Findings Of Fact By Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida filed January 14, 1993, Richard and Claudia Cowart requested permission to construct a concrete seawall with sloping riprap along their property, which is bordered by the Caloosahatchee River. The application describes the length of the seawall as 130 feet. The application describes the length of the riprap as "up to 130 [feet]" and the width of the riprap as five feet. The application states that the Cowarts are the record owner of the property and that Brian Bevan is an owner of adjacent property. There are seawalls for some distance on both sides of the proposed seawall, including along the property of Mr. Bevan. The seawall on the side opposite that of Mr. Bevan is indicated on the drawing accompanying the application. The drawing attached to the application depicts an existing retaining wall waterward of the approximate mean high water line and the proposed seawall landward of the approximate mean high water line. The proposed seawall would travel parallel to the river's shoreline for a distance of about 130 feet. At both ends, the wall turns away from the river and runs an additional 25-30 feet perpendicular to the river. At the southerly end of the proposed seawall, the drawing also indicates a "wetland enhancement area" where 100 one-gallon red mangrove trees would be planted. A second drawing attached to the application consists of a cross- section of the proposed activity. The cross-section drawing depicts, among other things, the riprap to be placed waterward of the proposed seawall, which is perpendicular to the surface of the water. The proposed riprap has no discontinuities. By letter to the Cowarts dated January 20, 1993, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DEP) stated that it found that the proposed activity was exempt from the need for a wetland resource permit, pursuant to Rule 17- 312.050(1)(t), Florida Administrative Code. Within a couple of months after issuance of the letter, the Cowarts constructed a seawall. Petitioners challenged the determination by filing a petition on February 4, 1993. The proposed seawall would not violate existing water quality standards, impede navigation, or adversely affect flood control.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing the petition of the Bevans and declining to award attorneys' fees and costs against them or any of them. ENTERED on October 28, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 28, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioners' Proposed Findings Petitioners filed a proposed recommended order without proposed findings of fact. To the extent that anything in the proposed recommended order may be construed to be a proposed finding of fact, it is rejected as irrelevant or unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Cowarts' Proposed Findings 1-11: adopted or adopted in substance. 12: rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 John L. Chaves, Assistant General Counsel Douglas H. McLaughlin, Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Brian Bevan 1200 Masanabo Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Richard A. Lotspeich Landers & Parsons Box 271 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Charlotte County should be issued a permit to dredge Stump Pass and Deposit the spoil therefrom on the beach south of the pass.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Lemon Bay Conservancy, Inc., was a nonprofit corporation in the State of Florida whose membership is made up of individuals affected by the health of Lemon Bay. The Department of Natural Resources is the state agency responsible for the regulation and issuance of coastal construction permits pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and Charlotte County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and the applicant for the permit to dredge Stump Pass which is located within its geographical boundaries. Stump Pass is a maintained coastal inlet located on the west coast of Florida between Manasota Key to the North and Knight Island to the South. It has been in approximately the same location since 1925. It is a wave dominated pass, which means the wave energy, which comes predominantly from the west/northwest, is greater than the tidal energy in the pass, and this wave action has caused the Pass channel to migrate to the south since 1974. The Pass was last dredged in 1980. For various reasons, in November, 1986, the County applied to DNR for a coastal construction permit to "maintenance dredge" a portion of the Pass and utilize the dredged material for renourishment of adjacent beaches on Knight Island. A permit for this type of work is required by the provision of Section 161.041, Florida Statutes. As the application was being reviewed by the Department, several areas were identified for modification. Among these were a reduction in the amount of material to be dredged to 136,000 cubic yards; more specific identification of the beach area to be renourished, (3,000 feet along the west side of Knight Island); and the development and submittal of a Sea Turtle Protection Plan. These modifications were made and submitted by the County in November, 1989, and the application was deemed complete on August 27, 1990. On October 11, 1990, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to Issue the permit. In doing so, it recommended the inclusion of 10 specific conditions. Since the proposed project was determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the sandy beaches, no mitigation plan was required. Since the placement of the sand from the dredging would be on the beach at Knight Island, which is downdrift of the water flow, it was consistent with the requirements of Section 161.142, Florida Statutes. Stump Pass, at its most restrictive point, is less than 100 feet wide. It is an unmarked channel. The existing channel is approximately one mile in length. The channel proposed by Charlotte County, as approved by the Department, would be approximately one half mile in length. In preparing its application for submittal to the Department, the County retained Dr. Michael S. Stephen, a consultant with Coastal Engineering, Inc., and an expert in coastal geology and engineering geology, to evaluate the proposed dredging project, one purpose of which is to provide a safe, navigable channel between the Gulf of Mexico and Lemon Bay and the west coast of Florida waterway system. In the course of his evaluation, Dr. Stephen took bathometric measurements at Stump Pass which were used to define and create a map of the water depths in the area. According to his proposal, the fill from the dredging would be placed on the shore south of the pass in an area which is accompanied by a 10 foot wide public easement which parallels the shoreline and runs north and south along the beach. In light of this, the proposed project would not interfere with the public's right to access to the area except during the construction period. This project is significantly similar to a prior dredging in 1980 and the channel will be essentially the same as on that occasion. A significant difference, however, is that the spoil will, in this case, be placed south of the pass whereas in the previous dredging it was placed on the state park to the north. One of the factors considered by the County in its decision to apply for the permit for this project was the determination that the existing channel is not safe for boats to navigate other than during calm weather in a single file. Dr. Stephen believes that the proposed channel would be safer to navigate because it is shorter than the existing channel; provides a more direct access from the inland waters to the Gulf; and avoids the cross-wave and cross-wind impacts experienced by the use of the current pass. There is substantial evidence by experienced boaters who are commercial fishermen as well as recreational boaters who contend that the safety of the pass at the present time is not an issue. Most of these opponents indicate they have had little if any difficulty in traversing the pass under all but the most extreme conditions, and that preparation plus good judgement will, in most cases, result in a safe transit. A more comprehensive discussion of this subject will be found in several paragraphs below. Historical documentation considered by Dr. Stephen in his analysis of information dating back to between 1895 to 1975, shows that the inlet has been in much the same location since 1925. In 1895, however the pass was north of its present location. Another concern of the Department when determining the appropriateness of a coastal construction application is engineering data relating to inlet stability. This concept considers the inlet as a whole and directs examination of three areas. One is lateral movement; a second is cross sectional stability, (the ability of the inlet to remain open); and a third is hydraulic stability. As was noted above in the discussion concerning the location of the inlet back to 1895, the fact that it has remained in its same location since 1925 indicates that from a migratory standpoint, it is considered stable. In addition, the throat of the pass, the actual area where the water comes through from Lemon Bay out to the Gulf, is also stable in terms of cross sectional stability or "closure parameters." Only the continuation of the channel out into the Gulf has moved to a significant degree. It is this outer portion, the outer channel of the inlet, where the proposed dredging is to take place. It is presently in a north/south configuration, having migrated from the predominantly east/west direction in which it was dredged in 1980. Expert testimony indicates that this migration has been the result of the west/northwest dominant wave action. Evidence also indicates that if this outer channel were not maintained once dredged as proposed, it would return to the location it currently occupies. As a result, Charlotte County seeks to include a maintenance dredging plan at 3 to 5 year intervals as part of its proposed management scenario. Petitioners claim that the current inlet and channel are in their natural locations, and that the channel which will result from the proposed dredging will be unstable and immediately begin to migrate back to the location of the "natural" channel which it presently occupies. In response, the County asserts that while the current channel may indicate stability in the short run, given the historic hydraulic instability of the channel, its current location and alignment are likely to change in the future. As the channel has moved toward the south, it has tended to lengthen and as a channel lengthens, the less hydraulically stable it is as a result of the frictional drag of the water flow through the channel. The longer the channel, the greater the drag, and the greater the drag, the