STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COASTAL PETROLEUM COMPANY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case Nos. 98-1901-
) 98-1912
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )
)
Respondent, )
)
and )
) DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, ) FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, ) SIERRA CLUB, FLORIDA CHAPTER, ) and FLORIDA AUDUBON, INC., )
)
Intervenors. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A formal hearing was held in these cases before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on January 4 through 8, 1999, in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Robert J. Angerer, Esquire
Robert J. Angerer, Jr., Esquire Angerer and Angerer
Post Office Box 10468 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent: Andrew Baumann, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
For Intervenor, Department of Legal Affairs:
Monica K. Reimer
Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
For Intervenors, Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Sierra Club, Florida Chapter, and Florida Audubon Society, Inc.:
David G. Guest, Esquire Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Post Office Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issues in these cases include the following:
Did Petitioner file completed applications to entitle it to an oil and gas drilling permit?
Is the Department's policy of requiring information in support of an offshore oil and gas well drilling permit not specifically set out in existing rules constitute an unadopted rule?
If the Department applied an unadopted rule to Petitioner in these cases, does the unadopted rule meet the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes?
Is Petitioner entitled to the oil and gas drilling permits it sought by default?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about February 25, 1997, Petitioner, Coastal Petroleum Company, filed twelve applications with Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Geology,
seeking permits to drill exploratory oil and gas wells at twelve sites off the west coast of Florida in the Gulf of Mexico.
Respondent assigned sequential permit application numbers 1296 through 1307 to the applications.
By letter dated March 26, 1997, Respondent requested additional information from Petitioner to support the twelve applications. By letter dated September 22, 1997, Petitioner provided part of the information requested by Respondent.
Petitioner informed Respondent that most of the requested information, however, was not being provided. Petitioner asked Respondent to cite any authority it had for requesting the information that had not been provided.
By letter dated December 16, 1997, Respondent replied to Petitioner's September 22, 1997, letter by providing rule and statutory references in support of the information it had requested that Petitioner provide.
By letter dated December 26, 1997, Petitioner responded to Respondent's December 16, 1997, letter. Petitioner disputed Respondent's authority to request the additional information.
Petitioner also filed twelve separate Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging Respondent's requests for additional information on the twelve applications. Petitioner also suggested that it was entitled to the permits by default because it had provided all the information it intended to provide and Respondent had not acted on the applications within
ninety days.
On or about January 22, 1998, Respondent entered an Order Dismissing Petitions, dismissing the twelve petitions filed by Petitioner without prejudice to Petitioner amending its petitions to show why Respondent's December 16, 1997, letter constituted "agency action." Respondent also found that, in light of Petitioner's statement that it considered its applications complete, the applications would be granted or denied within ninety days.
On March 24, 1998, Respondent entered a Final Order denying all twelve applications for failure to provide sufficient information for Respondent to determine if adequate assurances were being provided by Petitioner to conclude that the requested permits would be in compliance with Chapter 377, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 62C-25 through 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code.
In response to Respondent's Final Order, Petitioner filed twelve Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing with Respondent challenging the denial of its applications. The petitions and a Stipulated Order Consolidating Cases was filed by Respondent with the Division of Administrative Hearings on
April 22, 1998. The petitions were designated Case Nos. 98-1901 through 98-1912, and were assigned to the undersigned.
On July 30, 1998, a hearing was held to consider a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed by Respondent in these cases. That
motion was subsequently denied, but during the motion hearing Petitioners were informed that evidence concerning whether the permit applications should be granted based upon the substance of the applications would not be allowed in these cases if the evidence proved that Respondent denied the applications only because they were not complete.
On December 14, 1998, the Department of Legal Affairs filed a Verified Petition to Intervene in these cases. On December 15, 1998, the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., the Sierra Club, Florida Chapter, and Florida Audubon, Inc., filed a Verified Petition to Intervene. On December 18, 1998, an Order Granting Intervention was entered. Pursuant to this Order the petitions to intervene were granted without prejudice to the filing of any motion in opposition to the petitions. On December 28, 1998, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss Intervenors. The motion was based upon alleged prejudice which would result if Intervenors were allowed to interject new issues into, and present evidence at the formal hearing of these cases. At the commencement of the formal hearing, Intervenors represented that they did not intend to raise any new issues. Intervenors also represented that they did not intend to call any witnesses or offer any exhibits.
Petitioner, therefore, withdrew its motions to dismiss.
At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Philip Ware, Kenneth Thompson, and Edward W. Garrett. Petitioner also offered Coastal Exhibits 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 13-14, 17, 19, 25-
27, 29-31, 33, 35, 37-39, 43-45, 47-61, 63-76, 79, 81, 83, 85,
87, 89, 93, 95, 97, 99, 118, 134-137, 149-150, 152, 157, 159-161,
165, 170, 195-196, 199, 208, 215, 219, 223, 230, 232, 234, 236-
240, 248, 250-252, and 255-256. All were accepted into evidence except Coastal Exhibit 33.
Respondent presented the testimony of Walter Schmidt and offered five exhibits. Those exhibits were identified as DEP Exhibits 37, 40-41, and 56-57, and were accepted into evidence.
Intervenors called no witnesses and offered no exhibits. The transcript of the formal hearing was filed on
February 8, 1999. Proposed orders were, therefore, required to be filed on or before March 1, 1999. Petitioner filed a proposed order on March 1, 1999. Respondent and Intervenors filed a joint proposed order on March 1, 1999. Those proposed orders have been fully considered in entering this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parties.
Petitioner, Coastal Petroleum Company (hereinafter referred to as "Coastal"), is a Florida corporation. Phillip Ware is the current president of Coastal.
Respondent, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility of implementing Florida laws and rules regulating the issuance of oil and gas drilling permits.
Intervenors are the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Sierra Club, Florida Chapter, and the Florida Audubon Society, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Environmental Intervenors"), and the Department of Legal Affairs (hereinafter referred to as "Legal Affairs"). The Environmental Intervenors and Legal Affairs filed verified petitions to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes.
Coastal's Offshore Drilling Rights.
On or about December 27, 1944, Coastal's predecessor entered into two leases, Drilling Lease Nos. 224-A and 224-B (hereinafter referred to as the "Original Leases"), with the predecessor to the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund.
The Original Leases gave Coastal the exclusive right to explore for and produce oil and gas on submerged lands of the State of Florida throughout an area extending for a distance of
10.36 statute miles off most of the west coast of Florida. The area extends from approximately Apalachicola, Florida, in the north, to Naples, Florida, in the south.
On or about February 27, 1947, the Original Leases were modified to redefine the area covered by the Leases due to claims of the federal government of parts of the area originally covered by the Original Leases (hereinafter referred to as the "Modified Leases").
In 1990 the Legislature enacted Chapter 90-72, Laws of
Florida (1990), expressing the current policy of the State concerning offshore drilling. Pursuant to Chapter 90-72 the Legislature prohibited all offshore leasing and drilling.
Recognizing Coastal's rights pursuant to the Modified Leases, an exception for drilling in areas governed by the Modified Leases was included in Chapter 90-72.
Coastal is currently the only person entitled to explore for, and produce oil and gas on State submerged lands.
Coastal's working interests under the Modified Leases were, as a result of litigation between the State and Coastal, subsequently reduced to the width of the area covered by the Modified Leases to between 7 miles and 10.36 miles from the coast. The litigation began during the late 1960's and ended with a settlement in 1976.
Following the execution of the Original Leases and continuing through 1968, Coastal was involved with obtaining permits for, and drilling, approximately 9 wells in the area covered by the Original and/or Modified Leases.
No permits were obtained by Coastal to drill in the area covered by the Modified Leases after 1968 due to the ongoing litigation between Coastal and the State. After the settlement of the dispute in 1976, Coastal was involved in litigation with Mobil Oil until the 1980's. Due to that litigation, Coastal did not pursue any other drilling operations under the Modified Leases until the 1980's. Because of the significant changes in
the state of offshore drilling technology since Coastal had last applied for a permit to drill offshore in Florida, it took Coastal until the early 1990's to file a new application to drill offshore.
Permit 1281.
In March 1992 Coastal filed five separate applications with the Department seeking permits to drill exploratory oil and gas wells at five separate locations in the Gulf of Mexico within the area of the Modified Leases. Two applications were for proposed sites offshore from northwest Florida and three were for proposed sites offshore from southwest Florida. The applications were designated permit application numbers 1277 through 1281 by the Department.
The applications filed by Coastal included a completed one-page Department form (Form 3), a location plat for the proposed drilling sites, and a filing fee.
Coastal subsequently withdrew four of the applications. Only permit application 1281 remained. Pursuant to permit application 1281, Coastal sought approval to drill offshore from Franklin County, Florida, near St. George Island.
