additional permit conditions reflected by District Exhibits 5 and 6 and by the Findings of Fact pertaining to the permit for the relocation of the FKAA pipe. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 11th day of April, 1997.
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Permit This case involves a 65-acre site in north Lee County owned by the City of Ft. Myers. At all material times, the land has been zoned under industrial- equivalent designations. By leases that are not part of this record, Ft. Myers has leased 21.4 acres of the 65 acres to various governmental agencies, including Lee County, Lee County Sheriff's Office, and possibly the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly known as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). The following facilities are presently located on the 21.4 acres: Juvenile Detention Center, Lee County Stockade, Price Halfway House, Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and Emergency Operations Center. By lease dated September 20, 1993, Ft. Myers leased the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres to Lee County for a term of 50 years. This lease allows Lee County to use the 43.6 acres for $1 per year, but only for the operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility. Under Paragraph 20 of the lease, Ft. Myers may terminate the lease if Lee County ceases to operate the facility. Likewise, Lee County may terminate the lease if the Department of Juvenile Justice ceases to fund the County's operation of the facility. Under the lease, preference is given to juvenile residents of Ft. Myers. Paragraph 22 of the lease allocates liability to Lee County for claims or damages arising from released fuels, including from pipelines. The lease is not assignable without Ft. Myer's consent. By agreement dated December 17, 1993, Ft. Myers consented to the sublease of the entire 43.6- acre parcel to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of the construction of a juvenile residential commitment facility. Lee County receives no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice. In Paragraph 10 of the agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice agrees to maintain, at its expense, "all improvements of every kind . . .." Lee County must make any repairs to improvements if the Department of Juvenile Justice fails to do so. By subsequent agreement, Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS) became the agent for the Department of Juvenile Justice for the design, permitting, and construction of the juvenile justice facility. By Application for a surface water management permit executed June 16, 1994, DMS applied for a surface water management permit for the construction and operation of a 10.9- acre project known as the Lee County Juvenile Commitment Facility. This 10.9-acre project is part of the 43.6 acres leased to Lee County and subleased to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The application states that the existing 21.4 acres of developed sites, which are leased under separate agreements to different governmental entities, "will be permitted as is." The Staff Review Summary of Respondent South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) describes the purpose of the application as follows: This application is a request for Authorization for Construction and Operation of a surface water management system to serve a 10.9 acre Institutional project discharging to Six Mile [Cypress] Slough via onsite wetlands and road- side swales. The application also requests Authorization for Operation of a surface water management system serving a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Staff recommends approval of both authorizations with conditions. The Staff Review Summary accurately states that the owner of the land is Ft. Myers. Of questionable accuracy is the statement that Ft. Myers leases to Lee County the 21.4 acres devoted to the five existing facilities. Although Lee County probably is a lessee of some of these parcels, the Lee County Sheriff's Office is the lessee (or perhaps sublessee) of at least two parcels. One of the other parcels may involve a state agency, again under either a lease or a sublease. The Staff Review Summary inaccurately states that the project developer is Lee County. The project developer is DMS or its principal, the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Staff Review Summary reviews the existing development on the 21.4 acres. The improvements consist of the 4.8-acre Juvenile Detention Center, 2.9- acre Price Halfway House, 4.7-acre Lee County Stockade, 5.1-acre Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and 3.9-acre Emergency Operations Center. The Staff Review Summary states that the footer of the Juvenile Detention Center was inspected in February 1980. The site drains into a 1.2- acre retention pond, which was a natural pond dug out to accept the drainage from the Juvenile Detention Center. A small amount of surface flow drains from the Juvenile Detention Center to a perimeter swale that drains west into a ditch running along Ortiz Avenue. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Price Halfway House was issued in October 1982. The site drains into the 1.2-acre retention pond, which was apparently enlarged a second time to accept the additional flow. A small amount of the flow from the Price Halfway House also drains to the perimeter swale and west into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Lee County Stockade was issued on May 25, 1976. SFWMD issued an exemption and a determination that no permit was required for two additions to the stockade in 1988 and 1989. For the additional impervious surface added by these additions, one inch of water quality treatment was provided. After the abandonment of a pumping system, drainage of the stockade site consists of water building up in existing onsite ditches and sheet flowing into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary adds that a small retention area constructed at the southeast corner of the site treats stormwater from the stockade and the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. The summary adds that a small amount of stormwater drains north into an exterior swale that drains into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department in August 1977. Stormwater from the site sheetflows to exterior swales north and south of the building. When the swales fill up, the water flows into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Emergency Operations Center on October 11, 1977. Drainage from the center flows directly into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. Under "Water Quality," the Staff Review Summary reports that SFWMD "did not require compliance with discharge rate or criteria" based on Section 1.6, Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the [SFWMD] March 1994 (Basis of Review), which contains guidelines issued by SFWMD for the construction and operation of surface water management systems. The summary adds that there have been no "water quality or quantity complaints associated with this site over the past 18 years since its initial construction." Noting that a surface water management permit is requested for the entire 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary states that the above-described drainage systems for the five existing facilities are "operational and will remain as they now exist." Turning to the proposed development, the Staff Review Summary states that the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres "will also be leased to Lee County by the City for the proposed commitment facilities." The facilities are accurately described as a 5.2-acre halfway house and a 5.7-acre bootcamp, both of which will be drained by internal drainage swales and culverts flowing into detention areas, which will discharge through a control structure into onsite wetlands leading to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Addressing designed discharge rates, the Staff Review Summary acknowledges that the bootcamp's discharge rate will exceed the allowable rate for a 25-year, three-day storm event. The allowable rate is .33 cfs, and the design rate is .37 cfs. The Staff Review Summary explains that this discrepancy results from the use of the minimum size orifice (three inches) in the control structure. Addressing water quality, the Staff Review Summary reports that commercially zoned sites are required to provide one-half inch dry pretreatment for water quality unless reasonable assurance can be provided that hazardous material will not enter the surface water management system. Determining that no hazardous material will be stored or generated on the site, SFWMD did not require the one-half inch dry pretreatment of runoff. Noting that no surface water management permits have ever been issued for any part of the 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary recommends that, subject to the customary Limiting Conditions, SFWMD issue: Authorization for Construction and Operation of a 10.9 acre Institutional Project discharging to Six Mile Cypress Slough via onsite wetlands and roadside swales, Operation of a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Limiting Condition 4 states that the permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the "responsible operational entity accepted by [SFWMD], if different from the permittee." Limiting Condition 8 adds: A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirements in section 9.0, "Basis of Review . . .," has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. Special Condition 11 states: "Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of Lee County." The Permittee and the Entity Responsible for Maintenance The proposed permit consists of two authorizations. The first authorization is for the construction and operation of the surface water management system on the 10.9-acre parcel on which will be constructed the bootcamp and halfway house. The second authorization is for the operation of the existing surface water management system on the already-developed 21.4 acres and the unimproved surface water management system on the remaining 32.7 acres. There are two problems with the designation of Lee County as the entity responsible for maintaining the permitted surface water management systems. Basis of Review 9.1.B states: To satisfy [P]ermit [L]imiting [C]ondition [8], the Permittee must supply appropriate written proof, such as either by letter or resolution from the governmental entity that the governmental entity will accept the oper- ation and maintenance of all the surface water management system components . . .. The authorization for operation of the systems on the 21.4-acre and 32.7-acre parcels does not await any construction. Once the permit is issued, the authorization is effective. Therefore, all prerequisites to the designation must have been satisfied before the operation permit issues. For the 21.4-acre parcel, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County is the lessee or sublessee of all of the parcels underlying the five existing facilities. In fact, it appears that Lee County is not the lessee or sublessee of all of these parcels. Even if Lee County were the lessee or sublessee of these five parcels, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County has assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the surface water management system for the five parcels. Contrary to Basis of Review 9.1.B, there is no written agreement by Lee County to assume operational responsibility, nor is there even an actual agreement to this effect. SFWMD's rules sensibly require that written consent be obtained before the operation permit is issued. Likewise, DMS has failed to show that Lee County has agreed to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the surface water management system for the 32.7-acre parcel. Again, SFWMD must obtain written consent before issuing the permit because no construction will precede operation for the surface water management system on this parcel. Unlike the situation as to the 21.4-acre parcel, the 32.7-acre parcel is leased to Lee County as part of the 43.6- acre parcel. But in the December 17, 1993, agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, assumes responsibility for maintaining all improvements, which arguably includes drainage improvements. As between Ft. Myers and Lee County, Lee County assumes secondary liability for the maintenance of all improvements. But the failure of the Department of Juvenile Justice to do so would likely represent a default under the agreement. In such a case, the lease and separate agreement probably would either be in litigation or Lee County would have terminated its obligations under the contracts. In either case, it is unlikely that Lee County would perform its secondary responsibility to maintain the drainage improvements, especially where it is receiving no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice and priority is given to Ft. Myers juveniles in admission decisions. Construction will precede operation as to the 10.9- acre parcel so the parties have an opportunity, even after the construction and operation permit is issued, to secure the necessary written consent before the operation permit goes into effect. But similar deficiencies exist with respect to the 10.9- acre parcel because the same agreement imposes upon the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, the obligation to maintain improvements. An additional complication arises as to the 10.9-acre parcel. The Department of Juvenile Justice intends to contract with one or more private entities to operate the bootcamp and halfway house, so there is at least one more party that Lee County could claim was responsible for maintenance of the surface water management system. The question of who is responsible for maintaining the surface water management systems is important. Drainage quantities and directions can change if swales clog up with vegetation or other matter. In this case, one roadside swale in the area of the 21.4-acre parcel is blocked with vegetation. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the designated entity has assumed responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the existing systems or will assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the proposed system following its construction. Permit for Existing Development Section 1.6, Basis of Review, states: [SFWMD] issues construction and operation permits for proposed surface water management activities and operation permits for existing systems. The criteria herein are specifically designed to apply to proposed activities (construction and operation permits). Therefore, some of the criteria may not be applicable to the permitting of existing systems (operation permits). For example, in some cases, existing systems may not meet flood protection criteria. Criteria deviation for existing systems will be identified in staff reports. SFWMD has produced no evidence explicating the extent to which existing systems, such as the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, are entitled to operating permits without meeting some of the criteria applicable to proposed systems, such as the system on the 10.9-acre parcel. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to explain why certain existing systems might not have to meet certain criteria, such as flood protection criteria. Except for the quantity deviation discussed below, there is nothing in the record disclosing the extent to which SFWMD has waived, or even considered the applicability of, certain or all criteria prior to the issuance of operation permits for the existing systems. In practice, SFWMD does not adhere even to the vague standards implied in 1.6. According to the SFWMD witness, the practice of SFWMD, as reflected in this case as to the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, is to permit existing systems "as is, where is," as long as they have had no reported problems. There are numerous deficiencies in the "as is, where is" unwritten policy, apart from the obvious one that it conflicts with the assurance of 1.6 that only "some of the criteria may not be applicable" to existing systems. First, the record does not define what a "problem" is. Second, the record discloses no means by which reported problems are collected and later accessed, such as by a parcel index. The "as is, where is" policy is an abdication of the limited responsibilities that SFWMD imposes upon itself in 1.6, especially when applied to the present facts. The facts are straightforward. Neither Ft. Myers, Lee County, nor any other party has ever obtained a permit for any surface water management system, despite numerous improvements in the past 20 years requiring such permits, including the construction of a heliport, at which maintenance and refueling of helicopters takes place. In two relatively minor cases, discussed below, SFWMD erroneously determined that no permit was required. In one of those cases, the applicant, Lee County, candidly admitted the existence of a flooding problem. Based on the present record, neither DMS nor SFWMD has justified the issuance of an operation permit for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels based either on Basis of Review 1.6 or on the "as is, where is" unwritten policy. Construction of the five improvements on the 21.4 acres began between 1975 and December 1977 with construction of a portion of the Lee County Stockade building and parking, Emergency Operations Center building and parking, and a now- removed barn for the Lee County Sheriff's Office. At the same time, a lake was dug, probably for fill purposes. By the end of 1977, about 2.39 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface. From 1978 to March 1980, another 0.96 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface by the construction of a perimeter dike and road. During this period, construction commenced on the Juvenile Detention Center, adding another 1.63 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1980 and December 1981, additions were made to the Lee County Stockade building and the lake for an additional 0.45 acres of impervious area. Between December 1981 and March 1984, the Price Halfway House building and parking were constructed, adding another 0.79 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1984 and February 1986, a heliport facility and landing area were constructed for the Lee County Sheriff's Office, adding another 1.01 acres of impervious surface. Between February 1986 and February 1990, an additional 2.31 acres of impervious surface were added through additions to the Lee County Stockade and parking area, juvenile detention center, and Emergency Operations Center parking area. Between February 1990 and April 1993, another addition to the Lee County Stockade added 0.62 acres of impervious surface. An additional 0.17 acres of lake was excavated. During this time, applicable rules and statutes required permits for the construction of "works" affecting surface water, including ditches, culverts, and other construction that connects to, or draws water from, drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state. The buildings, parking, other impervious surfaces, ditches, swales, dikes, lake excavations, and, at one point, addition of a now- abandoned pump all constituted "works" for which surface water management permits were required. In 1988, Lee County or Ft. Myers applied for an exemption for an addition to the Lee County Stockade. The basis for the claim of exemption was that the parcel consisted of less than 10 acres and the total impervious surface did not exceed two acres. Although rules in effect at the time required consideration of the contiguous 65 acres under common ownership and the total impervious surface for the 9.7-acre "parcel" exceeded two acres, SFWMD erroneously issued an exemption letter. The second instance involving a claim of exemption took place in 1989 when Lee County submitted plans for another addition to the Lee County Stockade, adding 0.51 acres of impervious surface. The submittal acknowledged a "flooding" problem, but promised a master drainage plan for the "entire site." SFWMD determined that no permit would be required due to the promise of a master drainage plan. No master drainage plan was ever prepared. The flooding problem precluded issuance of the operation permit on an "as is, where is" basis for the already-developed 21.4-acre parcel, even assuming that SFWMD adequately justified the use of this unwritten permitting procedure. In fact, SFWMD has not explained adequately its "as is, where is" permitting procedure or even the undelineated permitting criteria referenced in 1.6, Basis of Review. The 65- acre parcel is a poor candidate for preferential permitting of existing systems. The owner and developer constructed the existing systems in near total disregard of the law. The two times that the owner and developer complied with the permitting process involved small additions for which exemptions should not have been granted. In one case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity due to its error calculating minimum thresholds as to the areas of the parcel and the impervious surface. In the other case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity partly in reliance on a promised master drainage plan that was not later prepared. To issue operation permits for the existing systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels would reward the owner and developer of the 65-acre parcel for noncompliance with the law and provide an incentive for similarly situated landowners and developers likewise to ignore the law. Before issuing operation permits on systems that have received no comprehensive review and that have been added piecemeal over the years, SFWMD must evaluate the surface water systems on the entire 65-acre parcel to determine whether they meet all applicable criteria. The "as is, where is" unwritten policy has no applicability where there have been reports of flooding. If SFWMD chooses to dispense with criteria in reliance upon Basis of Review 1.6, it must be prepared to identify and explain which criteria are waived and why. Water Quality Basis of Review 5.2.2 provides that projects that are zoned commercial or industrial, such as the present one, must provide one-half inch of "dry" detention or retention pretreatment, unless reasonable assurances are provided "that hazardous materials will not enter the project's surface water management system." There is no existing or proposed dry detention on the 65 acres. The existing development includes the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, which serves as a heliport. The fueling and maintenance of helicopters means that contaminants may enter the stormwater draining off the site. The functioning of the surface water system on this site is therefore of particular importance. There also may be more reason to question the functioning of the surface water system on this site. It is south of the Lee County Stockade, where flooding has been reported. The heliport site has also been the subject of more elaborate drainage improvements, such as the location of a small retention pond near the Stockade boundary and a pump, the latter of which has since been abandoned. The existing system on the 21.4-acre parcel, as well as the existing and proposed systems on the remainder of the 65 acres, require dry pretreatment for reasons apart from the presence of the heliport. The materials likely to be used with the existing and proposed developments are similar to those found on residential sites. SFWMD and DMS contend that there is therefore no need to require dry pretreatment as to these areas. However, the existing and intended institutional uses, such as jails and bootcamps, represent an intensity of use that exceeds the use typical in areas zoned residential. This increased intensity implies the presence of typical residential contaminants, such as petroleum-based products or cleaning solvents, but in greater volumes or concentrations, if not also, in the case of solvents, different compositions. The lease addresses potential liability for released petroleum. In the absence of a showing that such hazardous materials are prevented from entering the runoff, SFWMD must require dry pretreatment for the systems occupying the entire 65-acre parcel. