Findings Of Fact Background Petitioner is incorporated in the State of Florida as a not-for-profit corporation. The corporate purpose of Petitioner includes the improvement of environmental health. Petitioner's activities in this regard are especially focused upon Manatee and Sarasota Counties, including the City of Bradenton (Bradenton). Petitioner has about 2500 members. Members of Petitioner reside in Bradenton. These persons use the water and roads adjacent to Perico Island. Insubstantial evidence suggests that Petitioner, through its members, submitted oral objections to Bradenton at anytime during the planning process. Petitioner mailed a letter dated March 7, 1989, to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) with a copy sent to Bradenton. The letter clearly constitutes written objections to the proposed plan. Bradenton initially received the March 7 letter on March 9. It is difficult to determine whether Bradenton received a copy of the March 7 letter after the issuance of the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) by DCA. Even if Bradenton received a copy of the March 7 letter prior to the issuance of the ORC, it is impossible to determine if Bradenton received another copy of the letter with the ORC, which may contain numerous attachments consisting of the comments of other parties. The ORC was not introduced into evidence. The only indication in the record, including pleadings, of the date of the ORC is in Exhibit 2 attached to the Deposition of Robert Pennock, which itself is City Exhibit 6. Exhibit 2, which is a letter from DCA to Bradenton, mentions the ORC dated March 17, 1989. This date would be at the outside of the range for DCA to submit an ORC in response to a proposed plan transmitted, as in the present case, on November 23, 1988. 9/ By Request for Admission served November 21, 1990, Petitioner requested Bradenton to admit: "that [Petitioner] submitted written objections to [Bradenton's plan] which [Bradenton] received after it received DCA's ORC report." Bradenton's response to the request, in its entirety, states: The City has received a copy of the correspondence relating to possible "objections" to the City's Plan that were mailed directly to [DCA]. The date of that correspondence was March 7, 1989 and addressed to Robert G. Nave, Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, and was written by Attorney Thomas W. Reese. By date stamp on the copy of the correspondence in the possession of the City, it is believed that the document was received on March 9, 1989. The City does not admit that the correspondence of March 7, 1989 from Mr. Reese to Mr. Nave meets the intent of the statute for establishing standing and to the contrary, does not comply and does not establish such standing. The response ignores the portion of the request directed toward the factual question of the order in which Bradenton received the March 7 letter and the ORC. The significance of the chronology, as opposed merely to the acknowledgement of receipt of the March 7 letter, may have been lost upon Petitioner's counsel, who inexplicably asserted in opening statement that the ORC was issued on December 19, 1988. Transcript, page 57. Given the probable chronology of events recited in the preceding footnote, one of the few certainties concerning this matter is that the ORC was not issued on December 19, 1988. Intervenor is a Delaware corporation that owns property in Bradenton. Intervenor owns the western peninsula of Perico Island, which is described in detail below. Intervenor submitted oral or written objections to Bradenton not later than the transmittal hearing on November 23, 1988. Prior to transmitting the proposed plan to DCA, Bradenton removed the coastal high hazard designation from much of the western peninsula of Perico Island and changed the designation of the affected land to ten units per acre. Bradenton is a municipality located in western Manatee County. The city, which straddles the mouth of the Braden River to the east, generally lies along the southern bank of the Manatee River less than three miles upstream from where it empties into lower Tampa Bay. Wares Creek runs from south to north through the center of Bradenton and empties into the Manatee River. Palma Sola Bay divides the majority of the city from Perico Island. The southern half of Perico Island, which consists of eastern and western peninsulas, is within the city limits. Perico Island, which is generally bounded on the west by Anna Maria Sound and Sarasota Pass, is located between Tampa Bay to the north and Sarasota Bay to the south. Barrier islands to the west, most notably Anna Maria Island, tend to protect Bradenton from direct Gulf waves. On August 1, 1989, Bradenton adopted its comprehensive plan (Plan). As Bradenton noted accurately in its cover letter to DCA, no DCA representative attended the final adoption hearing on July 26, 1989, although Bradenton had requested that DCA send a representative to the hearing. 