In August 1996 the Department, after protracted negotiations with Coastal, issued notice of its intent to issue Permit 1281. The protracted negotiations involved, among other things, a request of the Department for additional information concerning the proposed location and drilling plans of Coastal. The additional information requested by the Department was essentially the same as the information requested by the Department in these cases. While Coastal provided the information concerning permit application 1281, it did so under protest.
The Department's proposed decision to issue Permit 1281 was challenged. Following an administrative hearing, a Recommended Order was entered recommending that the permit be issued. The Department rejected the recommendation by Final Order issued May 22, 1998. That Final Order has been appealed by Coastal.
Coastal's Applications for Permits 1296 through 1307.
On or about February 25, 1997, Coastal simultaneously
filed twelve separate applications (hereinafter referred to as the "Twelve Applications") with the Department seeking permits to drill exploratory oil and gas wells at twelve separate locations in the Gulf of Mexico within the area of the Modified Leases.
Coastal Exhibits 49 through 60.
The Twelve Applications were designated permit application numbers 1296 through 1307 by the Department.
All of the proposed drilling sites are located between
8 and 9 miles offshore in water depths ranging between 50 to 75 feet. The general location of the twelve proposed drilling sites is as follows:
Permit applications 1296 and 1297: offshore from St. George Island and Franklin County;
Permit application 1298: offshore from the St. Marks River, Wakulla County;
Permit application 1299: offshore from the mouth of the Steinhatchee River, Taylor County;
Permit applications 1300 and 1301: offshore from Anclote Island, Pasco County;
Permit application 1302: offshore from Longboat Key, Sarasota County;
Permit applications 1303, 1304, and 1305: offshore from Gasparilla Island, Charlotte County;
Permit application 1306: offshore from Sanibel Island, Lee County; and
Permit application 1307: offshore from Naples, Collier County.
The locations of the proposed exploratory wells are depicted on Coastal Exhibit 27, which is incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference.
The Twelve Applications filed by Coastal consisted of the following:
A completed Application For Permit to Drill, Form 3, for each well;
A check payable to the Petroleum Exploration Bond Trust Fund as performance security for the twelve proposed wells;
A navigation chart published by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, with the location (latitude and longitude) of each proposed drilling site and the area of Coastal's lease designated on the chart. The scale of the chart provided by Coastal is 1:20,000. A surveyor's report of the coordinates of each proposed drilling site was also included; and
A single check in the amount of $24,000.00 in payment of the $2,000.00 application fee for each permit application.
Form 3 requires that an applicant provide information concerning the name, phone number, and address of the applicant, the well name and its location, ground elevation, acres assigned to the well, the "field/area" of the well, the county and specific location of the well, proposed depth of the well, and the applicant's mineral interests in the drilling unit. Coastal provided all of this information.
Form 3 also requires that the applicant answer a series of questions concerning whether the proposed location of the well will be located within: a municipality; tidal waters within 3 miles of a municipality; an improved beach; submerged land located in any bay or estuary; one mile seaward of the Florida coastline or the boundary of any state, or a local or federal park, or aquatic or wildlife preserve; on the surface of a freshwater body; within one mile inland from the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean or any bay or estuary; or within one mile of any freshwater body. Coastal answered all of the foregoing questions "no" on the Twelve Applications.
Coastal did not provide a copy of its Organization Report (Department "Form 1") because it had already provided one to the Department. As provided in the Department's rules, Coastal informed the Department that its Organization Report was on file with the Department.
Coastal did not initially provide casing and cementing plans or a contingency plan for hydrogen sulfide with the Twelve Applications. Ultimately, casing and cementing plans were provided by Coastal.
Finally, Coastal requested that the Department conduct a preliminary site inspection, pursuant to the requirement of Rule 62C-26.003(4), Florida Administrative Code.
The Department's Notice of Incompleteness.
By letter dated March 26, 1997, the Department informed
Coastal that the Twelve Applications were incomplete. The Department requested that Coastal provide additional information which it listed under eleven general categories:
Location Plat;
Environmental and Site Assessments;
Zero Discharge;
Accidental Pollutant Discharges;
Drilling Platform;
Hurricane Plan;
Geologic Data;
Transportation;
Test Oil and Gas Plan;
Drilling Plan; and
H2S Contingency Plan.
Coastal's Response to the Department's Notice of Incompleteness and Request for Additional Information.
By letter dated September 22, 1997, Mr. Ware, on behalf of Coastal, responded to the Department's March 26, 1997, notice of incompleteness and request for additional information. In general, Coastal provided some of the requested information but indicated that it did not believe the Department had the authority to request most of the information. Therefore, Coastal informed the Department that most of the requested information was not being provided.
Despite the fact that Coastal did not provide most of the requested information, Mr. Ware stated the following in the first paragraph of the September 22, 1997, letter:
In fact, no statutory or regulatory authority was cited for any request. If Coastal is mistaken on
any such request, please inform us of the specific authority allowing the department to require such information and Coastal will respond. [Emphasis added].
The Department's Answer to Coastal's Request for Specific Authority.
Coastal's request for citations of specific authority and Coastal's representation that it would provide the information if such authority were given, was reasonably interpreted by the Department as an expression of Coastal's willingness to continue to discuss whether the Twelve Applications were in fact complete. As a consequence, the Department proceeded to respond to Coastal's request rather than proceeding to treat the Twelve Applications as complete and review them on their merits.
After extensive research, the Department responded to Coastal's request for authority by letter dated December 16, 1997. The Department provided Coastal with citations to statutes and rules which the Department believed supported the additional information it had requested in its March 26, 1997, letter. See Coastal Exhibit 76.
The Department also pointed out inconsistencies in the information Coastal had provided in support of the Twelve Applications. In particular, the Department asked why Coastal's H2S contingency plan referred to a drilling rig different than the one that Coastal had indicated it intended to use. The Department also asked Coastal how it planned to drill twelve
wells within the time allowed after a permit is issued with only the one drilling platform that Coastal had indicated it planned to use for all twelve wells.
Coastal's First Notice of Completeness.
By letter dated December 26, 1997, Coastal informed the Department that it was not convinced that the authorities cited by the Department in its December 16, 1997, letter required that it provide the additional information sought by the Department.
Mr. Ware, therefore, informed the Department in the December 26, 1997, letter of the following:
As a result of the Department's insistence that Coastal provide such information, Coastal is left with no alternative but to file a petition for administrative hearing concerning whether the materials submitted by Coastal were sufficient to complete the applications so that they should have been processed by the Department.
Twelve separate Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing were filed by Coastal with the December 26, 1997, letter. Pursuant to the petitions, Coastal challenged the Department's request for additional information and sought approval of the Twelve Applications by default.
Coastal's December 26, 1997, letter and the petitions filed simultaneously with the letter were the first indication from Coastal that it considered the Twelve Applications complete.
On January 22, 1998, the Department entered an Order Dismissing Petitions, dismissing the twelve petitions filed by Coastal. The petitions were dismissed without prejudice to the
filing of amended petitions alleging how the Department's December 16, 1997, letter constituted "agency action." No amended petitions were filed by Coastal.
The Department also concluded in the Order Dismissing Petitions that Coastal's December 26, 1997, letter constituted Coastal's first notice that it considered the Twelve Applications complete and directed that staff grant or deny the Twelve Applications within 90 days from Coastal's notice.
In support of the Department's conclusion that the Twelve Applications should not be considered as complete until Coastal filed its December 26, 1997, letter, the Department noted in its order that Coastal, in response to the Department's December 16, 1997, letter, had requested specific authority for the Department's request and had represented that it would provide the additional information sought by the Department if it were satisfied with authority cited by the Department.
I. The Department's Denial of Coastal's Applications.
On March 24, 1998, the Department entered a "Final Order" denying the Twelve Applications. It is this Final Order that is the subject of these proceedings. The Department's decision to deny the Twelve Applications was explained as follows:
The applications as submitted do not provide the Department with assurance that the issuance of the permits would be in compliance with the standards and criteria of Chapter 377, Part I, F.S., and Rules 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C.
The Department cannot determine based on the information submitted, that the proposed drilling activities do not threaten public safety and the state's natural resources. Information critical to making such a determination remains absent. .
. .
The Department's Final Order denying the Twelve Applications was entered within 90 days after Coastal notified the Department that it did not intend to provide any additional information to support the Twelve Applications and that it considered the applications complete.
The Department's decision to deny the Twelve Applications was based solely on the Department's conclusion that it had not been provided sufficient information to review the merits of the Twelve Applications.
The Department's Specific Authority Over Oil and Gas Drilling Permits.
Part I, Chapter 377, Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), establishes the law in Florida governing oil and gas resources of the State. Section 377.06, Florida Statutes, sets out the general public policy of the State concerning oil and gas:
It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state to conserve and control the natural resources of oil and gas in said state, and the products made therefrom; to prevent waste of said natural resources; to provide for the protection and adjustment of the correlative rights of the owners of the land wherein said natural resources lie and the owners and producers of oil and gas resources and the products made therefrom, and of others interested therein; to safeguard the health, property, and public welfare of the citizens of said state and other interested persons and for all purposes indicated by the provisions herein. . . .