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quality criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quality criteria. Water Quantity The 65-acre parcel adjoins Ortiz Avenue on the west and property owned by Petitioners on the east and south that is undeveloped except for a borrow pit some distance from the 65- acre parcel. The parcel is roughly 1000 feet east- west and 2700 feet north-south. The proposed halfway house is at the north end of the parcel. The halfway house is situated between a proposed detention pond on the west and a recreation field on the east. A paved road divides the halfway house from the rest of the 65- acre parcel. South of the road are the Lee County Stockade on the west, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, and the Juvenile Detention Center on the east. A berm separates these two sites. The berm runs from the road along the west shore of the twice- enlarged 1.2- acre retention pond and the west boundary of the Price Halfway House, which is south of the Juvenile Detention Center. To the west of the berm, south of the Lee County Stockade, is the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department or heliport facility, which abuts Ortiz Avenue. South of the Aviation Department is an outparcel used by the Florida Department of Corrections that also abuts Ortiz Avenue. East of the outparcel is the proposed halfway house with a proposed detention pond west of the halfway house and south of the outparcel. The Emergency Operations Center, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, is south of the detention pond and surrounded on three sides by the 32.7 acres to be left undisturbed at this time. There are perimeter berms around all of the parcels except for the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, which are served by a single berm, and the Emergency Operations Center, which appears not to be bermed. The prevailing natural drainage is not pronounced either by direction or volume because the land is nearly level. The natural direction of drainage is to the south and west and remains so on Petitioners' land to the east and south and the undisturbed 32.7 acres to the south. The variety of drainage directions within the remainder of the 65- acre parcel reflects the extent to which berms, swales, ponds, pumps, roads, buildings, parking areas, and other works have been added to the northerly parcels. Runoff reaching the northern boundary of the 65 acres will be diverted due west around the proposed detention pond to the swale running along the east side of Ortiz Avenue. Runoff from the recreation field and halfway house building and parking area drain into the proposed detention pond, which releases water through a gravity control device to the Ortiz Avenue swale. There appears to be a connection routing some runoff from the south side of the recreation field to the Juvenile Detention Center, where it travels west in a roadside swale to the Ortiz Avenue swale. A little less than half of the area of the Juvenile Detention Center site drains into perimeter swales along the north and east borders and then to the west before emptying into the Ortiz Avenue swale. The remainder of the Juvenile Detention Center drains into the retention pond. The same is true of the Price Halfway House. The Lee County Stockade drains to each of its borders where the water then runs west along the north or south border to the Ortiz Avenue swale. The southern half of the Lee County Stockade site drains into the small retention pond at the northwest corner of the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. Most of the runoff from the heliport facility runs to the southwest corner of the parcel, which is the location of the abandoned pump. From there, the runoff continues to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Very little if any of the runoff from the heliport enters the small retention pond on the northwest corner of the parcel. The bootcamp drains into the detention pond, which then releases water by a gravity control structure into a portion of the undisturbed 32.7-acres before entering the Ortiz Avenue swale. The Emergency Operations Center site drains in all directions away from the building and parking area, eventually draining into the Ortiz Avenue swale. Stormwater discharge rates from the proposed halfway house and bootcamp are 0.28 cfs and 0.37 cfs. Under SFWMD rules, the allowable maximums in the Six Mile Cypress drainage basin are 0.30 cfs and 0.33 cfs, respectively. SFWMD and DMS contend that the excessive discharge from the bootcamp is acceptable because the gravity control device for the proposed detention pond is of the smallest size allowable, given the indisputable need to avoid clogging and ensuing upstream flooding. Initially, SFWMD approved the discharge rates for the halfway house and bootcamp because, when combined, they did not exceed the total allowable value. However, this approach was invalid for two reasons. First, the two sites contain entirely independent drainage systems separated by several hundred feet. Second, after correcting an initial understatement for the value for the halfway house, the actual total exceeds the maximum allowable total. SFWMD contends that the slight excess is acceptable because of the inability to use a smaller orifice in the gravity control structure. However, the discharge quantity easily could have been reduced by design alternatives, such as enlarging the detention pond, which is mostly surrounded by land that is to be left undisturbed. The ease with which the minimum-orifice problem could have been avoided rebuts the presumption contained in Basis of Review 7.2.A that excessive discharge quantities are presumably acceptable if due to the inability to use a smaller orifice. Also, SFWMD and DMS have failed to show that the effect of the excessive discharge quantities is negligible, so the exception in the SFWMD manual for negligible impacts is unavailable. Neither SFWMD nor DMS provided any reasonable assurance as to the quantity of discharge from the 21.4 acres. Rough estimates suggest it is more likely that the quantity of discharge may greatly exceed the allowable maximum. SFWMD must evaluate the water-quantity issues before issuing operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels and a construction and operation permit for the 10.9-acre parcel. Obviously, if SFWMD determines that all water quantity criteria are met as to the existing systems, it may issue operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels. Otherwise, SFWMD must quantify the extent of the deviation and, if it seeks to waive compliance with any or all quantity standards in reliance on Basis of Review 1.6, evaluate the effect of the waiver and explain the basis for the waiver. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quantity criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quantity criteria. Impacts on Adjacent Lands Petitioners' property is impacted by the above- described drainage in two ways. First, Petitioners' property abutting the east side of Ortiz Avenue, south of the 65 acres, is especially vulnerable to flooding because the Ortiz Avenue swale is not a V-notch, but a half-V. The closed side of the swale prevents the water from running onto Ortiz Avenue. The open side of swale abuts Petitioners' property, so, if the swale's capacity is exceeded, stormwater will be released onto Petitioners' land. Second, perimeter berming along the east side of the 10.9- and 21.4- acre parcels will impede flow off the part of Petitioners' property located to the east of the 65 acres. A swale between the proposed halfway house and the Juvenile Detention Center will receive runoff from a small portion of Petitioners' property to the east and mostly north of the 65 acres. But there is no indication how much runoff from Petitioners' property can be so accommodated, how much runoff is impeded by the existing berm along the east side of the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, and how much runoff will be impeded by the addition of new berms along the east side of the proposed halfway house and bootcamp. Basis of Review 6.8 requires that swales and dikes allow the passage of drainage from off-site areas to downstream areas. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality or quantity impacts on adjacent lands. Neither SFWMD nor DMS obtained topographical information for Petitioners' property, as required by the Basis of Review. Rough estimates suggest that the proposed project may require Petitioners' property to retain considerably more stormwater from the design storm event of 25 years, three days. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system would not have an adverse impact on Petitioners' upstream and downstream land.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of the Department of Management Services for all permits for the operation and construction and operation of surface water management systems on the 65-acre parcel. ENTERED on June 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 19, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Petitioners 1-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-24 (first sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 24 (remainder)-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-53: rejected as subordinate. 54-64 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 64 (second sentence)-66: rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent SFWMD 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as unnecessary. 13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (except for last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-32 (first sentence): rejected as unnecessary. 32 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that the proposed ponds are wet detention. 35 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 35 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36-45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-47: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 48-50 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 50 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 51-52, 55-57 (first sentence), and 58: adopted or adopted in substance, although insufficient water quality treatment. 53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance, except after "therefore." None of remainder logically follows from what is said in 1.6. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 62-64: rejected as subordinate, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. 65: rejected as subordinate. 66: rejected as irrelevant. The burden is on the applicant and SFWMD, if it wishes to issue the permits, to provide reasonable assurances as to the adverse impact of the drainage systems. 67-68: rejected as subordinate. 69: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 70: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 71: rejected as repetitious. 72: rejected as irrelevant, except for past report of flooding, which is rejected as repetitious. 73: rejected as repetitious. 74: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 75 (first three sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 75 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 1 and 2: rejected as irrelevant insofar as the same result is reached with or without the permit modifications. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent DMS 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as subordinate. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the excessive discharge was not "caused" by the minimum-sized orifice, only defended on that basis. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, except for implication that no flooding problems existed. 16: rejected as recitation of evidence. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as irrelevant. 19: adopted or adopted in substance, to the extent that separateness of systems is relevant. 20: rejected as subordinate. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as subordinate. 23-30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, based on the present record. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and relevance. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Russell P. Schropp Harold N. Hume, Jr. Henderson Franklin P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, Fl 33902 O. Earl Black, Jr. Stephen S. Mathues Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Vincent J. Chen Toni M. Leidy South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent owns real property located in Township 2 North, Range 7 East, Section 32, in Madison County, Florida, that has surface water flowing through it and is encompassed within what is defined as "wetlands." Respondent is in control and possession of the property in question and all work on the property that is material to this proceeding is under the control or direction of the Respondent. There were access roads on the property as early as 1973 as reflected by Respondent's exhibit 2, a 1973 aerial photograph, but the width of the roads or the existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Petitioner's exhibit 2, a 1981 aerial photograph, shows the roads still in existence in 1981 but the width of the roads or existence of ditches or culverts cannot be determined from the photograph. Sometime before the Respondent purchased the property and began construction to expand the roads, ditches and culverts were in place; however, there was no evidence as to when the ditches and culverts came to be in place. A 1976 survey of the property reflects 60 foot roads which were to provide access to platted but unrecorded lots. These roads had not been constructed when Respondent purchased the property or began construction to expand the roads. The newly constructed portions of the road indicates an attempt to build the roads in accordance with the 1976 survey. The previously existing roads attempted to follow the natural contour of the land and as a result were not always straight, and only had a negligible effect on the flow or storage of surface water in regard to the property. Sometime around October 1987, Respondent began to rebuild and construct roads on the property by straightening existing curves, removing fill material from adjacent wetlands to widen and heighten the existing roadbed or construct a new roadbed, and to increase the depth and width of existing ditches or dig new ditches. The initial portion of the existing road providing access to the property from the county graded road has been substantially rebuilt with portion of the roadbed being 40 to 43 feet wide. Ditches along this portion of the roadbed have had their width increased up to 14 feet and their depth increased up to 6 and 8 feet. Other portions of the road has been expanded beyond the previously existing roadbed by increasing the width and height of the roadbed. The increased size of the ditches and the expanded roadbed has increased the interception of surface water above that already being intercepted by the previous roadbed and ditches and, as a result, there is an increased amount of surface water impounded or obstructed. The effect is that surface water is removed from Respondent's property at a faster rate than before road construction began and, as a result, sheet flow of surface water is decreased which diminishes the storage of surface water on the property. Although new culverts were installed during road construction, there was insufficient evidence to show that these new culverts were in addition to the culverts already in place or if they replaced old culverts. There was insufficient evidence to show that the new culverts allowed water to flow in a different direction or be removed from the property at a faster rate than before or if they impounded or obstructed surface water more so than before. The previously existing roads had sufficiently served an earlier timber harvest on the property and, by Respondent's own testimony, were sufficient for his ongoing hog and goat operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case was neither necessary nor a customary practice for construction of farm access roads in this area. Respondent is engaged in the occupation of agriculture in that he has a bona fide hog and goat operation. However, Respondent's silviculture occupation is somewhat limited in that he is presently harvesting the timber but shows no indication of replanting or continuing the forestry operation upon completing the present harvesting operation. The extensive rebuilding and constructing of roads in this case goes beyond what is necessary or is the customary practice in the area for a hog or goat operation or forestry operation such as Respondent's and is inconsistent with this type of agriculture or silviculture occupation. Respondent has never applied for nor received a surface water management permit from the Petitioner even though the Petitioner has informed Respondent that a permit was required for the work being done on his property. The present alteration of the topography of the land by Respondent has obstructed and impounded surface water in such a fashion that the interruption of the sheet flow of surface water has been increased, causing the storage of surface water on the property to be diminished. At the present time, Respondent has been enjoined by the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, from any further activity on this project. However, should Respondent be allowed to complete this project, it is evident that the sole and predominant purpose would be to impound and obstruct the sheet flow of surface water and diminish the storage of surface water on the property in question.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, Suwannee River Management District, enter a Final Order requiring Respondent, Norman Leonard, to: (a) remove all unauthorized fill material placed within jurisdictional wetlands and return those areas to predevelopment grades and revegetate with naturally occurring local wetlands species to prevent erosion; (b) back fill excavated swale ditches, return road beds and excavated ditches to predevelopment condition and grades and seed disturbed non-wetland areas with a 50:50 mix of bahia and rye grass and; (c) refrain from any other development until and unless a required permit is obtained for such development. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1445 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. 2.-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4.-7. Are unnecessary findings for this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as conclusions of law. Adopted in Findings of Fact 3 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 17. 26.-29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 30. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 31.-32. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 35.-38. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 39.-42. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1. The first paragraph adopted in Finding of Fact 16. The balance is rejected as a conclusion of law. 2.-3. Rejected as not being relevant or material. Not a finding of fact but a statement of testimony. However, it is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The more credible evidence is contrary to this finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice F. Baker, Esquire Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, Florida 32056-1029 Norman Leonard, Pro Se Route 2, Box 172-D Live Oak, Florida 32060 Donald O. Morgan Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, Florida Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether Michael Chbat's 2008 application for a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) to construct a culvert extension across his property in Walton County, Florida, should be approved?
Findings Of Fact La Grange Bayou Estates La Grange Bayou Estates is a residential subdivision in Freeport, Walton County, Florida. The subdivision lies to the north of the shoreline of Choctawhatchee Bay. It can be viewed as divided roughly in half between bayfront lots south of an east-west road that transects the subdivision and lots that are north of the road. The subdivision is platted and the plat is in the public records of Walton County. Filed with the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Walton County, Florida, on September 15, 1982, the plat ("the 1982 Plat") shows 29 residential lots in the subdivision as of that date. See Petitioner's Ex. 6. Lots 1 through 16, according to the 1982 Plat, are the bayfront lots, south of a 40-foot wide road designated as a private road in the plat. That road is now known as Alden Lane. Wetlands over which the Department has jurisdiction ("jurisdictional wetlands") comprise much of the southern portion of bayfront lots and the drainage easement. Among the bayfront lots are both Lot 9 which belongs to Mr. Chbat and Lot 8 which belongs to Mr. Sheehey. A 50-foot easement lies between Lot 9 and Lot 8 and is described more fully below. The presence of jurisdictional wetlands on Mr. Chbat's lot over which he hopes to install the culvert extension requires that he obtain a WRP. To the north of Alden Lane are lots numbered by the 1982 Plat as 17 through 29. The lots are served by Alden Lane and, in what is roughly the northeast quadrant of the subdivision, by two other roads. One of the roads is shown on the 1982 Plat as a "40' PRIVATE ROAD." Id. A 2006 aerial photograph introduced into evidence by Chbat designates the road "unnamed." See Chbat Ex. 5. The other is designated as a "graded county road," on the 1982 Plat. By 2006, it had come to be known as Beatrice Point Road. Id. Beatrice Point Road transects a pond that runs roughly 340 feet (excluding about 30 feet of roadway) in a northeasterly direction from Alden Lane to the southern edge of an area north of the subdivision shown on the 1982 Plat to be un-platted. The pond is most likely the result of a "borrow pit" dug in order to obtain fill for the construction of the roads when the subdivision was initially developed. The southern boundary of the pond lies along approximately 140 feet of Alden Lane's northern edge. The pond is across the street from Lots 9, 10 and 11 of the subdivision. The pond is also not far northeast of the 50-foot easement (the "Drainage Easement") between Lots 9 and 8. The Drainage Easement The Drainage Easement is just to the west of Lot 9. It is noted on the 1982 Plat as a "50' EASEMENT (PRIVATE)." Id. The 50-foot wide Drainage Easement runs the length of the western boundary of Lot 9 and the length of the eastern boundary of Lot 8. The northeast corner of the Drainage Easement is approximately 30 feet from the southwest corner of the pond separated from the pond by the roadway of Alden Lane. The eastern boundary of the Drainage Easement is 226.37 feet in length, or if taken to the middle of Alden Lane, 246.3 feet. The western boundary is 206.13 feet long or if taken to the middle of the road, 226.65 feet. The purpose of the Drainage Easement, as is evident from its denomination in this recommended order, is drainage. As Mr. Street definitively put it at hearing, it is "now and always has been intended to drain stormwater to the [B]ay." Tr. Vol. III at 179. Mr. Street's opinion of the function of the Drainage Easement is supported by drawings submitted by Mr. Chbat as part of the WRP application. The drawings show that the Drainage Easement's function is facilitated by three culverts north of the Easement (referred to during the hearing as "pipes") each of which is intended to direct stormwater at its point of discharge toward the Drainage Easement. See Chbat Ex. 1. One of the culverts ("the Drainage Ditch Culvert") serves a drainage ditch that is to the north of the Easement and Alden Lane. According to the drawings, the drainage ditch lies on the other side of the "un-named road" from the pond, that is, to the west of the pond, and is some 40-to-50 feet north of the Drainage Easement. The Drainage Ditch Culvert extends from the ditch to the southern half of Alden Lane from where it appears from the application's drawings that stormwater would be conveyed to the western side of the Drainage Easement along it's border with Lot 8 and on toward the