greater the potential for flow interruption. When the channel becomes hydraulically unstable, therefore, hydraulic pressures cause a tendency to cut through the shoals lining the channel and it is the County and Department position that a shortening of the channel, as the proposed project would do, would improve the hydraulic stability of the new channel. Nothing was presented by Petitioners to dispute this and it is so found. The statute also requires the Department to take into consideration shoreline stability when considering an application for a coastal construction permit. While there has been little erosion or accretion to the shoreline north of the pass where the spoil from the 1980 dredging was placed, the area south of the pass has experienced significant erosion due, in part, it would appear, to the southerly migration of the outer channel. Immediately to the south of Monument 23, over a stretch approximately 3,000 feet long, sand has been accreting to the extend of approximately 50 to 60 feet per year. However, south of that area, for approximately 5,000 to 11,000 feet south of the inlet, the shoreline has eroded at approximately 10 feet per year. It is in this eroding area that the sand dredged from the channel would be placed. There are varying theories as to the cause of the shoreline instability the area has experienced. Some place the blame on the 1980 dredging project; others on the current location of the outer channel. Other factors may play a part, however, including major storms, and there is insufficient evidence available to justify the establishment of a causal relationship. Nonetheless, as a condition of the permit, the Department has indicated a requirement for the County to conduct detailed monitoring of the area to determine whether any adverse impacts are being caused by the project, so as to allow the taking of immediate mitigative action through its inlet management plan to moderate the impacts. Ordinarily, the Department, by its standing policy, requires applicants for permits to conduct inlet maintenance activities to submit an inlet management plan prior to approving the application. This plan is required to address various impacts that the activity would have on adjacent coasts and shorelines, and is primarily a means of providing protection of the inlet and coastal system from the harmful effects of construction activities. Here, at the time the County's application was filed, that policy had not been adopted. As a result, no management plan was filed. However, the filing of a management plan within 6 months of the dredging done under the permit has been made a condition of the permit, and any plan filed will require approval by the Governor and Cabinet. It is, generally, the policy of the Department to not allow coastal construction activities in natural inlets. A natural inlet is one that has developed by the natural coastal formulation process, and which has not been modified by man. The Department contends that Stump Pass is not a natural inlet but instead, a "maintained" inlet because portions of the original 1980 dredging are still in place and only the outer channel is subject to the present application. Though the channel dredged in 1980 may have cut through the natural point of entry and exit of water from the Gulf to Lemon Bay and return, the fact is that the depth of the channel is the result of that 1980 dredging and the channel has maintained itself naturally thereafter. It cannot be said, however, that Stump Pass is a natural pass since it includes more than just the outer channel and that additional area, the throat, is still under the influence of the 1980 dredging. Petitioners claim that the Department's program directive 950, which prohibits the alteration or maintenance of any inlet or pass unless a management plan is submitted along with the permit application has not been complied with here and, therefore, approval of the instant application is prohibited. Further, Petitioners urge that the maintenance plan being prepared by the county is not an inlet management plan, which is called for by the program directive. The Department asserts, however, that though the directive was signed by the Executive Director of the Department, it was intended as an internal policy directive only to be used as a tool for coordination between the Department's separate divisions, and because of concerns expressed by various division within the Department, it has never been implemented. It is currently still under revision and the Department has elected not to apply its provisions to this case. In fact, in a previous application, the Department allowed the applicant to proceed with its project without a management plan. The management plan was required, subsequent to accomplishment of the work, as a condition of the permit. Another factor for consideration is the impact of the proposed project on the beach dune system and its effect on the habitat of the sea turtle. The expert testimony of record establishes that the project, rather than having an adverse effect on the turtle population, would have a more beneficial effect by providing a more suitable location for nesting. The site established for the deposition of the dredged spoil is an area of beach currently suffering severe erosion problems, and the placement of sand at that location would provide beach profiles similar to those currently existing on the County's natural beaches. In addition, to protect the existing nesting habitat of the turtle, the Department has required and approved a sea turtle protection plan which, it contends, will guarantee that the project will not have an impact on nesting populations of sea turtles. The testimony of Mr. LeBuff, clearly an expert in the management of the sea turtle population, establishes that the beach area provided to the turtles as a result of this project will consist of a sandy, natural, compatible beach material that is not going to be harmful, and the final slope of the reconstructed beach will be compatible with the natural slope of the beaches within the County. As a result, he is satisfied, and it is found, that there will be no detrimental effect to the turtle population. In its application in support of the permit, the County, and the Department in defense thereof, both contend that the primary purpose for the dredging of Stump Pass is to provide a safe, navigable channel between the Gulf and the waters of Lemon Bay. In support of its claim, the County presented the testimony of several charter boat captains, professional fishermen who have lived in the area for a number of years and who are totally familiar with the pass, having traversed it on numerous occasions under just about every condition. Captain Collette contends that the current maximum depth of the pass is between 4.5 and 5 feet. In the winter tide, it is much shallower with a depth often under 3 feet. Captain Collette refuses to run night charters through the pass because, he contends, it is too dangerous. During foggy weather and thunderstorms, because of the lack of visibility and a paucity of proper markers on the channel, he will not use it. The closest other pass to his anchorage is 13 miles away which, at normal running time, takes between 45 to 60 minutes. Stump Pass is only 3 miles, or 15 minutes, from his anchorage. He has experienced trouble with the channel, especially when the wind is from the west, and he believes that the proposed channel, with its more east/west orientation, will be safer than the current channel. In his opinion, additional markers in the channel would help, but not much. In order to be safer, the channel would have to be a non-moving channel, and he believes that since the proposed channel will be maintenance dredged, it would qualify as such. Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the channel is safe and is used by numerous boaters safely on a regular basis. The current depth of the channel at the throat of the pass is between 13 to 15 feet at mean low tide. At waypoint 2, in the outer channel, it is 9 to 10 feet, and at waypoint 4, at the southern end of the outer channel, it is 7 feet at mean low tide. The normal tide range at Stump Pass is 1.5 feet, with the exception that during winter and summer, the tides may be as much as 3.5 feet. Petitioner urges, and it is found, that the current channel at Stump Pass has been, since 1985, safely navigated by loaded commercial fishing boats as large as 39 feet in length and which draw in excess of 5 feet of water. Many of these commercial fishermen use the pass at night and in periods of low visibility, though Captain Collette may choose not to. If a boater can read the seas and the breaker bar, Captain Davids, testifying on behalf of the Petitioner, contends that local knowledge of the pass is not necessary. Unfortunately, however, many recreational boaters who make up by far the greatest percentage of users of the pass, may not have the requisite skills to the degree Captain Davids does. Nonetheless, under most conditions, Stump Pass can be safely navigated by recreational boaters who use common sense and who traverse it in a careful, cautions manner. Mr. Atwater, President of the Lemon Bay Conservancy, and himself an experienced boater, opined that the average recreational boater who uses the pass as access to the Gulf has a boat equipped with a compass, depth sounder, VHF radio, and LORAN radio signal navigation device. This may be a more optimistic than factual appraisal of the average boater's equipment, however. In sum, and considering the evidence, it is found that as it currently exists, Stump Pass is less than optimum in its navigability to many average boat owners a good portion of the time, but there has been no evidence presented to conclusively establish that it constitutes a serious safety hazard to the average recreational boater who utilizes common sense in traversing it. The County's application, along with the supporting information accompanying it, was received initially by the Department in December, 1986. It was an application for a maintenance dredging of Stump Pass back to its 1980 condition, and the Department views the project as primarily a maintenance dredging of the outer channel through the ebb tidal shoal. The application was assessed by the Department staff, along with engineering information submitted, and the Department then prepared an agenda item for the Governor and Cabinet recommending approval with special permit conditions. These include, among other things: the standard conditions required for approval of developments seaward of the coastal construction line; the submittal of plans and surveys for the project prior to the start of work; written authority for subsequent maintenance dredging prior to their accomplishment and the placing of future spoil; no additional maintenance dredging without the approval of the