10/ On September 16, 1991, DCA issued a notice of intent to find the Plan in compliance. Designation of Coastal High Hazard Area Data and Analysis The Data and Analysis 11/ contains a Coastal Area Map, which is on page 150 of the Plan. The map depicts those areas below two feet elevation as the Coastal High Hazard Area. The map shows that the Coastal High Hazard Area includes about one-half of the western peninsula of Perico Island and relatively thin strips along the south and east borders of the eastern peninsula of Perico Island. The only other portions of Bradenton designated as Coastal High Hazard Area are parts of islands in the Braden River and two small parcels on the west bank of the Braden River. The Data and Analysis does not further address the Coastal High Hazard Area. In particular, the Data and Analysis fails to explain why the two-foot elevation was selected to define the Coastal High Hazard Area. The Data and Analysis does not mention the location of the Federal Emergency Management Agency velocity zone (V-zone) or the Department of Natural Resources Coastal Construction Control Line. The portion of Perico Island within the city is bounded on the north by State Road 64. Immediately north of State Road 64, the remainder of Perico Island is in unincorporated Manatee County. The Manatee County comprehensive plan designates the entire island north of the road as coastal high hazard area. However, the county plan notes extends the coastal high hazard area to the five- foot contour. The county plan also divides the coastal high hazard area into two areas: the more critical area, which corresponds to the V-zone, that is subject to wave action and the less critical area that is subject to storm- induced damage. Some testimony suggests that the Manatee County plan has more stringent land use constraints for land uses within the V-zone than for land uses elsewhere within the county's coastal high hazard area. Nothing in the record indicates the extent of the V-zone over any part of Perico Island. Early in the consideration by the City Council of the proposed plan, the coastal high hazard area included all land seaward of four feet elevation. The four-foot contour had been selected because of data suggesting that the "spring high tide" runs to an elevation of 3.62 feet, which was rounded up because Bradenton had only one-foot contour maps. By letter dated November 16, 1988, a representative of Intervenor complained that the four-foot contour was "scientifically unjustified and legally unsupportable." The letter states: Only a portion of the westerly peninsula is in the [V-zone] and even that portion of the property could be partially used with proper construction safeguards. The staff position of four feet seems to be based upon the fact that spring high tide occurs at elevation 3.56 feet but no one knows where that elevation occurs on this property nor does anyone know where the elevation 4.0 feet occurs on this property. The relationship between spring high tide and coastal high hazard is likewise unestablished. Bradenton's Chief of Planning and Zoning, Margaret Swanson, testified that the two-foot contour line "definitely" includes the entire V-zone. Deposition of Margaret Swanson, page 48. Jerry West, Bradenton Planning and Development Director and Ms. Swanson's supervisor, testified likewise at the hearing. Transcript, page 90. Petitioner produced no contrary evidence as to the location of the V- zone or the Coastal Construction Control Line. Likewise, there is no evidence that either peninsula has historically experienced destruction or severe damage from storm surge, waves, erosion, or other manifestations of rapidly moving or storm driven water. The spring high tide appears to be an unusual event, perhaps even occurring less often than annually. The evidence fails to link the spring high tide with destruction or severe damage from rapidly moving or storm driven water anywhere in Bradenton. Plan Provisions Coastal Management/Conservation Element (Coastal) Goal 5 states: Use of coastal areas in a way which preserves natural systems, provides for public access, and minimizes storm and flood hazards to population and property, including public facilities. Objective 1: Severely limit development in low lying coastal areas. Policy 1: A coastal high-hazard area shall be established through the Land Use and Development Regulations to include all coastal lands along the Braden and Manatee Rivers and Palma Sola Bay which are below 2 feet in elevation. Policy 2: Establish a conservation zone including all conservation lands as shown on the Future Land Use Map and all undeveloped areas below the Coastal High Hazard Line (2-foot contour line) and prohibit construction of building, roadways and parking areas in that zone except to provide shoreline access points as determined necessary or of overriding public interest by City Council. . . . Policy 3: Prohibit the filling of coastal areas below the 2-foot contour line except in cases where such lands are completely separated from the shoreline by land of higher elevation or where determined necessary or of overriding public interest by City Council. Policy 4: The City shall not locate infrastructure in the Coastal High Hazard Area (below the 2-foot contour line) except as determined necessary or of overriding public interest by City Council. * * * Objective 5: Keep population and investment low in areas vulnerable to coastal flooding. Policy 1: Designate undeveloped coastal acreage with areas below the 8-foot elevation contour line as PDP (planned development project) and limit residential development to low density below the 8-foot contour. Limit non-residential development below the 8-foot contour line to water dependent uses. Policy 2: Locate all public facilities outside of the coastal high hazard area. * * * Policy 4: Discourage the location of high density residential projects, public housing, housing for the elderly, mobile homes and group homes in high priority hurricane evacuation zones through the Land Use and Development Regulations. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates as Conservation all of the land on Perico Island below the two-foot contour. According to Policy 1 under Objective 1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), the "Recreational/Conservation" designation is for "[p]arks, designated open areas and conservation." No residential uses are permitted in the Recreation/Conservation category. The only FLUE goal is: A land use pattern which promotes the well being of the community in regard to compatibility of adjacent uses, building types and residential densities, efficiency of utilities and roadways, harmony with the natural environment and protection from natural hazards. Objective 1: Location of new development and redevelopment in a manner conducive to compatibility of land uses, sensitive to natural resources and natural hazards and consistent with the availability of public facilities. * * * Housing Element (Housing) Policy 1 under Objective 1 is: Designate vacant tracts of land for residential use on the future land use map except where unsuitable for that use because of incompatible adjacent existing uses, inappropriate elevation or drainage conditions or other safety hazard. State Plan Provisions There are no relevant provisions of the State Plan with which the Coastal High Hazard Area is arguably inconsistent. Designation of Ten Units Per Acre on Western Peninsula of Perico Island Data and Analysis The Data and Analysis identifies Perico Island and the islands of the Braden River as the two areas of major environmental concern in Bradenton. The Data and Analysis states: The value of these lands is that they are coastal lands with abundant sea life and habitat. In an urbanized area where much of the natural shoreline has been destroyed, these remaining lands should be protected because of their intrinsic value as well as because of their dwindling supply. Plan, page 157. The Data and Analysis notes that Perico Island is entirely within the 100-year flood zone and is less than five feet above sea level with "large areas" below the mean high water line. The western peninsula of Perico Island is lower than the eastern peninsula. The highest elevation on the western peninsula is five feet, which is within 100 feet of State Road 64. The elevation of most of the upland beyond 100 feet of the road is less than three feet. The elevation of much of the interior of the eastern peninsula is 3-4 feet. Although Perico Island contains Australian Pine and Brazilian Pepper, which are nuisance exotics, the Data and Analysis explains that valuable natural habitat remains: A great diversity of animal and plant life is found on the island[, including roseate spoonbills, brown pelicans, osprey, and an occasional bald eagle]. The mangrove swamps, mud flats, and marine grass flats fringing Perico Island support a variety of marine life including commercial and game fishing species such as mullet, trout, redfish, and snook, as well as shellfish. Plan, page 158. The habitat of the endangered West Indian Manatee includes the coastal areas in question. In addition to the above-noted animal species that are listed as endangered, threatened, or of special concern, the threatened butterfly orchid is also found on Perico Island. The Data and Analysis reports that Palma Sola Bay is a Class II waterbody, which means that it is suitable for shellfishing. Although it has not been approved for such purpose, its waters regularly satisfy Class II standards with only an occasional violation of the Class II bacteriological standards. According to the Data and Analysis, Palma Sola Bay has been designated as part of the Sarasota Bay Estuary of National Significance. Plan, page 98. Both Anna Maria Sound and Palma Sola Bay are part of the Sarasota Bay estuarine system and, as such, are Outstanding Florida Waters. 12/ Concluding its discussion of the two areas of major environmental concern to Bradenton, the Data and Analysis states: As with Perico Island, the Braden River and its wetlands are an invaluable natural resource. Such tidal wetlands not only reduce water pollution by filtering pollutant-laden runoff, but also influence water quantity by retaining water during dry periods and absorbing it during flooding. Wetlands also stabilize the shoreline and act as a hurricane buffer. They provide essential breeding, nesting, resting areas for myriad fish and bird species and support a diverse food web extending to terrestrial animals as well. ... Plan, page 159. The Coastal Vegetation map shows that the portion of the western peninsula corresponding roughly with the Coastal High Hazard Area is vegetated by coastal wetlands with considerable mangrove growth. Plan, page 