The Department is designated as one of the agencies of the State authorized to carry out the powers, duties, and authority of the Act. Section 377.07, Florida Statutes.
The Department's authority includes the authority to adopt rules and enter orders it deems necessary to implement and enforce the provisions of the Act. Section 377.22, Florida Statutes. In particular, the Department has been given broad authority to regulate the drilling for oil and gas in Florida in Sections 377.22(2)(a) through (x), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to this broad authority, the Department has promulgated Chapters
62C-25 through 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code.
Rule 62C-25.006, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the general rule concerning the exploration for oil and gas in Florida:
Each person who conducts geophysical surveys (unless exempted by Rule 62C-26.007), drills an oil or gas related well (62C-26.003), or operates an oil or gas related well . . . (62C-26.008) shall first obtain a permit from the Department. Each of these activities requires a separate permit. [Emphasis added].
Ordinarily a single permit will be issued for drilling a well and either transporting test oil or injecting test fluids for a period of 90 days after testing is commenced. . . .
In these cases, Coastal is seeking a permit to drill an oil or gas-related well and must, therefore, comply with Rule 62C-26.003, Florida Administrative Code, titled "Drilling Applications" (hereinafter referred to as the "Drilling Application Rule").
The Drilling Application Rule establishes certain specific requirements concerning specific information which, by the clear terms of the rule, must be provided by all applicants for oil and gas drilling permits in Florida. Applicants for drilling applications are required to be provide the following:
All Applications to Drill (Form 3) shall include an Organization Report (Form 1; 62C- 25.008), performance security (62C-25.008, 62C- 26.002), location plat (62C-26.003(7)), site construction plans (62C-26.003(9)), casing and cementing program (62C-26.003(5)), contingency plan if appropriate (62C-27.001(7)), and application fee (62C-26.003(8)). In addition to these items, an application to drill a nonroutine well shall include a lease map or document and a letter of justification, both as described in
62C-26.004(6)(d). Any of these items already on file with the Department may be included by reference.
The application to drill shall be considered incomplete until the applicant requests a preliminary inspection be made by the Department. . . .
A proposed casing and cementing program must be included with the application to drill. This program shall at a minimum include setting depths, specified minimum yield strength, grade of pipe, class of cement to be used, cement additives, cement quantity, intended interval to be cemented, hole size, displacement method, special tools to be used, and calculated percent excess cement to be used.
. . . .
Each application shall be accompanied by a location plat surveyed and prepared by a registered land surveyor licensed under Chapter 472, FS. All such plats shall meet the minimum technical standards for land surveys as specified in Chapter 61G-17-6, FAC, and must:
Be drawn to a scale sufficient to show the required detail, preferably 1 inch = 1,000 feet.
Show and provide a legal description of all mineral acreage within the drilling unit which is not under lease to the applicant.
Show the exact well location (both surface and bottom if different) and unit acreage within the drilling unit and indicate distances to adjacent wells, drilling unit boundaries,
quarter-section corners, rivers and other prominent features. With prior notice and explanation to the Department, other established lines, reference points, or methods may be used when section corners are unavailable and an inordinate amount of preliminary surveying would have to be done to establish section corners or other standard reference points. In any case, a standard survey or equivalent with plat shall be made prior to obtaining an operating permit.
Show ground elevation, with tolerances, at the drill site.
State whether the proposed drilling unit is routine on nonroutine and specify the applicable subsection of s. 62C-26.004 under which the well is located.
Each application to drill shall be accompanied by a $2,000 processing and regulatory fee . . . for costs incurred by the Department through well completion or plugging. . . .
. . . .
The applicant shall describe the provisions made for locating and constructing roads, pads, utility lines and other facilities needed for drilling operations and shall make every effort to minimize related impacts. Applications for permits in wetlands, submerged lands, and other sensitive areas shall be reviewed in accordance with 62C-30.005, FAC.
Coastal provided all of the specific information applicable to the Twelve Applications required by the Drilling
Application Rule. Much of the information required by the Drilling Application Rule, however, pertains to drilling operations on land and not drilling operations on submerged, offshore lands.
The Department's Offshore Drilling Policy.
Although Coastal provided all of the specific information required by the Drilling Application Rule, the Department required that a significant amount of additional supporting information be provided in support of the Twelve
Applications. The additional information is generally described in Section E of this Recommended Order and is more specifically described, infra.
Through the incompleteness letters issued by the Department in these cases, the Department expressed a statement of general applicability which "implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of an agency . . . ." Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. The Department's statement of general applicability is, in effect, that all applicants for offshore oil and gas wells must provide the information described in the Department's letters of incompleteness to Coastal; information not specifically listed in the Drilling Application Rule. This state of general applicability will hereinafter be referred to as the "Offshore Drilling Policy."
The Offshore Drilling Policy is of recent origin. It was not applied during the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's. The policy was only recently developed because only a few offshore drilling permits have been applied for until recently and the technology applied in offshore drilling has changed significantly in the past fifty years.
Between the 1960's and 1992, when Coastal filed five applications for permits, only one offshore drilling permit was issued by the Department. That permit was issued in the late 1970's or early 1980's to Getty Oil Company (hereinafter referred
to as "Getty") for a test well approximately three miles offshore from Santa Rosa County, Florida. The Offshore Drilling Policy was not applied by the Department to Getty, although most of the information required in these cases was eventually provided by Getty. Getty provided the information not because of Department policy, however, but in an effort to settle a challenge to the Department's proposed decision to issue the permit.
Although much of the Department's knowledge concerning offshore drilling was developed as a result of the Getty permit, the Department did not receive another permit application for offshore drilling for ten to twelve years or more.
Since 1992, however, the Department has required the same additional information it requested Coastal to provide in these cases for seventeen different proposed well locations located from offshore sites off the northwest coast of Florida near St. George Island and extending to the southwest coast of Florida near Naples.
The Offshore Drilling Policy has been adopted by the Department because existing rules were adopted primarily to govern drilling operations on land and not offshore. As a consequence, those rules inadequately address offshore wells. The Department, however, is charged with broad authority under Chapter 377, Florida Statutes, to govern oil and gas drilling operations on and offshore. That authority includes the broad authority to carry out the public policy of the State expressed
in Section 377.06, Florida Statutes, to "conserve and control the natural resources of oil and gas . . . ; to prevent waste of said natural resources; . . . to safeguard the health, property and public welfare of the citizens . . . ." When the intent of existing rules is considered in the context of offshore drilling, it is apparent that Drilling Application Rule does not adequately address all the reasonable concerns with offshore drilling.
The Department has developed the Offshore Drilling Policy to the point where it has become more than a mere interpretation and application of existing law to offshore drilling applications. The Offshore Drilling Policy has become a uniform statement of policy describing a significant amount of particular information which the Department will require for any application for an offshore drilling permit. The Offshore Drilling Policy has passed the point in its development that it can be considered the Department's reaction to a particular set of circumstances.
The Scope of the Department's Application of the Offshore Drilling Policy.
The Offshore Drilling Policy has been applied to the last seventeen applications for offshore wells filed with the Department. The first five applications were filed in March 1992. Although four of those applications were withdrawn, the Department developed the Offshore Drilling Policy and applied it
to permit application 1281 prior to August 1996 when the Department issued its notice of intent to issue Permit 1281.
Although the evidence failed to prove exactly when the Department decided to apply the Offshore Drilling Policy to permit application 1281, the policy had been applied before the Twelve Applications were filed in February 1997.
The Offshore Drilling Policy was applied uniformly to the Twelve Applications from the date they were filed through the date of the hearing in these cases.
The Offshore Drilling Policy was also sufficiently formulated for the Department to publish notice of its intent to adopt the Offshore Drilling Policy as a rule. That notice was published on November 24, 1998. Therefore, the Offshore Drilling Policy was sufficiently formulated to be proposed for adoption as a rule prior to the commencement of this de novo proceeding.
It is apparent that the Department intends to apply the Offshore Drilling Policy to all applications for oil and gas wells proposed for location offshore in the waters of the State.
At present, only Coastal has the right to drill in the sovereign submerged lands of the State and Section 377.242(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes, currently prohibits granting drilling permits within the boundaries of the Florida's territorial seas to any person other than Coastal. The evidence failed to prove, however, that Coastal cannot assign its right to drill to other persons, which it has done in the past.
Even though Coastal may currently be the only applicant for oil and gas well drilling permits, the Department is at liberty to modify the Offshore Drilling Policy at any time to require different or additional information, without prior notice to Coastal. Coastal has the right to some certainty as to what information the Department may require for approval of an offshore drilling permit.
Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes; De Novo Review of the Offshore Drilling Policy.
Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, requires a de novo review of any unadopted rule which formed the basis of any agency action.
