Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Clifford O. Hunter, is the owner of real property located at Dekle Beach, Taylor County, Florida. Mr. Hunter's property is located at lot 53, Front Street, Dekle Beach, within section 22, township 7 south, range 7 east, Taylor County. Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida with responsibility for, among other things, dredge and fill permits involving Florida waters. Mr. Hunter lived in a home on his Dekle Beach property until a storm in March of 1993 destroyed the home. Mr. Hunter's Application for Permit. On or about June 2, 1993, Mr. Hunter applied for a wetland resource permit to rebuild his home, construct a bulkhead and fill 1750 square feet of salt marsh. The permit was designated No. 62-232123-2 by the Department. Mr. Hunter also sought approval for the construction of a dock. The dock, however, is exempt from the permitting requirements of Rule 17- 312.050(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code. On July 21, 1993, the Department issued a Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter. On August 13, 1993, Mr. Hunter filed a Request for Formal Administrative Hearing with the Department contesting the denial of his permit application. The Department's Jurisdiction Over the Proposed Project. The proposed project involves dredging and filling in the waters of the State of Florida. A wetland resource permit is, therefore, required. Wetland jurisdiction of the State of Florida extends to the eastern edge of an existing concrete slab on Mr. Hunter's property from a canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's northern boundary. The canal connects with the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf of Mexico surrounding Dekle Beach, except for an area extending 500 feet outward from the town limits of Dekle Beach, is within the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Preserve. The preserve is an Outstanding Florida Water (hereinafter referred to as an "OFW"). The evidence presented by the Department to support findings of fact 9, 10 and 11 was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Impact on Water Quality Standards. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Mr. Hunter has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not lower the existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. The evidence presented by the Department concerning adverse impacts of the proposed project on water quality standards was uncontroverted by Mr. Hunter. Approval of Mr. Hunter's proposed project would allow the placing of fill in an intertidal area and the elimination of the portion of the intertidal area filled. Intertidal areas help maintain water quality by acting as a filter for water bodies. Mr. Hunter has obtained a variance from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services which will allow him to place a septic tank on his property if the permit is granted. The septic tank will leach pollutants. Those pollutants will include nutrients, viruses and bacteria. Because the soil around the septic tank is very saturated, filtering of the pollutants will be low. Pollutants will, therefore, leach into the waters of the State of Florida and adversely impact water quality standards of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Under such circumstances, Mr. Hunter has failed to demonstrate that the project will not lower existing ambient water quality of waters of the State of Florida. Public Interest Test. Mr. Hunter failed to present evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed project will not be adverse to the public interest. Rather, the unrebutted evidence presented by the Department supports a finding that Mr. Hunter's proposed project will not be in the public interest, especially when the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, discussed, infra, are considered. Possible adverse impacts to the public interest include the following: The septic tank which Mr. Hunter will place in the 1750 square feet of filled area will allow fecal coliform, viruses and pathogens to leach into the waters of the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property. Anyone who enters the canal could be infected from bacteria and viruses leaching from the septic tank. The conservation of fish and wildlife would also be adversely affected by the adverse impact on water quality and by the elimination of intertidal area. Recreational value of the canal would be reduced because of the adverse impact on water quality. The proposed project is for a permanent structure. Cumulative Impact. There are a number of applications for permits similar to the application filed by Mr. Hunter which have been filed by property owners of Dekle Beach whose homes were also destroyed by the March 1993 storm. If Mr. Hunter's permit application is granted, the Department will have to also grant most, if not all, of the other similar permit applications. Approximately 20 to 30 other applications involve similar requests which will allow the placement of fill and the installation of septic tanks. The resulting fill and use of septic tanks will have a significant cumulative adverse impact on the waters of the State of Florida. The cumulative impact from leaching effluent from the septic tanks on the waters of the State could be substantial. In addition to the impact on the canal adjacent to Mr. Hunter's property, there will a cumulative negative impact on the ambient water quality of approximately 20 septic tanks on the canals and on the OFW. Errors in the Department's Notice of Permit Denial. The Notice of Permit Denial issued by the Department contained the following errors: An incorrect description of Mr. Hunter's lot number and section number; An incorrect statement that the amount of Mr. Hunter's proposed fill would eliminate 3,200 square feet of marsh; An incorrect statement that Mr. Hunter proposed to fill his lot for a distance of 64 feet waterward. The errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial did not form any basis for the Department's denial of Mr. Hunter's application. The errors were typographical/word-processing errors. Several notices were being prepared at the same time as the Notice of Permit Denial pertaining to Mr. Hunter. The incorrect information contained in Mr. Hunter's Notice of Permit Denial was information which applied to the other notices. Other than the errors set out in finding of fact 23, the Notice of Permit Denial was accurate. Among other things, it was properly addressed to Mr. Hunter, it contained the project number assigned by the Department to Mr. Hunter's proposed project and it accurately reflected the Department's decision to deny Mr. Hunter's permit application. Mr. Hunter responded to the Notice of Permit Denial by requesting a formal administrative hearing to contest the Department's denial of his application. On December 20, 1993, Mr. Hunter received a letter from the Department which corrected the errors contained in the Notice of Permit Denial. The corrections were also contained in a Notice of Correction filed in this case by the Department on December 20, 1993. The Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter within 90 days after his application was filed. The corrections to the Notice of Permit Denial was received by Mr. Hunter more than 90 days after his application was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order dismissing the petition in this case and denying the issuance of permit number 62-232123-2 to Clifford O. Hunter. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Mr. Hunter's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 4. Although Ernest Frey, Director of District Management, Northeast District Office of the Department, did ask Mr. Hunter whether he wanted to sell his property to the State, the evidence failed to prove why Mr. Frey asked this question, that Mr. Frey asked the question in his official capacity with the Department, or that Mr. Frey made the inquiry at the direction or on behalf of the Department or the State. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that the Department denied the permit sought by Mr. Hunter because of any interest the State may have in purchasing Mr. Hunter's property. See 4. 6-8 No relevant. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Accepted in 6, 23, 28 and 30. Not a proposed finding of fact. See 8. The "aerial photo, Petitioner's exhibit 6, does not show "No vegetation behind the slab, nearly to the Mean High Water Line . . . ." Respondent's exhibit 3 does, however, show vegetation as testified to by Department witnesses. 13-14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Not a proposed finding of fact. Generally correct. Mr. Hunter was not properly put on notice of "alternatives" by the Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, issued by the Department. Summation: Mr. Hunter's Summation was considered argument and was considered in this case. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in 1 and 3. Accepted in 2. Accepted in 1 and 4-5. Accepted 6-7. Accepted in 8. 6-9 Hereby accepted. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 14. Accepted in 15. Accepted in 19. Accepted in 20. Accepted in 15. 17-18 Accepted in 15 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 15 and 20-21. Accepted in 10. Accepted in 22. Hereby accepted. Accepted in 22. Accepted in 12. Accepted in 15-16. Accepted in 17 and 21. 