Governor and Cabinet of a management plan, (the purpose for this is to allow the Department to monitor the performance and evaluate and provide for mitigation of adverse impacts); the submittal of a sea turtle protection plan before issuance of a notice to proceed, (the subject plan has been received and approved); review of the permit at the five year point; and a proper placement of the spoil. A majority of those conditions have been treated in the findings previously made. The standards used to review the application are found in the provisions of Chapter 161.041, Florida Statutes, and Rule 16B-24, F.A.C.. In its analyses, the Department considered those factors required by the statute and as to the engineering, found it to be adequate. As to the design and effect on the inlet and adjacent beaches, those factors were found to justify approval of the project. Design features were found to be acceptable, and any adverse impact potential to the beach and dunes system were found to be minimal to the point there was none anticipated. Taken together, the Department concluded that the project was consistent with the requirements of both the statute and the rule. On cross examination, Mr. Leadon, the Department's expert, admitted that the proposed channel has the potential to, and a likelihood of, migrating to the south. Department policy is to let natural passes and systems take their natural course. However, this inlet has moved to the point where, in the Department's opinion, it is creating erosional stress to Knight Island. Should the pass continue to move in its current direction, it might create additional erosion of that island. The inlet has been left to take its course since its last dredging in 1980. As a result, it is much like a natural channel at this time, but for the purposes of this application, the Department considers the proposal to be a maintenance dredging of a previously dredged channel, though there has been no other maintenance dredging since 1980. Usually, a maintained channel is dredged every 2 to 3 years, but while the outer channel has migrated, the throat, which was dredged in 1980, has maintained the width and depth of that dredging. This position is found to be reasonable and sustainable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting to Charlotte County a coastal construction permit to maintenance dredge Stump Pass and place the dredged material on the Knight Island shorelines consistent with the conditions imposed thereon by the Department. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 14th day of August, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO 91-0471 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER LEMON BAY CONSERVANCY, INC. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven. - 10. Accepted. Accepted. & 13. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Not a proper Finding of Fact. Rejected. Accepted. Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted. First sentence accepted. Balance not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Accepted in part and rejected in part. The shoreline described has moved little during the time described, but as the channel moved south in later years, the shoreline to the south on Knight Island has eroded. & 27. Accepted as comment on the evidence. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. & 34. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the sufficiency of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. - 46. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence or record. Not a Finding of Fact but speculation. Accepted. - 53. Accepted. 54. & 55. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but legal argument. & 58. Accepted. Legal Argument. & 61. Irrelevant legal argument. Rejected. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Irrelevant and exhibit not admitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT, CHARLOTTE COUNTY 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein, 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 25. Accepted. Accepted. No such proposed Finding of Fact. & 29. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR RESPONDENT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. More a citation of authority that a Finding of Fact, but accepted. Accepted. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Accepted. 16. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on evidence and background. Accepted. & 24. Accepted. 25. & 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. - 29. Accepted. 30. & 31. Accepted but not controlling. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Philip E. Perry, Esquire Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire Dye & Scott, P.A. P.O. Drawer 9480 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Mail Station 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ken Plante General Counsel DNR 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Mail Station 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.008(4)(d) should be determined to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority? The Rule requires that an application for a permit for construction seaward of a coastal construction control line ("CCCL") contain "written evidence, provided by the appropriate local government agency . . ., that the proposed activity . . . does not contravene local setback requirements, zoning, or building codes and is consistent with the State approved Local Comprehensive Plan." Whether a statement alleged to have been made by an employee of the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources in the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or "the Department") violated Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes? The alleged statement is to the effect that in determining if structures littoral to the coast have established a continuous construction line closer to the mean high water line than the CCCL, the Department uses a 1000-foot distance to structures on either side of the proposed project.
Findings Of Fact The CCCL and Continuous Lines of Construction The CCCL The Legislature has declared it in the public interest to preserve and protect Florida's beaches and the coastal barrier dunes adjacent to them. See § 161.053(1)(a), Fla. Stat. In furtherance of this intent, the Department is empowered to "establish coastal construction control lines on a county basis along the sand beaches of the state fronting the Atlantic Ocean . . .". id., "after it has been determined from a comprehensive engineering study and topographic study that the establishment of such control lines is necessary for the protection of upland properties and the control of beach erosion." § 161.053(2)(a), Fla. Stat. The Department defines "Coastal Construction Control Line" or "CCCL" as "the line established pursuant to the provisions of Section 161.053, F.S., and recorded in the official records of the county, which [delineates] that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(12). Brevard County's CCCL bisects property along the Atlantic Ocean owned by Petitioner and her husband. Continuous Lines of Construction The Department is mandated to exempt from some regulation certain construction that is seaward of a CCCL. See, e.g., Section 161.053(2)(b)1., Florida Statutes, which relates to construction landward of beach armoring. In addition, the Department is granted discretion to permit construction seaward of a CCCL in other instances. One such instance relates to construction landward of "a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line," Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes (a "Continuous Line of Construction") that is seaward of the CCCL. Subsection 161.053(5)(b): (5) Except in those areas where local zoning and building codes have been established pursuant to sub-section (4), a permit to alter, excavate, or construct on property seaward of established coastal construction control lines may be granted by the department as follows: * * * (b) If in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area a number of existing structures have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line closer to the line of mean high water than the foregoing [the coastal construction control lines], and if the existing structures have not been unduly affected by erosion, a proposed structure may, at the discretion of the department, be permitted along such line on written authorization from the department. However, the department shall not contravene setback requirements or zoning or building codes established by a county or municipality which are equal to, or more strict than, those requirements provided herein . . . This proceeding involves a permit for construction seaward of the CCCL and landward or on a Continuous Line of Construction. The lines are in Brevard County where property is owned by both Petitioner and Intervenors, who, together with DEP, comprise the parties to this proceeding. The Parties Petitioner Carol C. Pope resides part-time in a duplex along Wilson Avenue on Cape Canaveral in Brevard County. She owns this oceanfront property, littoral to the Atlantic Ocean, with her husband James M. Pope. Although the property has a Cocoa Beach mailing address, it is not within the city limits of Cocoa Beach. The pre-hearing stipulation filed by all of the parties offers this account of the property's location: "The Pope's property is Lot 11, Block 101, Avon by the Sea, as described in Plat Book 3 page 7, [presumably in the Official Records of Brevard County] and east to Ocean, except the west 13 feet of Lot 11." Ms. Pope is the Petitioner in both of the consolidated cases that comprise this proceeding. The Department Among many duties related to environmental protection, the Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for the administration of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, Parts I and II, the "Beach and Shore Preservation Act." § 161.011, Fla. Stat. The Act confers on the Department the authority "to adopt rules related to the following provisions of this section [§ 161.053]: establishment of coastal construction control lines; activities seaward of the coastal construction control line; exemptions; property owner agreements; delegation of the program; permitting programs; and violations and penalties." § 161.053(21), Fla. Stat. Pursuant to its rule-making authority in Section 161.053 (together with other specific authority), the Department promulgated Rule Chapter 62B-33: "Office of Beaches and Coastal Systems - Rules and Procedures for Coastal Construction and Excavation (Permits for Construction Seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and Fifty-Foot Setback)." Two employees of the Department Tony McNeal, P.E., and Srivinas Tammisetti, P.E., testified at hearing. Both are engineers and both are involved with