Sec/Twp/Rge: S12/T33S/R18E, S01/T33S/R18E, S06/T33S/R19E, S07/T33S/ R19E

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Sec/Twp/Rge: S12/T33S/R18E, S01/T33S/R18E, S06/T33S/R19E, S07/T33S/ R19E"

Lambert Richards
5 years ago
Views:

1 April 03, 2015 Cavoli Engineering, Inc. John F. Cavoli, P.E Bee Ridge Road, Suite 325 Sarasota, FL Subject: Clarification of Received Information Project Name: Buckhead Trails Subdivision Application/Petition No.: County: MANATEE Sec/Twp/Rge: S12/T33S/R18E, S01/T33S/R18E, S06/T33S/R19E, S07/T33S/ R19E Reference: Chapter , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Section and , Florida Statutes (F.S.) Dear Mr. Cavoli: Thank you for responding to our request for additional information. Your permit application/petition still lacks some of the components necessary for us to complete our review; the enclosed checklist describes the missing information. Please ensure that your response to the checklist is received in this office within 90 days from the date of this request. Failure to provide this information within 90 days will delay the processing of the permit application/ petition, and may result in the permit application/petition being denied. If the additional information cannot be provided within that time period, you may make a written request for a time extension, provided that an acceptable justification for the time extension accompanies the request. Pursuant to (1), F.S., if you believe this request for additional information is not authorized by law or rule, then upon your written request, the District shall proceed to process the application.

2 If you have questions regarding the information requested or the District's procedure, please contact me at the Tampa Service Office, extension For assistance with environmental concerns, please contact Lee Hughes, extension Sincerely, Steven J. Lopes, P.E. Lee Hughes, P.W.S. Professional Engineer Staff Environmental Scientist Environmental Resource Permit Bureau Environmental Resource Permit Bureau Regulation Division Regulation Division Enclosures: cc: Checklist Cargor Partners VI - Buckeye 928, LC

3 PROJECT INFORMATION REVIEW LIST Environmental Resource Permit Application Individual DATE: April 03, 2015 PROJECT NAME: Buckhead Trails Subdivision APPLICATION ID NUMBER: DATE APPL. RECEIVED: August 26, 2014 APPLICATION REVIEWER(S): ENGINEERING: Steven Lopes ENVIRONMENTAL: Lee Hughes In order to provide that reasonable assurance is given for those "Conditions for Issuance of Individual and Conceptual Approval Permits" found in Rule , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and those "Additional Conditions for Issuance of Individual and Conceptual Approval Permits" found in Rule , F.A.C., the following additional information is required as indicated. The items requested are also extracted from Rules , F.A.C., "Content of Applications for Individual and Conceptual Approval Permits," (4)(a), F.A.C., "Southwest Florida Water Management District Applicant's Handbook Volume I," (4)(b)4, F.A.C., "Southwest Florida Water Management District Applicant's Handbook Volume II," and 40D-1.607, F.A.C., "Permit Processing Fee." APPLICATION AND APPLICATION CERTIFICATION: 1. The application proposes to construct or alter an impoundment as defined under Subsection 2.0 of the ERP Applicants Handbook Volume I (A.H.V.I). Please provide a copy of a publisher's affidavit establishing proof of publication that a Notice of (the District s) Receipt of the application has been published in accordance with Subsection (a), A.H.V.I. Please refer to Rule 40D-1.603(10), F.A.C. (effective Feb. 18, 2015) for recommended format and language for the notice. [Subsection , A.H.V.I] ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: 2. Receipt of a letter dated September 29, 2014 from the State of Florida s Division of Historical Resources (DHR), also sent to your consultant, was received by the District on October 7, This letter stated that environmental conditions within the project area are favorable for the presence of archeological and historic resources and requested that the Applicant provide the DHR with a professional cultural resources assessment survey. Therefore, in order to provide the District with reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not have adverse impacts to historical and / or archeological resources, please provide receipt of a letter from the DHR indicating that additional information is not required or recommending certain requirements. This information is required as a completeness item for this application. [Sections and of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant s Handbook Volume I (A.H.V.I)] 3. The up to date Seasonal High Water (SHW) elevations provided by the Applicant s consultant, uploaded on March 19, 2015, do not appear to be the SHW elevations shown on the construction plans. Please revise the construction plans to show the up to date SHW elevations. [Rules (2), 4. Please clarify and label on the construction plans whether the linear area separating Wetland D1 from Wetland D2 is an upland or is a hydric dug surface water. If the area is a hydric dug surface water please confirm that it is identified and shown on the construction plans and on Table One. [Rules (2), 5. Please revise the construction plans to label the lot lines. Please show that the lot lines do not extend into the wetlands or wetland buffers. [Rules (2),