27-28 Accepted in 17. Accepted in 18. Accepted in 13. Accepted in 16. 32-33 The Notice of Permit Denial, as corrected, did not put Mr. Hunter on notice that the alternatives raised by the Department at the final hearing would be an issue in this case. Those alternatives should not, therefore, form any basis for the Department's final decision. Accepted in 24-25. Accepted in 23. Accepted in 25. Accepted in 24 and hereby accepted. Accepted in 26. COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford O. Hunter 1410 Ruby Street Live Oak, Florida 32060 Beth Gammie Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-9730 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue 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 petitioners Petitioners are special taxing districts and political subdivisions of the State of Florida, which were created pursuant to Chapter 298, Florida Statutes. The petitioners and their pertinent structures and operations were authorized by Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, for the purpose of providing irrigation, drainage and flood protection for the landowners within their respective boundaries. In order to effect this purpose, the petitioners designed and operate their water control structures to pump excess stormwater and surface water directly to Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") in the case of East Beach Water Control District (East Beach) and directly to the Rim Canal at the southern end of the Lake in the case of South Shore Drainage District (South Shore), East Shore Water Control District (East Shore), and South Florida Conservancy District (South Florida). East Beach covers a total area of approximately 6,542 acres located along the southeast shore of the Lake. Approximately 75-80 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 20-25 percent of the drainage area is urbanized. The urban area includes the City of Pahokee. South Shore covers a total area of approximately 4,230 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. Approximately 80-85 percent of the lands contained within the District are used for agriculture, with most of those lands planted in sugarcane. The remaining 15-20 percent of the drainage area is urban and industrial. The urban area includes a portion of the cities in South Bay, Lake Harbor, Bean City, South Shore Village, and sparsely scattered home sites throughout the District. East Shore covers a total area of approximately 8,136 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake. With the exception of lands developed as canals, levees, roads, and other service-related systems, the entire district is used for agricultural purposes. South Florida covers a total area of approximately 32,754 acres located along the Rim Canal at the south end of the Lake with 28,649 acres located in Palm Beach County and 4,105 acres located in Hendry County. Approximately 85-90 percent of the land is used for agricultural purposes and the remaining 10-15 percent is used for urban or industrial purposes. The City of Belle Glade constitutes a major part of the urban land with the remainder situated around the cities of South Bay, Lake Harbor and other scattered home sites. Here, the parties have stipulated that petitioners have standing to maintain this challenge. Background Before 1986, petitioners' discharges into the Lake had not been regulated by the respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In 1985 the Governor of the State of Florida issued Executive Order Number 86-150. This executive order observed that the Lake Okeechobee Technical Committee, formed to study water quality and water supply conditions in the Lake, had found the Lake to be in danger of becoming hypereutrophic because of the excessive amounts of nutrients, especially phosphorus, it was receiving, and had recommended corrective actions to substantially reduce the nutrient load and provide for long-term monitoring, research and management needs for the Lake. To protect and preserve the Lake, the executive order directed, inter alia, that the Department "bring all private and publically controlled backpumping sources into the lake under permit review or under enforcement for operating without a permit." Pursuant to that executive order, the Department, in concert with petitioners, began the process of regulating petitioners' discharges into the Lake. The Department initially attempted to have the petitioners enter into consent orders; however, the petitioners objected to that concept. Ultimately, both the Department and petitioners agreed to the issuance of short-term operating permits (TOPs) containing specific conditions aimed at determining the composition of the discharges from petitioners' systems and at reducing the pollution loading into the Lake. The TOPs, issued December 30, 1986, and effective until September 23, 1988, were issued pursuant to the Department's regulatory authority over pollution sources contained in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Rule 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. 2/ Pertinent to this case, Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.088 Water pollution operation permits; temporary permits; conditions-- (1) No person, without written authorization of the department, shall discharge into waters within the state any waste which by itself or in combination with the wastes or other sources, reduces the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them . . . (2)(a) Any person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the state shall make application to the department for an operation permit. Application shall be made on a form prescribed by the department and shall contain such information as the department requires. If the department finds that the proposed discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall deny the application and refuse to issue a permit. . . (3)(a) A person who does not qualify for an operation permit or has been denied an operation permit under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) may apply to the department for a temporary operation permit . . . After consideration of the application, any additional information furnished, and all written objections submitted, the department shall grant or deny a temporary operation permit. No temporary permit shall be granted by the department unless it affirmatively finds: The proposed discharge does not qualify for an operation permit; The applicant is constructing, installing, or placing into operation, or has submitted plans and reasonable schedules of constructing, installing or placing into operation, an approved pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system, or that the applicant has a waste for which no feasible and acceptable method of treatment or disposal is known or recognized but is making a bona fide effort through research and other means to discover and implement such a method; The applicant needs permission to pollute the waters within the state for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, or operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternate waste disposal system; There is no present, reasonable, alternative means of disposing of the waste other than by discharging it into the waters of the state; The denial of a temporary operation permit would work an extreme hardship upon the applicant; The granting of a temporary operation permit will be in the public interest; or The discharge will not be unreasonably destructive to the quality of the receiving waters. A temporary operation permit issued shall: Specify the manner, nature, volume, and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require the proper operation and maintenance of any interim or temporary pollution abatement facility or system required by the department as a condition of the permit; Require the permitholder to maintain such monitoring equipment and make and file such records and reports as the department deems necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the permit and to evaluate the effect of the discharge upon the receiving waters; Be valid only for the period of time necessary for the permit holder to place into operation the facility, system, or method contemplated in his application as determined by the department; and Contain other requirements and restrictions which the department deems necessary and desirable to protect the quality of the receiving waters and promote the public interest. And, Section 403.927, Florida Statutes, provided, and continues to provide, as follows: 403.927 Use of water in farming and forestry activities.-- . . . it is the intent of the Legislature to provide for the construction and operation of agricultural water management systems under authority granted to water management districts and to control, by the department or by delegation of authority to water management districts, the ultimate discharge from agricultural water management systems. . . . The department may require a stormwater permit or appropriate discharge permit at the ultimate point of discharge from an agricultural water management system or a group of connected agricultural water management systems. . . (4) As used in this section, the term: * * * (b) "Agricultural water management systems" means farming and forestry water management or irrigation systems and farm ponds which are permitted pursuant to chapter 373 or which are exempt from the permitting provisions of that chapter. The agricultural water management systems owned and operated by petitioners fall within the definition of "agricultural water management systems" set forth in Section 403.927(4)(b), Florida Statutes. Consistent with the provisions of Section 403.088, Florida Statutes, Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. However, for discharges of wastes to water, the Department may issue temporary operation permits under the criteria set forth in Section 403.088(3), F.S. Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, further delineates the specific procedures to obtain permits and the specific standards for issuing and denying permits. In July 1988, petitioners applied for an extension of their TOPs. The monthly water quality monitoring data petitioners had submitted to the Department reflected, however, that the discharges from petitioners' systems were in contravention of the Department's rules and standards. Accordingly, since petitioners had not met the obligations set forth in the TOPs, the Department advised petitioners that the TOPs would not be extended and that they were required to apply for new operating permits. The new permit applications Following the Department's refusal to extend the TOPs, petitioners filed applications for operating permits for their discharges, and the Department, consistent with its previous reviews, undertook its review pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Effective July 1, 1989, however, Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, was amended with regard to, inter alia, the definition of stormwater management systems so as to include pumped discharges such as petitioners. Further, pertinent to this case, Part IV of Chapter 373 provided: 373.416 Permits for maintenance or operation-- (1) . . . the governing board or department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation or maintenance of any stormwater management system, dam, impoundment, reservoir, appurtenant work, or works will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto, will not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district, and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district. 373.418 Rulemaking; preservation of existing authority.-- It is the intent of the Legislature that stormwater management systems be regulated under this part incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403. Neither the department nor governing boards are limited or prohibited from amending any regulatory requirement applicable to stormwater management systems in accordance with the provisions of this part. It is further the intent of the Legislature that all current exemptions under chapters 373 and 403 shall remain in full force and effect and that this act shall not be construed to remove or alter these exemptions. In order to preserve existing requirements, all rules of the department or governing boards existing on July 1, 1989, . . . shall be applicable to stormwater management systems and continue in full force and effect unless amended or replaced by future rulemaking in accordance with this part. Upon the amendment of Part IV, Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, petitioners amended their pending applications to reflect their desire that the applications be processed pursuant to the newly amended provisions of Part IV, Chapter 373, as they relate to stormwater management systems. The Department, acknowledging the amendments to chapter 373, processed the applications accordingly; however, in view of the provisions of section 373.418(1) which "incorporat[ed] all of the existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403," the Department did not in fact change the standards by which these applications were reviewed, to wit: Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. On March 14, 1991, the Department issued a notice of permit denial to each petitioner. In each of the denials, the Department noted the provisions of Section 373.416(1), Florida Statutes, ["the . . . department may require such permits and impose such reasonable conditions as are necessary to assure that the operation . . . of any stormwater system . . . will comply with the provisions of this part and applicable rules promulgated thereto . . . and will not be harmful to the water resources of the district"] and Section 373.418(1), Florida Statutes, ["incorporating all of existing requirements contained in or adopted pursuant to chapters 373 and 403"], and concluded that the applications should be denied for the following reasons: The Department has completed its review of the subject application, supporting documents and the discharge monitoring reports submitted by the applicant as required by Department Permit NO. IT50- 125678. Based on this review the Department has made the determination that the applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the discharge from the agricultural stormwater management system proposed by the applicant will be in compliance with the aforementioned sections of Chapter 373, F.S. and the Class I Surface Water Quality Standards adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403.061, F.S. and contained in Section 17-302.540, F.A.C. and the Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality contained in Section 17-302.300(3), F.A.C. The Department's action is facially consistent with the provisions of chapter 373, and chapter 403 incorporated therein, as well as the existing rules adopted pursuant to such chapters which require, whether the system be exempt or not, that discharges comply with state water quality standards. See e.g., Sections 373.416, 373.418, 403.088 and 403.927, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17- 4.070(1), 17-25.060, 17-25.080, and Chapter 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Availing themselves of the point of entry accorded by the notice of permit denial, petitioners filed a request for administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the denial of their applications. Such proceedings are currently pending before the Division of Administrative Hearings, but distinct from this proceeding under Section 120.535, Florida Statutes. The Section 120.535 challenge The challenged policy, as alleged in paragraphs 19 of the petition, purports to be as follows: The Department has made a policy determination, which draws a distinction between "agricultural stormwater discharges" and other stormwater discharges regulated by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Department has identified the Petitioners' discharge as "agricultural stormwater discharges" and has subjected the petitioners to a set of rules and criteria that the Department has not adopted but which are apparently different from the general stormwater regulations adopted pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Such articulation of the challenged policy is substantially identical to petitioner's statement of the issue identified in their proposed final order, as follows: The issue for determination in this case is whether the Department's policy to apply criteria different from that contained in its "Regulation of Stormwater Discharge" Rule 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, and/or Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code, of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), when seeking to regulate an agricultural stormwater management system, as defined in Chapter 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, constitutes a rule . . . . The premises for the petitioners' challenge are their contention that the Department has drawn a distinction between the agricultural stormwater discharges of petitioners and other stormwater discharges, which is not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, and that the Department has applied criteria, which are not supported by statutory or duly promulgated rules, to evaluate petitioners' applications. The credible proof fails, however, to support petitioners' premises. Contrary to the assertions raised by petitioners, the statutory and duly promulgated rules heretofore discussed provide ample authority for the Department's action, and there is no credible proof that the Department is applying any criteria that is not apparent from an application or reading of such statutes and existing rules. Indeed, Rule 17-25.060(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides: The permit requirements of Chapter 17-4 or other applicable rules, rather than those of this chapter, shall apply to discharges which are a combination of stormwater and industrial or domestic wastewater or which are otherwise contaminated by non-stormwater sources unless: (a) the stormwater discharge facility is capable of providing treatment of the non- stormwater component sufficient to meet state water quality standards . . . . Here, the proof is compelling that the Department's decision was predicated on existing statutory and rule authority, and that it did not apply any criteria not promulgated as a rule or not contained within existing statutory authority to evaluate petitioners' applications, or treat petitioners' discharges differently than any other stormwater discharge contaminated by non-stormwater sources.
The Issue Has the applicant, Grove Isle, Ltd. provided reasonable assurances and affirmatively demonstrated that its proposed marina is clearly in the public interest and will not lower the existing ambient water quality of Biscayne Bay, a designated outstanding Florida water?