Bay. In fact, it is a functioning culvert that "conveys water from a swale on the side of the road into the [D]rainage [E]asement." Tr. 64. Once in the Drainage Easement, according to the drawings, the water should flow into the Bay out of a "cut," id., that is labeled on the drawings as an "existing trench." See Chbat Ex. 1. The trench, however, has been filled in with sand by tidal activity or sediment deposited by stormwater or both. The trench has not been maintained, and it no longer exists. The other two culverts (the "Pond Culverts") lie east of the Drainage Ditch Culvert. They catch overflow from the pond caused by stormwater and convey it under and through Alden Lane toward the Drainage Easement. The westernmost Pond Culvert (the "Western Pond Culvert") appears to terminate in Alden Lane near its southern edge just north of the Easement. At the time of hearing, however, it was not functioning properly. "[I]t is full of sand and silted up . . .", tr. Vol. I at 58; "[t]he pipe to the west is clogged and it is not functioning." Tr. Vol. I at 64. It is also at an elevation that would keep it from serving drainage purposes in all but the most severe storm events. See Chbat Ex. 9 at 22. The other Pond Culvert, (the "Eastern Pond Culvert") terminates in the northwest corner of Lot 9 at the border between Lot 9 and the Drainage Easement about 10 feet southeast of the terminus of the Western Pond Culvert. The Eastern Pond Culvert is the culvert with which the Amended Permit is concerned, that is, it is the culvert to be extended by the permit. Calling it a "pipe," Mr. Street offered the following about the assistance the Eastern Pond Culvert offers in conveying stormwater into the Drainage Easement and down to the Bay: There is currently a pipe that discharges into that easement. There . . . was an attempt to place the water from the . . . pond into the easement. And the natural flow of water on this entire property from the road to the [B]ay is north to south. At some point, at least 2004, that drainage easement contained a conveyance at its southern end that would safely discharge stormwater to the [B]ay. Tr. Vol. III at 179-80. Petitioner Sheehey and Lot 8 Thomas Sheehey is the owner of Lot 8, where he has a residence in which he makes his home. He has lived in the residence approximately five years. During that time, Mr. Sheehey has fished in the Bay and enjoyed the use of his kayak and his waverunner on the Bay. He also enjoys "sitting down having a cup of coffee and looking at it," tr. vol. III at 151, as well as watching his neighbors fish. The recreational uses to which he puts the Bay is the reason he chose to purchase a bayfront lot in La Grange Bayou Estates. Over the period of time that he has resided on Lot 8, Mr. Sheehey has observed the effects of rain events on his lot and well as lots close to Lot 8. He has also taken pictures of his property and the near-by lots. Among the photographs were four taken after rain events or "after a wet period," tr. vol. III at 88, at some point in the last four years. The four photos were introduced as a composite exhibit, Petitioner's Ex. 2, with each photograph marked as 2A, 2B, 2C or 2D. Mr. Sheehey could not specify when the pictures were taken in the past four years other than that if a picture had a certain dock in it, then it was taken after January of 2009. Petitioner's Ex. 2A was taken from Mr. Sheehey's lot looking toward the Bay. It shows an area of the lot under water separated from the Bay by a ridge. Petitioner's Ex. 2B is a picture taken from Lot 13 looking west across Lots 12, 11, 10, 9 "down through 8." Tr. Vol. III at 86. Much of what is photographed is among trees and vegetation emerging from water standing above the surface of the soil. Petitioner's Ex. 2C is a picture taken from Alden Lane looking south across Mr. Chbat's property. It shows a wide swath of water that extends from the road across most of the property to the Bay. The water is either in a swale or constitutes overflow outside the swale. The most recent of the four is Petitioner's Ex. 2D, which shows the dock referred to by Mr. Sheehey that was built in early 2009. It is a picture taken from Lot number 13 toward the west through Lots 12, 11, 10, 9. Like the others, it shows vegetation standing in water to the north of the Bay. Taken together, the four pictures in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 demonstrate that significant portions of the lots depicted are under water following sufficient amounts of recent rain. The four photographs that comprise Petitioner's Exhibit 2 are not the only photos taken by Mr. Sheehey that were introduced into evidence. Three other photographs of Mr. Sheehey's, Petitioner's Exhibits 7A, 7B and 7C, were admitted following testimony about them from a long-time observer of the flow of water from Alden Lane to the Bay. A Long-time Observer Thomas Eugene Cummins had lived in La Grange Estates "[t]wo months shy of 20 years," tr. vol. III at 7, at the time of his testimony. His house was the fourth to be constructed in the subdivision. Over the two decades of his residence, the pond between Alden Lane and the property north of the subdivision has been in existence. Consistent with the drawings submitted to DEP as part of the application, when asked where the pond overflows today, Mr. Cummins answered "it drains under Alden Lane on to Mr. Chbat's lot." Tr. Vol. III at 8. Asked by Mr. Chesser at hearing, "When the water comes out of the pond, is it possible to know where it spreads?"1/ Mr. Cummins testified: On really heavy rains, I have watched the normal color of the pond change from its dark blackish gray color into the reddish color that the clay has washed down into it, flow under Alden Lane and on to Mr. Chbat's lot, and then proceed west through the wetland on lots eight, seven, six, and my five, and turn reddish color even in my lot. Tr. Vol. III at 9-10. Mr. Cummins knew the source of the "red color" of the stormwater: red clay introduced to La Grange Estates by the County half a decade earlier. Mr. Cummins testified: Beatrice Point Road, which is the road that runs over the pond, about five years ago the county did some repair on the road and actually put red clay in certain spots to even it out. Tr. Vol. III at 9. Prior to the county's work on the road referred-to by Mr. Cummins, there had been no red clay in the neighborhood. Alden Way, for example, has no red clay. It is a road composed of shell. The only red clay in the subdivision is that which is on Beatrice Point Road. The water that runs onto Mr. Cummins' lot following a heavy rain rises to as much as 12 inches.2/ The water rises as high as it does because it is held back by a naturally-occurring land formation between the Bay and Mr. Cummins property. This geo-formation was referred-to at hearing as the ridge line or the ridge. The Ridge The Ridge was described by Mr. Cummins as a vegetated mass of earth that most of the time, even in heavy rains, sits above the water that collects on the bayfront lots of La Grange Estates. The Ridge prevents a substantial amount of stormwater runoff from entering the Bay from the wetlands on the southern portion of the subdivision's bayfront lots. For that reason, the ridge is called "our upland,3/" tr. vol. III at 13, according to Mr. Cummins. Between Lot 9 and Lot 5, the ridge varies in width "anywhere between 10 feet . . . up toward Mr. Chbat's lot, down to [Mr. Cummins'] lot where its around 30 or 40 feet [wide.]" Id. (It may extend, in fact, across all of the bayfront lots.) The ridge meanders not far from the shoreline. Id. In some places it is as narrow as five feet. The height of the ridge varies as well from as low as one foot to as high as two and half feet. Mr. Street also testified about the Ridge, referring to it in his testimony as a "ridge line": Now, there is a ridge line, and there's been a lot of testimony about this ridge line, that it exists across all of the lots. My testimony was, essentially, related to the review that I did, which was primarily associated with lots eight and nine, and the drainage easement between them. And from what I can tell, the elevation of that ridge line is give or take three. Elevation three, not a height of three. An elevation of three. It could be lower, and perhaps, is higher. And its subject to the vagaries of a number of factors, flow of stormwater, wave action, tidal influence, and the like. And these accretions and depositions of sand over time change that ridge line. And sometimes, it opens up. And sometimes it may not have a natural opening, depending on where you are along that entire stretch of beach. * * * [T]o the extent there is an opening in that ridge line, water will flow naturally to the bay. Tr. Vol. III at 180-181. An "east west flow of water," tr. vol. III at 181, along the bayfront lots, that is, a flow of water either in an easterly direction or a westerly one is contrary to the flow from Alden Lane north of the lots to the Bay south of the lots. Whether flowing east or west, the water in the southern portions of the bayfront lots is "controlled by the ridge line." Id. In other words, stormwater that flows from north to south across the bayfront lots, including Mr. Chbat's and the Drainage Easement, is going to collect and begin to flow from east to west or west to east at some point north of the Ridge before it drains into the Bay. The only exception to east-west flow, as made clear by Mr. Street, is when and if there is an opening in the Ridge that allows the water otherwise held back by the Ridge to flow southward into the Bay. The east-west flow of the water along the Ridge was described at hearing as "unnatural." Id. In fact, it is not un-natural. The Ridge is the cause of the east-west flow and, as Mr. Street testified, the Ridge is the result of natural processes such as tidal influence, wave action, accretion and deposition of sand.4/ The Ridge is shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 7A,5/ another photograph taken by Mr. Sheehey. The ridge as shown in the picture is well vegetated and above water to its north and higher than the Bay to its south. It is quite clear that if there is no opening in the ridge to the Bay, stormwater north of the ridge is forced to flow in east-west directions and is prevented from flowing into the Bay. Petitioners' Exhibit 7B is a photograph of the southern terminus of a swale (see paragraphs 40 - 49, below) on Mr. Chbat's property. It shows the swale cut through the Ridge. Water, however, does not appear to be running from the end of the swale into the bay. It appears that the end of the swale is a few feet from the Bay separated by a narrow sandy area on the shore. Nonetheless, the photograph shows that there is potential for stormwater to flow from the swale when the swale has more water in it. Petitioner's Exhibit 7C is a picture of the pond6/ across the street from Mr. Chbat's Lot 9. Mr. Chbat and Lot 9 Michael Chbat is the owner of Lot 9. He purchased the lot "[t]o build a house on it." Tr. Vol. I at 22. Because he has family close by (in Fort Walton Beach), Mr. Chbat expects to use a house built on the lot for weekend visits. His ultimate aspiration is to live in a house on Lot 9 after he retires from his position as a construction engineer with the City of Tallahassee. At hearing, Mr. Chbat described Lot 9 on the day he bought it: "the lot was overgrown. It drained from north to south. It had water standing on it. And it had a pipe [the Eastern Pond Culvert] on the northwest corner discharging." Tr. Vol. I at 23. He also described the state of the lot at the time of hearing. The Eastern Pond Culvert on the northwest corner was still there. The lot had been cleared to some extent to rid it of invasive species. Overgrown vegetation was trimmed or cleared to make room for a driveway permitted by the Department and "a parking pad in the front area of it, as well as an access pad in the uplands." Id. A dock had also been constructed from the property into the Bay. The most significant difference between the lot at the time of purchase and the lot at the time of hearing for purposes of this proceeding is that the lot now has a swale (the Swale) that runs from the point of discharge of the Eastern Pond Culvert "all of the way to the bay area." Id. The Swale The Swale was put in sometime after March 20, 2007, as the result of a Settlement Agreement fully executed on that date "By and Between Michael Chbat and Thomas L. Sheehey." Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Settlement Agreement followed events that commenced in 2004 when Mr. Chbat filed an application (the "2004 Application") with DEP for a WRP primarily to construct a house and a boardwalk leading from the house on Lot 9 to a dock in the Bay. The 2004 Application also proposed the extension of the Eastern Pond Culvert with a "pipe" along the western boundary of Chbat's property in a manner substantially similar to the culvert extension allowed by the Amended Permit that is the subject of this proceeding. On October 28, 2005, DEP proposed that the 2004 Application be granted. The permit (the "Proposed Original Permit") was assigned No. 66-0235320-001-DF. See Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. The Proposed Original Permit was challenged by Mr. Sheehey when he "filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing contesting certain action authorized under the [Proposed Original] Permit . . . specifically the relocation of a drainage pipe . . . ." Petitioner's Ex. 10, at 2. After referral of the petition to DOAH, Mr. Chbat and Mr. Sheehey wrote in the Settlement Agreement that they had "determined that it is in their best interests to settle this matter amicably pursuant to the terms hereafter". Id. Among the terms is that Chbat would file an Amended Application. See id. The agreed-to amendment to the 2004 Application was attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit "A," a drawing of a "Drainage Swale Plan," produced by Genesis Group for Mr. Chbat. The drawing depicts a swale that runs from the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert nearly the full length of the western boundary of Lot 9 to the Bay. See Exhibit "A" to Petitioner's Ex. 10. The Swale was designed to take the place of the 2004 Application's proposal for a "pipe"7/ attached to the point of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Settlement Agreement received the support of DEP because the Department believed that a swale would assist in improving the quality of the stormwater discharged to the Bay over the untreated discharge from the end of the "pipe." Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement the 2004 Application was amended. The Department amended the Proposed Original Permit accordingly and final agency action was taken with the issuance of a permit to Mr. Chbat (the "Final Original Permit") found in DEP Permit File No. 66-0235320-001- DF. Installation of the Swale The Swale was installed, but it did not work as intended. The result of the Swale's installation was more water on the lot rather than less. Mr. Chbat described the after-effects of the Swale: "it started bringing more water to the lot . . .". Tr. Vol. I at 31. The increased amount of water is the result of several factors, one of which is tidal influence: the tide from the Bay pushes water into the Swale. "[A]bout halfway on the swale . . . that water from the bay was meeting the water from the pipe . . .". Id. The water from the Bay tide and the stormwater conveyed by the Swale would meet at "about the middle of the span of the swale." Id. The result was "a lot more water," id., on the lot. Mr. Thomason confirmed Mr. Chbat's assessment that the reason the Swale did not function as effectively as necessary is tidal flow onto Lot 9 from the Bay particularly from high winds. But tidal flow onto Lot 9 and the interruption in the discharge of stormwater through the Swale are not the only problems. There is also a maintenance factor that accompanies tidal flow: sand deposition. Mr. Thomason elaborated: "[D]uring storm events or [just normal] wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to . . . the sandy area at the end of [Lot 9] next to the [Bay.]"8/ Tr. Vol. I at 62. The influx of sand onto Lot 9 is not just a problem for adequate functioning of the Swale. The Drainage Easement has "the same problem." Id. Both the Swale and the Drainage Easement are plagued by deposition of sand pushed landward by normal tidal influences and storm events. Maintenance of the Swale and the Drainage Easement, therefore, would assist the drainage of stormwater into the Bay. The tidal influence and maintenance issues that Mr. Chbat encountered with the Swale led him to apply for a different and new permit. That application was filed in 2008. The 2008 Application Mr. Chbat filed a "Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida" with DEP on August 1, 2008 (the "2008 Application"). See Chbat Exhibit 1. The work to be approved was similar to the work originally proposed in the 2004 Application in that both applications proposed installation of a "pipe" to be fixed to the discharge point of the Eastern Pond Culvert that would run along the western boundary of Lot 9 toward the Bay. A description of the work is contained in Section 10 of the 2008 Application: "Extension of an existing stormwater pipe within a private lot approximately 150 feet. The slope for the proposed pipe extension will be at minimum so that stormwater will be treated further, and minimizing erosion." Chbat Ex. 1 at 3. After the filing of the 2008 Application, Mr. Chbat learned that Mr. Sheehey objected to the newest Chbat proposal because he believed 150 feet is not lengthy enough to clear the Ridge. See Chbat Exhibit 2. In order to cure the objection, Mr. Chbat proposed a modification to the 2008 Application. He attached a "sealed and signed drawing," id., to a letter dated September 18, 2008, that he submitted to DEP. The drawing shows the extension to be 177 feet, 27 feet more than initially proposed by the 2008 Application. The additional 27 feet was intended to ensure that the discharge would be directly into the Bay in order to "eliminate any possible run-off impact to adjacent properties." Id. The modification was accepted by DEP." See exhibit number 19/ attached to the Amended Permit, Chbat Exhibit 4. There was conflicting evidence in the proceeding on whether the outfall from a culvert extension of 177 feet will be bayward of the Ridge. The issue was put to rest by Mr. Street’s testimony in rebuttal at the hearing. See Tr. Vol. III at 194 and 203-4. His testimony establishes that the point of discharge at the end of the culvert extension will clear the Ridge so that the discharge will be directly into the Bay. The Mound The culvert extension is designed at an elevation and with cover (presumably sod). The extension runs through jurisdictional wetlands and segments them. It does not, however, isolate any portion of the wetlands. The wetlands on Mr. Chbat's property and those to the immediate east and west of it, therefore, will retain their status as jurisdictional wetlands should the extension be installed. With its sod cover, the culvert extension will be a mini-berm (or a "mound" as Mr. Street called it) at an elevation of 17 to 18 inches above grade. Water that pools to its west will no longer be able to flow eastward of the mound (except rarely under the most extreme weather events.) Conversely, water that collects to its east will no longer be able to flow westward of the extension. It would have to be a severe storm event for water to rise above the mound. Mr. Chbat has never seen water rise to 18 inches above grade and Mr. Cummins testified the highest water ever gets on his property is roughly 12 inches. The Department approved the 2008 Application as modified to lengthen the extension to 177 feet and issued the Amended Permit. But an incorrect and critical assumption was made during review of the application that related to the mound. Review of the 2008 Application During his review of the application, Mr. Street, as DEP's stormwater engineer, assumed from the drawings that the Drainage Easement is functional.10/ The assumption was expressed in Mr. Street's testimony in the Department's case-in-chief: Q [D]id you determine whether the pipe, as it would be mounded . . . [the culvert extension covered in sod] . . . would create problems for storm water flow? A I looked at that. There were two conclusions that I drew. One was that the mound would create a higher water elevation on the Chbat property east of the mound, but would not create standing water west of the mound extending into the [Drainage E]asment . . . . Which on the drawings that I reviewed showed an existing trench at the south end of that easement. And it was my opinion that any water that fell west of the mound would exit through the easement. Tr. Vol. II at 92 (emphasis added.) Mr. Street's assumption that water would not pool to the west of the mound in the Drainage Easement and toward Mr. Sheehey's property was contradicted by Mr. Sheehey's stormwater engineer, Mr. Porterfield. THe Porterfield Testimony and Support for It at Hearing The testimony at hearing of Mr. Porterfield, who conducted a site visit, established the opposite of what Mr. Street assumed. The volume of stormwater runoff that pools east of the mound, that is, water on Lot 9, will not be as great as the volume as the water that pools west of the mound. Water that would have flowed onto Lot 9 from the Eastern Pond Culvert will flow directly to the Bay via the culvert extension. The extension will also protect the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 from water that would have flowed from the Eastern Pond Culvert onto that property. But there is a significant difference between stormwater to the west of the extension and to the east. To the extension's west, the Drainage Easement and Lot 8 will have to contend with stormwater from the Drainage Ditch Culvert, the culvert north of Alden Lane that does not convey stormwater from the pond but that like the Pond Culverts has a discharge point directed at the Drainage Easement. How often and to what extent pooling of stormwater will occur west of the mound due to its presence is difficult to determine on the state of this record.11/ No studies or analyses of the likelihood and severity of storm events and the volumes of stormwater runoff that would be produced by them were conducted by any of the stormwater engineers in the case nor were any such analyses done with regard to pooling caused by the presence of the covered culvert extension. The testimony of Mr. Porterfield, however, and other evidence, demonstrates that that additional collection of water west of the mound caused by the mound will occur following heavy rain. Mr. Street was present in the hearing room throughout the entire hearing, including during the presentation of Mr. Sheehey's case. As Mr. Street candidly testified on rebuttal after he had heard all the evidence: I would also maintain that the drainage easement which has signs of a historical usage as a drainage easement with a trench, in fact, that conveys water safely to the bay, that should be re-established and maintained. That’s what it’s there for.” Tr. Vol III at 181 (emphasis added.) Thus, it became clear to Mr. Street after listening to all the evidence in the case that the Drainage Easement has not been properly maintained. The trench that was expected to carry stormwater toward the Bay no longer exists. In short, the testimony of Mr. Street, for all his many strengths as a witness, falls short of supporting the position of the Department and Mr. Chbat. Having never visited the site,12/ he approved the project on the basis of drawings that do not conform to the on-site physical reality. When presented with the evidence at hearing that the Drainage Easement is not functioning, he championed re-establishment and maintenance of the Drainage Easement. Mr. Chbat placed part of the Swale's functionality problem on the tide pushing stormwater northward but his case also recognized the maintenance problem caused by deposition of sand that besets the Swale. Mr. Thomason, moreover, recognized that the Drainage Easement has the same maintenance issue. Mr. Chbat's stormwater engineer testified During storm events or just normal wave action in the bay, sand is brought back up on to. . . the sandy area at