4 6. Sheet 7 of the construction plans shows a acre temporary impact to an existing other surface water ditch. Please revise Table One to show this impact. [Rules (2), (1), and (1), F.A.C.] 7. Please revise the construction plans to show all surface waters within the project area (as identified on the Formal Wetland Boundary Determination No ) along with their acreages. [Rules (2), 8. Please revise sheet 11D of the construction plans to show the post development drainage basin acreages for each individual wetland. [Rules (2), 9. Control structure CSWB s attenuation weir elevation is set at 20.95, which is higher than Wetland B s SHW elevation of Therefore, in order not to adversely impact Wetland B s hydroperiod, please revise sheet no. 42 of the construction plans to show control structure CSWB s attenuation weir elevation set at [Rules (2), 10. Control structure CSD1 s treatment weir elevation is set at 20.50, which is lower than Wetland B s SHW elevation of Therefore, in order to not adversely impact Wetland B s hydroperiod, please revise sheet no. 42 of the construction plans to show control structure CSD1 s treatment weir elevation set at [Rules (2), 11. Based on a review of the construction plans, it appears that the Applicant is proposing to construct a 5 foot wide mulched greenway trail through some of the project area wetland buffers. In order to maintain an undisturbed 25 foot average wetland buffer, has the Applicant considered moving the proposed 5 foot wide greenway trail to the landward edge of the proposed 30 foot wide buffer? Please be advised that Subsection of the A.H.V.I states that secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet, are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design. In areas where an average 25 foot, minimum 15 foot, undisturbed buffer cannot be maintained, please provide the District with information regarding how the Applicant proposes to account for secondary impacts to wetlands in those areas. [Section of the A.H.V.I and Rules (2), 12. Based on a review of plan sheet no. 11B and cross-sections T-T & R-R on plan sheet s 40 & 41 it appears that the Applicant is proposing to place fill within portions of the wetland buffers adjacent to all wetlands within the project area. Please be advised that Subsection of the A.H.V.I states that secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet, are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design. Therefore, please either redesign the project to remove the fill from the wetland buffers or provide the District with an appropriate mitigation plan that mitigates for the projects proposed secondary impacts to wetlands. [Section of the A.H.V.I and Rules (2), PLANS: 13. Please address regarding the newly proposed floodplain compensation areas: a. Three floodplain compensation areas are now shown on the plans; for clarity please denote identifying labels for each (such as FCA1, FCA2, and FCA3). b. Please provide construction cross-sections for the newly proposed floodplain compensation areas. c. It appears CBC4 and CBC6 (Sheet 31) and the associated pipes located within the newly proposed floodplain compensation area should be removed from the plans. Otherwise, the postdevelopment ICPR model would need to be updated accordingly to include the functioning of the