Findings Of Fact On March 13, 1978 an application was made to DER for a water quality control permit to construct a wet-slip marina on the west side of Grove Isle, formerly known as Fair Isle and Sailboat Key. The original plan for the marina, which was initially objected to by the Department of Environmental Regulation, was modified to protect a bed of seagrasses extending about 30 feet wide in a band along the west side of the island. While the plans were being modified and consultations with other government permitting agencies were in progress, the application was "deactivated" from September 27, 1978 until March 30, 1979. As a result of its investigation and review, DER on October 23, 1979, issued a letter of intent to grant the permit to Grove Isle, Inc. The permit if granted, would allow the applicant to construct six concrete fixed piers, five "T" shaped, one "L" shaped, with a boat docking capacity of 90 pleasure boats. The piers will extend a maximum of 165 feet offshore from an existing concrete bulkhead. The width of the piers will be 8 feet from the bulkhead to a point 41 feet offshore, and then increased to a width of 10 feet. A sewage pump-out facility is also proposed. Attached to that letter of intent were the following conditions: Adequate control shall be taken during the construction so that turbidity levels outside a 50 foot radius of the work area do not exceed 50 J.C.U's, as per Section 24-11, of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. During construction, turbidity samples shall be collected at a mid-depth twice daily at a point 50 feet up stream and at a point 50 feet down stream from the work area. The contractor shall arrange to have turbidity sample results reported to him within one hour of collection. Turbidity monitoring reports shall be submitted weekly to DER and to the Metropolitan Dade County Environmental Resources Management (MDCERM) If turbidity exceeds 50 J.C.U's beyond a 50 foot radius of the work area, turbidity curtains shall be placed around the work area and MDCERM notified immediately. Turbidity samples shall be collected according to condition two above, no later than one hour after the installation of the turbidity curtain. It turbidity levels do not drop below 50 J.C.U's within one hour of installation of the curtain all construction shall be halted. Construction shall not be resumed until the contractor has received authorization from MDCERM. No live-a-board vessels (permanent or transient) shall be docked at this facility unless direct sewage pump-out connections are provided at each live-a-board slip. A permanent pump-out station shall be installed and maintained for further removal of sewage and waste from the vessels using this facility. Compliance with this requirement will entail the applicant's contacting the Plan Review Section of MDCERM for details concerning connection to an approved disposal system. Boat traffic in the shallow 30 foot wide dense seagrass area which parallels the shoreline shall be restricted by the placement of wood piles on 6 foot centers along the entire shoreline facing the marina. The channel from this marina to deeper water in Biscayne Bay shall be marked to prevent boats from straying into adjacent shallow areas. This will prevent habitat destruction. A chemical monitoring program shall be established to determine the effect of this marina on the water quality of this section of Biscayne Bay. Surface and mid-depth samples shall be collected at three points in the project area and at one background station. Parameters shall include, but not be limited to dissolved oxygen, pH, salinity, temperature, total coliform and fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria, oil and grease, biochemical oxygen demand, and turbidity. Background samples shall be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. In addition to the chemical monitoring program, a benthic community monitoring program is to be established. Samples of the benthic seagrass community within and adjacent to the project area are to be collected prior to construction and quarterly for a minimum of one year after 90 percent occupancy of the marina. Should either monitoring program detect dissimilar changes at its monitoring and control stations, DER and MDCERM shall be notified of the results. The monitoring programs shall be reviewed and approved by DER and MDCERM prior to implementation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to DER and MDCERM and the United States Corps of Engineers on regular basis. Warning signs shall be posted in the marina area to advise marina users that manatees frequent the area and caution should be taken to avoid collisions with them. With the foregoing conditions imposed, the Department concluded that no significant immediate or long term negative biological impact is anticipated and state water quality standards should not be violated as a result of the proposed construction. Grove Isle, Inc., has agreed to comply with all the conditions established by the DER letter of intent to grant the permit. Grove Isle is a spoil bank in Biscayne Bay located approximately 700 feet east of the Florida mainland. It is linked to the mainland by a two-lane concrete bridge. The island is currently under development for a 510 unit condominium community with associated facilities such as a restaurant, hotel, and the proposed marina. The island is surrounded by a concrete bulkhead constructed many years ago. No changes in the bulkhead line are proposed. Grove Isle, Inc., proposes constructing the marina on concrete piles driven into the Bay bottom from a shallow draft barge. During construction there would be some turbidity caused from the disruption of the Bay sediment. This can however be adequately controlled by the use of turbidity curtains during construction. The construction will not require any dredging or filling. In the immediate marina site the most significant biota are a 30 foot wide bed of seagrasses. There are no other important biota because at one time the area was extensively dredged to create the island. There are no oyster or clam beds nearby. While lobsters may have once frequented the area, they too are no longer present. The water depth in the area ranges from 1 foot near the island bulkhead to 12 feet offshore to the west of the island. This particular seagrass bed consist primarily of turtle grass (thalassia, testudinum) with some Cuban Shoal Weed (Halodule, Wrightii). Protection for these grasses will be provided by a buffer zone between the island and the boat slips. The grassy zone will be bordered by a row of dolphin piles to exclude boat traffic. Because the grass requires sunlight for photosynthesis and therefore life, the six piers will have grated walkways where they pass over the grass. This will allow sunlight to reach below. In addition to the small grass bed on the west of the island there are extensive beds to the northeast, east and south of the island that extend several hundred yards from the island in water depths of three to ten feet. If boat traffic in the vicinity is markedly increased due to the existence of the marina, it is conceivable that the number of propeller scars in these shallow beds could increase. At the present time the beds are already traversed by boats, some of which are owned by Petitioner's members. There are already for example, approximately 50 crafts which operate from the nearby mainland or from Pelican Canal directly to the north of the island. Propeller scars take up to fifteen years to heal yet the number of scars in the Grove Isle area is insignificant and even a tripling of them from an additional 90 boats would still be de minimus. Potential damage to the seagrasses on the north side of the island will be minimized by the planned installation of navigation markers by Grove Isle. These markers will channel boats into water of a navigable depth and lessen the number of groundings and near groundings which cause the scarring. There is evidence that pleasure boats by their very existence and operation in the water are potential pollution sources. For instance, various maintenance chemicals such as anti-fouling bottom paint and wood cleaner have the ability, if used in sufficient quantity, to harm marine life. The fueling of engines and sewage discharge from boats are additional pollution sources. There was however, no showing that the location of up to 90 pleasure and sport fishing craft at the proposed marina site would in any way cause a degradation of water quality below the acceptable standards for Class III waters. At the present time, the marina site has adequate flushing to disburse those pollutants which may be generated by the marina operations. While a hydrographic survey was not requested by DER or provided by Grove Isle at the time the permit application was made, the testimony of Dr. Echternacht at the time of the Hearing provided adequate assurances respecting the hydrographic characteristics of the proposed site. The proposed marina will have no fueling or maintenance facilities. No live-a-board craft will be allowed at the marina. Both Mr. Wm. Cleare Filer and David A. Doheny live close to Grove Isle. Mr. Doheny's residence is on the mainland facing the proposed marina site and Mr. Filer's house is on Pelican Canal. They use the waters of Biscayne Bay around Grove Isle for recreation. If the quality of the water in the proposed marina site were lessened their substantial interest would be affected. Biscayne Bay is classified as a Class III water and is in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. Careful considerations has been given to each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. To the extent that they are not contained in this Order, they are rejected as being either not supported by competent evidence or as immaterial and irrelevant to the issues determined here.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, determining that the requested water quality control permit and certification be issued subject to the conditions contained in the Notice of Intent to Issue Permit and that the Relief requested by the Petitioners be denied and their Petitions be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Doheny, Esquire 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Wm. Cleare Filer 3095 Northwest 7th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Joel Jaffer 2479 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33145 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry S. Stewart, Esquire Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Richmond & Greer One Biscayne Tower 25th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION BAYSHORE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-2186 79-2324 STATE OF FLORIDA, 79-2354 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, and GROVE ISLE, LIMITED, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should grant the application of Respondent, Leland Egland, for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), Number 44-01700257-001-ES, to fill an illegally-dredged trench or channel in mangrove wetlands between Florida Bay and what was a land-locked lake, to restore preexisting conditions.