151. Perico Island is one of "three areas where future development will impact the coastal area." Plan, page 160a. The Data and Analysis notes that an historic shell mound on the western peninsula must be "protect[ed from r]esidential development." However, the designation of the western peninsula at ten units per acre, as necessarily conceded by Mr. West, is not a low density. The Data and Analysis surmises that the impact of future development on at least the eastern peninsula of Perico Island is largely unavoidable: Because of a Development Order issued on a 1975 Development of Regional Impact application, the conditions of development are established and little can be done to modify them to meet the policies of this plan. Id. The Data and Analysis describes the 1975 development order as: authoriz[ing] 1512 dwelling units and a neighborhood commercial center and call[ing] for the preservation of lands below the 1.5 foot elevation and in an historic shell mound on the western peninsula of the site. Development of the western peninsula was prohibited by the approval stipulations. Plan, page 158. At the time of the application for what is known as the Spoonhill Bay DRI, Intervenor or an affiliate of Intervenor owned both peninsulas. After obtaining the development order, Intervenor sold all or part of the eastern peninsula to developers, but retained the western peninsula. The application for development approval was for a total of 1776 units on 102.6 acres. The entire land area was about 546 acres with 171 acres of mangroves conservation, 200 acres of marine conservation, 10 acres of historic preservation, almost 2 acres of neighborhood commercial, 26 acres of lakes, and 35 acres of other open space and recreation. The map accompanying the application shows two sites for historic conservation, both evidently above the two-foot contour line. According to the DRI application, both peninsulas of Perico Island contain about 184 acres above the 1.5-foot contour. The western peninsula encompasses 114 acres with about 10-16 acres higher than 1.5 to 2 feet in elevation. According to the application, the dwelling units per gross acre would be 3.2 and the dwelling units per net acre would be 9.7. The gross acreage density is based on total acres, including mangroves, lakes, and marine conservation. The net acreage density is impossible to calculate from the information provided. 13/ The development order, which was approved May 28, 1975, by the Bradenton City Council, approves the development subject to the following conditions: The developer shall initiate a positive program for the long run protection of the ecologically important undeveloped areas of the site. . . . * * * 3. The applicant shall work in consultation with the State Division of Archives, History and Records Management to insure the protection and preservation of the two sites of historical and archaeological significance found on the project site. Protection of the Indian Mound area shall be by deed, dedication, or other appropriate legal instrument to insure that such sites are preserved in perpetuity. * * * 5. With respect to responsibility for roadway improvements outlined in the transportation section of the DRI report: * * * (d) To further reduce traffic impact of the project, no residential development as originally proposed by the developer will be carried out on the westerly peninsula of the developer's property. ... Total number of residential units as proposed shall be reduced by 15% from 1,778 units to 1,512 units, all to be located on the easterly peninsula. * * * 7. Developer shall furnish at no cost to City not less than one acre site to accommodate governmental services that will be generated by the development, e.g., fire, police, etc. Site location shall be subject to approval of both parties. The Data and Analysis includes among "acreage not presently slated for development . . . 10 acres, western peninsula, Perico Island[,] includes Mangrove areas, low-lying areas and an Indian shell mound." Plan, page 12. However, the Data and Analysis determines that this area is "suitable for development," which means that the land is "above mean high water line and is served by public facilities." Plan, page 14. The soils map shows that the entire western peninsula, as well as the western half of the eastern peninsula, is characterized by nearly level, very poorly drained sandy and organic soils in tidal mangrove swamps. Plan, page 13. The soils of the western peninsula and western half of the eastern peninsula of Perico Island, as well as the soils of the Braden River islands, are the only soils in Bradenton that are generally "very poorly drained" and account for very little of the land area of the city. Both peninsulas of Perico Island are identified as Neighborhood 12.04 in the Plan. In the discussion of Neighborhood 12.04, the Data and Analysis states that a condition of the development order "was that the smaller of the two peninsulas is not to be developed because of environmentally sensitive and historically significant areas as well as traffic impacts." Plan, page 97. The Data and Analysis notes that the two shell middens, which date from "prehistoric times," have been damaged by erosion and amateur