the Coastal Construction Control Line Program. Mr. McNeal is the program administrator. Mr. Tammisetti is a Professional Engineer II with the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources (the "Bureau"). He is responsible for "coastal armoring projects for the entire state" (tr. 52) and he is the head engineer for Lee County. In his capacity with the Bureau, Mr. Tammisetti reviews applications for activities seaward of the coastal construction control line. The Rays Clifford and Maria Ray are the owners of the property adjacent to Petitioner's property and the holders of Permit No. BE-1083 (the "Permit") issued by the Department in its order filed September 19, 2003. The Permit is the subject of the administrative proceeding initiated by Ms. Pope in DOAH Case No. 03-3981. Events Preceding the Permit's Issuance The Rays applied to DEP for a permit to conduct activities seaward of the CCCL, including construction of an eight-story, multi-family dwelling, a swimming pool and deck, a wooden beach/dune walkway, a parking area, masonry walls, and an exfiltration system. The Department approved the application. The Department's order issuing the Permit is titled "Permit for Construction or Other Activities Pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes." Intervenor's Ex. 1, Tab 6, pg. 1. The Permit acknowledges the application is for "authorization to conduct . . . activities seaward of the coastal construction line" and describes the location of the proposed project as "landward of the 30-year erosion projection and the existing line of construction established by major structures in the immediate area [the Continuous Line of Construction]." Id. While the application was pending before DEP, Ms. Pope visited the offices of the Department in Tallahassee several times. During the first visit (June 23, 2003), Ms. Pope reviewed the permit file and met with Mr. Tamisetti. At one point in the meeting, Ms. Pope asked Mr. Tamisetti how he determines the existence of Continuous Construction Lines. Ms. Pope testified at hearing that Mr. Tamisetti's answer was to the effect that "we look at a thousand feet on either side of the proposed structure." (Tr. 20). These were not necessarily Mr. Tamisetti's exact words but it is clear from the record that the substance of Ms. Pope's claim of what was said is correct; Mr. Tamisetti told Ms. Pope that the Department uses a thousand-foot distance on either side of a proposed structure in order to determine whether existing structures have established a Continuous Line of Construction seaward of the CCCL. The Rule Among the rules in the chapter for which Section 161.053 served as the sole specific authority is Rule 62B-33.008 (the "Rule"). It bears the catchline "Permit Application Requirements and Procedures." The Petition of Ms. Pope in Case No. 03-3860RX challenges subsection (d) of Section (4) of the Rule: (4) Any person desiring to obtain a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL) . . . from the Department . . . shall submit two copies of a completed application form. * * * The application form shall contain the following specific information: * * * (d) Written evidence, provided by the appropriate local governmental agency having jurisdiction over the activity, that the proposed activity, as submitted to the Office, does not contravene local setback requirements, zoning, or building codes and is consistent with the state approved Local Comprehensive Plan. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.008(4)(d). The Rule implements Section 161.052, "Coastal construction and excavation; regulation" as well as Section 161.053. Petitioner contends that the quoted portion of the Rule should be determined to be invalid because, while the statute directs that DEP in issuing permits of the kind obtained by the Rays "shall not contravene" local setbacks and building and zoning codes, it does not authorize DEP "to rely upon a letter mailed to an applicant from someone employed by an "appropriate" local government to prove that an activity would comply with the statutory directive." Proposed Final Order submitted by Petitioner, p. 18. As pointed out by Ms. Pope in her Proposed Final Order, DEP does not maintain nor does it require applicants for permits related to activity seaward of a CCCL to submit comprehensive land use plans, local setback requirements, zoning or building codes of counties and municipalities along Florida's coast. Instead, as sanctioned (in fact, required) by the Rule, DEP allows applicants to submit written evidence provided by the local government that the proposed activity does not contravene the enumerated regulations and is consistent with the local comprehensive plan. The parties have stipulated that the Department has not delegated its permitting authority under Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to Brevard County. The Statement The statement made by Mr. Tamisetti (the "Statement") is similar to one he has made many times over the course of his employment with the Department. Without reservation, Mr. Tamisetti testified as much at hearing. The Statement has been interpreted as DEP's common method of prescribing lines of continuous construction by at least one member of the public. A professional engineer who conducts coastal engineering analysis, opined in writing to one of his clients that: The DEP has commonly prescribed the "line of continuous construction" by the line established by the average seaward limits of the foundations of the structures within 1000? feet north and 1000? feet south of the subject property or the seaward limits of the most seaward structures within 1000? feet north and south of the subject property Petitioner's Ex. 14, p. 1 following the cover letter. Mr. Tamisetti maintained at hearing, however, that the statement he made to Ms. Pope was not a common method for determining a Continuous Construction Line. Rather, the Statement constituted a starting point for those who inquired about how such lines were determined to exist. The Department does not contend otherwise. In the Pre-hearing Stipulation executed by all parties, the Department's position with regard to the Statement of Mr. Tamisetti is found on page 4: "The statement [that DEP uses a 1000-foot distance on either side of a proposed structure to establish a Continuous Line of Construction] is merely a guideline to allow applicants and their engineers a starting place for providing the Department information regarding the line of construction." The reason for the Statement was discussed by Mr. Tamisetti in his testimony. When a concerned party poses the question of how DEP would determine a Continuous Line of Construction as to a certain site, the question can only be definitively answered by asking questions of that party, in turn, and requesting sufficient data. Responding might entail costs prohibitive to the party. "A thousand feet" is offered as "a starting point . . . to give them something" (tr. 61) as an estimate for whether to pursue the effort to have such a line established. In one project, Mr. Tamisetti offered, the distance from a proposed structure to an existing structure might be "500 feet"; in another "2000 feet." (Tr. 61, 62). Ultimately, Mr. Tamisetti insisted the determination is site specific and cannot be made across the board on the basis of a measurement of 1000 feet. The Permit's Relationship to the Statement Ms. Pope produced evidence of the location of a Continuous Line of Construction determined by DEP to exist for purposes of the Ray's permit, DEP Permit No. BE-1083. She concludes in her proposed final order: [T]he line that DEP depicted approximates the line that would be derived by drawing a line from existing structures within 1000 feet on either side of the structure proposed in BE-1083. (citation to record omitted) The derivation of the line of continuous construction can only be a result of using the foundations of building within 1000-feet on either side of the proposed Michelina Condominium, as readily seen on the DEP April 2002 aerial photograph . . . Proposed Final Order, submitted by Petitioner, p. 8. Furthermore, Ms. Pope points out DEP has two rules relevant to the interrelationship between the permit and her claim that the Statement is a rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(4), in her view, requires that applications for permits to conduct activity seaward of a CCCL "be 'clearly justified' by the applicant." Id. "Secondly," she asserts, DEP has an existing rule that requires applications to include surveys that depict accurate dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any existing structures in the immediate contiguous or adjacent areas that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line. Rule 62B- 33.008(4)(f)15, F.A.C. Id., at 8-9. These rules relate, obviously, to the Permit Case. Coupled with the location of the Continuous Line of Construction determined by DEP with regard to the Rays' application for purpose of the un-promulgated rule challenge, however, they do not overcome other evidence as to how the Bureau determines the existence of Continuous Lines of Construction seaward of CCCLs. That evidence is the testimony of Mr. McNeal, the head of DEP's Coastal Construction Control Line Program. The Testimony of Mr. McNeal Ms. Pope's claim that the only credible evidence in the case demonstrates that the Statement is an un-promulgated rule overlooks convincing credible evidence provided by Mr. McNeal. Mr. McNeal's testimony shows that the Statement is not reflective of a policy followed by DEP that creates rights or imposes duties upon the regulated. It is not reflective of a policy of the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources that does so either. Nor is it reflective of such a policy of the Bureau's Coastal Construction Control Line Program. As explained by Mr. McNeal, if an applicant would like to build on a Continuous Construction Line seaward of the CCCL, the applicant typically must demonstrate that the Continuous Construction Line exists by data provided with the application. Petitioner's Exhibit 7, entitled "Request for Additional Information" was identified by Mr. McNeal at hearing as "a template for our standard information package that comes with the application." (Tr. 40). "The items of information listed [on the request] are numbered to correspond with the item numbers on the application form." Petitioner's Ex. 7, p. 1. The following appears under Item 9: Two copies of a topographic survey drawing of the subject property. The topographic information depicted in the drawing shall be from field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of application. The topographic survey drawing shall include the following specific information: * * * - Accurate dimensions and locations of the foundation outlines of any existing structures in the immediate contiguous