Findings Of Fact Since 1988, Applicant, Leland Egland, has resided in a home built on property he purchased in Buccaneer Point Estates in Key Largo, Florida, in 1986--namely, Lots 14 and 15, Block 2, plus the "southerly contiguous 50 feet." A 1975 plat of Buccaneer Point shows this "southerly contiguous 50 feet" as a channel between Florida Bay to the west and a lake or pond to the east; it also shows a 800-foot linear canal extending from the lake or pond to the north. Egland's Lot 14 borders Florida Bay to the west; his lot 15 borders the lake or pond to the east; the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" is between Egland's lots 14 and 15 and property farther south owned by another developer. See Finding 10, infra. Buccaneer Point lots in Blocks 1 (to the east) and 2 (to the west) surround the lake or pond and canal. The developer of Buccaneer Point applied to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1977 for a permit to dredge a channel, characterized as a flushing channel for the lake or pond, which was characterized as a tidal pond with replanted red mangroves. (There was no evidence as to the character of this pond before the 1977 permit application or if it even existed.) DER denied the permit application because the: proposal . . . to open a pond to Florida Bay . . . will connect an 800 linear foot dead-end canal. The pond and canal will act as a sink for marl and organic debris which will increase Biological Oxygen Demand and lower Dissolved Oxygen. The project is expected to result in substances which settle to form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge deposits and floating debris, oil scum, and other materials, in amounts sufficient to be deleterious. Based on the above, degradation of local water quality is expected. * * * Furthermore, your project will result in the following effects to such an extent as to be contrary to the public interest and the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes: Interference with the conservation of fish, marine life and wildlife, and other natural resources. Destruction of natural marine habitats, grass flats suitable as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life, including established marine soils suitable for producing plant growth of a type useful as nursery or feeding grounds for marine life. Reduction in the capability of habitat to support a well-balanced fish and wildlife population. Impairment of the management or feasibility of management of fish and wildlife resources. As a result, the proposed channel to Florida Bay was not dredged (although some of the lake side of the proposed channel apparently was dredged before the project was abandoned); the building lots surrounding the lake or pond (now known as South Lake) and canal were sold as waterfront lots on a land-locked lake without access to Florida Bay; and the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" was included with the conveyance to Egland, along with the Lots 14 and 15 of Block 2. The evidence was not clear as to the characteristics of the "southerly contiguous 50 feet" in 1977, or earlier. When Egland purchased his property in 1986, it was a mature mangrove slough with some tidal exchange between the lake and Florida Bay, especially during high tides and stormy weather. Some witnesses characterized the area of mangroves as a shallow creek in that general time frame (from about 1984 through 1988). According to Vince Easevoli, at least under certain conditions, a rowboat could be maneuvered between the lake and Florida Bay using a pole "like a gondola effect." But Egland testified to seeing Easevoli drag a shallow-draft boat through this area in this general time frame, and the greater weight of the evidence was that the mangrove slough was not regularly navigable channel at the time. During this general time frame (the mid-to-late 1980's) several Petitioners (namely, Stanley Dominick, John and Katherine Easevoli, and their son, Vince Easevoli) purchased property on South Lake. All but Vince built homes and resided there; Vince did not reside there until after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but he sometimes stayed at the residence on his parents' property during this general time frame. In the early 1990's, the slough or creek became somewhat deeper, making it increasingly more easily passable by boat. Large storms such as Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the "storm of the century" in 1993 may have contributed to these changes, but human intervention seems to have been primarily responsible. In 1994, Egland added a swimming pool south of the residence on his lots. During construction, some illegal filling took place. Several witnesses testified that the illegal fill occurred to the north of the creek, which was not affected. Vince Easevoli's lay interpretation of several surveys in evidence led him to maintain that illegal fill was placed in the mangrove slough and that the creek became narrower by approximately four feet and, eventually, deeper. But no surveyor testified to explain the surveys in evidence, which do not seem to clearly support Easevoli's position, and the greater weight of the evidence was that illegal fill was not added to the creek in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." At some point in time, hand tools were used to deepen the slough or creek and trim mangroves without a permit to enable a small boat to get through more easily. As boats were maneuvered through, the creek got deeper. Eventually, propeller-driven boats of increasing size were used to "prop- dredge" the creek even deeper. According to Petitioner, Tom Hodges, when he and his wife purchased their lot on the lake in 1994, it was possible to navigate the creek in a 22-foot Mako boat (at least under certain conditions), and their lot was sold to them as having limited access to Florida Bay. (There was evidence that access to Florida Bay could increase the price of these lots by a factor of three.) Petitioners Martha Scott and Marianne Delfino also purchased their property on the lake in 1994. Tom Hodges claimed to have seen manatees in the lake as early as 1994, but no other witnesses claimed sightings earlier than 1997, and the accuracy of this estimate is questionable. Even if manatees were in the lake during this time frame or earlier, it is possible that they used an access point other than the creek. At the southeast corner of South Lake in Buccaneer Point, there is a possible connection to a body of water farther south, which is part of a condominium development called Landings of Largo and leads still farther south to access to Florida Bay near a dock owned by Landings of Largo. While this connection is shallow, it may have been deep enough under certain conditions to allow manatees to pass through. Apparently not with manatees but rather with boaters from the lake in Buccaneer Point in mind, Landings of Largo has attempted to close this access point by placement of rebar; Landings of Largo also has placed rip-rap under its dock farther south to prevent boats from passing under the dock. However, there are gaps in the rip-rap, some possibly large enough for manatees to pass. In approximately 1995 or 1996, Egland observed Vince Easevoli and his father, John Easevoli, digging a trench through the mangrove slough with a shovel and cutting mangrove trees with a saw in Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." Others were standing by, watching. Egland told them to stop and leave.6 These actions made the creek even deeper and more easily navigable by boat, which continued to further excavate the trench by such methods as "prop dredging." In 1997 Hany Haroun purchased property adjacent to South Lake where he lives with his wife, Christine. By this time, Florida Bay was easily accessible by boat from the lake, and Haroun paid $260,000 for the property. He estimated that his property would be worth about $150,000 less without boat access to Florida Bay. In approximately 1997, manatees began to appear in South Lake year round from time to time, especially in the winter months. In 1997, the Hodgeses saw one they thought may have been in distress and telephoned the Save Our Manatee Club and Dolphin Research for advice. Following the advice given, they used lettuce to coax the manatee over to their dock to check its condition and videotape the event. The manatee appeared healthy and eventually departed the lake. On subsequent visits, manatees have been seen and videotaped resting and cavorting with and without calves and possibly mating in the lake. Groups of as many as seven to eight manatees have been seen at one time in the lake. Tom Hodges, Vince Easevoli, and Hany Haroun testified that they have enjoyed watching manatees in the lake since 1997. It can be inferred from the evidence that Elaine Hodges also has enjoyed watching manatees in the lake. There was no evidence as to the extent to which other Petitioners enjoy watching manatees in the lake. In 1997, the ACOE began an investigation of the illegal dredging of Egland's "southerly contiguous 50 feet." According to Egland, he was in communication with ACOE; presumably, he told ACOE what he knew about the illegal dredging on his property. According to Egland, ACOE advised him to place posts in the dredged channel to keep boats out. When he did so, Tom Hodges removed the posts. Egland