the end of [Chbat's] lot next to the water. And so that . . . tends to inhibit the natural flow down the swale . . . we have the same problem on the drainage easement . . . where sand builds up in that discharge. Tr. Vol. I at 62 (emphasis added). From this record, it is clear that neither the Swale nor the Drainage Easement functions properly. Their functional status, moreover, is due in significant part to lack of maintenance. It may be that maintenance ultimately will not solve the problem; maintenance efforts to keep the Swale and Drainage Easement clear of the sand deposited by tidal activity may require too much effort for them to be reasonably required. But that evidence was not produced. Indeed, the record was silent as to any maintenance efforts with regard to the Swale by Mr. Chbat or with regard to the Drainage Easement by the owner of the easement. The record is also silent as to whether DEP voiced any concern about the maintenance issues that beset the Swale. It is clear that concern was not raised by the Department in regard to the Drainage Easement until the rebuttal phase of the hearing, since the assumption was made that the easement was properly maintained. Whatever communication may have occurred with regard to maintenance issues among the parties, the Department issued the Amended Permit.13/ The Permit/Authorization Number for the Amended Permit is 66-235320-002-DF.14/ Issued December 19, 2008, the Amended Permit has an expiration date of December 19, 2013. The expiration date coincides with the construction phase of five years on the face of the Amended Permit. See Chbat Ex. 4. Mr. Sheehey Challenges the Amended Permit On January 6, 2009, Mr. Sheehey, pro se, filed with DEP a petition (the "Petition") seeking a formal administrative hearing with regard to "Amended Wetland Resource Permit 66- 00235320-002-DF." Although the Petition makes reference to the Amended Permit, it seeks in the first instance enforcement of the Settlement Agreement that relates to the Final Original Permit. The Petition states: "Petitioner believes that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over this matter and should enforce the March 20, 2007 Settlement Agreement which requires that Permittee act in conformance with Exhibit 'A' of the Agreement [the drawing of the Swale]." In the event that DEP declined to enforce the Settlement Agreement, the Petition sets out disputed issues of material fact that relate to issuance of the Amended Permit. The Petition was referred to DOAH on February 19, 2009. One week before the final hearing, the Department filed the motion in limine that is discussed in the Preliminary Statement of this Recommended Order. The motion was granted to the extent that it sought to preclude Sheehey from introducing evidence that supported enforcement of the Settlement Agreement since the 2008 Application, which, while bearing similarity to the 2004 Application, is nonetheless an independent application that should be approved or denied on its own merits without regard to the 2004 Application, the Proposed Original Permit, the Settlement Agreement or the Final Original Permit. The case proceeded to hearing on the remaining issues raised by the Petition: 1) whether Sheehey has standing to contest approval of the 2008 Application; 2) whether Chbat gave the notice required by Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, and 3) whether Chbat's application meets the criteria in statutes and rules for issuance of the Amended Permit. Standing The findings of fact relevant to Mr. Sheehey's standing are found in paragraph 9, above. Notice Notice of the 2008 Application was published in The Defuniak Springs Herald-Breeze, a newspaper published in Defuniak Springs, Walton County, Florida. The notice was published on October 23, 2008. The evidence presented by Mr. Sheehey concerning lack of legal notice consisted of testimony by Mr. Sheehey at hearing in response to questions from his counsel. See Tr. Vol. III at 134. The testimony does not establish that Mr. Sheehey was a person who had filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting his particular area. The testimony of Mr. Sheehey, moreover, establishes that he was given oral notice of the application by Mr. O'Donnell within four days of its filing. WRP Permitting Criteria To obtain a WRP, an applicant must satisfy the criteria in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-312 and Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. These criteria govern a range of topics including water quality. Water Quality15/ Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-312.080 provides that no permit shall be issued unless the Department has been supplied with reasonable assurances that the proposed work will not violate water quality standards. Water that enters the pond spends some amount of time in the pond (residence time) before flowing out. During residence time, solids drop out of the water so that the quality of the stormwater that flows out of the pond is reasonably expected to be better than the quality of the stormwater runoff when it entered the pond. Vegetation surrounding the pond, furthermore, enhances the quality of the water in the pond, whether the water’s source is runoff or rain falling directly into the pond. The water that flows out of the pond north of Alden Lane is “existing discharge.” Tr. Vol. I at 65. It generally made its way to the Bay prior to the Swale. Some of it makes its way to the Bay via the Swale now; some of it outside the Swale as overflow. The culvert extension will convey that discharge to the Bay if the extension is installed. The quality of the water is not significantly less when it discharges to the Bay via the Swale or otherwise from the Chbat property than when it would enter the culvert extension should it be installed. It is true that the Swale would have provided filtration and additional treatment to the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert as does the Chbat property in general. But that does not mean that the quality of the culvert’s discharge is a concern. The Swale may have been an option preferable to the extension of the culvert as far as water quality goes but all parties agree that the Swale has failed as a conveyance (albeit Mr. Sheehey maintains that the Swale would work with proper maintenance.) That there is a discharge method that improves the quality of the discharge, such as a swale, does not mean that the discharge to the Bay via the culvert extension is of insufficient quality. None of the parties tested the quality of the discharge from the Eastern Pond Culvert. The Department, nonetheless, offered evidence with regard to its quality. The Department concluded that the quality of the pond and its discharge were not of concern. Had the pond been contaminated to an extent that would have given rise to concerns, moreover, the Swale or the culvert extension as a means of conveying the discharge to the Bay would not have made a “discernible difference.” Tr. Vol. II at 80. The Department provided evidence of assumptions made with regard to the quality of the water that led the Department to conclude that testing of the discharge was unnecessary. Mr. O’Donnell, the Department’s expert in the application of state rules and statutes in wetland resource permitting, detailed the assumptions at hearing: My assumption was that that pond was dug some time in the past as a way to provide fill for roads. That it was never any part of . . . [a] stormwater treatment system. And that it conveyed upstream water through the pond and then on down into Choctawhatchee Bay. It was strictly a [borrow pit and a conveyance pond.] It was never permitted as a treatment system in any way that I was aware of in my diligence [in determining whether the extension should be permitted.] Tr. Vol. II at 79. Once Mr. O’Donnell’s testimony entered the record at the behest of Mr. Chbat, the burden shifted to Mr. Sheehey to prove that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurance of water quality. Mr. Sheehey did not offer evidence of any testing of the discharge. Nor did he offer testimony that rebutted Mr. O’Donnell’s opinion. In fact, the testimony of Mr. Wilkinson (Mr.Sheehey's witness) supported Mr. O'Donnell's opinion with regard to water quality. See Tr. Vol. III at 112. In sum, the Department made assumptions that are found to be reasonable based on Mr. O’Donnell’s expertise and experience. Those assumptions were not shown to be unreasonable by Mr. Sheehey. The Department’s conclusions about water quality flow directly from Mr. O’Donnell’s reasonable assumptions. Reasonable assurances have been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Public Interest Test Choctawhatchee Bay is not designated as an “outstanding Florida water.” The test that Mr. Chbat must meet therefore is whether the activity proposed by the permit application is “not contrary to the public interest.” § 373.414, Fla. Stat. In making that determination, the Department is directed by the statute to consider and balance seven criteria. See § 373.414(a) 1-7, Fla. Stat. Of the seven, three are at issue once water quality is determined to be of no concern. Two of the three, “[w]hether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature,” Section 373.414(1)(a)5., Florida Statutes, and “[t]he current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity,” Section 373.414(1)(a)7., Florida Statutes, do not require in-depth consideration. With regard to the nature of the project time-wise, the evidence establishes that the culvert extension is intended to be permanent. With regard to current condition, the area affected by the proposed activity is a residential lot, a substantial portion of which is under water following heavy rain. To facilitate the conveyance of stormwater, the lot is served by the Swale. The Swale is not functioning optimally because of lack of maintenance and because of the Ridge. With regard to relative value from the standpoint of water quality, the function being performed by the lot and the Swale is little, at least as established by this record. While it is certainly true that the lot with or without the Swale will filtrate and otherwise treat stormwater runoff from the pond, the difference in the quality of the stormwater conveyed by the culvert extension from that which would enter the Bay without the extension is not significant. See the discussion above of Mr. O’Donnell’s accepted opinions. Of the seven statutory criteria to be weighed and balanced by the Department, the one that is central to this case is found in subparagraph 1., of subsection (1)(a): “[w]hether the [culvert extension] will adversely affect . . . the property of others.” The “property of others” in this case is the property of Mr. Sheehey. The Project’s Effect on the Property of Mr. Sheehey. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 63-70, above, Mr. Chbat has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not have a detrimental effect on the property of Mr. Sheehey. The extent of the detrimental effect to Mr. Sheehey's property is difficult to determine from this record but it is highly likely based on all the evidence of record that there will be a detrimental effect: additional flooding in heavy rain events.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection deny17/ the Amended Permit for the failure of Mr. Chbat to provide reasonable assurances that the project will not adversely affect Mr. Sheehey's property. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 14th day of January, 2010.
The Issue The issues presented in this matter concern the request by the Petitioner to be granted a management and storage of surface waters permit by Respondent. Respondent proposes to deny the permit based upon the perception that the activities contemplated by Petitioner: (1) are not consistent with the public interest as envisioned by Section 373.016, Florida Statutes, and 40C- 4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, (2) are not a reasonable and beneficial activity, per Section 40C-4.301(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, alter the peak discharge rate of runoff from the proposed activity or the downstream peak stage or duration for the 1 in 10 year design storm, per Section 40C-4.301(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, (4) cause an increase in velocity or flood stage on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant for the design storm, per Section 40C-4.301(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code, (5) cause an increase in flow or stage such that it would adversely affect lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant, per Section 40C-4.301(3)(c), Florida Administrative Code. 1/
Findings Of Fact A predecessor applicant had requested permission to construct and operate the water management system which is the subject of this controversy. The approximate acreage involved was 197 acres in Lake County, Florida. This acreage and requested activity was subject to the regulatory requirements of St. Johns River Water Management District. Clay Island Farms, Inc., hereinafter referred to as CIF, was substituted for the initial applicant and this matter has been litigated before the Division of Administrative Hearings on the continuing application of the Petitioner. The permit application number is 4- 8089. This application was considered with application number 4-8088, pertaining to property owned by A. Duda and Sons, Inc. Subsequently, the latter application shall be referred to as the Duda request for permit. Certain additional information was sought by Respondent from the applicants, CIF and Duda, in the permit review, by correspondence dated October 2, 1981. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16 admitted into evidence. In particular, CIF was requested to prepare pre and post-development runoff rates in the 1 in 10, 1 in 25,and 1 in 100-year storms, to include stage-storage and stage-discharge rates for any and all retention facilities within the project design. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence contains a copy of the engineering report by CIF which are CIF's responses to the request for information. The date of the engineering report is July 12, 1982. The CIF application, as originally envisioned, called for the construction of exterior and interior ditches to be placed around a dike of 71 feet MSL elevation. The dike would enclose a proposed farm operation of approximately 197 acres, should the permit be granted. Within that 197 acre plot, would be found numerous drainage ditches to include major ditches and minor arterial ditches. The purpose of those ditches found in the 197 acres would be to serve as a conveyance for rainfall runoff. The system of conveyance would be connected to an existing conveyance system already in place and related to farm operations of A. Duda and Sons. The runoff would be eventually placed in a retention pond and at times discharged from that retention pond or basin into Lake Apopka by means of gravity flow. The particulars of the development of the 197 acre plot and its service dike, canals, and ditches are more completely described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which is the engineering report for the surface water management permit application. The CIF application was reviewed by the staff of the Respondent. Recommendation was made to deny the permit. Details of that denial may be found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. In the face of the denial, CIF requested an administrative hearing. This request was made on August 27, 1982, by petition for formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing to determine Petitioner's entitlement to the requested permit. St. Johns River Water Management District, in the person of its governing board, determined to refer this matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the formal proceeding and the request for the assignment of a hearing officer was received by the Division on September 13, 1982, leading to the final hearing in this cause. During the course of the final hearing, the CIF permit application was modified in a fashion which reduced the amount of acreage sought for cultivation. Now, approximately 122 acres would be farmed per the amended proposal. A general depiction of the design of the project in its amended form may be found in the engineer's sheet, which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 20 admitted into evidence. When contrasted with the engineering drawings set out in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1, the new design is essentially the same as contemplated in the original permit application, on a lesser scale. Other than dimensions, the basic concepts of the CIF operation would remain the same under the amended proposal. At present, Petitioner proposes to remove the vegetation which covers the subject 122 acre plot and to conduct a muck farming operation. That vegetation is mostly mixed hardwood with the primary species being red maple. The soil in this area is constituted of monteverde muck, which is conducive to the production of corn and carrots, the crops which Petitioner would plant, to prepare the land for the operation, the system of ditches dikes and canals described would be installed following the cleaning, draining, and leveling of the 122 acres. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 admitted into evidence depicts land which has been cultivated and the subject 122 acres in its undisturbed state. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence shows the overall CIF area is outlined in red, except for its southerly extent, which carries a red and yellow line on the exhibit. This exhibit depicts Wolfshead Lake which is a small interior lake in the southeastern corner of the overall CIF property. The yellow line in the middle of the CIF property represents, the location of a former north-south canal. The westernmost north-south reach, which is shown with a red line, depicts a canal which runs north from Wolfshead Lake into the existing Duda system of canals and ditches. The Duda operation has attempted to plug that north-south canal on the western fringe to stop the flow from the area of Wolfshead Lake, but has been unsuccessful and the water still enters the Duda farm ditches and canals. In the 1940's and early 1950's, the CIF property had been partially developed for a cattle operation and truck farming. Those canals, as described before, were installed, together with the diagonal yellow line on Petitioner's Exhibit 4, which represents a canal that was built with an axis running northeast and southwest. In addition, there was a centrally placed east-west canal and a slough running from Wolfshead Lake in a southeasterly direction. The slough is still there, although water that might be diverted from the Wolfshead Lake area into the slough is flowing north in the westerly north-south canal at present. If the project were allowed, most of the water flowing in and around the Wolfshead Lake would be introduced into the slough and from there exit to Lake Apopka. The center north-south canal and the interior east-west canal, together with the diagonal canal, are not in operation at present. The center north-south-canal would become the approximate eastern boundary of the 122 acres with the western north-south canal representing the approximate western boundary of the 122 acre plot. The northern boundary of the CIF property is constituted of an east-west canal which is part of the present Duda system. This is the only one of the canals associated with the former farming operation on the CIF property which is part of any maintained system of conveyances presently in existence. Approximately 1,000 acres are being farmed by Duda and Sons in property north of the proposed project. The Duda permit application, 4-8088 as granted, is described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 13 which is a copy of the permit. This acreage is generally found to the northwest of the CIF plot, and would allow an additional 300 acres to be farmed in that muck area, on land which has been cleared for the most part and/or which has an elevation predominantly above 68.5 feet MSL. Eighty acres of the proposed Duda permit application was denied based upon the fact that it had not been cleared prior to the Duda permit application and in consideration of the amount of the 80 acre segment which lies below 68.5 feet MSL. The elevation 68.5 feet MSL represents the flood plain for the 1 in 10 year rainfall event for Lake Apopka. The area of the Duda permit is depicted on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 and outlined on that exhibit with lines of green and yellow at the southern end, green and yellow and red and yellow on its western flanks, red at the north end and by red on the east side, together with a Duda drainage ditch, which runs north from the terminus of the north-south drainage ditch coming from Wolfshead Lake and the east-west drainage ditch at the northern extent of the CIF property. Exhibit No. 4 was made prior to clearing operations depicted in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 and that letter exhibit is a more correct indication of the appearance of the new Duda permit property today. A green diagonal line running northwest and southeast intersecting with a line running east-west and a line running north-south depicts the approximate part of the 80 acres, which lies below 68.5 feet MSL, as shown in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. Farm operations, in keeping with the authority of Permit No. 4-8088, have not commenced. If the CIF permit application is successful, the original 1,000 acres, approximately 300 acre area of the Duda permit and the 122 acres of CIF, would be tied in by a system of conveyance ditches or canals allowing the interchange and transport of water through and around the three farm areas. The existing retention pond would be expanded to accommodate the additional farm acreage. The Petitioner is willing to increase the present retention pond to a design capacity which would equal one acre of basin for each ten acres of farm land, at the place in time when all three elements of the muck farm operation were under way. This again pertains to the existing 1,000 acres, the approximately 300 acre recent Duda permit, and the 122 acres related to the CIF application. With the addition of the CIF acreage, when water in the ditches reached 67.1 feet MSL, this would cause the engagement of a 40,000 GPM pump allowing the ditch water influent into the retention pond. The pump automatically would shut off at any time the water level in the access ditches to the pond dropped below 61 feet MSL. The primary purpose of the retention pond is to make water available for irrigation of crops, in its present state, and as contemplated with the addition of the CIF project. The pond does and would detain farm water for a period of about a day allowing the settling out of certain nutrients which are in particulate form. The existing pond and in its expanded form does not and would not filter nutrients which have been dissolved and have become a part of the water column. At times of high incidence of rainfall, when the crops are inundated with water for a 48-hour period of time, the retention pond is now designed and as contemplated by the addition of the CIF farm land, would allow for the discharge of effluent into Lake Apopka through two discharge culverts. The discharge is by means of gravity through an adjustable riser system. The retention pond as presently designed and as contemplated in its expansion has established the height at which water would be released from the retention pond into Lake Apopka through the riser at 68 feet MSL. The occasion of high incidence of rainfall occurs during the normal rainy season in a given year. Discharge could also be expected in the 1 in 10 year, 24hour storm event. During that storm event or design, Lake Apopka would rise to a level of 68.54 feet MSL, a level which would correspond to the 10year flood plain. Whether in the pre or post-development phase of the 122 acres, waters from that acreage would be discharged during the course of the storm through culverts leading from the retention pond into Lake Apopka. This process would continue until the gravity flow stopped at the moment where the water