The Department's denial of the Twelve Applications in these cases was based solely on its application of the Offshore Drilling Policy. The Offshore Drilling Policy has not been adopted as a rule, although the Department has instituted rule- making procedures. Therefore, if the Offshore Drilling Policy constitutes a rule, the Offshore Drilling Policy must meet the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Each category of information required by the Department pursuant to the Offshore Drilling Policy must be examined in determining whether some of the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, have been met.
The other requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, can be considered generally without an examination of each category of information required by the Department.
Location Plat Information.
The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning the location of the proposed wells:
For each proposed location, submit a plat on an original nautical chart showing each drilling site relative to the shore. This map should include at least the following surface and bottom hole locations including satellite navigation coordinates so the site can be re-occupied by a preliminary inspection team, boundaries of the working interest area, location of nearby reefs or sensitive aquatic wildlife areas, wildlife migration routes, proposed routing of supply ships, discharge barges, pipelines, helicopter routes, and commonly used shipping lanes. Also submit a diagram showing the orientation of the rig and the location of its major components.
Coastal provided only standard nautical charts with a surveyed site location and the lease boundaries noted. The charts did not contain any of the information requested by the Department. Nor did the charts note whether the plotted points were surface or bottom hole locations.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the Location Plat information: Section 377.22(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-26.003(7), Florida Administrative Code, quoted, supra.
Section 377.22(2)(h), Florida Statutes, provides the following:
(2) The department shall adopt such rules and regulations, and shall issue such orders, governing all phases of the exploration, drilling, and production of oil, gas, or other petroleum products in the state . . . as may be necessary for the proper administration and enforcement of this chapter. Rules,
regulations, and orders promulgated in accordance with this section shall be for, but shall not be limited to, the following purposes:
. . . .
(h) To require the making of reports showing the location of all oil and gas wells; the making and filing of logs; the taking and filing of directional surveys; the filing of electrical, sonic, radioactive, and mechanical logs of oil and gas wells; if taken, the saving of cutting and cores, the cuts of which shall be given to the Bureau of Geology; and the making of reports with respect to drilling and production records.
. . .
The Department's purpose in requiring the information concerning the Location Plat was to allow it to place the proposed drilling site into context with the surrounding environmental and other features of the area. Without the requested information, the Department could not ensure that sensitive resources and significant features would not be damaged by the proposed drilling operations.
Rule 62C-26.003(7), Florida Administrative Code, does not directly authorize the Department to request the Location Plat information. That rule was drafted with onshore drilling operations in mind. Requiring the Location Plat information in these cases is not a mere application of that rule.
Rule 62C-26.003(7), Florida Administrative Code, however, does support the conclusion that the requested information is needed for offshore, as well as onshore drilling. More importantly, it demonstrates the broad authority of the Department under the Act to require assurances from an applicant for offshore drilling that the proposed drilling will not be detrimental to the environment.
The information provided by Coastal concerning archaeological sites, underground sea cables, and sensitive environmental features on the bottom was not sufficient for the Department to fulfill its responsibilities under the Act.
The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for Location Plat information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting Location Plat information was not arbitrary or capricious.
Environmental and Site Assessment.
The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning environmental features of the proposed well sites:
Submit a professional ecological/biological survey and report for each proposed drill site. Wildlife habitats including living coral reefs, artificial reefs, patch reefs, benthic infauna,
sea grasses, and associated communities shall be identified and located if present.
Photodocumentation consisting of television and color still photography shall be included with each report. . . .
The Department's request included an outline format for the photodocumentation survey report.
Coastal provided no information in response to the Department's request for Environmental and Site Assessment information. Instead, Coastal suggested that the Department obtain the information it requested through the preliminary site inspection required by the Department's rules.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the Environmental and Site Assessment information: Sections 377.21(2), 377.22(2)(i), 377.241(1), and 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code.
While Section 377.21(2), Florida Statutes, gives the Department little authority concerning the protection of the environment, the other statutory provisions cited by the Department do. Section 377.22(2)(i), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to take into consideration the impact of drilling operations on surrounding leases or property. Section 377.241(1), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to take into consideration the nature, character, and location of lands on which drilling will occur and those involved with the drilling. Finally, and most significantly, Section 377.371(1),
Florida Statutes, requires that drilling not cause pollution to land or water, "damage aquatic or marine life, wildlife, birds, or public or private property "
Rule 62C-26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in part, that "[a]pplications for permits in . . .
submerged lands, and other sensitive areas shall be reviewed in accordance with 62C-30.005," a rule governing applications for drilling in the Big Cypress Watershed. Rule 62C-30.005(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code, sets out the requirements for drilling sites. Among other things, Rule 62C-30.005(2)(b)2, Florida Administrative Code, requires that topographical and engineering surveys of the drill site, along with aerial photography, must be prepared. While this rule does not specifically authorize the Environmental and Site Assessment information the Department has requested, the statutory authority that supports the rule does.
Aerial photography is normally required as an aid to the Department in identifying the proposed site and the surrounding area. Obviously, aerial photography would be of little assistance for a submerged site. Therefore, in order for the Department to carry out its responsibility to protect the environment, including sensitive environmental features such as "live bottom areas" as defined in Rule 62C-25.002(49), Florida Administrative Code, the Department requested photodocumentation of the proposed sites.
The Department's request that Coastal provide it with an environmental assessment of the proposed drilling sites was also made to give the Department the necessary information for it to ensure that the environmental impacts of the proposed wells would not be detrimental. Such information also relates to the ability of an applicant to ensure that it has adopted adequate plans to deal with possible oil spills and other accidents. By fully considering the environmental features of an area, the applicant will be better able to draft and adopt contingency plans.
Unlike onshore drilling, an offshore well entails a relatively large drilling rig with large feet that rest on the bottom to support the drilling platform above the surface of the water. Those feet, if placed on live bottom, can cause significant damage to marine biota which live in crevices, cracks, and permeable portions of some rocks that may be found on the bottom.
The preliminary site inspection conducted by the Department is not an adequate substitute for the information requested by the Department. That inspection is only intended to verify the assurances which the applicant is first required to give. After all, it is the applicant that is seeking permission to drill. As a consequence, the applicant should first determine what impact its proposed drilling will have and, if satisfied on
its findings, provide assurances to the Department to support its application.
The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for Environmental and Site Assessment information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting Environmental and Site Assessment information was not arbitrary or capricious.
Zero Discharge.
The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning a "zero discharge" plan for the proposed wells:
Submit a plan which ensures zero discharge operation for each proposed well. The plan must include an environmental monitoring plan which provides for filed sampling around the drill site such that pre-drilling, drilling, and post- drilling sediments may be compared.
Coastal, in response, only stated that it intended to use a zero discharge drilling rig at all the proposed sites. A copy of a brochure generally describing the rig was provided. No description of systems for containing discharges was provided. Nor did Coastal provide monitoring and sampling plans.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting a zero discharge plan: Sections 377.21(2), 377.22(2), 377.22(2)(c) and (i), 377.241(1), 377.243, 377.371, and
377.371(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code.
A zero discharge plan is the written plan that an applicant is supposed to follow in the event of the discharge of any pollutant into the surrounding environment of a well site. The plan must cover not only discharges from the well shaft, but also from all equipment used, located, or traveling to the site. The purpose of the plan is to prevent spills and, where an accidental spill occurs, to minimize the impact of the spill. While the use of a zero discharge rig may be a significant part of a zero discharge plan, its use alone is not sufficient. The use of zero discharge rig does not provide assurances concerning the operation of other vessels and equipment which may be used at a site. Nor does its use provide assurances as to what will be done to ensure that the rig works properly or what will be done if it does not.
Section 377.22, Florida Statutes, provides authority for the Department to ensure that all precautions are taken to prevent pollutants entering the area of a drilling site or any area associated with the well. Section 377.22(2)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require that drilling operations are done in such a manner as to prevent pollution of the waters, including salt water, and property of the State. Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require safety equipment to minimize the possibility of an
escape of oil and other petroleum products. Finally, Section 377.22(2)(i), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to prevent drilling operations that will cause injury to neighboring property.
Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, also provides the Department with the authority to require assurances concerning an applicant's efforts to protect against discharges into the environment of oil and other pollutants:
(2) As a condition precedent to the issuance or renewal of a permit, the division shall require satisfactory evidence that the applicant has implemented or is in the process of implementing, programs for control of pollution related to oil, petroleum products or their byproducts, and other pollutants and the abatement thereof when a discharge occurs.
Finally, Section 377.371(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits persons drilling for oil and gas from polluting land or water and from damaging marine or aquatic life.
A spill of oil or gas and other pollutants can have a devastating impact on the environment regardless of whether the spill occurs on land or at sea. Such damage could result in loss of tourism in Florida and severe economic damage.