or adjacent areas that the applicant contends have established a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line if the permit is requested under the provisions of 161.053(5)(b), . . . Florida Statutes . . . (Id., pps. 2-3). There is no reference to the "1000 feet" measurement in the Bureau's Request for Additional Information. Furthermore, when an application is submitted that is incomplete with regard to the location of existing structures, the Department does not always resort to a request for additional information. The Department has an extensive database that includes aerial photographs, GIS images, and topographic information collected with regard to DEP reference monuments spaced along the shoreline. On occasion, the DEP database is sufficient to determine whether such a line exists without additional information provided by the applicant. When a determination of a Continuous Line of Construction is made by DEP, it is made specific to the site of proposed construction on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant or on the basis of publicly held data. The determination is not made on the basis of Mr. Tamisetti's statement to Ms. Pope or on the basis of unwritten policy related to existing structures within 1000 feet of the proposed structures. A Rule of Thumb for Prospective Applicants Mr. McNeal's testimony sheds direct light on the actual practice of DEP and the Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources in determining the existence and location of Continuous Lines of Construction. When the Petitioner's case is measured against the Department's, the best for Petitioner that can be said of the Statement is that it is precisely what Mr. Tamisetti claims. It is a "rule of thumb," and a rough one at that, for whether it is worthwhile for a party to pursue the establishment of a Continuous Construction Line in order to conduct activity, including construction, seaward of an established CCCL. It does not constitute an agency statement of general applicability that meets the definition of a "rule" in the Administrative Procedure Act and that is subject to the Act's rule-making requirements.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated and agreed that the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of the Notice of Violation issued by the Department could be accepted as true without the need for any further proof. The allegations are as follows: The Department of Environmental Regulation is the administrative agency of the State of Florida charged with the duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents, Robert and Velda Elbert, own a parcel of land located at 123 Gulfview Boulevard, Hudson, Florida, adjacent to waters of the Gulf of Mexico at Yellow Point, Pasco County. Respondent, Marvin Mattix, is a resident of Pasco County whose occupation includes the construction of seawalls. The Department has previously informed Respondents Elbert that Respondents had, on the aforesaid property, violated the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and applicable rules, Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Department informed Respondents of these violations by sending Respondents official correspondence on April 3, 1979, attached as Exhibit A. On or before January 30, 1979, Respondent Elbert and Mattix constructed or caused to be constructed a seawall on submerged lands and in waters on the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to Respondents Elberts' aforesaid property, and placed fill on submerged land and in waters of the Gulf of Mexico in connection with construction of the seawall. The aforesaid seawall and associated fill was placed in waters of the State on a submerged lands in, adjacent to the continuous with the waters and shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico in an area dominated by plant species listed in Section 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, including red mangrove (rhizophora mangle) and black mangrove (avicennia germinous). Respondents' seawall construction and associated filling activity was undertaken without an appropriate and valid permit from the Department as required by Section 17-4.03 and 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 403.087, Florida Statutes. 8. The Department incurred costs and expenses while investigating this matter as outlined in Exhibit B. As to Paragraph 4, the parties stipulated that fill was not placed in behind the seawall because after the Elberts were advised by the Department that the fill would be illegal, they ceased further activity. The parties stipulated and agreed that Paragraphs (a), (B), (C), (D), and (E) from the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing could be accepted as true without the need for any further proof. These facts are as follows: NAME AND ADDRESS OF AFFECTED AGENCY - Department of Environmental Regulation, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. (Agency's file number unknown). NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PETITIONERS - Robert F. Elbert, P. O. Box 357, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 and Velda L. Elbert, P. O. Box 357, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT - There are no disputes with the material facts presented. CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS, THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONERS AND THE REASONS FOR ENTITLING THE PETITIONER TO RELIEF - Petitioners allege (sic) that a contract was negotiated with a local sea wall builder (Mr. Mattix) who was recommended by the bank financing the sea wall (Community Bank of Pasco). Mrs Mattix informed Mrs. Elbert that a permit was not required and our seawall was one of the last two he could build without his obtaining a permit. Both petitioners (R.F. Elbert and V. L. Elbert) met with Mr. Mattix at the building site and per Mr. Mattix's suggestion, the sea wall location was selected so that the petitioner's sea wall would be 'in line' (lined up) with the other sea walls already built on the street. This appeared to be the logical location and the sea wall was built accordingly. After the sea wall was completed and paid, the petitioners were notified, both verbally and in writing, that the sea wall was built in violation of existing environmental regulations. To that point, the petitioners were unaware of violating any rules or regulations. Had the petitioners been aware of any regulations, they definitely would have complied and assured the builder also comply. INFORMAL ACTION - No informal actions were taken by the petitioner except to talk to DER in Tampa (Mr. Resico). Mr. Resico informed the petitioners that the agency and Mr. Mattix (sea wall builder) held meetings and that Mr. Mattix informed the agency that he had misinterpreted the agency's regulations. At no time did Mr. Mattix inform the petitioner about his actions with your agency. The Elberts own a parcel of land in Pasco County adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. They are planning to utilized the property as a retirement residence. The desired to build a seawall so that they could park a boat adjacent to their property. The bank that financed the seawall recommended that they retain Marvin Mattix to construct the seawall. The Elberts contracted with Mattix to construct it. The location for the seawall was chosen because it lined up with other seawalls near to the Elberts' property. The Elberts would have preferred the seawall be built further into the Gulf, but they were advised by Mattix that it should line up with other seawalls. Some of the other seawalls were apparently constructed without any permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation, and the Department has taken some steps to investigate the alleged violations, although no formal notices have been issued. The Elberts discussed with Mattix whether any permits from government agencies would be required, and they were advised that they would not need any permits. The builder advised the Elberts that he had approval from the Federal corps of Engineers, but the Elberts were later advised by the Corps that they had no knowledge of the project. The Elberts were not aware that they were violating any standards when they constructed the seawall. The seawall was in line with other seawalls on the street, and it will be expensive and difficult to remove it. The Elberts have been totally cooperative in their dealings with the Department of Environmental regulation, and it is apparent that they would not have taken any steps to construct the seawall without appropriate permits except for the advice of the builder. The Notice of violation issued by the Department was directed not only to the Elberts, but also to the builder, Marvin Mattix. The notice was forwarded to Mattix with a return receipt, and Mattix did not sign for the notice. Mattix did not request a hearing with respect to the allegations of the Notice of Violation. The seawall is located approximately eight feet seaward of the mean high water line adjacent to the Elberts' property. There are no seawalls directly adjacent to the Elberts' property but there is a seawall two lots down which also apparently was constructed without a permit. The Elberts' nex-door neighbor applied to construct a seawall at the same location as the Elberts' seawall but was told that a wall could not be placed that far into the water. The Elberts' property does not actually face directly into the Gulf of Mexico. It is on an estuary, and is approximately two lots down from the open waters of the Gulf. It is not a residential canal. Prior to the hearing, the Department incurred $182.60 in costs and expenses while investigating this matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered requiring that Robert and Velda Elbert and Marvin Mattix take the following corrective action: Within thirty (30) days of the date of the final order, they should remove the seawall and associated fill, and restore the area to its original condition; They should make payment to the Department in the amount of $182.60 to compensate the Department for expenses in tracing, controlling nd abating the violation. That enforcement action be taken first against the builder, Marvin Mattix, so that the cost of removing the seawall and restoring the area is borne by the party who caused the violation; and that only upon the failure of enforcement against Marvin Mattix should final enforcement action be taken against the Elberts. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of December, 1979. C. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert F. and Velda L. Elbert Post Office Box 357 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a dredge and fill permit to construct a dock and seawall by provision of reasonable assurances that the project is in the public interest.