replaced the posts, and Hodges removed them again. When Egland told ACOE what was happening, ACOE asked him to try reinstalling the posts and screwing plywood to the posts to achieve a stronger, fence-like barrier. Hodges also removed these barriers, and Egland did not replace the posts or plywood barrier again. In 1998, ACOE mailed Egland a Cease and Desist Order accusing him of illegal dredging in his "southerly contiguous 50 feet" and demanding that he restore the mangrove slough to its previous conditions. Egland was angry at being blamed for the dredging and initially disputed ACOE's charges and demands. But ACOE and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which accepted the role of lead federal enforcement agency on December 18, 1998, was seeking monetary civil penalties. In addition, Egland received legal advice that, if restoration were delayed, he could be sued for damages by someone purchasing property on the lake or canal in the meantime upon the mistaken belief that there was boat access to Florida Bay. For these reasons, Egland agreed to comply with the Cease and Desist Order. However, ACOE and EPA informed Egland that he might have to obtain a permit from DEP to fill the dredged channel in compliance with the Cease and Desist Order. On May 22, 2000, Egland applied to DEP for an ERP to restore a trench about 100 feet long varying from seven to ten feet in width that was illegally dredged on his property. He estimated that a total of 160 cubic yards of fill would be required, to be spread over approximately 900 square feet. He assured DEP that rip-rap would be used to contain the fill and that turbidity screens would be used during construction. During processing of Egland's application, DEP requested additional information, which Egland provided, and DEP's Environmental Manager, Edward Barham, visited the project site in October 2000. Based on all the evidence available to him at that point in time, Barham viewed Egland's proposed fill project as a simple restoration project to correct illegal dredging and return the mangrove slough to its preexisting condition. For that reason, Barham recommended that DEP process the application as a de minimis exemption and not charge a permit application fee. Subsequently, some Petitioners brought it to DEP's attention that manatees were accessing South Lake through the channel Egland wanted to fill. DEP saw no need to verify the accuracy of Petitioners' information or obtain additional information about the manatees use of the lake because DEP still viewed it as a restoration project. However, DEP decided that it would be necessary to include specific conditions in any ERP issued to Egland to ensure that no manatees would be trapped in the lake or otherwise injured as a result of filling the channel. Primarily due to the need for these conditions, and also because of anticipated opposition from Petitioners, DEP decided to charge Egland a permit application fee and not process the application as a de minimis exemption. DEP staff visited the mangrove slough on numerous occasions between October 2000, and final hearing and observed that the trench continued to get deeper over time as a result of continued prop-dredging and digging. In early August 2001, Tom Hodges observed a man walking back and forth with a wheel barrow between a storage shed on Egland's property and the channel. (Hodges was on his property across South Lake but use of binoculars enabled him to see this.) The next day, Hany Haroun discovered a poured- concrete slab forming a plug or dam in the channel on the lake side. Haroun reported his discovery to Tom Hodges, who investigated with his wife, who took photographs of the structure. At some point, the Hodgeses realized that a manatee was trapped in the lake. The manatee did not, and appeared unable to, use the other possible access point towards Landings of Largo to escape. See Finding 10, supra. The Hodgeses telephoned Barham at DEP to report the situation and complain. Tom Hodges then proceeded to break up the concrete, remove the resulting rubble, and place it on the path to the storage shed, freeing the manatee. The incident was reported in the newspaper the next day and prompted Petitioners to file their Motion to Dismiss and for Other Relief on August 9, 2001. See Preliminary Statement. The evidence was inconclusive as to who poured the concrete, or had it poured, and why. Egland testified that he was in Egypt on an extended trip at the time and denied any knowledge of the concrete plug until he saw the rubble on his property upon his return from Egypt. Egland testified that he saw no "aggregate" in the concrete, which would make it relatively easy to break up, and he suspected that Petitioners were responsible for pouring the concrete in order to publicly make false accusations against Egland. Petitioners denied Egland's accusation. Vince testified that the concrete contained rebar for strength. The evidence was inconclusive as to who was responsible for this incident. As pointed out by Petitioners, DEP did not investigate and does not know whether there is any freshwater upwelling in the lake, whether manatees have mated in the lake, or whether calves have been birthed in the lake. DEP also did not investigate and does not know whether South Lake is unlike other manatee habitat in the area. DEP did not investigate or obtain any information as to how many manatees use the lake, or what manatees use the lake for, in addition to the information provided by Petitioners. Carol Knox, an Environmental Specialist III with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, testified as a manatee expert based on her knowledge of manatees and manatee habitat in the area, as well as the information known to DEP. It was her opinion that, regardless what South Lake might offer manatees in the way of habitat, closing the channel (with the specific conditions required by DEP to protect manatees during the filling itself) would have no adverse impact on manatees because it did not appear that manatees made use of the lake before the channel was dug in 1996 or 1997, and ample other manatee habitat of various kinds continued to be available in the area.7 Based on the testimony of Knox and Barham, and the totality of the evidence in this case, it is found that Egland provided reasonable assurance that his proposed restoration project will not harm or adversely affect manatees or their habitats. Petitioners also questioned Egland's assurances as to water quality. Vince Easevoli, Stanley Dominick, and Hany Haroun testified to their concerns that water quality in the lake will decline if the channel is closed. As Petitioners point out, DEP did not require Egland to provide any water quality measurements. This was because the proposal is reasonably expected to reverse the effects of the illegal dredging on water quality and to return both the water in the lake and canal and the water in Florida Bay to the quality that existed prior to the illegal dredging. Without requiring any water quality measurements, it is reasonably expected that the water quality in Florida Bay would not decline in any respect; to the contrary, if anything, Florida Bay's water quality would be expected to improve by reduction of contributions from the lake and canal. Conversely, water quality in the lake and canal would be expected to decline but not below what it was before the illegal dredging. Petitioners also question DEP's failure to require Egland to provide a survey or stake the area to be filled, so as to ensure against filling too much of the mangrove slough. But the proposed ERP contains a specific condition: "The final fill elevation of the fill shall be at the elevation of the substrate within the adjacent mangrove wetlands." Barham testified persuasively that this specific condition is adequate to provide reasonable assurance. Compliance can be ascertained by simply viewing the site after completion of the restoration project, and compliance can be enforced by requiring removal of excess fill as necessary. The proposed ERP also contains a general condition that the permit does not convey or create any property right, or any interest in real property, or authorize any entrances upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by Egland.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection, enter a final order granting the application of Leland Egland and issuing ERP Number 44- 01700257-001-ES. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 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 25th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-7.523(2)(c) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.*
Findings Of Fact The Parties 1. The District is a public corporation existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida (1949), and operating pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Title 40E-7, Florida Administrative Code, asa multipurpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. 2. KRVSA is a Florida corporation whose members are substantially affected by the rule in question. 3. Phillip B. Griner is an individual who holds a Special Use License to use the Lower Reedy Creek Management Area/Rough Island Management Unit Protected Zone. He has been a member of KVSA since its inception in 1998 and was serving on its board of directors at the time of the final hearing.