excavation. But the Data and Analysis recommends that the Indian mounds be professionally excavated or protected "because of their potential value in adding to the small amount of information available about prehistoric settlements in this area." Plan, page 97. The Data and Analysis notes that approved development has provided 600 units through 1986 at a density of 6.3 units per acre. As of that time, 116 acres were in residential use, one acre in commercial use, and 70 acres were vacant. The Data and Analysis projects that 800 units will have been constructed by 1990. In discussing Neighborhood 12.04, the Data and Analysis reports that no public recreation areas are proposed for the development, which will be served exclusively by private recreation areas. In addition, State Road 64 is the hurricane evacuation route for Perico Island as well as Anna Maria Island, which is also served by another escape route. The discussion of Neighborhood 12.04 concludes with several recommendations. Among them are the following: Require the preservation of and protection of the historic shell middens on the western peninsula if the peninsula is ever developed. Strictly enforce the flood protection ordinance for development of the island. Require mangrove and water quality protection as part of development approvals. Hurricane evacuation and traffic impacts on State Road 64 shall be considered as an important issue in review of applications for development approval. Any applications by property owners to increase the density of development in the neighborhood shall be denied. Participate in the studies of Sarasota and Palma Sola Bays under the National Estuary Program and utilize the recommendations coming forth from that program to the extent possible. Nothing in this Plan shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any development that has been authorized as a development of regional impact pursuant to Chapter 380 or who has been issued a final local development order, and development has commenced and is continuing in good faith. Any amendments to the development order for the Development of Regional Impact shall comply with or require compliance with all of the policies of this plan particularly those concerning protection of environmentally and historically sensitive lands, the coastal high hazard area and hurricane vulnerability zone. Plan, pages 98-99. The Evacuation Map shows that all of Perico Island is in Evacuation Zone A. Plan, page 153. This is the highest priority evacuation zone in Bradenton. This zone also encompasses bands of land along the Manatee River and both shorelines of the Braden River. Additional data and analysis are included in the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program for Tampa Bay published on August 30, 1988 (SWIM Plan). The SWIM Plan notes that the Tampa Bay estuary, of which Anna Maria Sound, Palma Sola Bay, and the Manatee and Braden Rivers are a part, suffers from interconnected problems, including habitat destruction (e.g., dredging, filling, hardened shorelines); water quality inclusive of eutrophication (e.g., point and non-point stormwater runoff, municipal and industrial effluents, septage); [and] altered freshwater inputs (e.g., dams, withdrawals). SWIM Plan, page 1. Addressing the functions of area wetlands, the SWIM Plan states: In addition to their contributions to the biology of the marine ecosystems, coastal and estuarine wetlands play an important role in modifying the geologic and hydrographic characteristics of the area. Acting as baffles, roots and leaves reduce the velocity of water over the bottom causing suspended particles to settle out and become trapped at the base of the plants. In this way mangroves, marshes, and seagrasses reduce turbidity, increase sedimentation rates, stabilize sediments, and attenuate wave action on adjacent shorelines. The binding and stabilization characteristics of these habitats are documented by reports of some coastal marshes and seagrass meadows surviving the destructive scouring forces of coastal storms and hurricanes in the Gulf states. SWIM Plan, page 23. However, these wetland systems "face increasing pressure from development of all types," notwithstanding the Warren S. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act of 1984. SWIM Plan, page 27. The water quality is directly threatened by the nutrients introduced into the water by, among other things, untreated stormwater runoff and the "extensive transformation of rural uplands to urban uses." SWIM Plan, pages 26-27. Plan Provisions The FLUM contains only two residential categories. All of Perico Island above the Coastal High Hazard Area is designated "Residential--maximum 10 units per acre." The other category permits up to 15 units per acre. FLUE Policy 1 under Objective 1 describes the Residential categories as follows: Residential with densities limited to 15 units per acre in the high density area and 10 units per acre in the moderate density area and limited by recommendations by neighborhood in this plan. . . . Neighborhood commercial uses permitted as part of the residential development plan. .. . FLUE Policy 2 under Objective 1 is: The recommendations for each neighborhood contained in this plan are hereby adopted