The oil industry has progressed significantly in its ability to prevent spills and, where spills occur, to minimize the impacts of the spill on the environment. In order to minimize the chance of spills and the impacts which could occur from a spill, however, an applicant must take the steps necessary
to plan ahead of time and provide the Department with the assurances that the applicant has done so.
The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for zero discharge information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting zero discharge information was not arbitrary or capricious.
Accidental Pollutant Discharges.
The Department requested that Coastal provide a spill contingency plan for each of the proposed well sites. The requested plan was to include Coastal's plans for dealing with escaped pollutants, modeling of how projected spills might react, plans for deployment of cleanup equipment, inventories of equipment available for dealing with spills, designation of the individuals responsible for cleanup, and general clean-up plans.
In response to the request for the spill contingency information the Department insisted it needed, Coastal stated the following:
With respect to Coastal's implementation of a program for control of pollution related to oil, petroleum products and their byproducts, and other pollutants, see the letter of Dr. Tom Herbert, and his curriculum vita, as well as the ISO 14,000 Program on file in Permit #1296. With respect to Coastal's implementation of a program for the abatement of pollution discharges related
to oil, petroleum products and their byproducts and other pollutants, see attached letter of Shaw Thompson, and his resume on file in Permit #1296.
Coastal did not provide the Department with a specific, written oil-spill contingency plan.
Dr. Herbert was involved with ensuring compliance of the Getty well off of Santa Rosa County with environmental protection requirements. Dr. Herbert had not, however, reviewed information concerning the Twelve Applications other than the nautical charts showing the location of the wells.
In a letter from Dr. Herbert submitted by Coastal to the Department, Dr. Herbert represented the following concerning Coastal's proposed operations:
Coastal Petroleum has used the Getty operations as a "template" for designing operations for the permit number 1281 well and for all subsequent drilling permits pending (numbers 1296 through 1307). We have been retained to assist with the development of plans and procedures and to insure that the operations are carried out in an environmentally safe and conscientious manner.
. . . .
Coastal Petroleum Company has adopted the ISO 14000 standard as the method for implementing long-term environmental compliance for drilling and production operations off Florida's coast. As the issuance date for the 1281 permit draws near we will begin implementing the ISO 14000- program beginning with training provided by the University of Florida TREEO Center. The implementation of the environmental program will
extend from Coastal's own employees to others who may be service companies or contractors.
Dr. Herbert's representations to the Department in his letter and at hearing do not constitute an actual oil-spill
contingency plan for any of the specific proposed well sites. At best, his representations constitute a commitment to deal with
the manner in which Coastal will comply with environmental requirements in the future. It does not constitute a commitment to actually draft and implement an oil-spill contingency plan.
Dr. Herbert and Coastal also failed to explain how the Getty site, which was located in 11 to 12 feet of water, is sufficiently similar to the proposed sites of the Twelve Applications, which are all located in much deeper waters. Nor did Coastal explain how it would deal with the fact that the Getty site was not in the open waters of the Gulf of Mexico. More importantly, no specific oil-spill contingency plan was provided for the twelve proposed sites.
Mr. Thompson is an expert in oil-spill containment and cleanup. Coastal provided a letter from Mr. Thompson providing assurances that he would be working with Coastal during any drilling of the twelve proposed wells. At hearing, Mr. Thompson had little knowledge of the proposed sites. More importantly, Mr. Thompson did not provide a specific oil-spill contingency plan for the twelve proposed sites.
The ISO 14000 Guide provided by Dr. Herbert consists of a book containing a generic template suggested by the author for use by any business concerned with environmental impacts. The Guide is not specific to the oil and gas industry. More importantly, it is not specific to Coastal nor any of the proposed well locations. Finally, the Guide would be of little
assistance in dealing with an actual emergency. The Guide is not a specific oil-spill contingency plan.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the oil-spill contingency plan: Sections 377.22, 377.22(2)(c), 377.243, and 377.371, Florida Statutes.
The same statutory authority that supports the request for a zero discharge plan, supports the oil-spill contingency plan requested by the Department. Especially Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, quoted, supra.
While Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, allows an applicant to implement or be in the process of implementing an abatement program, merely indicating the intent to implement a program is insufficient.
The Department must ensure that an applicant has taken sufficient steps to prevent the pollution of land or water, as well as damage to aquatic or marine life, wildlife, and birds. The environmental damage from a spill or a well blow-out can be significant. One of the worst oil well blow-outs occurred at an exploratory well. Site specific information must be considered by the applicant in its planning and such information must be provided to the Department for it to make its statutorily required evaluation.
The Act in general and the specific citation provided by the Department in support of its request for an accidental pollutant discharge plan give the Department sufficient authority
to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting the accidental pollutant discharge plan was not arbitrary or capricious.
Drilling Platforms.
The Department requested that Coastal provide information concerning the drilling platform(s) Coastal intended to use at each proposed site. In particular, the Department requested information concerning rig impacts, rig designation, scheduling, commitment from rig owners, zero discharge, auxiliary power equipment, and safety plans concerning karst hazards, including a shallow seismic program to rule out the existence of sinkholes or bottom caverns.
In response to the request for the drilling platform information the Department sought, Coastal provided only a brochure for the Nobel Drilling Company's rig, the Paul Wolff. Coastal also indicated that the rig would face north.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the drilling platform information: Sections 377.22(2)(c), (d), and (i), Florida Statutes; and Rules 62C- 26.003(10), 62C-27.001(4), (5), (6) (cited as 62C-26001(5) and 62C-26001(6) by error in the Department's December 16, 1997, letter), and 62C-28.004(8), Florida Administrative Code.
Section 377.22, Florida Statutes, provides authority for the Department to ensure that all precautions are taken to prevent pollutants entering the area of a drilling site and to protect surrounding property. Section 377.22(2)(a), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require that drilling operations are done in such a manner as to prevent pollution of the waters, including salt water, and property of the State. Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require safety equipment to minimize the possibility of an escape of oil and other petroleum products. Section 377.22(2)(d), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to ensure that drilling is performed in a manner that will prevent the escape of oil from one stratum to another. Finally, Section 377.22(2)(i), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to prevent drilling operations that will cause injury to neighboring property.
The rig Coastal proposed to use sits on three large feet, each with a diameter of over 93 feet. Each foot sits 235 feet from the other two. The entire rig is extremely heavy and, therefore, each foot has a great deal of weight placed on it. The Department requested information concerning rig impacts in order to avoid adverse impacts on the sea bottom.
The Department requested information on rig designation, scheduling and owner commitment because of the Department's concern that a single rig could not drill all twelve
wells within the limited one-year period of time a permit is valid for. Coastal had also provided some inconsistent information in its hydrogen sulfide plan concerning what rig would be used. Without knowing what rig would be used at each location, the Department could not fully evaluate the possible impacts of the rig on the environment.
The seismic survey and the sink hole and karst formation safety plans were requested because of concerns that a rig could collapse if it were placed on such a formation. A karst formation is a geologic formation caused by increased porosity and permeability of underground limestone formations. As limestone is eaten away, the potential for a sinkhole or cavern collapse increases. Sinkholes and karst formations are not uncommon in the area of Coastal's proposed wells.
If a rig collapsed on a karst formation, it is possible that a blow out or other oil spill could occur. The potential for such a catastrophe is greater in this instance because the rig that Coastal is proposing to use is a tripod design which could tip over if one foot were placed in a sinkhole or karst formation that collapses.
A shallow seismic survey would provide information concerning possible karst formations at the sites where Coastal plans to drill its test wells.
The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for rig impact
information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting rig impact information was not arbitrary or capricious.
Hurricane Response Plan.
The Department requested that Coastal provide a hurricane preparation and response plan for each site. Coastal provided none of the requested information.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the hurricane response plan: Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-27.001(5) and 62C-27.006(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Section 377.22(2)(c), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to require safety equipment to minimize the possibility of an escape of oil and other petroleum products in the event of a natural disaster.
Although not cited by the Department, Section 377.371, Florida Statutes, gives the Department broad authority to ensure that oil and gas wells do not pollute.
The entire area where Coastal proposed to drill is subject to hurricanes for a significant part of every year. Such storms can have a devastating impact on any structure, including an oil rig, which is in its path. Requiring that an applicant for drilling permits anywhere in the coastal waters of Florida plan ahead of time to respond to an approaching hurricane is abundantly reasonable.
The Act in general and the specific citation provided by the Department in support of its request for a hurricane preparation and response plan give the Department sufficient
authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting a hurricane preparation and response plan was not arbitrary or capricious.
Geologic Data.
The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning the geology of each location of its proposed well sites:
Submit material in the form of studies, data, cross sections, or maps which support or explain your decision for locating each well as proposed. All interpreted geologic data must be certified by a geologist licensed in Florida.
Coastal provided none of the requested information. For applications 1296 and 1297, Coastal referred the Department to its application for Permit 1281.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the geologic information: Section 377.075(4)(g), 377.21(2), and 377.241(3), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C- 26.004(6)(d), Florida Administrative Code.