5 floodplain compensation areas and connecting drainage pipes; demonstrating no adverse water quantity impacts or adverse overtopping. [Subsection (a)(c)(d), A.H.V.I and Rules (1)(a)(b)(c)(i), F.A.C.] 14. Please evaluate the location of the BMP s located adjacent to wetlands as shown on sheet nos of the construction plans, as based on a review of plan sheet no. 11B and cross-sections T-T & R-R on plan sheet s 40 & 41 it appears that the Applicant is proposing to place fill within portions of the wetland buffers adjacent to all wetlands. [Section 11.2, of the A.H.V.I and Rules (2), (1), and (1), F.A.C.] DRAINAGE INFORMATION: 15. Please address regarding the newly proposed floodplain compensation areas: a. The revised stormwater report denotes 4.69 AF proposed floodplain encroachment; please provide supporting calculations. b. The revised stormwater report denotes 5.13 AF proposed floodplain compensation; please provide supporting calculations. c. Please document the existing SHWE elevations at each of the three proposed floodplain compensation area locations. [Subsection (a)(c)(d), A.H.V.I and Rules (1)(a)(b)(c)(i), F.A.C.] 16. Please address regarding the revised wetland SHWE's and the ICPR modeling: a. The SHWE for Wetland D2 has been revised upward from 22.2' to 22.5'. As a result, the 'initial stage' of 22.25' in ICPR for this node is inconsistent with the revised SHWE 22.5'. Also, it appears Wetlands D1 and D2 will now need to be two separate nodes since the SHWE for each are no longer the same. Please update the pre and post ICPR models for consistency with the new SHWE's for Wetlands D2 and D1. b. SHWE's have been revised upward for Wetlands A, B, C, D1, D2, and E resulting in increased peak stage results. Please update the stage-area ICPR input for the wetlands so that the peak stage (from the modeling results) does not exceed the highest stage input for the wetland nodes. For example, the peak stage for Wetland A is 22.09' but the highest stage input for Node WetlandA is only 20.00'. Please update the pre and post ICPR models to match the new SHWE's and plans accordingly. c. Please also ensure the wetland 'areas' input in the ICPR stage-area tables reflects the existing and proposed conditions as shown on the plans for each 'stage' input used in the table.. [Subsection (a)(c)(d), A.H.V.I and Rules (1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(i), F.A.C.] OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND LEGAL DOCUMENTATION: 17. Please provide the following for the future homeowner s association: a. Please provide a completed association affidavit found in A.H.V.I design aids/appendix. b. The draft Articles of Incorporation and Declaration of Covenants/Restrictions, meeting Subsection A.H.V.I. [Subsection , A.H.V.I.]

6 Cargor Partners VI - Buckeye 928, LC Attn: Carlos Beruff 1651 Whitfield Ave. Sarasota, FL 34243

7 April 03, 2015 Cavoli Engineering, Inc. John F. Cavoli, P.E Bee Ridge Road, Suite 325 Sarasota, FL Subject: Clarification of Received Information Project Name: Buckhead Trails Subdivision Application/Petition No.: County: MANATEE Sec/Twp/Rge: S12/T33S/R18E, S01/T33S/R18E, S06/T33S/R19E, S07/T33S/ R19E Reference: Chapter , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Section and , Florida Statutes (F.S.) Dear Mr. Cavoli: Thank you for responding to our request for additional information. Your permit application/petition still lacks some of the components necessary for us to complete our review; the enclosed checklist describes the missing information. Please ensure that your response to the checklist is received in this office within 90 days from the date of this request. Failure to provide this information within 90 days will delay the processing of the permit application/ petition, and may result in the permit application/petition being denied. If the additional information cannot be provided within that time period, you may make a written request for a time extension, provided that an acceptable justification for the time extension accompanies the request. Pursuant to (1), F.S., if you believe this request for additional information is not authorized by law or rule, then upon your written request, the District shall proceed to process the application.

8 If you have questions regarding the information requested or the District's procedure, please contact me at the Tampa Service Office, extension For assistance with environmental concerns, please contact Lee Hughes, extension Sincerely, Steven J. Lopes, P.E. Lee Hughes, P.W.S. Professional Engineer Staff Environmental Scientist Environmental Resource Permit Bureau Environmental Resource Permit Bureau Regulation Division Regulation Division Enclosures: cc: Checklist Cargor Partners VI - Buckeye 928, LC