as part of this plan and are to be adhered to in all land use decisions to be made by the City. FLUE Policy 3 under Objective 1 states: The future land use map, neighborhood recommendations and all other relevant policies under this plan are to be used as a basis for the revision of the land use and development regulations, including the zoning atlas. FLUE Objective 3 provides: Management of future development through adoption and enforcement of regulations which promote the use of land in a manner sensitive to public health and safety and to soils and topography. FLUE Objective 4 and relevant policies are: Objective 4: Limitation of population in first priority hurricane evacuation zones identified in the local and regional hurricane evacuation plan. Policy 1: Deny requests for increases in density on property approved for development if the property is located in the first priority regional hurricane evacuation zone. Policy 2: On the Braden River islands, designate as conservation area all lands below the 2 ft. contour line, and allow only recreational/open space or residential use at a gross density maximum of 3 units per acre on the uplands. Coastal Goal 2 is "[i]mprovement of surface water quality." Objective 1 is: "Preservation of water quality cleansing and erosion control capabilities of natural, vegetated shorelines." Policy 4 is to "[r]equire by ordinance by December 1, 1989 best management practices for erosion control during and after land alteration projects." Coastal Objective 2 under Goal 2 is: "Reduction of pollutant loads reaching waterways from urban stormwater." Policy 2 defers to land development regulations the job of establishing standards for new developments to "provide on-site detention and filtration of stormwater runoff to remove oils, silt, sediment, nutrients, and heavy metals, and [to] require erosion control during construction." Coastal Goal 4 provides: "Protection and enhancement of wildlife habitat and vegetation." Objective 1 deals with the Braden River estuary and islands and includes policies restricting development to uplands, generally prohibiting the removal of wetlands vegetation, and requiring that development proceed as a planned development project "to ensure site-sensitive planning and review." No similar provisions apply to Perico Island. Coastal Objective 2 under Goal 4 is: "Preservation of wetlands, including coastal wetlands vegetation, living marine resources and wildlife habitat." Policy 1 states: "[b]y December 1, 1989 adopt regulations to prohibit the removal of wetland vegetation except for limited access points." Policy 2 is, "[b]y December 1, 1989 require that development approvals for land with wetland area stipulate wetland protection measures to ensure that upland construction and land use do no affect the wetlands." Policy 3 states: "[b]y December 1, 1989 adopt regulations to require the identification of wildlife habitats as part of planned development project applications and . . . provide mechanisms to require protection of valuable habitat." Policy 5 provides: "[b]y December 1, 1989 adopt regulations to limit disturbance of seagrass beds by prohibiting development and land uses in seagrass areas and where they will result in an increase in boating in seagrass areas except where necessary to maintain existing facilities." Policy 7 is to develop with Manatee County a management plan for the Braden River estuary, Manatee River, and Palma Sola Bay. Policy 8 is to adopt by ordinance, within six months of their issuance, the recommendations of the Sarasota Bay National Estuary Program. Coastal Goal 6 is: "Fast evacuation prior to natural disasters such as hurricanes." Objective 1 is a "workable evacuation plan, geared toward maintaining present evacuation times." Goal 4 of the Public Facilities Element (PFE) provides: "Prevention of flood damage and improvement of surface water quality." PFE Objective 1 under Goal 4 sets forth the following provisions concerning drainage level of service standards. Policy 1a. The peak discharge rate from new development shall be equal to or less than the peak discharge rate that existed prior to development based on a 25-year frequency, 24-hour duration storm event. * * * Policy 1c. Internal or on-site drainage facilities of developments shall be designed to accommodate the stormwater resulting from a design storm of 10-year frequency, critical duration, based on the project site's time of concentration. Policy 2: The applicability of the level of service standards to various types and sizes of private development shall be set forth in the land use and development regulations adopted by December 1, 1989. PFE Objective 4 under Goal 4 is: "Nondegradation of capacity of natural drainage features." Policy 1 states: All new developments shall be required by land use regulations adopted by December 1, 1989 to provide stormwater retention and drainage facilities to curb increased runoff to natural drainage features. PFE Objective 5 under Goal 4 is: "Upgrading of existing drainage facilities to meet future needs." Policy 1 states: Stormwater facility improvements as proposed in the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Study, 1981 and subsequent updates shall be scheduled into the Capital Improvements program. 