Section 377.075(4)(g), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department maintain maps identifying information concerning oil and gas activities in Florida. This provision does not, however, authorize the Department to request the geologic information it requested from Coastal.
Section 377.21(2), Florida Statutes, gives the Department the authority and the duty to make inquiries to determine whether "waste" exists or is imminent. "Waste" is defined in Section 377.10(10), Florida Statutes. Based upon the definition of "waste," Section 377.21(2), Florida Statutes, gives the Department the authority to request the information it requested concerning the geology of Coastal's proposed locations.
Finally, Section 377.241(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the Department take into consideration the "proven or indicated likelihood of the presence of oil, gas or related minerals in such quantities as to warrant the exploration and extraction of such products . . ." before issuing any permit. This provision alone is sufficient for the Department to request the geologic information it requested from Coastal.
Oil and gas wells are not drilled without first considering the geology of an area and the likelihood that oil or gas may be found. The determination of a likely successful well is made by a consideration of relevant geologic information such as that requested by the Department. Without such information, the Department would not be able to reasonably carry out its duty under Section 377.231(3), Florida Statutes.
Coastal did not dispute the reasonableness of the requested information in determining whether a well should be placed at a proposed location. Instead, Coastal suggested that the Department has all the information it needs to make the
determination and, therefore, Coastal shouldn't be required to provide any further information. The information available to the Department, however, is too general in nature. It does not deal with specific locations such as those proposed by Coastal. More importantly, it is Coastal that is seeking permission to drill. Coastal should, therefore, have already gathered and considered the geologic information requested by the Department in deciding where to place its exploratory wells.
There have been relatively few wells drilled in Florida offshore waters. None have been productive. One offshore well located near Franklin County was drilled in 1968 and was dry. The only producing offshore well was located off the southern tip of the Florida Keys. Given these facts, the Department was reasonable in seeking assurances from Coastal concerning the possibility that its proposed wells were reasonably placed.
Finally, the information Coastal referred to with regard to Permit 1281 was submitted during the formal administrative hearing on that case and was not as part of Coastal's permit application. That information, therefore, was not available to the Department to review. Nor was it provided during the formal hearing on these cases.
The Act in general and the specific cites provided by the Department in support of its request for geologic information give the Department sufficient authority to request the
information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting geologic information was not arbitrary or capricious.
Transportation.
The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning transportation to and from the proposed wells of the drilling rig(s), a description of onshore facilities and the traffic to the rig(s), and a description of, and route to be taken by, transport vessels and helicopters.
In response to the Department's request for the transportation information demanded by the Department, Coastal merely stated that no helicopters would be used at any of the proposed sites except in case of an emergency.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting information concerning transportation: Section 377.22(2)(s), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-26.006(1) and 62C- 26.003(10), Florida Administrative Code.
Section 377.22(2)(s), Florida Statutes, allows the Department to require "certificates of clearance or tenders in connection with the transportation or delivery of oil or gas, or any product." Section 377.371, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to ensure that a drilling operation is not harmful to the environment. This provision alone gives the Department sufficient authority to request information from Coastal
concerning how it intends to deal with transportation issues concerning the proposed wells.
Pursuant to the Department's statutory authority, the Department has adopted Chapter 62C-30, Florida Administrative Code, which, among other things, provides rules governing transportation issues for wells located in Big Cypress. Although those rules do not specifically deal with offshore wells, they do support the conclusion that assurances concerning transportation issues surrounding any well can be required by the Department.
Accidents, and the resulting damage to the environment, often occur during the transportation of oil and other equipment and supplies used for a rig. The Department needs to be provided with assurances that every effort is made by an applicant to avoid such damage. If provided sufficient information, the Department may be able to require that an applicant use a different route between a rig and an onshore facility in order to avoid a sensitive reef and thereby reduce the potential adverse impacts of an accident to the reef. A different route may also be required due to safety concerns.
In addition to the legitimate concerns of the Department about accidental spills of oil, gas, and cuttings, the Department is concerned about the transportation of other noxious or hazardous materials used in drilling operations. Mixed saltwater and oil byproducts of drilling also must be transported away from a well site. Spills of these materials can have
adverse impacts on the environment and, therefore, steps must be taken to reduce those impacts.
The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for transportation information give the Department sufficient authority to request the information. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting transportation information was not arbitrary or capricious.
Test Oil and Gas Plan.
The Department requested that Coastal provide the following information concerning plans to test for oil and gas at each of the proposed wells:
Submit a plan for safely producing, transporting, and storing test oil and gas. What mode of transportation is anticipated? Tankers? Barges? Pipelines? Where will produced test oil/gas be taken? Where will landfall occur? Include a statement from each appropriate local government assuring that all proposed facilities for oil and gas transportation and storage, both onshore and offshore, will be in compliance with local comprehensive plans. Indicate any leasehold interest or other property interests which will need to be secured to transport test oil or gas. Will test gas be vented, flared, or stored?
Discuss why.
Coastal provided no test oil and gas plan or other information in response to this request.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the test oil and gas plan: Sections 377.06, 377.22(2)(c) and (s), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-25.006(1) and 62C-28.001, Florida Administrative Code.
For all the reasons previously discussed concerning the Department's authority to regulate oil and gas wells, the Department's statutory authority is broad enough to require the test oil and gas plan it requested from Coastal. The testing of fluids, their transport, and their storage all can have adverse impacts on the environment.
The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for a test oil and
gas
plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting a test oil and gas plan was not arbitrary or capricious.
Drilling Plan.
The Department requested that Coastal provide information concerning drilling plans for the proposed wells, including a blow-out prevention plan. In response, Coastal provided all of the requested information, including a casing plan, cementing plan, and drilling plan, but refused to provide a blow-out prevention plan. The Paul Wolff brochure provided to the Department included a list of blow-out preventers that are standard equipment on the rig, but there was no information concerning how a blow-out would be dealt with.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting the blowout prevention plan: Sections 377.22(2)(a), (c), (d), (e) and (l), Florida Statutes, and Rules 62C-26.003(5), 62C-26.007, and 62C-27.005, Florida Administrative Code.
Section 377.22(2)(l), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to adopt rules to prevent blow-outs. That authority, coupled with other provisions of the Act giving the Department the authority to protect the environment from oil and gas well
drilling operations, is sufficient authority for the Department to require the requested blow-out prevention plan.
A blow-out can cause the release of oil and gas into the environment with serious consequences to the environment. Preventing a blow-out is, therefore, of paramount importance. Proper prevention of blow-outs depends upon the geology of each drilling site. Different sites may require different equipment or different measures to prevent a blow-out. Consequently, a separate plan for each site is reasonable and necessary.
The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for a blow-out prevention plan give the Department sufficient authority to request the plan. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting a blow-out prevention plan was not arbitrary or capricious.
H2S Contingency Plan.
The Department requested that Coastal provide a hydrogen sulfide (H2S) contingency plan, including a site specific air dispersion model for each site predicting the transport of any hydrogen sulfide accidentally released into the air. Coastal provided a single hydrogen sulfide contingency plan. No air dispersion modeling was provided.
The Department relied upon the following authority in requesting individual plans and modeling: Sections 377.22 and 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62C-27.001(7), Florida Administrative Code.
Hydrogen sulfide is a toxic gas which can be released during drilling operations. The gas is colorless. It is also denser than air. If not handled properly, a release can be fatal to anyone coming into contact with the gas. For an offshore well, a release of hydrogen sulfide can injure workers on the rig and boaters or fishermen in the area. Contact with hydrogen sulfide at a concentration of 100 parts per million can kill a person's sense of smell in 3 to 15 minutes. At a concentration of 300 parts per million, it can be fatal, and at 500 parts per million breathing will cease in only a matter of a few seconds.
Because hydrogen sulfide is heavier than air, it will remain just above the surface of the water, where people are normally located on the Gulf. Individuals on the Gulf cannot escape to higher ground to avoid the gas like they may be able to do on land.
While modeling cannot provide certainty as to how a cloud of hydrogen sulfide might act, it can at least give information concerning the prevailing wind direction of each site, which may be beneficial in being prepared to deal with an accident. Without such information it is difficult to determine whether plans to deal with an accident are adequate.
Section 377.243(2), Florida Statutes, provides adequate authority for the Department to require that Coastal provide modeling for each proposed site.
The Act in general and the specific citations provided by the Department in support of its request for hydrogen sulfide modeling give the Department sufficient authority to request the modeling. The Department's request did not enlarge, modify, or contravene its grant of authority.
The Department's exercise of its authority in requesting modeling was not arbitrary or capricious.
Section 120.57(1)(e)2.c., Florida Statutes.
None of the required information is vague, establishes inadequate standards, or vests unbridled discretion in the Department. All of the information requested by the Department was understood by Coastal. Coastal knew what the Department was requested because it had already provided the requested information in support of its 1281 permit application.