9 PROJECT INFORMATION REVIEW LIST Environmental Resource Permit Application Individual DATE: April 03, 2015 PROJECT NAME: Buckhead Trails Subdivision APPLICATION ID NUMBER: DATE APPL. RECEIVED: August 26, 2014 APPLICATION REVIEWER(S): ENGINEERING: Steven Lopes ENVIRONMENTAL: Lee Hughes In order to provide that reasonable assurance is given for those "Conditions for Issuance of Individual and Conceptual Approval Permits" found in Rule , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and those "Additional Conditions for Issuance of Individual and Conceptual Approval Permits" found in Rule , F.A.C., the following additional information is required as indicated. The items requested are also extracted from Rules , F.A.C., "Content of Applications for Individual and Conceptual Approval Permits," (4)(a), F.A.C., "Southwest Florida Water Management District Applicant's Handbook Volume I," (4)(b)4, F.A.C., "Southwest Florida Water Management District Applicant's Handbook Volume II," and 40D-1.607, F.A.C., "Permit Processing Fee." APPLICATION AND APPLICATION CERTIFICATION: 1. The application proposes to construct or alter an impoundment as defined under Subsection 2.0 of the ERP Applicants Handbook Volume I (A.H.V.I). Please provide a copy of a publisher's affidavit establishing proof of publication that a Notice of (the District s) Receipt of the application has been published in accordance with Subsection (a), A.H.V.I. Please refer to Rule 40D-1.603(10), F.A.C. (effective Feb. 18, 2015) for recommended format and language for the notice. [Subsection , A.H.V.I] ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: 2. Receipt of a letter dated September 29, 2014 from the State of Florida s Division of Historical Resources (DHR), also sent to your consultant, was received by the District on October 7, This letter stated that environmental conditions within the project area are favorable for the presence of archeological and historic resources and requested that the Applicant provide the DHR with a professional cultural resources assessment survey. Therefore, in order to provide the District with reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not have adverse impacts to historical and / or archeological resources, please provide receipt of a letter from the DHR indicating that additional information is not required or recommending certain requirements. This information is required as a completeness item for this application. [Sections and of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant s Handbook Volume I (A.H.V.I)] 3. The up to date Seasonal High Water (SHW) elevations provided by the Applicant s consultant, uploaded on March 19, 2015, do not appear to be the SHW elevations shown on the construction plans. Please revise the construction plans to show the up to date SHW elevations. [Rules (2), 4. Please clarify and label on the construction plans whether the linear area separating Wetland D1 from Wetland D2 is an upland or is a hydric dug surface water. If the area is a hydric dug surface water please confirm that it is identified and shown on the construction plans and on Table One. [Rules (2), 5. Please revise the construction plans to label the lot lines. Please show that the lot lines do not extend into the wetlands or wetland buffers. [Rules (2),

10 6. Sheet 7 of the construction plans shows a acre temporary impact to an existing other surface water ditch. Please revise Table One to show this impact. [Rules (2), (1), and (1), F.A.C.] 7. Please revise the construction plans to show all surface waters within the project area (as identified on the Formal Wetland Boundary Determination No ) along with their acreages. [Rules (2), 8. Please revise sheet 11D of the construction plans to show the post development drainage basin acreages for each individual wetland. [Rules (2), 9. Control structure CSWB s attenuation weir elevation is set at 20.95, which is higher than Wetland B s SHW elevation of Therefore, in order not to adversely impact Wetland B s hydroperiod, please revise sheet no. 42 of the construction plans to show control structure CSWB s attenuation weir elevation set at [Rules (2), 10. Control structure CSD1 s treatment weir elevation is set at 20.50, which is lower than Wetland B s SHW elevation of Therefore, in order to not adversely impact Wetland B s hydroperiod, please revise sheet no. 42 of the construction plans to show control structure CSD1 s treatment weir elevation set at [Rules (2), 11. Based on a review of the construction plans, it appears that the Applicant is proposing to construct a 5 foot wide mulched greenway trail through some of the project area wetland buffers. In order to maintain an undisturbed 25 foot average wetland buffer, has the Applicant considered moving the proposed 5 foot wide greenway trail to the landward edge of the proposed 30 foot wide buffer? Please be advised that Subsection of the A.H.V.I states that secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet, are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design. In areas where an average 25 foot, minimum 15 foot, undisturbed buffer cannot be maintained, please provide the District with information regarding how the Applicant proposes to account for secondary impacts to wetlands in those areas. [Section of the A.H.V.I and Rules (2), 12. Based on a review of plan sheet no. 11B and cross-sections T-T & R-R on plan sheet s 40 & 41 it appears that the Applicant is proposing to place fill within portions of the wetland buffers adjacent to all wetlands within the project area. Please be advised that Subsection of the A.H.V.I states that secondary impacts to the habitat functions of wetlands associated with adjacent upland activities will not be considered adverse if buffers, with a minimum width of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet, are provided abutting those wetlands that will remain under the permitted design. Therefore, please either redesign the project to remove the fill from the wetland buffers or provide the District with an appropriate mitigation plan that mitigates for the projects proposed secondary impacts to wetlands. [Section of the A.H.V.I and Rules (2), PLANS: 13. Please address regarding the newly proposed floodplain compensation areas: a. Three floodplain compensation areas are now shown on the plans; for clarity please denote identifying labels for each (such as FCA1, FCA2, and FCA3). b. Please provide construction cross-sections for the newly proposed floodplain compensation areas. c. It appears CBC4 and CBC6 (Sheet 31) and the associated pipes located within the newly proposed floodplain compensation area should be removed from the plans. Otherwise, the postdevelopment ICPR model would need to be updated accordingly to include the functioning of the