level in the pond and the water level in Lake Apopka adjacent to the discharge culverts achieved equilibrium of elevation. At that point in time, the gravity flow or discharge from the retention basin would cease, there no longer being a positive gradient from the detention pond to Lake Apopka. There will be some amount of discharge in the 24-hour storm event through the culverts at the retention pond either in the pre or post-development phases of the project, because, at present, the western most north-south ditch, which is found at the western boundary of the CIF property, allows water to flow north into the present Duda ditch system, water which has fallen on the 122 acres in question. From the ditch system, that water finds its way into the retention pond and thus into the lake. The contemplated system to be installed with the 122 acres at build-out would also allow water from the 122 acres to go through a system of conveyances and to the retention pond and from there into Lake Apopka. Although considerable testimony was presented by both parties on the subject of comparing pre-development and post-development peak discharge rates of runoff from the proposed activity, in the 1 in 10 year, 24-hour storm design or event, neither party has satisfactorily proven the dimensions of the pre-development and post-development peak discharge rates of runoff from the proposed activity. This determination is made having reviewed the testimony and the exhibits in support of that testimony. Notwithstanding a lack of proof of this differential with exactitude, it has been shown by the testimony and exhibits that the post- development peak discharge rate of runoff in the 1 in 10 year, 24-hour design storm or event can be expected to exceed that of the pre-development rate. On the associated topic of the ability of the post-development design to accommodate the differential in peak discharge rate of runoff between pre- development and post-development, Petitioner has failed to establish this proof. The modeling that was done by the Petitioner, in an effort to depict the differential as 10 acre feet with an available capacity of attenuation approximating 26 acre feet within the system of ditches, is not convincing. Nor has petitioner shown that there is sufficient storage in the retention pond, in the course of the storm event. The data offered in support of Petitioner's position does not sufficiently address accommodation of the drainage from areas surrounding the 122 acres in question, which are not part of the Duda system; the amounts of water already found in the system of ditches and canals at the onset of the storm event; the amount of water located on the crops at the onset of the storm event, which would have to be removed; and the amount of water already found in the retention pond at the time of the storm event. During the 1 in 10 year 24-hour storm, the CIF 122 acres will be protected by the 71-foot MSL dike, in that the expected elevation of Lake Apopka would not exceed 68.54 feet MSL. The dike would also protect the 122 acres in the 25, 50, and 100-year, 24-hour storm events whose elevations are anticipated to be 68.98, 69.28, and 69.56 feet MSL, respectively. As a consequence, an increase in flood stage would occur on lands other than those controlled by CIF. The amount of increase in flood stage would be approximately .046 inches during the 1 in 10 year storm, and an increasingly greater amount for the larger storms. It was not established where the amount of water which could not be staged on the 122 acres would be brought to bear through the surface flow on the 31,000 acres of water which constitute Lake Apopka. Nonetheless, that water could be expected to increase the flood stage on lands other than those of the Applicant. Possibly the dikes protecting the muck farms on the northern side of Lake Apopka could be influenced by the .046 inches in elevation due to the forces associated with the 1 in 10 year storm event, such as winds and movement of the water in the lake. This is true, notwithstanding the fact that the design goal of the dikes in the area is 71 feet MSL. The dikes are constituted of muck and are susceptible to overtopping, erosion, or blowout. By history, there have bean dike failures in the northern end of Lake Apopka, and associated increases in stage or flood stage. This incremental increase in water level in the 1 in 10 year storm event, due to the CIF development, when considered in the context with the other influences of that storm event, could possibly be the determining incident leading to dike failure in the northern perimeter of Lake Apopka. However, given the history of dike failures, prior to this potential loss of the storage area on the applicant's property, it has not been shown that the proximate cause of dike failure in the 1 in 10 year storm could be expected to be the contribution of an additional .046 inches of water on the lake surface. Those failures existed prior to the potential for the addition of water and were the result of inadequate maintenance of a structure which demanded a better quality of attention. Nonetheless, the additional amount of water could be expected to exacerbate the extent of a dike breach in any 1 in 10 year storm event that occurred subsequent to the development of the CIF 122 acres. In summary, the likelihood that the increase in elevation of water caused by the loss of storage on the subject property will be the critical event that causes a dike failure is not accepted. A dike could breach because of the influence of the storm even itself, without regard for the incremental increases in water elevation due to loss of water storage on the CIF property. The poor condition of some dikes due to less than adequate design or maintenance, would promote that dike failure and be exacerbated to the extent of more water being introduced on that property through the incremental amount of increase due to loss of storage on the CIF property. The dike failure circumstance in and of itself would not be sufficient to deny the permit application; however, the applicant had the burden of addressing the possible problem of increases in stage or flood stage on other properties, not its own, which are not protected by dikes. This showing was not made by the applicant, notwithstanding the fact that an increase in stage or flood stage could be expected to occur on property fronting Lake Apopka, which property is not protected by any form of artificial barrier. The installation of the protective dike aground the 122 areas of the CIF property in the 1 in 10 year design storm and potentially at times of lesser rainfall events, could be expected to increase the stage or flood stage on lands unprotected by dikes and thereby adversely affect lands other than those controlled by the applicant. Most of the 122 acres and the property to the east of that development and a portion of the undeveloped 80 acres in the recent Duda permit would be inundated in the 1 in 10 year storm event, prior to development. This is true because the elevation of much of that property is approximately 67.5 foot MSL. During the 1 in 10 year storm event, it would store approximately one foot of water, as presently constituted. It could also be expected to be inundated on an average of approximately once in two years. Lake Apopka is a part of a controlled system of lakes known as the Oklawaha River chain of lakes. Respondent regulates the water level in that chain of lakes by operation of a lock on the Apopka-Beauclair canal. The maximum desirable elevation of 67.5 feet MSL for Lake Apopka is a part of the regulation schedule found in Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. In the 1 in 10 year or better storm event, the Apopka-Beauclair system could not draw down the surface water at a rate faster than 27 days per foot, even assuming the lock was fully open to flow. Consequently, those properties that were suffering an, increase in flood stage on their surface could not expect to gain prompt relief through the regulation of waters in the Oklawaha River chain of lakes. Lake Apopka is an hyper-eutrophic lake. Although it is classified as Class III water body (ambient water quality) within the meaning of Section 17- 3.161, Florida Administrative Code, it fails to match that classification in terms of its actual water quality. This is as a consequence of its highly eutrophic state, brought about by the age of the lake and the contributions of man. Some of the contributors to the eutrophication have been removed from the lake area and water quality has improved. Those facilities removed were sewage treatment and citrus processing plants around the Lake Apopka rim. The muck farms remain and the quality of the water in the retention basins or ponds when compared to the receiving waters of Lake Apopka is similar in nature. Consequently, the receiving waters are not enhanced in their water quality when the retention ponds discharge water into Lake Apopka. As stated before, the retention ponds do not have as their primary purpose the treatment of water. Any water quality improvement is a secondary function of the retention pond. The retention ponds do improve the water somewhat, as described, and are adequately sized to fulfill that partial cleansing. Whether the water quality in Lake Apopka would ever improve sufficiently to allow Lake Apopka to become a more diversified habitat for fish and wildlife is not certain, even if all contributing discharges of pollutants were curtailed, to include the discharge of water from the muck farms with its high nutrient loads. Nonetheless, Lake Apopka cannot accomplish the recovery if the effluent from the muck farms continues to be introduced into the lake with the present constituents found in the water. Out of concern for the water quality in Lake Apopka, officials of the University of Florida have conducted experiments on nutrient removal which they hoped would approximate the quality of removal accomplished by transitional vegetation and swamp. (The 122 acres at issue and the western and eastern adjoining property are constituted of these water treatment zones.) This experiment of nutrient removal through use of retention ponds calls for the retention of the muck farm water for a period of six days allowing settlement of particulates and for the vegetation within those experimental retention basins to uptake dissolved nutrients. Several types of vegetation are used to gain a better quality of nutrient uptake add the vegetation is harvested every six to eight weeks to improve that performance. The experiment has shown that the quality of water discharged from the ponds utilized by the University of Florida was comparable in its quality to the natural wetlands system water discharge. The natural wetlands discharge is of a better quality than the receiving waters. Unlike the university experiment, the pond contemplated by CIF primarily emphasizes detention for a shorter period of time than was used in the experiment and allows highly eutrophic water to be mixed with that quality of water already found in Lake Apopka. The only exception to that comment is that water flowing from Wolfshead Lake, which is south of the proposed 122 acres, is a high quality of water, and through the project as contemplated, this water would be directly introduced into Lake Apopka through a flow over a natural wetlands system. This is in opposition to the present situation where the water from Wolfshead Lake flows primarily to the north through an existing canal and is mixed with water from the muck farm and is, therefore, of the eutrophic character as opposed to the high quality character. The Duda permit, which was issued, would allow the introduction of water which is similar in character to the water of Lake Apopka, through the system of ditch conveyances, placement in the retention pond, and at times, flow to the lake. In its effect, the nutrient loading which occurs by introduction of waters from that new farm, would be similar to that proposed in the CIF project. The fact of this similarity does not prohibit the district from evaluating water quality matters on the occasion of the CIF permit decision. Should the 122 acres be converted from natural vegetation to a muck farm, wildlife and fish habitat would be adversely impacted. The habitat provided by the plot is in scarce supply and is essential to the maintenance of a diversified fish population. The hardwood swamp, which is part of and adjacent to the 122 acres of the CIF application, supports benthic invertebrates, which are a food source for game fish. The type of vegetation found in the lake, due to its eutrophic state, is plankton and one of the by- products of the reproduction of that plant through the process and respiration is the destruction of the fish population. This occurs in the summer months. The plankton has replaced the emergent and submergent vegetation which once covered as much as two-thirds of Lake Apopka and now represents .05 percent of the lake. As a consequence, game fish have diminished over a period of years with plankton feeding fish predominating. Consequently, the fish population is less diverse and the removal of the vegetation becomes a significant contributor to the imbalance in fish population.
The Issue The issues for disposition are whether BJM Associates, Inc. is required to apply for and obtain a drainage connection permit pursuant to rule 14-86, Florida Administrative Code, and if so, whether BJM Associates, Inc., has failed to obtain that permit.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, BJM Associates, Inc. (BJM) is the owner and developer of Rosetta Villas Subdivision, located in Orange County, Florida, (Respondent’s prehearing Statement) Petitioner, Department of Transportation (D0T) purchased an adjacent parcel, including a retention pond, “Pond A”, in 1991, in anticipation of a road-improvement or extension project for Maitland Boulevard. The pond was purchased from Rose Industrial Park, a permitted development also adjacent to the pond. Rosetta Villas Subdivision received Orange County subdivision approval in 1986 and 1988, and a St. John’s River Water Management District permit for stormwater facilities in 1991. Lots have been platted, streets have been constructed and homes have been sold. Rosetta Villas Subdivision includes a water retention pond on-site, built in 1995. There is a pipe from that pond which discharges water into a ditch that is partially within the DOT right of way. The ditch has a 30-inch concrete pipe which discharges into DOT’s Pond A. There is some indication in the record that a diversion ditch was part of an over-all permit for the Rose Industrial Park development prior to DOT’s purchase of Pond A. The diversion ditch was intended to convey stormwater around, and not into Pond A. The diversion ditch south of Rosetta Villas and north of Pond A does not convey Rosetta Villas’ run off around Pond A. Instead the 30-inch concrete pipe conveys Rosetta Villas’ overflow water into Pond A. The 30-inch concrete pipe was constructed by BJM in 1995 after an existing, much smaller, pipe became clogged. BJM contends that the pipe was replaced at the direction of someone from DOT. While that contention is not disputed, nothing in this record supports any suggestion that DOT is now estopped from requiring a drainage connection permit. At hearing BJM’s own expert witness opined that the 30-inch pipe which now discharges into Pond A requires a connection permit. (Transcript, p. 130) BJM does not have that permit and, after meetings and extensive discussion with DOT staff, has not applied for the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Transportation issue its Final Order requiring BJM to apply for a drainage connection permit pursuant to chapter 14-86, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of February 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February 1997. ENDDNOTE 1/ BJM presented extensive evidence regarding the diversion ditch or swale and its intended purpose. It may be possible for BJM to redirect its out-flow however, the current status of the drainage system. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation Burns Building, Mail Station 58 608 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Bernard J. Martin, Esquire 506 Wymore Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn.: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should issue to Century Realty Funds, Inc. (Century) Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44000227.002 (the ERP), which would modify Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 (the Permit) and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481, issued by the District to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The District issued Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century in July 1985 for construction of a surface water management system for Angler's Green Mobile Home Park (MHP) located in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida. Angler’s Green MHP Angler’s Green MHP is an 83-acre residential golf course development of approximately 385 homes located off of State Road 37 near Mulberry. Residents at Angler’s Green own their own mobile homes and lease the residential lots pursuant to annual leases expiring December 31 of each year, with guaranteed renewal conditioned upon owner compliance with the terms and conditions of the lease. Prior to being developed as a mobile home park, the property which is now Angler’s Green MHP was part of a phosphate mining operation and was reclaimed under a phosphate mining land reclamation plan approved by the Florida Department of Natural Resources and a reclamation contract dated September 4, 1984. Final contours of the Angler’s Green site were made in accordance with the approved reclamation plan. After reclamation contouring, a 23-acre manmade (former phosphate mine pit) lake remained in the northeast quadrant of the Angler's Green site. The resulting lake had a finger arm (bay or cove) extending from the southwest corner of the main body of the lake, oriented in a north-to-south direction and located west of a peninsula of land extending into the northwest part of the lake from the north. The lake also had a short, narrow canal leading into the main body of the lake from the south; the canal connected at a right angle to longer narrow waterway to the south of and extending parallel to the main body of the lake in an east-to-west orientation. There also were two smaller ponds on the property after reclamation contouring. After reclamation, surface water onsite generally flowed westerly and discharged from the property to a railroad ditch along the western boundary of the property. The recorded post-reclamation, pre-development water level for the 23-acre lake, as indicated on the site grading plans, was around 127.1 to 127.8 feet above Mean Sea Level (M.S.L.). The 1985 Permits On July 10, 1985, the District issued MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 and Stormwater Exemption No. EO1481 to Century to authorize the construction of a surface water management system for Angler’s Green. The MSSW Permit had an expiration date of July 10, 1988. As designed, the permitted Angler’s Green surface water management system was to route internal stormwater runoff to swales, detention ponds, and catchment areas before discharging through a sidebank sand filtration system (a berm approximately 300 feet long containing an 8” perforated drain pipe covered by a filter fabric and sand filter material) to receiving waters at the northwest corner of the property. The permitted system was designed with five drainage areas known as Basins A through E. Basin A was in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin B was to its east in the southeast quadrant of the site; Basin E was to the north of Basin A and included the 23-acre former phosphate mining pit reclaimed as an artificial lake, which was referred to as “Lake E” or sometimes “Pond E"; Basin C was to the west of Basin E; and Basin D was to the west of Basin C and to the north of Basin B. The two smaller ponds on the property were designated Pond C-1 and Pond B-1 and were located in Basin C and Basin B, respectively. Basin D was in the northwest corner of the site; the discharge structure was in the northwest corner of Basin D. As the system was designed, stormwater from Basin E would appear to sheet flow naturally into Lake E; stormwater from Basin A would appear to flow naturally to the southwest, away from Lake E, but the system routed the water from the southwest corner of Basin A to the western end of the waterway on Lake E through an underground pipe. Stormwater from Basin B was to flow to and be retained in Pond B-1; as the system was designed, surface water was not designed to discharge offsite from Basin B. As designed, Lake E served as a detention pond for water from Basin E and Basin A. It was to have a control structure (CS-1) in the arm of Lake E that would produce a seasonal fluctuation range of two feet, from 127.5’ above M.S.L. to 129.5’ above M.S.L. Stormwater discharging from CS- 1 was to be conveyed by pipe to Pond C-1, where it was to mingle with surface water draining from Basin C. When full, Pond C-1 would cascade into the golf course area in Basin D and, as necessary, in a portion of Basin B. After catchment and detention in the golf course area, overflow was eventually and ultimately to discharge offsite through the side-bank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. In this manner, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was designed to accommodate the 24-hour, 25- year storm event, which was estimated to produce approximately 8 inches of water in a 24-hour period. It also was designed to comply with the water quality requirements as specified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-25 (1985 Ann. Supp.) by detaining the first half-inch of runoff before discharging it offsite through the sidebank sand filtration system in the northwest corner of Basin D. (All rule citations are to the Florida Administrative Code.) Omission of the Stangls During the review process, the District noted from drawings submitted as part of Century's MSSW Permit application that the project area did not include approximately the eastern third of the main body of Lake E. District staff brought this to Century's attention in a request for additional information (RAI) and stated: "If possible, you should obtain a perpetual right to operate and maintain the lake from other owners." In response, Century falsely represented to the District that L. Kirk McKay, a joint venture partner of Century, was the only riparian owner on Lake E and that Century had obtained from him a perpetual right to operate and maintain Lake E as part of the MSSW Permit. In fact, the Stangls owned property on the east side of the lake, including approximately 500 feet of lakefront and contiguous lake bottom. The Stangls and two partners purchased the property from McKay himself in 1979. The Stangls bought out their partners in 1984. The District relied on Century's misrepresentation. The District would not have issued the MSSW Permit to Century if the District had known that Century did not own or control all the land being used for the Permit--specifically, including all of Lake E. See Rule 40D-4.101(1)(d) and (2)(d)6. (1985) (application must include "evidence of ownership or control"). In addition, because the District was unaware of the Stangls' ownership of a portion of Lake E, the District did not require Century to give the Stangls direct, actual notice of the Century's permit application. Instead, the District only required that Century publish notice of the District’s receipt of the permit application. Notice was published on April 3, 1985, in the Lakeland Ledger, a newspaper of general circulation qualified under the terms of Section 50.011, Florida Statutes. But the Stangls did not see the published notice, were unaware of the permit application, and did not ask to participate in the permitting process. The Stangl property adjacent to Angler’s Green remained undeveloped and unoccupied until 1999, when the Stangls' son, John, established a business on the site. Prior to 1999, the Stangls visited the property a couple times a year. They were fully aware of the construction and operation of Anglers Green as a mobile home park across Lake E. During this time, Century leased 385 lots with guaranteed annual renewal conditioned only upon compliance with lease terms and conditions. Amenities under the leases included clubhouse and golf course privileges. At no time before 2000 did the Stangls take any action to challenge the validity of Century's 1985 MSSW Permit. 