Section 120.57(1)(e)2.e., Florida Statutes.
Coastal received adequate notice of the Department's Offshore Drilling Policy. Coastal had been requested to provide the information in support of its 1281 permit application. It was given written notice of the Offshore Drilling Policy in these twelve cases through the March 26, 1997, notice of incompleteness and the December 16, 1997, explanation of authority for the requested information.
AA. Section 120.57(1)(e)2.g., Florida Statutes.
While there are costs which Coastal would be required to pay in order to provide the information required by the Department, those costs are not excessive; not when the rationale for requesting the information is considered.
Coastal did not consider the costs associated with providing the information sought by the Department to be too
excessive for it to refuse to provide the information in seeking Permit 1281. On the contrary, Coastal incurred those costs.
Although there was testimony that the costs of providing the information for Permit 1281 was in excess of a million dollars, the weight of the evidence failed to support the testimony. The evidence proved that the costs of providing all of the information requested by the Department would be well below a million dollars for each well.
As to considering less costly alternatives, Coastal never gave the Department an opportunity to do so. Coastal simply refused to provide the requested information, to propose less-costly alternatives, or to discuss the matter further with the Department. Nor were any, less costly, methods of obtaining the information necessary for the Department to carry out its responsibilities under the Act proved at hearing.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
Jurisdiction.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1997).
Standing.
Section 120.569, Florida Statutes, allows any person whose "substantial interests" are determined by proposed agency action to challenge the agency's action through a proceeding
pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. If the proceeding
involves a disputed issue of material fact, the proceeding is to be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The evidence in these cases proved that Coastal was denied oil and gas permits which it had requested that the Department issue. Coastal therefore, was "substantially affected" by the Department's action, and had standing to institute this proceeding under Section 120.569, Florida Statutes.
As to Intervenors, they are granted standing to participate in these proceedings pursuant to Section 404.412(5), Florida Statutes.
Burden of Proof.
The burden of proof, absent a statutory directive to the contrary, is on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue in a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, proceeding. Antel v. Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); and Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Coastal is the party asserting the affirmative of the primary issue in these cases: whether its Twelve Applications were complete. Coastal, therefore, had the ultimate burden of proving that the Twelve Applications were complete.
Coastal has also asserted that the Department's conclusion that additional information was required for the Department to review the Twelve Applications constitutes an unadopted rule. Coastal, therefore, had the burden of proving that the Department's policy constitutes an unadopted rule.
Having met its burden of proving that the Department's policy constitutes an unadopted rule, Section 120.57(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes, imposed the burden of demonstrating that the unadopted rule meets the seven standards listed in Sections 120.57(1)(e)2.a. through g., Florida Statutes, on the Department. In the alternative, the Department had the burden of proving its affirmative defenses.
The Department's Offshore Drilling Policy Constitutes an Unadopted Rule.
The Department's rules provide with specificity the information which applicants for oil and gas drilling permits are required to file with the Department. The evidence proved that Coastal's Twelve Applications were filed consistent with those requirements.
Despite the fact that Coastal filed all of the information specifically required by the Department's rules, the Department determined that additional information was required. In support of this determination, the Department relied primarily on statutory interpretation.
To the extent that the Department also relied upon
duly adopted rules, that reliance was misplaced. None of the rules relied upon by the Department specifically authorizes the information Coastal was required to submit. Instead, the Department has attempted to rely upon an "interpretation" of the intended purpose for the cited rules. While a statutory interpretation may support an agency's actions, reliance upon the interpretation of a rule does not. See Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes. See also Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
What constitutes a "rule" is defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes:
(15) "Rule" means each agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy or describes the procedure or practice requirements of any agency and includes any form which imposes any requirement or solicits any information not specifically required by statute or by an existing rule. The term also includes the amendment or repeal of a rule. . . .
The Department's Offshore Drilling Policy constitutes a "rule" under this definition.
First, the Offshore Drilling Policy is a "statement of general applicability." An agency statement of "general applicability" includes all statements "intended by their own effect to create rights, or to require compliance, or otherwise to have the direct and consistent effect of law." McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So. 2d 569, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). See also McCarthy v. Department of Insurance & Treasurer, 479 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
While the evidence proved that only Coastal has the right to drill in offshore submerged waters of the State, the evidence failed to prove that other applicants for this type of permit, including any applicant that may obtain the right to drill under Coastal's lease, would be treated differently than Coastal has been in these cases. Additionally, even though Coastal is, from a practical standpoint, the only applicant for offshore drilling permits, it has the right to expect that the established statements of general applicability of the Department will be adopted in compliance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Secondly, the Offshore Drilling Policy implements, interprets and prescribes law or policy. It also describes the procedure or practice requirements of the Department. The statutory provisions relied upon by the Department for its application of the Offshore Drilling Policy to Coastal do not require that applicants provide the specific information required by the Department. Instead, the Department has relied upon its interpretation of those statutory provisions to support its requirements.
The Department's application of the Offshore Drilling Policy is not simply an incident where an agency is applying the plain meaning of a statute, which would not constitute an unadopted rule, as recognized by the court in St. Francis Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 553 So. 2d 1351, 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989):
We recognize that an agency interpretation of a statute which simply reiterates the legislature's statutory mandate and does not place upon the statute an interpretation that is not readily apparent from its literal reading, nor in and of itself purport to create rights, or require compliance, or to otherwise have the direct and consistent effect of the law, is not an unpromulgated rule, and actions based upon such an interpretation are permissible without requiring an agency to go through rulemaking.
The Department's statutory interpretations as to what information it will require in considering an application for an offshore drilling permit are not readily apparent from a literal reading of those statutes.
The Department has argued, among other things, that the Offshore Drilling Policy, rather than being an unadopted rule, constitutes a mere application of existing rules to the particular facts of these cases. The Department relies upon the decision in Environmental Trust v. Department of Environmental Protection, 714 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), for this argument.
The Department's reliance on Environmental Trust is misplaced. The facts in Environmental Trust are distinguishable from the facts in these cases. See Coastal's discussion of Environmental Trust on pages 20 through 24 of Coastal's Brief and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
Unlike the agency in Environmental Trust, the Department's actions in these cases, while supported by its interpretation and application of the Act, do not constitute the
mere application of existing rules. The Department in these cases, rather than applying the cited rules to the particular facts of these cases, is attempting to apply its interpretation of the rationale of those rules to circumstances not contemplated by the Department when it adopted the rules.
The Department has also argued that the Offshore Drilling Policy constitutes an "order" rather than a "rule," which it has argued it may issue in lieu of adopting a rule pursuant to Section 377.22, Florida Statutes.
Section 377.22, Florida Statutes, does provide that the Department may carry out the duties created in Sections 377.22(2)(a) through (x), Florida Statutes, by "rules, regulations, and orders."
The Department may carrying out its responsibilities under Section 377.22, Florida Statutes, by order, but only until its actions reach the level of constituting a "rule" as that term is defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department may issue an order to rectify a particular situation or circumstance, but once the substance of that order reaches the point of constituting a statement of general applicability, the Department must adopt the policy pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Offshore Drilling Policy contained in the Department's "order" in these cases has reached that point. To conclude otherwise, would allow the Department the option of applying statements of general applicability by
rule or by order. Such an election is clearly contrary to the Legislature's intent as expressed in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that the Offshore Drilling Policy constitutes a rule as that term is defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes.
The Department has not finally adopted the Offshore Drilling Policy by the rulemaking procedure provided in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Practicability and Feasibility of Rulemaking.
Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that "[r]ulemaking is not a matter of agency discretion." Rulemaking is not required, however, unless it is "feasible and practicable."
The Department has argued that rulemaking under the circumstances of these cases was not feasible or practicable.
Whether rulemaking under the circumstances of these cases is not relevant. Whether rulemaking is feasible and practicable would only be relevant if these cases had been initiated pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes. Under Section 120.56(4)(b), Florida Statutes, an agency is required to prove that an unadopted rule is not feasible and practicable in order to apply the rule. Coastal did not institute these cases under Section 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes.
Section 120.57(1)(e)2., Florida Statutes, quoted, infra, applies regardless of whether rulemaking is deemed "feasible and practicable." Therefore, regardless of whether rulemaking is considered feasible or practicable for purposes of Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, an agency may not rely upon an unadopted rule unless it can demonstrate the appropriateness of that rule pursuant to the criteria of Sections 120.57(1)(e)2.a. through g., Florida Statutes.
Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, Criteria.
Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides the following:
(e)1. Any agency action that determines the substantial interests of a party and that is based on an unadopted rule is subject to de novo review by an administrative law judge.