11 floodplain compensation areas and connecting drainage pipes; demonstrating no adverse water quantity impacts or adverse overtopping. [Subsection (a)(c)(d), A.H.V.I and Rules (1)(a)(b)(c)(i), F.A.C.] 14. Please evaluate the location of the BMP s located adjacent to wetlands as shown on sheet nos of the construction plans, as based on a review of plan sheet no. 11B and cross-sections T-T & R-R on plan sheet s 40 & 41 it appears that the Applicant is proposing to place fill within portions of the wetland buffers adjacent to all wetlands. [Section 11.2, of the A.H.V.I and Rules (2), (1), and (1), F.A.C.] DRAINAGE INFORMATION: 15. Please address regarding the newly proposed floodplain compensation areas: a. The revised stormwater report denotes 4.69 AF proposed floodplain encroachment; please provide supporting calculations. b. The revised stormwater report denotes 5.13 AF proposed floodplain compensation; please provide supporting calculations. c. Please document the existing SHWE elevations at each of the three proposed floodplain compensation area locations. [Subsection (a)(c)(d), A.H.V.I and Rules (1)(a)(b)(c)(i), F.A.C.] 16. Please address regarding the revised wetland SHWE's and the ICPR modeling: a. The SHWE for Wetland D2 has been revised upward from 22.2' to 22.5'. As a result, the 'initial stage' of 22.25' in ICPR for this node is inconsistent with the revised SHWE 22.5'. Also, it appears Wetlands D1 and D2 will now need to be two separate nodes since the SHWE for each are no longer the same. Please update the pre and post ICPR models for consistency with the new SHWE's for Wetlands D2 and D1. b. SHWE's have been revised upward for Wetlands A, B, C, D1, D2, and E resulting in increased peak stage results. Please update the stage-area ICPR input for the wetlands so that the peak stage (from the modeling results) does not exceed the highest stage input for the wetland nodes. For example, the peak stage for Wetland A is 22.09' but the highest stage input for Node WetlandA is only 20.00'. Please update the pre and post ICPR models to match the new SHWE's and plans accordingly. c. Please also ensure the wetland 'areas' input in the ICPR stage-area tables reflects the existing and proposed conditions as shown on the plans for each 'stage' input used in the table.. [Subsection (a)(c)(d), A.H.V.I and Rules (1)(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(i), F.A.C.] OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AND LEGAL DOCUMENTATION: 17. Please provide the following for the future homeowner s association: a. Please provide a completed association affidavit found in A.H.V.I design aids/appendix. b. The draft Articles of Incorporation and Declaration of Covenants/Restrictions, meeting Subsection A.H.V.I. [Subsection , A.H.V.I.]

DRAFT MAP AMENDMENT FLU 04-4

DRAFT MAP AMENDMENT FLU 04-4 SW 24 TH AVENUE ROADWAY CORRIDOR The University of Florida participates with the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization (MTPO) in its responsibilities for the continuing,