1985 Surface Water Management Permitting Requirements In 1985, permitting requirements for surface water management systems were divided between two regulatory schemes. Surface water management permits in Polk County were issued by the District under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, which addressed water quantity and flooding issues for projects greater than and less than 40 acres, respectively. Water quality permits or exemptions from water quality permitting requirements were issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 17-25 to address water quality concerns. It was not until 1988 that permitting requirements were consolidated into the MSSW regulatory program administered by the District under Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40. In 1985, the District did not have a Basis of Review (BOR) to specify system design requirements for applicants to provide reasonable assurances that the conditions for issuance of surface water permits were satisfied. Standards and criteria for the design and performance of surface water management systems were contained in Rule 40D-4.301(2) (1985) Under subsection (2)(i) of that rule, projects designed to meet the requirements of Chapter 17-25 [Regulation of Stormwater Discharge] were presumed to meet applicable State water quality requirements. There were no requirements for wet detention pond littoral zones. 20. Under Rule 17-25.03(2)(b) (1985 Ann. Supp.), stormwater management systems for projects with drainage areas less than 100 acres that provided retention or detention with filtration of the first half-inch of runoff were exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule Chapter 17-25. 21. In 1985, District Rule 40D-4.301(2)(j) (1985) allowed for natural areas and existing water bodies to be used for stormwater retention or detention purposes when not in conflict with environmental or public use considerations. Areas that could be considered for this purpose included previously-degraded areas or man-made areas (such as borrow pits). Apparently, the District allowed Century to use Lake E as a detention pond under this provision. Deviations from MSSW Permit Angler’s Green MHP was constructed in two phases, with the first phase completed in 1985, and the second phase completed in 1987. Construction of at least the part of the surface water management system to serve the first phase took place prior to 1985; it was not clear from the evidence whether construction of the part of the surface water management system to serve the second phase also took place prior to 1985, but it clearly took place prior to construction of the second phase in 1987. Condition No. 4 of Century's MSSW Permit required the submittal of a certification that the system was constructed in accordance with the approved and permitted design. But Century did not provide any such certification. Century also never certified to the District that its new stormwater discharge facility, as constructed, continued to qualify for exemption from State water quality requirements. Although the surface water management system was constructed and operating, the District never transferred the 1985 Permit to the operation phase. In several respects, the Angler’s Green surface water management system was not constructed as designed, approved, and permitted in 1985. The pipe to convey stormwater from the southwest corner of Basin A back to the Lake E waterway apparently never was constructed; instead, stormwater from Basin A was routed to Pond B-1. (There also was a berm constructed in Basin A near the southern boundary of the site; but that berm apparently was a visual berm, and there was no evidence that it affected performance of the surface water management system.) Control structure CS-1 (which was supposed to be located in the arm or bay of Lake E) and the pipe to convey overflow from there into Pond C-1 also never were constructed. By the early 1990's, Angler's Green was experiencing flooding in the golf course area in Basin D and B for extended periods of time. In November 1993, the District responded to a complaint of flooding in that vicinity. Upon investigation, the District determined that malfunction of the surface water management system serving Reservation Lakes (now known as Paradise Lakes), a development to the north and downstream of the Angler's Green system, was causing water to back up through the wetlands and the sand filtration system in the northwest corner of the Angler’s Green project. As a result, water overtopped the discharge structure, equalized at levels above the top of the discharge structure's berm, and flooded the golf course for extended periods of time. At some undetermined point in time, an unpermitted pond was dug in Basin D, apparently in an attempt to alleviate flooding of the golf course. In addition, possibly for the same purpose, a pump was installed in Basin D near Pond C-1, and a pipe was installed to convey stormwater from there into Lake E. The sidebank sand filtration system designed to provide filtration of stormwater prior to discharge from the northwest corner of the site does not appear to exist today. It may be present but difficult to see after 15 years of plant growth; or it may have been removed or disturbed as a result of re-grading in the area. However, the evidence proved that the discharge structure was present in 1993, and there is no reason to believe that it was not installed during construction of the surface water management system--i.e., by 1987 at the latest. In addition, at some undetermined point in time, a pipe was installed at the northeast corner of Lake E to convey overflow from Lake E eastward to a drainage ditch located alongside SR 37 to the north of the Stangls' property. No witnesses could testify as to when the pipe to the SR 37 ditch was installed or its elevation. (The District and Century state in their PRO that Map No. 2 in P/I Exhibit 14--an aerial map/survey submitted to the District by Century on August 13, 1990, as part of Century's 1990 Water Use Permit No. 209993.000 application--notes the pipe's elevation as 127.95 feet above M.S.L.; but no such finding could be made from review of the exhibit.) Roads in Angler's Green have inverted crowns to convey runoff from roads, driveways, and roofs away from mobile home lots. Some runoff from these impervious surfaces appears to be directed into a swale on the east side of the site; this swale leads to Lake E. In addition, approximately 12 drains have been installed in or near roads in Angler's Green that convey water through pipes directly into Lake E or Pond C-1. Under current Rule Chapters 40D-4 and 40D-40, road drains connecting impervious surfaces to Lake E would have to be shown on application construction drawings, and separate stormwater calculations would have to be provided in an application. But in 1985 this was not required. Century's calculations, together with flow arrows on drawings showing the direction of stormwater flow towards the detention ponds, were considered sufficient--especially since Century's calculations used a relatively high runoff co-efficient. As a result, the existence of these drains and pipes are not considered to be substantial deviations from the original, approved design. Similarly, approximately 64 roof drains and pipes conveying water from roofs directly into Lake E and Pond C-1 would not be considered substantial deviations from the original, approved design. In addition, these apparently were installed by mobile homeowners over the years, not by Century. From 1985 to 2000, the District did not have occasion to address regulatory concerns at Angler’s Green, except for the complaint of flooding in the golf course area that occurred in November 1993 and a more recent complaint about an area of the golf course that was designed to flood under certain conditions. Otto Stangl’s Complaint and the District’s Response Around November 1999, John Stangl noticed a fish kill in the ditch along SR 37 near the Stangl property. He also was contacted by a governmental compliance officer concerning the fish kill. Upon investigating, John Stangl saw the unpermitted pipe leading from Lake E that was discharging into the SR 37 ditch where the fish kill was observed, as well as the unpermitted pump that was pumping water from the Angler’s Green golf course area through a pipe that discharged into Lake E. In February 2000, Otto Stangl complained to the District about the fish kill and the existence of the unpermitted structures associated with Lake E. Upon receiving Otto Stangl’s complaint, District staff conducted site visits of the Angler’s Green project. Staff observed the unauthorized pump and pipe conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E and the unauthorized pipe conveying water from Lake E to the SR 37 ditch. Staff also observed that the Lake E control structure was missing, the pipe to convey stormwater from Basin A to Lake E was missing, and Basin D had been re-graded. In February 2000, the District also became aware of the fact that Century did not have full ownership or control of Lake E. On March 15, 2000, the District issued Century Notice of Non-Compliance and directed Century to either construct the system as designed and permitted or to seek a permit modification. On May 8, 2000, Century submitted a letter application to modify the original MSSW Permit No. 400227.000 by constructing the originally permitted Lake E control structure and pipe conveying water from Lake E to Pond C-1, but in a different location in Lake E than originally permitted due to the existence of homes at the location where these structures were originally planned. The application was subsequently amended to be a formal modification upon Century’s request for further modification to allow Basin A stormwater to flow to Pond B-1 and to expand Pond B-1 and add a control structure and an effluent filtration system. Despite having actual knowledge since at least February 2000 that the Angler's Green surface water management system was built partially on their property, the Stangls did not ask for a hearing on the 1985 Permit. Instead, they awaited the District's consideration of Century's modification application and sought to challenge the District's notice of intent to grant the modification permit issued on October 29, 2001. The District’s Regulatory Compliance Practices In the 1980's, the District appeared to pay little or no attention to construction of permitted projects or submission of required post-construction certifications. Many projects permitted by the District in the 1980’s, such as Angler’s Green, were built and operating although no certifications had been submitted; as a result, the permits issued for these projects never were transferred to the operation phase. Eventually, some projects not built in compliance with issued permits came to the attention of the District, typically through third-party complaints about drainage problems and flooding. By this time, there was a large backlog of issued construction permits for which no required post-construction certifications had been submitted. The backlog of these older projects was so large that the District decided not to initiate an aggressive, systematic, and comprehensive review of all permits for which no required certifications had been submitted. Instead, projects were checked on an ad hoc basis as complaints regarding the functioning of their surface water management systems were registered. When it came to the attention of the District in this manner that a project had been built under an MSSW permit but that no required certifications had been submitted, the District first attempted to secure the required certifications in the form of certified as-built construction drawings and a Statement of Completion, as required by BOR 2.7. In so doing, it was common practice for the District to accept certifications beyond the expiration date on a permit. If projects were substantially completed, the District would not deem the permit as expired simply because the required certifications had not been submitted before the expiration date; and such projects did not lose their status as being permitted. It should be noted that, according to the testimony of the District's expert, William Hartmann, this agency practice was not based on an interpretation of Rule 40D- 4.321(1)(b) (1985) (on duration of construction permits). Rather, the agency practice was to ignore the expiration of the construction permit under those circumstances. In addition, it does not appear from the evidence that the District ever before has faced the situation presented in this case--where a person on whose property part of a surface water management system was built without the person's consent opposes modification and asserts the construction permit has expired. In cases where the agency's practice was applied, if the required certified as-built construction drawings and Statement of Completion could not be provided because the project was not built in accordance with the MSSW permit, the District would require the permittee to either bring the system into compliance with the approved permit designs or obtain a modification of the construction permit. Letter modifications would be accepted when the requested modification would not substantially alter the permit authorization, increase the authorized offsite discharge, impact the environmental features of the project, decrease the required retention/detention, decrease the required flood control elevations for roads or buildings, or decrease pollution removal efficiency. See Rule 40D-4.331(2)(b) (1985). (The current version of the rule adds renewal or extension of the existing permit duration.) Alterations meeting the threshold requirements for a letter modification would be presumed to meet the conditions for issuance for a permit. Otherwise, formal permit modifications would be required. When application is made for a permit modification, the District’s practice is to evaluate those aspects of the surface water management system being modified. Review generally would not extend to the entire system. Permittees seeking to modify their surface water management systems generally are not required by the District to bring the unmodified portions of the system into compliance with current design criteria. Proposed ERP Permit Modification ERP Application No. 44000227.002 seeks authorization to modify portions of the Angler’s Green surface water management system. The specific alterations for which approval is sought are: permanent removal of the existing, unpermitted 18-inch pipe between Lake E and SR 37 roadside ditch; permanent removal of the pump and associated piping conveying water from Pond C-1 to Lake E; installation of the control structure (CS-1), together with installation of pipe to convey water from the control structure to Pond C-1, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but different location in the northwest corner of the main body of Lake E; re-grading of the northwesterly portion of the golf course to more closely conform to the original permitted plan and help keep Basin B separate from Basin D; reconstruction of the side-bank sand filter system in the northwest corner of the property, as designed and approved in the 1985 Permit but with a slightly higher invert elevation (122.04 feet above M.S.L.) to prevent water from backing up into Angler's Green from Paradise Lakes again, and with a concrete flume and spreader swale between Pond C-1 and the berm of the side-bank sand filter system; enlargement of Pond B-1; installation of a control structure on Pond B-1; and installation of 100 feet of 6-inch side-bank sand filter discharging to the southwest corner of the property from Pond B-1. By removing the unpermitted pipe to the roadside ditch along SR 37 and by constructing control structure CS-1, with the same control elevations as in the 1985 Permit (albeit at a different location in Lake E), and connecting CS-1 by pipe to Pond C-1 as envisioned in the 1985 Permit, the function of Lake E should approximate its function under the design approved in 1985. Modifying the permitted design to authorize Basin A to flow to Pond B-1 instead of Lake E results in less water flowing to Lake E; these changes will not increase water quantity or quality impacts to Lake E, as compared to the 1985 Permit. As compared to reclamation conditions prior to implementation of the 1985 Permit, water quantity and quality impacts to Lake E would be expected both under the system as designed and permitted in 1985 and as proposed to be modified, by virtue of the similar use of Lake E as a detention pond under either system. Pond B-1 is being enlarged to better accommodate the flow from Basin A. The control structure being added at Pond B-1 will control flow into the swale to the west so as to address water quantity impacts in that area. Stormwater calculations for the revised Pond B-1 demonstrated that the post-development discharge rate will not exceed the pre- development discharge rate, so that there are no concerns for adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands or flooding impacts to on-site or off-site property. The historical flows to the west are still maintained. The discharge structure being added at Pond B-1 will account for treatment of the Basin A flow. Based on calculations for revised Pond B-1, the enlarged pond will retain and percolate half an inch of stormwater runoff from the contributing area in 36 hours (which is consistent with current BOR design requirements). The proposed Pond B-1/Basin B modifications, including the routing of Basin A stormwater to Pond B-1, will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters in that vicinity such that state water quality standards would be violated. Angler's Green is located in the Southern Water Use Caution Area of Polk County. No surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established for this area under Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The proposed modifications do not involve any works of the District. The proposed modifications are based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles and employ treatment methods of effluent filtration which involve commonly accepted designs that can be effectively performed and function as proposed. There are no concerns about Century’s financial, legal, or administrative capability to undertake the proposed modifications as specified in the permit, if issued. There are no applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established for this area. Environmental Concerns As with its review of the proposed permit modification for water quantity impacts, the District's review of environmental concerns was limited to review of impacts from the proposed modifications to the original permitted design; unmodified portions of the original permit were not reviewed for compliance with current requirements. An approximately 20 square-foot permanent impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of the control structure (SW-1) in the water. A 379 square-foot temporary impact is proposed to Lake E due to the placement of a cofferdam to facilitate construction of the control structure. Temporary impacts to Lake E resulting from the construction of the control structure would be addressed through the use of sediment and erosion controls to prevent possible sedimentation and turbidity that may arise during the construction activity. The placement of a control structure in Lake E would create very minor permanent impacts resulting from the loss of the footprint of the control structure. These impacts would be insignificant. Due to the very minor nature of these proposed impacts, no mitigation would be required, and no loss of wetlands would be required to be recorded on the Wetlands/Surface Water Table. Construction of SW-1 would not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District. No secondary impacts would be expected from construction of SW-1. No unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters would be expected to occur as a result of construction of SW-1. The project area includes .71 acre of herbaceous/forested wetlands (WL-1) in the northwest corner. The potential for secondary impacts is addressed by an existing fence surrounding WL-1, which eliminates concerns for secondary impacts to this wetland area. No adverse impacts would be anticipated to occur to these wetlands, and no adverse secondary impacts to the water resources would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed modifications themselves. The proposed modifications would not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. Class II or Class III waters would not be affected by the proposed modification project. Therefore, Rule 40D- 4.302(1)(c) is not applicable. No seawalls, lagoons or estuaries are involved in this project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(d) is not applicable. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest. Relocation of a control structure and enhancement of the Basin B portion of the system would create no significant change in impacts. The proposed modifications constitute a slight improvement over water quality from the original permitted design. No threatened or endangered species were identified for Angler’s Green. The proposed relocation and construction of the Lake E control structure, preservation of onsite wetlands in the northwest corner, and re-design of Pond B-1 present no environmental concerns. Consequently, the proposed modifications do not create any potential for adverse effects regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats. The proposed modifications do not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. The project area does not involve navigable waters and does not affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. Hence, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(3) does not apply to this permit modification application. There are no significant historical and archaeological resources involved in this Project. Therefore, Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a)(6) is not applicable to this permit modification application. The proposed modifications would not be contrary to the public interest; they would not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. No adverse impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications maintain the historic water elevation for Lake E and maintain historic flows for the project area. The modified system should also provide some improvement in water quality.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying Century's permit modification application designated ERP No. 44000227.002. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Magri, Esquire Merkle & Magri, P.A. 5510 West LaSalle Street Tampa, Florida 33607-1713 Joseph P. Mawhinney, Esquire Clark, Campbell & Mawhinney, P.A. Post Office Box 6559 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E. D. Sonny Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899