The agency action shall not be presumed valid or invalid. The agency must demonstrate that the unadopted rule:
Is within the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature or, if the agency is operating pursuant to authority derived from the State Constitution, is within that authority;
Does not enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented;
Is not vague, establishes adequate standards for agency decisions, or does not vest unbridled discretion in the agency;
Is not arbitrary or capricious;
Is not being applied to the substantially affected party without due notice;
Is supported by competent and substantial evidence; and
Does not impose excessive regulatory costs on the regulated person, county, or city.
Legislative Authority; Sections 120.57(1)(e)2.a. and b., Florida Statutes.
The Act, and in particular those provisions of the Act cited in this Recommended Order, provide the Department with sufficient power and authority to support the Offshore Drilling Policy.
The evidence also proved that the Offshore Drilling Policy does not constitute an enlargement, modification, or
contravention of the Act or, in particular, the provisions of the Act cited in this Recommended Order.
The Act provides the Department with broad authority and, in fact, the duty, to ensure that oil and gas drilling operations anywhere within the State are conducted in a manner that will not be harmful to the environment or the people and property of Florida.
Vagueness, Adequacy of Standards, and Discretion; Section 120.57(1)(e)2.c., Florida Statutes.
The evidence proved that Coastal had no problem understanding the Offshore Drilling Policy or any of the specific requests for information made by the Department. A rule is vague or fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions when the terms of the rule are so vague that persons of common intelligence must guess as to the rule's meaning. See Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Health Care and Retirement Corporation, 593 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). None of the terms used by the Department in applying the Offshore Drilling Policy were not understandable to Coastal.
The evidence also proved that the Offshore Drilling Policy establishes adequate standards for the Department and does not allow unbridled discretion. On the contrary, the Offshore Drilling Policy establishes the information that must be filed with any application for an offshore drilling permit.
I. Arbitrary and Capricious; Competent Substantial Evidence; Sections 120.57(1)(e)d. and f., Florida Statutes.
An unadopted rule is considered arbitrary if it is not supported by logic or reason. It is capricious if it is irrational and not supported by reason. Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So. 2d 759, 763, (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1979). If an unadopted rule is not supported by competent and substantial evidence, it would also be considered arbitrary and capricious.
The evidence in these cases proved that the Offshore Drilling Policy was neither arbitrary nor capricious. All of the information requested from Coastal in support of the Twelve Applications is supported by logic and reason. The need for the requested information is supported by competent and substantial evidence. The Department's request was necessary in light of the need to ensure that the potential harmful impacts of oil and gas well drilling on the environment and the people and property of the State are eliminated or, at the very least, minimized.
Due Notice; Section 120.57(1)(e)2.e., Florida Statutes.
Coastal was given due notice of the Department's Offshore Drilling Policy. The Department informed Coastal of what additional information was required for the Twelve Applications to be considered complete by letter dated March 26, 1997. The Department gave further explanation of the what information was required and the statutory authority for
requesting the additional information in a letter dated December 16, 1997.
Coastal, therefore, had sufficient notice of the Offshore Drilling Policy and sufficient time to comply with the policy.
Costs of Compliance; Section 120.57(1)(e)2.g., Florida Statutes.
Finally, the evidence proved that, while the Offshore Drilling Policy will result in additional regulatory costs to Coastal, such costs are not excessive. When the potential harm which may occur if adequate assurances are not required by the Department are considered, the amount of costs associated with the Offshore Drilling Policy are reasonable.
Default Permits.
Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes, provides that any application for a "license" must be approved or denied within 90 days after receipt of a "completed application." Failure to comply with this time requirement must be approved.
A "license" is defined in Section 120.52(9), Florida Statutes, to include a "permit."
An application is considered to be complete for purposes of Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes, "upon receipt of all requested information and correction of any error or omission for which the applicant was timely notified or when the time for such notification has expired."
Coastal has still not provided complete applications to the Department. Coastal is, therefore, not entitled to the issuance of the twelve permits by default.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying permit applications 1296 through 1307 for failure to file complete applications.
DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
LARRY J. SARTIN
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 26th day of March, 1999.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert J. Angerer, Esquire Robert J. Angerer, Jr., Esquire Angerer and Angerer
Post Office Box 10468 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Andrew Baumann, Assistant General Counsel John W. Costigan, Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Monica K. Reimer, Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs
The Capitol, Plaza Level 01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
S. Ansley Samson, Esquire David G. Guest, Esquire
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Post Office Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk
Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
David B. Struhs, Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 11, 1999 | Final Order filed. |
| Mar. 26, 1999 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 01/04-08/99. |
| Mar. 01, 1999 | Coastal Petroleum Company`s Brief and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law rec`d |
| Mar. 01, 1999 | Department of Environmental Protection, Environmental Organizations and Department of Legal Affairs` Joint Proposed Recommended Order rec`d |
| Feb. 08, 1999 | Notice of Filing; (Volumes 1-7 of 7) DOAH Court Reporter Final Hearing Transcript filed. |
| Jan. 05, 1999 | Subpoena ad Testificandum (R. Angerer) filed. |
| Jan. 04, 1999 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Dec. 31, 1998 | (R. Angerer) Notice to Produce filed. |
| Dec. 28, 1998 | Coastal Petroleum Company`s Motion to Dismiss and Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Verified Petition to Intervene of the Department of Legal Affairs filed. |
| Dec. 28, 1998 | Coastal Petroleum Company`s Motion to Dismiss and Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Verified Petition for Intervention of Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc., Sierra Club, Florida Chapter, and Florida Audubon Society, Inc. filed. |
| Dec. 18, 1998 | Order Granting Intervention sent out. (for Florida Wildlife Federation, Florida Audubon, Sierra Club & Department of Legal Affairs) |
| Dec. 18, 1998 | (DEP) Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 15, 1998 | (Fl. Wildlife Federation, Inc.) Verified Petition for Intervention (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 15, 1998 | (DEP) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 14, 1998 | (Legal Affairs) Verified Petition to Intervene (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 14, 1998 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Oct. 13, 1998 | Department of Environmental Protection`s Response to Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing (w/exhibits) filed. |
| Sep. 30, 1998 | Order Denying Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction sent out. |
| Aug. 31, 1998 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Jan. 4-8 & 11-12, 1999; 9:00am; Tallahassee) |
| Aug. 25, 1998 | Notice of Filing; (Volume I of I of the motion hearing) DOAH Court Reporter Final Hearing Transcript filed. |
| Aug. 17, 1998 | Petitioner Coastal Petroleum Company`s Notice of Service of Answers to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Aug. 14, 1998 | Coastal Petroleum Company`s Report to Administrative Law Judge (filed via facsimile). |
| Aug. 13, 1998 | Notice of Filing Affidavit of Dr. Walter Schmidt, Affidavit of Dr. Walter Schmidt filed. |
| Aug. 10, 1998 | Respondent`s Report to the Administrative Law Judge (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 29, 1998 | Notice of Filing Depositions of Dr. Walter Schmidt, Mr. Ed Garrett and Mr. David Curry; (2 Volumes) Deposition of: Walter Schmidt, Ph.D. ; Deposition of: Edward W. Garrett filed. |
| Jul. 29, 1998 | Notice of Filing Affidavit of Phillip W. Ware; Affidavit of Phillip W. Ware in Opposition to Department of Environmental Protection`s Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jul. 29, 1998 | Cases Consolidated Per Judge Sartin Instructions: (98-1901, 98-1902, 98-1903, 98-1904, 98-1905, 98-1906, 98-1907, 98-1908, 98-1909, 98-1910, 98-1911 & 98-1912) |
| Jul. 27, 1998 | Department of Environmental Protection`s Reply to Response of Coastal Petroleum Company Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 15, 1998 | Order Delaying Scheduling of Formal Hearing sent out. |
| Jul. 14, 1998 | (Respondent) Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jul. 09, 1998 | Notice of Motion Hearing sent out. (set for 7/30/98; 10:00 am; Tallahassee) |
| Jun. 22, 1998 | (R. Angerer) Request for Production of Documents by Respondent Department of Environmental Protection; Notice of Taking Depositions (Duces Tecum) filed. |
| Jun. 16, 1998 | Respondent`s Notice of Service of Answers to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Jun. 08, 1998 | Coastal Petroleum Company`s Response in Opposition to Respondent`s Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1998 | Respondent Department of Environmental Protection Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed. |
| May 15, 1998 | Certificate of Service of the First Set of Interrogatories of Petitioner Coastal Petroleum Company to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection filed. |
| May 07, 1998 | Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| May 06, 1998 | (Petitioner) Notice of Publication filed. |
| Apr. 27, 1998 | Initial Order issued. |
| Apr. 22, 1998 | Agency Referral Letter; Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Apr. 22, 1998 | Agency Action Letter; Stipulated Order Consolidating Cases (DOAH related cases are 98-1901 thru 98-1912); Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| May 10, 1999 | Agency Final Order | |
| Mar. 26, 1999 | Recommended Order | Department`s unpromulgated rule requiring additional information to support oil drilling permits was valid. Petitioner failed to provide information and, therefore, application was denied for incompleteness. |