Findings Of Fact On May 8, 1989, the Petitioner, Kathryn Haughney, applied to DER for a permit to construct a dock and seawall on the shore of the Halifax River in Volusia County. The portion of the Haughney property where the dock and seawall would be constructed is separated from the Haughney home by John Anderson Drive, which parallels the river's edge and is separated from the river by a ribbon of undeveloped property at that location and to the south. A house is located at water's edge on the lot to the north of the proposed construction site. The Haughney home itself is set well back from John Anderson drive on the side of the street away from the river. The Halifax River is classified as a Class III water body under DER rules. The particular part of the Halifax River where the Haughney property is located and where the dock and seawall are proposed is also within the Tomoka Marsh Aquatic Preserve, which is an Outstanding Florida Water under DER rules. The dock as proposed by Petitioner will be 320 square feet. DER denied the permit application on July 19, 1990, but in so doing did not deny the application on the basis of the proposed dock, which, because of its dimensions, is exempt from DER permitting requirements. The seawall as proposed is to be 137 feet long. Petitioner applied to extend it 16 feet out into waters of the state at the northern end, gradually increasing to 34 feet into waters of the state at the south end. Additionally, 5 feet of riprap would also extend out into waters of the state along the seawall's entire length. The waters of the state that would be filled by the proposed seawall contain lush wetland vegetation that provides habitat for a number of macroinvertebrate species which are part of the food chain feeding fish and wading birds such as egrets and herons. Fiddler crabs and colonies of mussels have been observed on the site. The area to be filled provides a valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. There was no mitigation offered by Petitioner to make up for the loss of habitat to be occasioned by the proposed construction. Although Petitioner asserted DER had named no "endangered species" and that the Environmental Protection Administration had not designated this area as "endangered," those federal concerns were not at issue. If such federally designated species or location designation existed in the locale, it might militate against granting this application for permit, but in the negative, it is irrelevant. A vertical seawall exists immediately north of Petitioner's shoreline. The shoreline to the south remains undeveloped. (See Finding of Fact 2). Construction of seawalls, especially those that extend out from the existing shoreline, typically causes erosion on adjacent shorelines, and additional seawalls exaggerate wave energy and can have a cumulative erosive effect. The foregoing fact is found in reliance upon the testimony of Don Medellin, an Environmental Specialist II for DER, and Barbara Bess, an Environmental Manager for DER, both accepted as experts in environmental aspects of dredge and fill permits. The assertion that actual erosion on the property to the south has already occurred was contained in a letter from Petitioner's southern neighbor (DER Exhibit 6). Petitioner's representatives objected to consideration of this exhibit as "hearsay." They are correct and current erosion to the south is not found as a fact. Nonetheless, actual erosion in a pocket on the north end of Petitioner's shoreline has been shown by the direct testimony of Emmett and Martha Haughney, who assert that their property is eroding due to the existing seawall and that Petitioner wants a permit for a seawall to alleviate this erosion. Their evidence is confirmed by the personal observations and testimony of Mr. Medellin and Ms. Bess. Further, upon their testimony, it is accepted that this minimal pocket of erosion is most likely due to the existing seawall to the north and that if the Petitioner builds a seawall to the specifications now set out in the permit application, there is potential for similar and perhaps cumulative erosion to the shoreline to the south of Petitioner's lot. Neither the city nor county involved has land use restrictions which would prohibit Petitioner's proposed seawall except that Volusia County advocates riprap requirements if this permit application were granted. In its Notice of Permit Denial, DER advised Petitioner as follows: The Department has determined that the follow- ing changes to the project may make the project permittable: The vertical seawall should be eliminated and replaced with coquina rock riprap revet- ment. The riprap should be located further landward and conform to the slope of the existing embankment. Backfilling on the north property line is acceptable provided the fill area does not extend more than 10 feet westward in the most eroded area. Accordingly, the riprap could extend to the adjacent seawall and gradually extend in a more landward direc- tion to prevent excessive elimination of the littoral zone vegetation. Whatever alternative the applicant elects to choose, the removal or elimination of littoral zone vegetation must be offset in the form of mitigation if the impacts can not be reduced any further. Finally, the agent should eliminate the use of generic drawings which must be continually revised. All drawings should reflect the existing and proposed conditions and the impacts associated with the project. Petitioner's contractor, Andy Harris, testified to other alternatives that could be used by Petitioner in constructing her seawall, but the evidence of Mr. Medellin and Ms. Bess is persuasive that the alternative measures proposed by Mr. Harris would not provide the reasonable assurances the law requires DER to obtain from Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order affirming its July 19, 1990 Notice of Permit Denial. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-7215 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's letter to Hearing Officer (filed March 22, 1991) The first paragraph complains that a VCR was unavailable in the hearing room so that Petitioner's videotape could not be shown. Petitioner should have made arrangements for showing the tape and did not. Likewise, Petitioner never offered the tape in evidence (for viewing by the Hearing Officer afterwards in preparation of this Recommended Order). Therefore, it very properly was not considered. The next 3 paragraphs refer to the Casden letter (DER Exhibit 6), which is covered in FOF 8-9. The remaining paragraphs are rhetoric and legal argument upon which no ruling need to made under Section 120.59(2) F.S.; however, they are alluded to in the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner's letter to DER Counsel (filed March 25, 1991 by DER, suggesting it was Petitioner's proposed findings of fact) 1-3 For the reasons set out above, the Petitioner's videotape was not considered. The subject of erosion to the degree proved at the hearing is covered in the Recommended Order. 4-5, PS 1-3 Mere rhetoric and legal argument upon which no ruling need be made under Section 120.59(2) F.S.; covered in the Conclusions of Law to the degree appropriate. Respondent's PFOF: 1-11 Accepted as modified to reflect the greater weight of the credible and probative record evidence as a whole. That which is rejected is rejected as not proven or not persuasive. Unnecessary or irrelevant material has likewise been excluded. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas MacLaughlin Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kathryn Haughney 2301 John Anderson Drive Ormond Beach, FL 32074 Emmett and Martha Haughney 2301 John Anderson Drive Ormond Beach, FL 32074 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact On February 10, 1988 Harry B. Williams made application to the Department of Natural Resources for permission to construct a single-family dwelling with appurtenant structures at 2831 Ponte Verda Boulevard South, South Ponte Verda Beach, Florida. The permit sought was a coastal construction control line permit which would allow construction seaward of that line in the direction of the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of that permit application may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 2. Associated with the permit application was a description of the plans related to the dwelling and other structures. This application was received by the Department February 11, 1988. Following a review of the permit application the Department deemed it complete as of February 22, 1988. A site inspection was made of the property and a report was prepared by an employee with the Department, a Mr. Partel. The report may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 4, which includes photographs of the prospective building site, together with the surrounding property to include dwellings to the north and south of the lot where the Williams home would be built. As commented on by Mr. Partel the applicant had intended at that time to construct a single-family dwelling a maximum of 75 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Although this evaluator, Mr. Partel, felt that the applicant had requested the right to construct a dwelling which was in line with existing construction, he felt that it could be moved further landward and that it could be limited in deck size and that a cantilevened form of construction was preferable to the concrete called for in the plans set out in the application information. It was also suggested that the sea oats that were in the way of the construction should be relocated seaward on a dune face slope where a denuded area is found. In this connection, the Department is empowered to make suggestions to the applicant concerning the minimization of the adverse impacts on the beach-dune system. Following the site visit of February 26, 1988 the Department wrote the applicant on March 11, 1988 and indicated concerns about the proximity of the dwelling to the crest of the dune. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 5. In the correspondence the Department asked the applicant to move the proposed dwelling 10 feet landward and that the 10 foot wide concrete patio, on the seaward side, be modified to a 10 foot wide wooden deck. The letter told the applicant that the approval would be conditioned on the sea oats and other dune grasses that would be disturbed by the proposed structures being replanted seaward of the project in the denuded areas of the dune. The applicant agreed to these changes. The relocation of the structure 10 feet landward took it away from the beach- dune system. The modified site plan that was brought about by the suggested changes is found Department's Exhibit Number 6, a copy of that amended site plan. With the relocation the construction would be 66 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. An aerial photograph of the site location reference the basic design of the dwelling and the proximity to the relevant or existing coastal construction control line is found as Department's Exhibit Number 3. In responding to the suggestions to the change in location the modified site plan which moved the dwelling 10 feet landward was received by the Department on August 1, 1988. Under this arrangement the applicant had agreed to waive the requirements of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes pertaining to the obligation by the Department to review and decide its action of grant or denial within 90 days of date of receipt of the application. With the changes being made to the location of the proposed dwelling and associated structures and the type of construction materials used in the patio on the seaward side, together with the relocation of the plant life, the impact on the beach-dune system and adjacent property is acceptable. There is no adverse impact on the beach-dune system or on the adjacent properties. The location of the proposed dwelling and its associated structures as it relates to the 30-year erosion projection under the terms of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, in this instance, shows that the dwelling would be approximately 55 feet landward of the 30-year erosion projection and not at risk. Calculations related to this finding may be found within Department's Exhibit Number 7. The existing coastal construction control line dates from January 28, 1988. Although the original application referred to the previous line of 1978 in describing the site plan and survey, the reason for this was that the site plan and survey were prepared prior to the establishment of the January 28, 1988 line, as allowed. In the course of the hearing appropriate reference was made to the January 28, 1988 line as it relates to the anticipated location of the dwelling and other structures as modified at the instigation of the Department. As contemplated by Section 161.053(5)(f), the Department required the applicant to provide mitigation of the- effects of the construction as a condition to a grant of the permit. Those permit conditions may be found in the Department's Exhibit Number 8, a copy of a proposed final order. Included within those would be the requirements for erection of a temporary construction fence on the site to protect existing native dune vegetation from the impacts of that construction, in addition to the requirement of the dune vegetation relocation. This would involve the irrigation and application of fertilizer to those plants with the expectation that a certain percentage would survive over time as described in this special condition. This project will not pose a hazard to the sea turtle and its hatchlings and habitat for the sea turtles and hatchlings. Ms. Butler, Petitioner in this cause, has a beach home which is north of the Williams property separated by a 10 foot easement between those properties. In mid July, 1988 Ms. Butler offered a written statement in opposition to the placement and size of the proposed dwelling together with other remarks and asked that the Department provide her information and documents pertaining to the application under the authority of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. On August 10, 1988 the Department dispatched a letter of inquiry to surrounding property owners to include Ms. Butler and solicited remarks concerning the Williams application to be provided on or about August 20, 1988. Ms. Butler had received certain documents from the Department concerning the application sometime in the middle of August 1988. On August 18, 1988 Butler made known her objection to the project on the grounds that the concerns about the 30-year erosion line and the size and placement of the dwelling. On September 2, 1988 the Department informed Ms. Butler of the intent to grant the permit to Mr. Williams. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5. This led to a timely request for hearing by Ms. Butler stating her opposition to this project. The request was received in accordance with the Department's advice that the request must be filed by September 26, 1988. Based upon the prehearing conference and the discussion of those issues which would be allowed for consideration as stated in the request for hearing and the statement of particulars that attend the request for hearing, commented on by the hearing officer at the commencement of the final hearing, and found within the transcript and further stated in the issues portion to this Recommended Order, this case has been carried forward. The presentation made by the Petitioner, after the Department and applicant had offered their cases, was through her testimony and that of employees of the Department together with exhibits she offered. The testimony of the Department employees concerned the procedural techniques that the agency pursued in reviewing the application at issue. Ms. Butler described her concern for her property, and the area between her property and the Williams property. This is the 10 foot easement area which is sparsely vegetated and low. As a consequence she was concerned that her property might be destroyed with the advent of the Williams construction. She has no expertise in her own right nor did she present expert opinion from other witnesses which would tend to bear out her concern. She also expressed the concern that the Williams home, in its dimensions, was too large and that it should be relocated an additional 10 feet back from the adjusted placement following the Department's criticism of the original application. In effect, she would have the house placed 20 feet away from the sea as compared to the original site plan submitted with the application on February 10, 1988. Again, there is no competent evidence presented which would support her theory that this further relocation was needed. Her expression of concern for the sea turtles and their hatchlings and habitat was not well founded. Turtles are known to nest on the sandy flat beach area and the construction of the Williams property will not interfere with that area adjacent to the ocean.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order which grants a coastal construction control line permit to Harry B. Williams, Jr., based upon his modified plan required by the Department and upon the special permit conditions announced in the proposed final order, a copy of which is found as Department's Exhibit Number 8. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1989.
The Issue Whether Building permit no. 93-2-4072 issued to Respondents William Lledo, Owner, and Key Marine Equipment, Inc., General Contractor by Monroe County violated Monroe County Comprehensive Plan provisions and Land Development Regulations.
Findings Of Fact On April 28, 1996, Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), received Monroe County Permit 93-2-4072 issued to Respondents, William Lledo (Lledo) and Key Marine Equipment, Inc., to construct a seawall with a five-foot wide cap which would serve as a docking facility. The project is proposed to be constructed on an undeveloped piece of real property owned by Lledo. The property is known as Lot 37, Sombrero Anglers Club South Subdivision, Boot Key, Monroe County, Florida. The property is located within the Keys Area of Critical State Concern. The proposed seawall/dock will not be supported by pilings or other supports and will not act to stabilize a disturbed shoreline. The shoreline at the subject property is not eroding. An eroding shoreline shows signs of the water undercutting the shoreline and contains no vegetation on the shoreline and submerged shelf. The subject property’s shoreline and adjacent submerged shelf are vegetated. The project will not be replacing a deteriorating seawall or bulkhead. The project, as proposed, requires the placement of fill in a manmade canal below the mean high water line. No principal use or structure has been established on the property nor is there any plan to construct a principal use on the property.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for the costs and expenses incurred by Respondent in responding to a pollutant discharge, occurring on November 6, 1992, at the waters off John Lloyd State Park, Dania, Florida, and for damages to natural resources resulting from the pollutant discharge.
Findings Of Fact On November 6, 1992, a DC-7 airplane crashed off the Atlantic Coast of Florida, more particularly, 100 yards from John Lloyd State Park, and one quarter of a mile north of Dania Pier in Dania, Florida. The DC-7 was a chartered cargo airplane and had departed from Miami International Airport. The DC-7 was chartered from Claudio Castillo by Miguel Delpino, United States General Manager of Aerochago Airlines, to carry cargo for Aerochago Airlines. Even though Aerochago Airlines owned aircraft, its aircraft was unavailable due to maintenance work being performed. During the flight from Miami International Airport, the DC-7 developed engine trouble, i.e., two of its engines failed. The aircraft began to lose altitude. In an attempt to regain altitude, the captain of the aircraft dumped 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel. However, the DC-7 failed to regain altitude and crashed. Remaining on the crashed aircraft were 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel and 150 gallons of motor oil. When the DC-7 crashed, only the crew and two passengers were on board. One of the passengers was Mr. Castillo. On the same day of the crash, the Florida Marine Patrol (FMP) of the Department of Natural Resources, now the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), arrived at the crash scene at 3:20 a.m. and investigated the crash. The DEP had four employees investigating the crash: three FMP officers and one employee from the Office of Coastal Protection. The remaining aviation fuel and motor oil in the crashed DC-7 was discharging into the coastal waters. The DEP employees attempted to abate the discharge. The equipment necessary for the employees' investigation of the crash and abatement of the discharge and the cost for the equipment were the following: (a) a DEP vehicle at a cost of $7.00; (b) a twin engine vessel at a cost of $120.00; (c) an underwater sealant kit at a cost of $16.66; (d) scuba tanks at a cost of $9.00; and (e) photographs at a cost of $24.00. The total hours expended by DEP's four employees were 36 hours, at a cost of $685.84. Due to the DC-7 leaking aviation fuel and motor oil into Florida's coastal waters, removal of the aircraft from the Atlantic Ocean was necessary. DEP contracted with Resolve Towing and Salvage (RTS) to remove the DC-7. RTS is a discharge cleanup organization approved by DEP. RTS' contractual responsibilities included removal of the entire DC-7 aircraft and all debris