Findings Of Fact The property has been annexed into the Acme Improvement District (Intervenor) by Special Act of the Florida Legislature. Petitioner purchased 487.7 acres of this tract from private owners in 1954. Subsequently, Petitioner purchased 653.59 acres from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund of the State of Florida on or about March 4, 1960. The balance of the land constituting the property is a 224 acre hiatus tract owned by Marshall Brown with whom Petitioner has an agricultural use agreement. A parcel of Petitioner's land within the property includes a commercial lease to Malrite Corporation for siting a television antenna, consisting of 111 acres in the southeast corner of the property. This area is within the permit application. The tract is otherwise undeveloped and is currently submerged or semi- submerged during much of the year. Petitioner's development plan envisions drainage of this tract and use of the property for cultivation. The property is bounded on the north by Acme Improvement District, on the east by a subdivision called Homeland, on the west by Water Conservation Area #1, also known as the Loxahatchee Refuge, and on the south by undeveloped lands. The boundaries of the Loxahatchee Refuge actually encroach by approximately 300 feet into the property. The property development plan, which is the basis of this application, was prepared by the engineering firm Gee and Jensen. This plan calls for the creation of a 240 acre reservoir of a proposed 3 foot maximum depth. This reservoir would hold the internal stormwater runoff for subsequent agricultural irrigation. Perimeter dikes are to be constructed to prevent surface water runoff from outside areas entering the project and perimeter ditches are to be developed for the deliverance of stormwater runoff from the internal agricultural system to proposed pump stations located at the southwest corner of the development area. On the northwest corner of the proposed reservoir, the existing Acme Improvement District pump station No. 2 would be increased in capacity by 27,000 gallons per minute. Under Acme's charter and its statutory annexation of the property, the proposed reservoir and water management works would become a unit of development controlled by Acme. Under Petitioner's agreement with the hiatus tract owner, Acme would be the exclusive manager and operator of the proposed system, and the property would become an integral part of Acme's water management system. The Acme Water Improvement District is not solely an agricultural support enterprise but serves the various uses which may evolve within its boundaries. The area is currently zoned for limited residential development as well as agricultural. The television antenna facility located on the property is an example of a non-agricultural use. Petitioner's surface water management system is proposed to discharge into the Acme system, which in turn discharges offsite. Discharge into the Acme system is of a limited nature, but the system is designed to discharge for successive days under wet conditions. The design discharge is not limited to an extreme rainfall event but would probably occur during the traditional hydrologic cycle of south Florida. Under conditions which reflect actual rainfall over the past 20 years, the proposed surface water management system would have discharged 19 out of 20 years into the Water Conservation Area (Loxahatchee Refuge). In some years this discharge would have continued for approximately three months. The unrebutted testimony of expert witnesses called by Respondent established that the entire 1,393 acre tract referred to herein as "the property" is a freshwater wetland habitat. The western half is emergent marsh land, while the eastern half is forested with woody species. The wetlands on the property form a valuable wildlife habitat. Environmentally, they are in excellent condition. This area has not been adversely affected by drainage, fire or exotic species. These marshes also have good habitat diversity. The populations of aquatic invertebrates and forage fishes that are produced in these Everglades marshes are utilized by the many species of wading birds that feed in these wetlands. The proposed project will adversely affect wildlife species, including a variety of wading birds which will likely be unable to relocate. While this is undesirable from an environmental standpoint, conversion of this land would provide benefits from an agricultural standpoint, and would create additional water recreational facilities.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying the application. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Respondent, Citrus Recreational Marina, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Marina"), is a corporation. Marina is the applicant for the permit which is at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility for, among other things, wetland resource permitting. The Department also has responsibility, pursuant to an agreement with the Southwest Florida Water Management District (hereinafter referred to as the "Water Management District"), for Management and Storage of Surface Water permitting within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Water Management District. Petitioner, Save the Manatee Club, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Save the Manatee"), is a non-profit, Florida corporation. The stated purpose of Save the Manatee includes protection of the manatee and its habitat through the promotion of public awareness, research and lobbying efforts. Petitioner, Friends of the Greenway (hereinafter referred to as "Friends"), is an organization which promotes responsible environmental policy in Citrus County. Save the Manatee and Friends are "citizens" of the State of Florida. They filed a verified petition for hearing in this matter. They alleged in the petition that the proposed facility will injure, harm, or otherwise pollute the state's natural resources. Members of Petitioners observe, study and enjoy manatee in Citrus County, including waters that would be impacted by the proposed facility. Marina's Permit Applications, the Department's Notice of Intent to Issue and the Petitioners' Challenge. On March 28, 1995, Marina applied to the Department for a permit for Management and Storage of Surface Water. On March 10, 1993, Marina applied to the Department for a wetland resources (dredge and fill) permit. The permits sought by Marina are associated with Marina's plan to construct a marina facility. The marina is to be constructed within an existing dolomite mine pit (hereinafter referred to as the "Mine Pit"). On or about February 6, 1996, the Department entered a notice of intent to issue the permit sought by Marina. A copy of the draft permit, permit number 092278259 and MS092681199, was attached to the notice of intent to issue. On or about March 13, 1996, Petitioners filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the Department's proposed decision to issue the draft permit. Marina's Proposed Facility. Marina's proposed facility is to be located in Citrus County, Florida. Citrus County is located on the west coast of Florida, north of Tampa, Florida, and south of the mouth of the Suwannee River on the Gulf of Mexico. As part of the proposed facility, Marina proposed to construct 256 wet slips (122 of which may be covered) on six floating docks, a boat ramp, a boat lift bay, a 63-boat dry storage facility, a convenience store with fueling and sewage pump-out facilities, a clubhouse, a stormwater facility and a parking area. The proposed facilities will also include a potable water system. The water system will provide drinking water to the clubhouse, bait stand, fueling facility, boat storage area and the marina docks. The proposed facilities will also include an on-site wastewater treatment facility. The treatment facility will consists of an aerobic system with on-site effluent disposal through drainfield lines into the soil. No sewage treatment percolation ponds will be included on the proposed site. The stormwater system for the proposed site will be separate from the wastewater treatment facility. The stormwater system will include the collection and treatment of stormwater in on-site basins prior to discharge into the Mine Pit. The system will be designed to retain the entire rainfall from a 100-year storm combined with wet detention and on-line systems involving percolation. All these systems have been designed to meet the design standards required by Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code. The post development runoff discharge rate for the proposed site is projected to be less than the current rate of runoff discharge on the proposed site. The proposed facility will not cause any increased flood risks on-site or off-site. No part of the surface water management system will be located within 100 feet of any public supply well. The fish cleaning stations included for the proposed facility will be located over land. Waste associated with fish cleaning will be collected for disposal. Wastewater from the stations will be directed into the wastewater treatment system for the proposed facility. Wastewater from boats at the proposed facility will directed to the wastewater treatment facility through two pumpout stations located near the proposed fueling facility. Solid waste from the proposed facility and boats utilizing it will be disposed of in trash receptacles located throughout the proposed site. They will ultimately be picked up by a solid waste hauler for disposal. Erosion around the Mine Pit will be controlled through the placement of 2,200 feet of rip rap, vegetation planting and other erosion control techniques. The Mine Pit where the proposed marina is to be constructed is located on the south side of the Cross Florida Greenway Waterway (hereinafter referred to as the "Greenway Waterway") (formerly known as the "Cross Florida Barge Canal"), approximately one half mile east of where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Greenway Waterway. The proposed site is approximately 4.75 miles from where the Greenway Waterway empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The Mine Pit is U-shaped, approximately 31.4 acres in size, and has an average depth of -20 feet, with pockets of -33 feet in depth. Marina proposed to fill the Mine Pit to 13.0 feet NGVD, place 2,285 linear feet of rip rap, and dredge 4.75 acres of the Mine Pit to -13.0 feet NGVD. The waters of the northwestern corner of the Mine Pit are separated from the waters of the Greenway Waterway by a plug of land approximately 100 to 150 feet wide. Marina proposed to remove the plug to create an entrance from the marina to the Greenway Waterway. The removal of the plug will result in a lowering of the level of water in the Mine Pit by approximately 3 to 5 feet to sea level, the level of the water in the Greenway Waterway. Marina also proposed to excavate a flushing canal channel between the Greenway Waterway and the northeast corner of the Mine Pit. The boundary of the property on which the Mine Pit is located is approximately 100 feet from the Mine Pit at its closest location. The Mine Pit was excavated from lime rock and Ona fine sands; Pits and Udorthents (both manmade) soil types exist throughout the project site. Weedy vegetation dominates the historically disturbed upland area surrounding the Mine Pit. Saltbush (Baccharis halimfolia), marsh elder (Iva frutescens), dog fennel (Eupatorium spp.), marsh fleabane (Pluches spp.), and waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera) exist along the Greenway Waterway. Southern red cedars (Juniperius silcicola) are scattered throughout the area. Cattails (Typha spp.) have invaded the edges of the Mine Pit. Ownership of the Proposed Site Property. Marina has no ownership interest in the property where the Mine Pit is located. Nor has Marina ever held such an interest. The proposed facility site is held in three undivided interests. At the time the permit applications were filed by Marina, Marina had an option contract to purchase the proposed site. At the time of the final hearing of this matter, the option contract was no longer in force. Marina had also been authorized in writing prior to filing the permit applications to act as agent for the owners of the site for purposes of seeking environmental permitting. It was stipulated at the time of the final hearing that two of the three undivided interest owners had authorized Marina to act as their agent for purposes of obtaining the permits at issue in this proceeding. At the time of the final hearing, the third undivided interest owner did not authorize Marina to act as its agent for any purpose. Marina is agreeable to a new condition being added to the draft permit by the Department requiring Marina to submit documentation to the Department before any development of the proposed facility is commenced proving that Marina has acquired interests in the proposed site necessary for it to carry out the permit conditions. It is the Water Management District's policy in implementing Rule 40D- 4.301(g), Florida Administrative Code, which requires applicants to provide reasonable assurances concerning their proposed projects, is to require the land owner to be the permittee. The Greenway Waterway and the Surrounding Area. The Greenway Waterway consists of natural and man-made waters formerly intended to be used as the Cross Florida Barge Canal. The waters of the Greenway Waterway are classified as "Class III" waters. The Cross Florida Barge Canal was deauthorized on January 22, 1991. In its place was created the Cross Florida Greenways State Recreation and Conservation Area. The State of Florida owns the majority of the lands within the Cross Florida Greenways State Recreation and Conservation Area. The state can, therefore, control development along the Greenway Waterway. A portion of the Greenway Waterway was constructed as part of the Cross Florida Barge Canal by digging a canal from a spillway at Lake Rousseau, east-northeast of the proposed site, to the Gulf of Mexico. This portion of the canal (hereinafter referred to as the "Greenway Canal"), is straight and was designed for a depth of 12 feet. The actual depth of the Greenway Canal varies and, in some locations, is 18 feet deep. The Greenway Canal is also approximately 250 feet wide. The Greenway Canal intersects the Withlacoochee River, which is located to the east of the proposed facility. Prior to the construction of the Greenway Canal, the Withlacoochee River ran from a spillway at Lake Rousseau to the Gulf of Mexico. After construction of the Greenway Canal, the portion of the Withlacoochee River which connects with the Gulf of Mexico was, and still is, separated from the Greenway Canal by an earthen berm. The western portion of the Withlacoochee River (hereinafter referred to as the "Upper Withlacoochee"), continues to run from Lake Rousseau for approximately 1.3 miles to the Greenway Canal and then runs to the Gulf of Mexico through the Greenway Canal. The depth of the Upper Withlacoochee varies from river bottom which is exposed at low tide to areas of approximately 20 feet. The depth of water, the speed at which water flows and the amount of aquatic vegetation in the Upper Withlacoochee varies depending on the amount of water released from Lake Rousseau through the spillway. For the past year, the rate of flow in the Upper Withlacoochee has been relatively high. There are currently two public boat ramps, but no marinas, located on the Greenway Canal. One of those boat ramps is in disrepair and the evidence failed to prove that it is in use. There are no marinas on the Upper Withlacoochee or the Greenway Canal. There is a Florida Marine Patrol station located on the Greenway Canal approximately one-half mile east of U.S. Highway 19. Whether the presence of the station will have any impact on the enforcement of speed limits in the Greenway Canal is purely speculative. Approximately 2 miles west of the proposed facility is an existing active mining operation owned by Independent Aggregates. Barges transport mine product along the Greenway Canal from the mine to the Gulf of Mexico. Another organization, known as "Holnam", has been permitted by the Department to construct a barge-loading facility opposite the Independent Aggregates' barge facility and mine. It is unlikely, however, that Holnam will actually begin operating barges on the Greenway Canal. A speed limit of 25 miles per hour has been imposed by the Department throughout the Greenway Canal. The speed limit was imposed to protect West India Manatee that utilize the Greenway Canal. The Upper Withlacoochee has been designated an idle-speed zone by local ordinance. Crab traps are located along the banks of the Greenway Canal for approximately four miles into the Greenway Canal from the Gulf of Mexico. Traps are generally anchored to the bottom by lines and are spaced approximately 100 feet apart, 20 to 15 feet from the bank. A channel extends for approximately 12 to 15 miles into the Gulf of Mexico from the mouth of the Greenway Canal. The channel is marked. There are obstructions and shallow water outside this channel. Prudent boaters will continue in the channel for approximately four to nine miles before turning north or south into the Gulf of Mexico. Operators of smaller boats and those with knowledge of the area are able, however, to navigate north or south closer to shore. Impact on the Conservation of Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered or Threatened Species, or Their Habitat. The West India Manatee is an endangered species, which means that it is in danger of extinction. Approximately 3000 manatees are found in Florida waters. Approximately half are located on the east coast and half on the west coast of Florida. There is little interchange between the two groups. The State of Florida is attempting to restore the manatee population to a size which will help to insure its survival as a species. In order for the manatee population to survive, human development and interaction with manatees must be managed. Manatee habitat needs to be preserved from development. Two of the most significant challenges to the survival of the manatee are the number of manatees killed by boats and the increasing number of boats in Florida waters. Collisions with boats is the greatest known cause of manatee deaths (approximately 25 percent). Manatee change locations frequently searching for food, drinking water, resting areas, potential mates and birthing areas. They also return to preferred habitat features. Manatee are attracted to areas that are calm and quiet for birthing areas. Shallow water, accessible from deeper water, is essential for birthing. After giving birth, the mother and calf generally remain in the area for some period of time, sometimes as long as months, until the calf is able to survive elsewhere. They will leave an area, however, if disturbed. Boat traffic, even at slow speeds, can cause disruption to mothers and young calves. Boat traffic can separate a mother and calf. There are approximately 300 manatee in the waters of northwestern Florida (from Tampa Bay to the Suwannee River), which includes the area of the proposed facility and Citrus County. This population has been increasing in recent years. Manatee in the waters of northwestern Florida require a stable source of warm water during the winter. During the winter ambient temperatures drop below the level at which the manatees' metabolism will sustain them. As a result of the need for warmer waters, most of the manatee in northwestern Florida spend the winter in Citrus County. Kings Bay, Crystal River and Homosassa all provide warm water locations for manatee. These sites are located to the south of the proposed facility. Kings Bay is the most important winter manatee habitat on the west coast of Florida. During the rest of the year, when waters are warmer, manatee leave their warm water, winter habitats to forage and investigate other habitat. Manatee that winter in the warm water sites in Citrus County generally migrate to the north. They travel to, and past, the mouth of the Greenway Canal, returning by the same general routes in the winter. Manatee also linger at the mouth of the Greenway Canal at the Gulf of Mexico because that area offers a combination of a relatively deep-water channel with adjacent shallow water and aquatic vegetation. Manatee use the waters of the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee. The Greenway Canal is not, however, considered particularly good habitat for manatee. It has relatively deep water, steep banks, little fresh water and little vegetation of interest to manatee. In 1991 Citrus County adopted a Manatee Protection Plan as part of its comprehensive growth management plan. The Manatee Protection Plan does not identify the Greenway Canal as essential manatee habitat. The Manatee Protection Plan was adopted with the assistance of the Department. The Plan was based upon a compilation of manatee studies, marina inventory studies, and a comprehensive view of the county's waterway systems at the time the Plan was adopted. "Essential manatee habitat" is defined in the Manatee Protection Plan as "any land or water area constituting elements necessary to the survival and recovery of the manatee population from endangered status". Whether an area is "essential manatee habitat" is to be considered under the Plan as "a criteria for determining areas where dock facilities should be limited." The definition of "essential manatee habitat" for purposes of the Plan is different from the standard to be applied in by the Department in this case. The definition in the Plan is similar to the federal criteria considered and found to be different from that applicable to Department permitting cases in Metropolitan Dade County v. Coscan Florida, Inc., 609 So.2d 644, 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The Manatee Protection Plan contemplates that a master plan will be undertaken to establish the capacity of the Greenway Canal for boat and marina facilities. That master plan has not been developed. The fact that the master plan has not been formally undertaken, however, is of little consequence. The Department, due to the State's ownership of the land surrounding the Greenway Canal, has been able to consider possible uses of the Greenway Canal for boating and marinas without a formal master plan. The Manatee Protection Plan does not support a finding that the proposed facility will not have an adverse impact on the manatee. Although the waters of the Greenway Canal do not constitute good manatee habitat, the Upper Withlacoochee is considered good habitat, depending on the amount of water being released from the spillway at Lake Rousseau. Manatee have used the Upper Withlacoochee for feeding, resting and birthing. The Upper Withlacoochee has limited human activity, light boat traffic, sources of fresh water, a warm-water spring and aquatic vegetation. The Upper Withlacoochee has been used for birthing. Infant mortalities reported in the area suggest that the Upper Withlacoochee is used as a preferred birthing area. The rate of mortality suggests a higher rate of successful births. Aerial survey and mortality data also suggests that the Upper Withlacoochee and the Greenway Canal are utilized throughout the year by manatee. Greatest use is seasonal. Aerial survey data underestimates the number of manatee utilizing the Upper Withlacoochee and the Greenway Canal due to the lack of water clarity and due to the meandering course of, and vegetation along, the Upper Withlacoochee. Manatee mortality data concerning the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlachoochee provides some indication of the fact that the number of manatee that travel through the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee is not insignificant. While there was considerable evidence presented concerning whether the number of manatee that utilize the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee is accurate or has been underestimated, based upon aerial survey data and manatee mortality comparisons, the critical fact proved by the evidence in this case is that a significant number of manatee do use the Upper Withlacoochee as habitat, including for birthing. The evidence also proved that, in order for manatee to use the Upper Withlacoochee, it is necessary that they travel the length of the Greenway Canal. Another critical fact proved by the evidence is to this matter is that manatee traveling to and from the Upper Withlacoochee must travel the Greenway Canal from the Gulf of Mexico past the proposed facility. The evidence was also unrefuted that increased boat traffic from the proposed facility will have the potential to adversely impact the manatee. That adverse impact will take the form of physical injury due to collisions and stress on manatee from increased human activity. The activity could reduce the use of the Upper Withlacoochee as habitat. What remains to be determined is whether the conditions of the draft permit will provide adequate assurances that the impact will not be contrary to the public interest. The Department's Bureau of Protected Species Management determined that, without the conditions to be added to the draft permit it suggested, the following impacts could be expected as a result of approval of the proposed facility: The probability of manatee/boat collisions