Conclusions Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Petition for Administrative Hearing is denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Pan ate 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 19th day of December, 2003.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. 31
Findings Of Fact Petitioner SFWMD is a public corporation of Florida. It is charged with the responsibility of issuing permits and enforcing orders relating to surface water management within its jurisdictional boundaries. Respondents Hubschman, as trustees, have full rights of ownership in 1,280 contiguous acres located in Sections 17 and 20, Township 47 South, Range 26 East, Lee County, Florida. These lands are known as Bonita Farms I and II. They are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of SFWMD. In their pre- developed state, these lands could generally be categorized as marsh and wetlands with cypress forest and some uplands in the northern half of the project area. After deciding to develop the acreage for use as pasture and farmland for small vegetable crops, Respondents Hubschman applied for a surface water management permit from SFWMD. The purpose of the permit was to allow the construction and operation of a water management system that would serve both farms. A system was designed to drain water off both parcels through a 62-acre retention area into a natural slough system which runs water into Kehl Canal. In order to create the system, the Respondents Hubschman had the following facilities designed for the site: internal ditches, dikes, pumps, a retention area and control structures. On April 15, 1982, SFWMD issued Surface Water Management Permit No. 36- 00315-S, and Respondents Hubschman were allowed to proceed with their proposed construction plan. A modification to the permit was issued on April 14, 1983. The retention area was enlarged from 62 acres to 88 acres by relocating the perimeter dike. The outfall structure was revised in that the two pumps and the weir were to be replaced by three 18" CMP culverts that would discharge the drained water by gravity flow from the retention area through the slough into Kehl Canal. The duration of the construction phase of its permit was a three-year period, unless the construction of the permitted project discharge structure or equivalent had been completed prior to that date. After the close of the three-year period, there was a dispute between the Respondents and SFWMD as to whether the permit had expired. The controversy was resolved through a compromise agreement. An application for the reissuance of Permit No. 36-00315-S was filed on October 13, 1986. Instead of reissuing Permit No. 36-00315-S, as requested by Respondents Hubschman, SFWMD decided to issue a new permit on May 14, 1987. As part of the processing procedures, SFWMD again reviewed and approved the entire surface water management system designed to serve the 1,280 acres of land proposed by Respondents. Because the additional work proposed for Section 17, the northern section was limited at this stage of development to the selective clearing of additional upland areas to create more improved pasture, the new permit directed attention to Section 20, the southern section of the land. The new permit advised the Respondents that if they wanted to propose additional development to Section 17, they were required to seek a modification of this new permit, Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S, to include those changes. The Respondents applied for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S on July 30, 1987. The proposed modification sought to change the status of the development of Section 17 from improved pasture to small vegetable farmland on 639 acres. The surface water management system plan was modified to drain water in Section 17 to the reservoir on Section 20. The water would be directed via a series of lateral ditches and swales. A six foot high dike and one 27,000 GPM pump were also required. Two additional 18" CMP culverts were required at the discharge facilities to accommodate the increased outflow. The Modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S was approved and issued on June 16, 1988. The original Permit NO. 36-00764-S and its modification are similar to a contract novation because the new permits substituted new obligations between the parties for the old ones under Permit No. 36-00315-S. Based upon this approach to the situation, SFWMD allowed the construction work completed under Permit No. 36-00315-S prior to the Stop Work Order of August 27, 1986, to vest. The completion of the berm around the reservoir in Section 20, as set forth in the letter from Elizabeth D. Ross, attorney for SFWMD, on September 19, 1986, was also allowed to vest. However, if the vested matters were changed in the subsequent permits, they became revisions. The revisions take precedence over the vested matters. Otherwise, completed construction under Permit No. 36- 00764-S as modified, and post Stop Work Order construction remains in effect perpetually for the operation portion of the permit. In order to determine with certainty what was permitted when the Notice of Violation was issued on December 20, 1988, the parties would have to look to the project work actually completed on August 27, 1986, the specific construction approved by SFWMD after that date, the subsequent Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00764-S issued May 14, 1987, and its Modification issued June 16, 1988. The substantial compliance determination issued by Richard A. Rogers, P.E., Resource Control Department dated September 24, 1987, should also be considered as authorized activity. The Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, was issued to Respondent Samuel Hubschman, Trustee. He was advised that recent routine inspections indicate that current on-site activity was in violation of Special Conditions 2,3,4,7,14, 17 & 23 of Permit No. 36-00764-S (issued 5/14/87) and Special Conditions 5,16 & 22 of 36-00315-S (modified 6/16/88). A meeting to resolve these issued was suggested by SFWMD. Respondent Hubschman agreed to attend the meeting through his consultants. Both parties elected to attempt resolution of the Notice of Violation controversy through negotiations in a meeting scheduled for January 5, 1989. To demonstrate their sincerity, the parties agreed not to bring attorneys to the meeting. During the meeting, the parties resolved the controversy by agreeing to the following: SFWMD would no longer consider the project to be in violation of Florida law if the Respondents submitted certain items that would cause SFWMD to issue certain permits and modify others. The Respondents would promptly file an application for a dewatering permit so that the governing board could issue the permit at its March 9, 1989 meeting. The Respondent's contractor would make no field changes in the mitigation or excavation areas without first obtaining appropriate permit modification from SFWMD. Small jockey pumps were to be installed to pump water from the internal water management system into certain cypress and/or mitigation areas for the sole purpose of establishing wetland vegetation within the areas. Respondents were to apply for a modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, to allow a single phase of mining for the entire affected area. The perimeter dike was to be made structurally adequate. Respondents were to submit an alternative proposal for the disposal of cap rock within ninety days. In the meantime, the contractor could continue to bury the cap rock within the mitigation areas. Both parties demonstrated their reliance on the settlement reached in the meeting by their subsequent actions towards completing and processing the applications for permit modifications and additional permits. Although the noted violations were not cured by these actions, the parties intended to reach a cure or to mitigate for present permit violations through new permit conditions. The preliminary staff review of the Respondents' application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, was completed by March 31, 1989. The following information was requested by SFWMD staff: Revised engineering calculations which reflect that the permitted discharge structure is five 18" CMP culverts. An explanation as to why the 6.3 acre maidencane/juncus marsh designated as a preserve area and the adjacent western preserve area were excavated and otherwise disturbed by