within 100 yards of the center of the aircraft; disposal of the aircraft; plugging the engines to help stop the leakage; and removal and delivery of the engines which failed to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). Because the submerged DC-7 was located in an environmentally sensitive coral and sea-plant area, RTS was required to use extreme care in removing the aircraft. The contractual cost was fixed at $34,000.00 A DEP employee, Kent Reetz, was at the scene of the crash during RTS' cleanup. His responsibility was to monitor the removal of the DC-7 by RTS and to ensure that the aircraft's removal was in compliance with DEP's standards. During the removal of the DC-7 from the water, the fuselage ruptured, scattering debris which was dangerous to the public and to the coral and sea-plants. DEP determined that RTS was not responsible for the fuselage rupturing, but that the rupture was caused by several storms, prior to the aircraft's removal, and by the aircraft being submerged for an extended period in salt water. DEP contracted with RTS to remove the dangerous debris emitted when the fuselage ruptured. The contractual cost was fixed at $9,050.00 The total contractual cost between DEP and RTS was $43,050.00. DEP paid RTS from the Coastal Protection Trust Fund. In responding to the pollutant discharge, DEP incurred a total cost of $43,912.50. DEP assessed damages to the natural resources based upon the amount of pollutants discharged which were 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel and 150 gallons of motor oil. Using the statutory formula, DEP assessed damages to the natural resources in the amount of $57,898.72. Based upon the costs incurred by DEP in responding to the pollutant discharge in the amount of $43,912.50 and the damages to the natural resources in the amount of $57,898.72, DEP sought reimbursement and compensation from Mr. Castillo in the total amount of $101,811.22. DEP invoiced Mr. Castillo for reimbursement of the costs and for compensation for the damages. DEP provided Mr. Castillo with detailed and itemized expense documents for the costs that it had incurred in responding to the pollutant discharge. The documents showed the expenses incurred, what each expense represented, and the formula for computing each expense. Further, DEP provided Mr. Castillo with a document showing the amount of the damages to the natural resources, the formula for computing the damages, and how the damages were computed. The charter of November 6, 1992, was not the first time that Mr. Delpino had chartered the same DC-7 from Mr. Castillo. Prior to and, again, at the previous charter, Mr. Castillo represented to Mr. Delpino that he, Mr. Castillo, was the owner of the DC-7. The owner of a chartered aircraft is responsible for obtaining the aircraft's crew and insurance and for maintaining the aircraft. For the previous charter, Mr. Castillo was responsible for obtaining the DC-7's crew and the insurance and for maintaining the aircraft. Mr. Delpino had no reason to expect the charter for November 6, 1992, to be any different. Furthermore, Mr. Castillo did not inform Mr. Delpino that the responsibilities would be different. For the present charter, as before, Mr. Castillo handled all matters relating to the crew, insurance, and maintenance. Regarding the insurance, Mr. Castillo presented to Mr. Delpino an insurance certificate which, after the crash, was discovered to be false. Also, regarding maintenance, prior to the crash, the two engines which failed were to be removed and repaired, but, although they were removed, they were returned without being repaired. Mr. Castillo was the owner of the DC-7. Also, the crash of the DC-7 was investigated by several federal governmental agencies, including the FAA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the NTSB. Both the Coast Guard and the NTSB issued reports on the crash, which identified Mr. Castillo as the owner of the DC-7. Mr. Castillo was responsible for the discharge of the 3,000 gallons of aviation fuel and 150 gallons of motor oil from the DC-7 into Florida's coastal waters.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) enter a final order assessing Claudio Castillo $43,912.50 for costs related to DEP responding to the pollutant discharge on November 6, 1992, at Florida's coastal waters off John Lloyd State Park, Dania, Florida, and $57,898.72 for damages to natural resources resulting from the pollutant discharge--all totaling $101,811.22. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On March 30, 1981, the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, received a request from William H. Griffith to allow him to place "rip-rap" adjacent to a retaining wall which fronts Griffith's property. Griffith is a resident at 259 Sabine Drive, Pensacola Beach, Florida. This residence address is in Escambia County, Florida. The details of the application for permit are as set forth in Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 3, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the application. The application as originally constituted requested that Griffith be allowed to place "rip-rap" material along the front of his property adjacent to the retaining wall which wall was approximately 140 feet in length. The depth of the "rip-rap" material was to be 30 feet with an approximate height of the material being 3 feet. The "rip-rap" material was to be constituted of concrete test block cylinders which are 6 to 8 inches in diameter by 12 to 14 inches in length, together with other aggregate material constituted of irregularly shaped chunks of concrete. Those materials are depicted in the Petitioner's Exhibit 1A through H which are photographs taken at the site of the proposed project. Subsequent to the submission of the application for permit, a modification was made which reduced the depth of the "rip-rap" material from 39 feet to 10 feet 6 inches. This modification occurred sometime in May, 1981, and is depicted in the Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 3. The proposed project, in its modified form, would involve navigable waters of the State. Specifically, it would involve Class II waters, namely the intercoastal waterway which is fronted by the Respondent Griffith's property. A sketch of this location in Escambia County is depicted in the item entitled "vicinity map" which is part of Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 3. The purpose of the "rip-rap" as it is presently contemplated through the project would be to prohibit tidal erosion of the Respondent Griffith's property, in the area of his beach front, particularly as it is exacerbated by seasonal winds. A permit application appraisal was made by the Department and was concluded on July 27, 1981. A copy of that appraisal may be found as the Respondent Department's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. Through the process of the permit review and appraisal, the Department requested that the applicant remove four "rip-rap" groins running perpendicular to the retaining wall, which were 20 to 30 feet long. Those groins were not acceptable to the Department as devices to prohibit erosion. Respondent Griffith has removed the majority of the fill material and the present design contemplates the total removal of those groins. At the time of the permit review and at present the existing retaining wall is located 8 to 10 feet landward of the approximate mean high water shoreline. If constructed the 10 foot 6 inch depth "rip-rap" fill structure would extend approximately 2 feet waterward of the approximate mean high water shoreline. A description of the flora and fauna located at the project site, together with general description of the soil types may be found in Respondent Department's Exhibit 1. The impact of the project as described in the permit application appraisal, Respondent Department's Exhibit 1, indicates that the placement of "rip-rap" would stabilize the eroding shoreline adjacent to the applicant's property; provide moderate amounts of substrate to act as a habitat and shelter for intertidal organisms; would act as a limited inhibitor to littoral sand transport, particularly as related to Petitioner Gibson's property, in that there will be some deprivation of sand transport onto the Gibson property until the "rip-rap" stabilizes; however, this deprivation of sand transport of the Gibson property is not substantial. The impact on the Gibson property is further described in the appraisal statement as being insignificant. (It is also suggested that Gibson utilize "rip-rap" as opposed to the vertical timber retaining wall which is in place at his property and is subject to being undermined by tidal pressures.) These perceptions as set forth in the Department's permit application appraisal are factually correct. Having conducted the permit review and being of the opinion that the permit should be issued, the Department sent a letter of intent to issue the permit on July 29, 1981, and served Petitioner Gibson with a copy. The permit document was also forwarded to the applicant. The letter of intent and permit document may be found in Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 5, which was admitted into evidence. This exhibit is a copy of the aforementioned items. Subsequent to the notification of the intent to grant, Petitioner Gibson requested a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which Petition, in its final form, may be found as Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence, which is a copy of the verified Petition of the Petitioner. The hearing was then noticed and conducted on November 10, 1981, pursuant to the hearing notice, a copy of which may be found as Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. The project as contemplated will not have a significant negative impact on the flora and fauna. To the extent that there is some destruction by the placement of the "rip-rap" material, this destruction is more than offset by the provision of habitat and shelter for intertidal organisms. The placement of the "rip-rap" will not have a negative impact on water quality in the waters of the State which are adjacent to the Respondent Griffith's property and in which the "rip-rap" will be implaced to the extent of approximately 2 feet waterward of the approximate mean high water shoreline. Should the "rip-rap" material not be placed, shoreline erosion will continue in the area of the applicant's property and that of the Petitioner. The placement of the "rip-rap" is not a hazard to navigation nor in conflict with the public interest. The applicant has received necessary approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for the installation of the "rip-rap" material as may be seen by the grant of a permit from the Corps, a copy of which is found as Respondent Griffith's Exhibit 4, admitted into evidence.