increases with increasing boat traffic where boaters and manatees regularly inhabit the same waterways. While the current level of barge/vessel traffic does not appear to be a problem, increasing the amount of recrea- tional and commercial vessel traffic to the proposed levels in this narrow waterway is expected to adversely impact the endangered manatee. Barge trips may become more frequent, and barges traveling down the center of the canal drives manatees toward the edges of the canal. This increases the risk of manatee/recreational boat collisions, and increases the risk of these recreational boats driving manatees underneath, ahead of or behind traveling barges. The probability of lethal and sublethal propeller strikes increases. Also, there is not sufficient space for manatees between the canal bottom and the bottom of a fully loaded barge, with only one foot clearance as typical for loaded barges. The probability of a manatee being crushed will increase, and this impact is difficult to offset with conservation measures other than not allowing the activity. Page 2, Petitioners exhibit 7 and CRMI exhibit 10. The evidence in this case supports the foregoing conclusions. The increased boat traffic from the proposed facility, even if limited to sailboats and even if power boats are allowed at lower speed limits than currently in force in the Greenway Canal, may cause impacts with manatees due to the increased traffic and the use of the Greenway Canal by barges and recreational boats. It is possible that manatees, confronted by oncoming recreational boats and barges, may be forced into the path of barges and be crushed. Barges used by Independent Aggregates are approximately 72 feet wide and 250 feet long and are pulled or pushed by tugboats. The probability of this conflict taking place will be greater if barge use of the Greenway Canal is increased as proposed by Independent Aggregates. The greatest threat to the manatee of the proposed facility is the threat of death or injury as a result of cuts or blunt trauma from collisions of boats with manatees. This threat is primarily associated, however, with faster moving, power boats. Therefore, the extent of possible adverse impact on the manatee will be determined largely by the speed limit imposed in the Greenway Canal. To mitigate against the possible adverse impact on manatee, the Department has included certain conditions in the draft permit. Those conditions are found in Condition 6 of the draft permit and were recommended by the Department's Bureau of Protected Species Management. As a result of the Bureau of Protected Species Management's review of the proposed facility, it was recommended that the proposed facility not be approved if all of the conditions suggested by it were not included in the draft permit. All of the conditions recommended, except one, were included in the draft permit. The condition not included was one that provided that a violation of manatee speed zones would be grounds for revocation of the lease of any slip or dock space at the proposed facility. The lease revocation condition recommended by the Bureau of Protected Species Management was not included in the permit due to concern by the Department as to whether the condition could be legally imposed. The language of the memorandum of review of the proposed facility from the Bureau of Protected Species Management suggesting that the proposed project should not be approved unless all recommended conditions are accepted is standard language used by the Bureau and not intended to be strictly interpreted. The Bureau ultimately concluded that, despite its recommendation, it believes that the conditions of the draft permit are adequate to offset adverse impacts to the manatee. The Bureau's explanation is sufficient to eliminate any inference that otherwise may be drawn from its suggestion that the proposed facility should not be approved due to the exclusion of the permit condition concerning revocation of leases for speed zone violators. Condition 6 requires, among other things, that signs warning of possible manatee activity be displayed during construction, that personnel associated with the project be educated about the manatee, and that other measures designed to protect manatee during construction be followed. Due to the fact that most of the construction will take place in the enclosed Mine Pit, there should be little, if any adverse impact on manatee as as result of construction. Condition 6 also provides that permanent manatee warning signs and information concerning manatee be posted by the marina, and that a manatee awareness education program be established at the proposed facility. Condition 6 also limits the use of the boat ramp of the proposed facility to boats stored "on-site." The ramp will not be open to the general public. Finally, condition 6.l. provides the most important limitation of the use of the proposed facility. Condition 6.1 limits use of the proposed facility to sailboats and, therefore, prohibits the use of power boats: . . . until the applicant has provided documentation to the Department that manatee protection speed zones in the CFBC have been revised, approved by the Bureau of Protected Species Management, and posted in the CFBC. Occupancy of the facility by sailboats shall not be restricted. The limitation of the use of a marina to sailboats should adequately mitigate the adverse impacts to the manatee from the proposed facility. See Coscan, at 651. The effect of condition 6.l. is to allow Marina to obtain a modification of the draft permit after it is issued to allow power boats based upon events which may take place in the future. There are no guarantees that those events will result in reasonable assurances that the adverse impact to the manatee from power boat use at the proposed facility will not be contrary to the public interest. The speed zones which must be established and approved by the Bureau of Protected Species Management will be established, if at all, through rule- making procedures. See Rule 62N-22.011, Florida Administrative Code. The process would allow public input. Additionally, the outcome of the process would be subject to challenge under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Because of possible challenges to the efforts to impose speed zones, it is possible that speed zones adequate to reduce the adverse impacts to the manatee which would satisfy the public interest test applicable in this matter will not be adopted. The standards which the Department must adhere to in establishing speed zones are not the same standards applicable in this matter. In this matter, reasonable assurances must be given that there will not be adverse impacts to the manatee, a threatened species, contrary to the public interest. Establishing speed zones pursuant to other provisions of law will not insure that the reasonable assurances required for the issuance of the permit at issue in this case will be given. Although the resulting speed zones may be adequate to protect the manatee, there is no way to determine what kind of speed zones will be established. Without knowing the ultimate speed zones which may be established, or, more importantly, to know that the speed zones will meet the public interest test applicable in this matter, it is not possible to find the reasonable assurances Marina is required to provide at this time or at any time before the proposed facility is actually permitted. If reasonable assurances can be given that the use of power boats in the proposed facility will not be contrary to the public interest once speed zones are established, Marina or the owner of the proposed facility may apply for a permit modification. At that time the requisite reasonable assurances concerning power boat use can be determined. The provision of condition 6.l. allowing Marina to avoid seeking a permit modification at that time is, therefore, at a minimum, unnecessary, and at its worse, an effort to allow Marina to avoid having to provide the necessary reasonable assurances concerning the use of power boats. If only the impact on the manatee were considered in establishing speed zones, it could be concluded slow or idle speed should be imposed throughout the Greenway Canal and for some distance into the Gulf of Mexico in order to adequately reduce the adverse impact from the proposed facility on the manatee. Establishing speed zones, however, requires a consideration of other factors. The evidence in this case failed to address those factors sufficiently to recommend a condition to the draft permit concerning speed zones. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that reasonable assurances have not been given that there will not be unreasonable adverse impact to the manatee if the use of power boats at the proposed facility is allowed as provided in condition 6.l. of the draft permit. Other Public Interest Criteria. The evidence failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare or the property of others. The evidence also failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling. The docks and other marina facilities will all be restricted to the Mine Pit, which is not now open to navigation. There is adequate width in the Greenway Canal to allow boats to exit the Mine Pit into the Greenway Canal and for boats and barges in the Greenway Canal to pass each other. Rip-rap to be placed along the Mine Pit shore and other shoreline stabilization activities will be adequate to prevent erosion and shoaling. Groundwater flow at the proposed site should not be adversely affected by the proposed facility, except as discussed, infra. The proposed facility should not adversely affect fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed facility. Recreational values (boating and fishing) should be enhanced as a result of the proposed facility. If condition 6.l. is not eliminated and power boats are allowed in the Greenway Canal, there are no assurances that the recreational value provided by the manatee will not be adversely impacted. The proposed facility is intended to be permanent. The evidence failed to prove that the proposed facility will adversely affect or enhance significant historical or archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. If condition 6.l. is not modified to eliminate the use of power boats automatically upon the establishment of speed zones, there are no reasonable assurances that the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the Greenway Canal and the Upper Withlacoochee will not be adversely affected by the proposed facility. Otherwise, the proposed facility should not have an adverse impact on current conditions and relative value of current functions of the area. Groundwater Quality Standards. The general geology in the area of the proposed facility and the Greenway Canal is known as karst terrain. Karst terrain is geology formed by the solution of limestone over millions of years. Sequential episodes of exposure of the Floridan aquifer, which underlies the area, occurs in karst terrain as the result of the natural formation of sink holes. These sink holes impact the movement of groundwater. Information exists to reasonably describe the hydrogeology of the area in "regional" terms. There is insufficient information generally available about the specific hydrogeology of the proposed site or the immediately surrounding area. Underlying the entire area and the proposed site in particular is the Floridan aquifer. The properties of the Floridan aquifer in coastal Citrus County, including the proposed site, can vary enormously over relatively short vertical distances. This variability impacts the movement of groundwater. The groundwater under the proposed site is classified as G-II. The terms "potentiometric surface" are used to describe the level to which groundwater will rise above sea level. The higher groundwater rises above sea level, the thicker the layer of underlying drinkable water should be before reaching an interface between drinkable and undrinkable water. In central Citrus County, the potentiometric surface is relatively low and flat at approximately 5 or 6 feet above sea level. The resulting interface between drinkable and nondrinkable water is found at 200 or more feet. Due to natural geological conditions, moving to the northwest of Citrus County, including the Greenway Canal area, potentiometric levels are higher. Therefore, thicker layers of drinkable water should be found around the proposed facility site and the Greenway Canal than in central Citrus County. Because of higher potentiometric surface in the area of the Greenway Canal, the layer of drinkable water would be expected to continue beyond 120 feet below the surface. Construction of the Greenway Canal has resulted in the intrusion of saltwater from the Greenway Canal into the groundwater. It has also resulted in the upconing of mineralized (sulfate) waters from deeper to less deep levels within the Floridan aquifer. These impacts have been significant with regard to the chloride levels (from the saltwater) and sulfate upconing. The impact of the construction of the Greenway Canal on saltwater intrusion and sulfate upconing is the result of the lowering of the surface waters to sea level in the Greenway Canal. The lowering of the level of water in the Greenway Canal has had the effect of decreasing the potentiometric surface and, consequently, reducing the thickness of the layer of drinkable groundwater. Saltwater has intruded along and beneath the Greenway Canal. The extent of this intrusion is represented graphically on Petitioner's exhibits 13 and 14. Saltwater intrusion has occurred primarily as a result of downward leakage of saltwater traveling up the Greenway Canal. The saltwater intrusion has been localized around the Greenway Canal. The wedge of saltwater intrusion has reached to approximately where U.S. Highway 19 crosses the Greenway Canal, approximately one-half mile east of the proposed site. Although it is "theoretically" possible that the saltwater wedge could continue to move along the entire length of the Greenway Canal, the evidence fails to support such a conclusion. Due to freshwater discharges from Lake Rousseau, the evidence supports a conclusion that the saltwater wedge will not move further eastward to any significant extent. The lowering of the waters of the Greenway Canal to sea level has had the effect of bringing sea level elevations to the Floridan aquifer several miles further inland than had been the case before construction of the Greenway Canal. Groundwater adjacent to the Greenway Canal, which is at levels higher than sea level, has discharged into the Greenway Canal. This has caused a lower groundwater level and the movement upward of groundwater. Similar effects have occurred naturally along the Withlacoochee River. As groundwater rises it comes into contact with a geologic unit which contains calcium sulfate. The sulfate mixes with the groundwater causing the "mineralized" groundwater. While the change in surface waters in the Greenway Canal was quick, the change in groundwater quality from saltwater intrusion and sulfate upconing has taken place only as fast as groundwater in the area flows. Generally, groundwaters flow very slowly. The impact of the Greenway Canal on upconing of sulfates will continue over time. Mineralized waters will continue to move upward and, perhaps, laterally away from the Greenway Canal. Pockets of mineralized waters (containing sulfates) can be found naturally occurring around the proposed site. Sulfate enriched groundwater in coastal areas naturally move toward, and discharge into, the surface waters along the coastal boundary. This process occurs along the Gulf of Mexico and the shoreline of Citrus County. The construction of the Greenway Canal has disrupted this natural process. The Mine Pit, when it was in use, was dewatered to different levels at various times. The dewatering took place for varying periods of time. Usually, the Mine Pit would be completely dewatered for a period of approximately three months. On one occasion, the Mine Pit was dewatered for a period of two years (1989 to 1991). It was dewatered to allow the removal of dolomite. The Mine Pit was allowed to fill back up with water after each dewatering. The dewatering of the Mine Pit was regulated by the Water Management District. The permit allowing dewatering of the Mine Pit required that the permit holder mitigate for adverse impacts of dewatering, including the inducement of natural contaminants into the aquifer. The evidence failed to prove, however, the extent of adverse impacts of the dewatering or whether the permit holder actually mitigated against any such adverse impacts. The lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit caused some upconing of sulfates for the same reason that the digging of the Greenway Canal did. Lowering the water level in the Mine Pit lowered the potentiometric level. The evidence, however, failed to prove the extent of the impact or how long the impact lasted. The lowering of the water level of the Mine Pit to sea level by connecting the Mine Pit to the Greenway Canal as proposed by Marina will have the same general impact as the digging of the Greenway Canal on the upconing of sulfates. Unlike the impact of the dewatering of the Mine Pit, the proposed modification will be permanent. Lowering the water level will have the same type impact for the same reasons that the digging of the Greenway Canal caused upconing. The potentiometric level will be permanently lowered; the layer of drinkable water will be permanently decreased. The evidence failed to prove that the lowering of the water level of the Mine Pit to sea level as a result of the proposed project will have the same impact on saltwater intrusion. This impact is less likely because the Mine Pit is four and a half miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. The upconing of sulfates as a result of the construction of the proposed facility will cause the levels of sulfates found in some portion of the currently drinkable layer of groundwater to exceed water quality standards. The area impacted will consist of groundwater which would otherwise have been expected to be potable. Comments concerning the proposed facility were provided to the Department by the Water Management District. By letter dated August 16, 1995, the Water Management District informed the Department that it was anticipated that the proposed facility would result in saltwater intrusion and upconing of mineralized water and that the area's groundwater could be expected to be degraded inconsistent with Water Management District rules. In response to the Water Management District's comments, Marina agreed to undertake a hydrogeologic study to gather site specific information to address those concerns. As a part of Marina's study, one monitoring well was drilled on the proposed site. The well was drilled to a depth of 450 feet in order to gather data concerning water quality at various depths. In early 1996, the Water Management District concluded that the results of the study undertaken by Marina had resolved its concerns. The test well was drilled to the south of the Mine Pit, approximately 2500 feet from the Greenway Canal. The water quality tests run on water taken from the test well reflected a sharp change in water quality at a depth of approximately 120 feet. The water below that level contained high levels of sulfates: 552 milligrams per liter of sulfate. Immediately above the high sulfate waters, low sulfate levels (12 milligrams per liter) were found. This result is contrary to what would be expected to be found based upon the higher potentiometric surface in this area of Citrus County. Because the potentiometric surface is higher in the area, it would be expected that the layer of drinkable groundwater would be considerably higher than 120 feet. The findings concerning the thickness of the drinkable groundwater found at the test well are consistent with the conclusions concerning the impacts of the digging of the Greenway Canal. As a result of the digging of the Greenway Canal and the lowering of the water level to sea level, the resulting decrease in the potentiometric surface has caused the upconing of mineralized waters and a decrease in the layer of drinkable groundwater. The Department and Marina have not disputed the fact that drinkable groundwater will be impacted by the upconing of mineralized waters (sulfates) as a result of connecting the Mine Pit with the Greenway Canal and lowering the level of water in the Mine Pit to sea level. The Department and Marina, however, have suggested that the extent of the impact of the lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit will not extend more than 100 feet from the Mine Pit and will be limited to the proposed site. The evidence failed to support this position. The unplugging of the Mine Pit will have the effect of increasing the area of water below sea level in the area by 12 percent of the size of the area of the Greenway Canal. Data from test wells around the Greenway Canal and other data has indicated that the upconing of mineralized water as a result of the lowering of the water level in the Greenway Canal has extended considerably more than 100 feet from the Greenway Canal. In light of the fact that the Mine Pit is equal in surface area to 12 percent of the surface area of the Greenway Canal, there is reason to be concerned that the area of impact from the lowering of the water level in the Mine Pit will also be significant. In light of the foregoing, and due to the variability of the geology of the area, the data from a single well on the site is of questionable value. Data from a single well simply does not provide the information necessary for Marina to provide reasonable assurances that the impact on groundwater from its proposed facility will be limited to an area of 100 feet from the Mine Pit. There is simply not enough data concerning the Mine Pit to conclude with any reasonable assurance that the upconing of mineralized waters (containing sulfates) will be limited to an area of 100 feet around the Mine Pit. Because of the size of the Mine Pit in relation to the Greenway Canal and the impact on upconing from the Greenway Canal, it is more likely that the impact of upconing will exceed 100 feet. A log of geologic characteristics of the test well was maintained. A confining unit or layer was found between the high-sulfate and low-sulfate waters at between 110 and 120 feet below the surface. The evidence failed to prove, however, the extent to which the layer may extend horizontally from the well location. In light of the general geology of Citrus County and the region around the proposed site, insufficient data exists to reach any conclusion about the extent of the confining layer. Establishing the extent of the confining layer would require more extensive (and costly) study of the site. The existence of a confining layer would also have no significant impact on the degree of upconing as a result of lowering the water level in the Mine Pit. I. Surface Water Quality Standards. Petitioners stipulated that the proposed facility would not violate surface water quality standards except with regard to the standard for chloride. Because of the flow of fresh water from Lake Rousseau and the flushing canal to be constructed at the proposed site, reasonable assurances have been given by Marina that there will be sufficient flushing of the Mine Pit to preclude a violation of chloride standards for surface waters. The evidence presented by Petitioners concerning the possibility that the salt water wedge resulting from the construction of the Greenway Canal may extend landward and eventually into the Mine Pit was too speculative and "theoretical".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Citrus Recreational Marina, Inc.'s application for wetland resource permit (dredge and fill) and the application for Management and Storage of Surface Waters Permit. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Goodwin, Esquire Save the Manatee Club, Inc. 500 North Maitland Avenue, Suite 210 Maitland, Florida 32751 Peter Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne Hrydziusko Assistant General Counsel Douglas H. MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Douglas Roberts, Esquire HOPPING, GREEN, SAMS & SMITH, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