project activities. The scrapedown methodology for the replanting of mitigation areas. The Respondents' plans for the area delineated on the plans as pine, which is currently permitted as part of a cypress preservation area. Dike certification and reservoir certification. The above-listed information was required to be returned to the SFWMD within ninety days from the date of the written request. At the close of the ninety days, the information was not received. A second request for a response within thirty days was submitted by SFWMD on August 4, 1989. In September 1989, the Respondents attempted to comply with SFWMD's second request for information. Communications continued in regard to the filed application for modification of Permit No. 36-00764-S, as currently modified, into December 1989. After the thirty days expired for the response to the second request for information dated August 4, 1989, SFWMD filed the Administrative Complaint in these proceedings. After the second request for information, a partial response was received from Respondent Hubschman's consultants. The application continues to go through the review process. It has not yet been deemed complete by SFWMD. As part of the resolution of the Notice of Violation dated December 20, 1988, SFWMD issued permit No. 36-01023-W to Respondent Hubschman for construction dewatering, excavation of an irrigation pond, and water storage at the site. The permit was issued on March 9, 1989. Special condition No. 20 of this permit requires a 200-feet setback from the cypress mitigation area and the irrigation pond being dewatered. The setback is shown on Exhibit 10 of the Bonita Farms Dewatering Application which was made part of the permit. A copy of the permit was attached to the Administrative Complaint. No evidence was submitted by SFWMD regarding alleged violations of Special condition No. 20 which were allegedly observed and documented after the permit was issued, before the filing of the Administrative Complaint Respondent Bob Cadenhead is the contractor hired by Respondents Hubschman to construct the surface water management system. There was no evidence presented to show the connection of another party, Respondent, Cadenhead & Sons Construction, to the project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Surface Water Management Permit No. 36-00315-S be deemed to have vested as to all construction activity completed under the permit which was not addressed in the subsequent permit issued by SFWMD. The completion of the berm, as set forth in Attorney Ross' September 19, 1986 letter, should also be allowed to vest. That Permit No. 36-00764-S and its later modification be ordered to supercede the prior permit in all matters specifically addressed. That the parties be held to their prior agreements to resolve pending permit violations through the permit modification process. That the alleged dewatering violation in paragraph 19 of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed for lack of evidence. That a specific deadline be set to reasonably complete pending application modifications. That all future enforcement action specifically comply with Rule 40E- 1.612, Florida Administrative Code, and remain separate from any permit or permit modification applications. That the parties create a new, active permit file with current drawings and a specific construction schedule. That the Administrative Complaint and Order filed in these proceedings be dismissed. That future agreements be reduced to writing and signed by the proper parties before they are relied upon by either party. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-5737 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 4. Accepted. See HO number 3. Accepted. Rejected. Improper summary. Accepted. See HO number 6. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Argumentative. Rejected. Legal argument. Accepted. See HO number 5. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15. The argument presented in this paragraph is overly punctilious. It ignores the detrimental reliance of opposing parties to the agreement. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Legal argument and improper opinion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 15 and number 16. Rejected. Matters presented were either not ripe for these proceedings or not proved at hearing. See HO number 16-number 20 and HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact and law. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Not set forth in pleadings as separate from the Notice of Violation. Irrelevant. Accepted as fact, resolved by agreement. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Improper opinion testimony. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 15. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Rejected. Cumulative. Rejected. See HO number 11-number 12. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16-number 20. Rejected. Resolved through agreement. See HO number 15. Rejected. Matter is still pending. See HO number 16- number 20. Rejected. Legal argument. Rejected. Not in pleadings. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO number 21. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Speculative. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 13. Rejected. See HO number 23. Contrary to fact and pleadings. Accepted. See HO number 14. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 15. Accepted. See HO number 20. Accepted. Rejected. Argumentative. See HO number 20. Accepted. See HO number 4-number 7. Rejected. Contrary to fact. The permit modifica- tion specifically required replacement of a pump with 3 culverts. See HO number 5. Accepted. See HO number 5. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. See HO number 7. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 7 and number 11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 11. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. See HO number 15. Additional matters were agreed upon which were not reflected in the letter. This is an incomplete summary. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant to these proceedings. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 8 and number 9. Rejected. See HO number 8 and number 9. Contrary to fact. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO number 23. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Fumero, Esquire Office of General Counsel South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire OERTEL HOFFMAN FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Russell Schropp, Esquire HENDERSON FRANKLIN STARNES & HOLT, P.A. 1715 Monroe Street Fort Myers, Florida 33902 John R. Wodraska, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
Findings Of Fact Ben A. Posdal is the owner of property commonly known as 166 Brightwater Drive, in the City of Clearwater, Florida. On August 7, 1986, he applied for variances to construct two wooden decks on his property, located at the above address. The property which is the subject of the variance request is a building which contains four apartments, which are rented by Ben A. Posdal to various tenants. On August 28, 1986, the Development Code Adjustment Board (DCAB) denied the variance requested by Mr. Posdal on the grounds that he had not demonstrated a hardship and that he had not demonstrated that the requested variance would not violate the general spirit and intent of the Clearwater Land Development Code. On September 9, 1986, an appeal was filed by Ben A. Posdal from the decision of the Development Code Adjustment Board. The appeal alleges that the DCAB decision was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable on the following grounds: Other properties allegedly are in violation of the back line setback regulations; The DCAB failed to give enough evidentiary weight to photographs he submitted; and Appellant allegedly is being deprived of the beneficial use of the property in a manner commensurate with the community. There are no physical conditions which are unique to the property. There is no particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical condition that would result in an unnecessary hardship upon the Appellant. Failure to obtain a variance would not impinge upon Appellant's use of the property in any way. The record on appeal contains competent, substantial evidence to support the DCAB decision. Nonconforming uses in the area of the subject property are legal nonconforming uses.