14/ State Plan Provisions The relevant provisions of the State Plan are set forth in Findings of Fact Paragraphs 74 et seq. Stormwater Provisions Plan Provisions Already cited above, PFE Goal 4; PFE Objectives 1, 4, and 5, as well as various policies under these objectives; Coastal Goal 2, Objective 2 under Goal 2, Policy 2 under Objective 2; and Housing Policy 1 under Objective 1 address stormwater and drainage. PFE Goal 1 is: Provision of public facilities in a manner which protects investments in existing facilities, promotes orderly, compact urban growth, and promotes the quality of natural resources, particularly surface waters. PFE Objective 1 and Policy 1 under Goal 1 are to maintain the applicable level of service standards for public facilities and not to issue development orders if the issuance would result in a violation of a level of service standard. PFE Objective 2 under Goal 4 is: "Correction of existing stormwater facility deficiencies by the year 2010." Policy 1 is: Stormwater facility improvements as proposed in the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Study 1981 hereby adopted as an appendix to this plan and subsequent updates shall be scheduled into the Capital Improvements program. PFE Objective 3 under Goal 4 is: "Water conservation through use of stormwater runoff for irrigation." SWIM Plan Provisions The SWIM Plan provides as follows with respect to water quality: Initiative 1. Reduce point and non-point source pollutant loadings to attain water quality necessary to restore and maintain healthy and productive natural systems, protect human health, and . . . attain the highest possible water use classification. * * * 1.c. Urban Stormwater Management Strategies: --Reduce the levels of nutrients and other contaminants in urban stormwater runoff by requiring, if feasible, that the quality of stormwater discharges be no worse than the State water quality criteria or the existing quality of the receiving water body, whichever is better. The feasibility of implementing this objective will be examined through a review of federal, state, District, and local rules pertaining to stormwater management. * * * --For all new upland development or redevelopment within the Tampa Bay watershed, runoff rates should not exceed those of natural, undisturbed conditions. The feasibility of implementing this objective will be examined through a review of federal, state, District, and local rules pertaining to stormwater management. Perico Island, Anna Maria Sound, and Palma Sola Bay, as well as the Manatee and Braden Rivers, are within the jurisdiction of the Southwest Florida Water Management District's SWIM program for Tampa Bay. State Plan Provisions Section 187.201(8) addresses water resources. The goal is to "maintain the functions of natural systems and the overall present level of surface and ground water quality." Policy 8 is to "[e]ncourage the development of a strict floodplain management program by state and local governments designed to preserve hydrologically significant wetlands and other natural floodplain features." Policy 12 is to "[e]liminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater runoff into the waters of the state." Section 187.201(9) addresses coastal and marine resources. The goal includes ensuring that development does not "endanger . . . important natural resources." Policy 4 is to "[p]rotect coastal resources [and] marine resources from the adverse effects of development." Policy 6 is to "[e]ncourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources." Policy 7 is to "[p]rotect and restore long-term productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources." Section 187.201(16) addresses land use. The goal is to direct development to those areas that have, among other things, the "land and water resources . . . to accommodate growth in an environmentally sensitive manner." Policy 6 is to "[c]onsider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity; the availability of land, water, and other natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding." Section 187.201(22) addresses the economy. The goal is to "promote an economic climate which provides economic stability, maximizes job opportunities, and increase per capita income for its residents." Policy 3 is to "[m]aintain, as one of the state's primary economic assets, the environment, including clean air and water, beaches, forests, historic landmarks, and agricultural and natural resources." Historic Provisions Data and Analysis The Data and Analysis discloses that 85 structures in Bradenton were added to the Florida Master Site File following an historic survey in 1980. As a result of the survey, two historic districts were established: Downtown Bradenton and Old Manatee. The Data and Analysis reports that the Braden Castle ruins and Braden Castle Tourist Camp are included on the National Register of Historic Places. Plan Provisions The sole goal of the Historic Preservation Element (Historic) is: "To preserve Bradenton's architectural heritage as part of the effort to redevelop the old portions of the City." Historic Objective 1 is: "Disseminate information on the historic-architectural resources of the community and of the incentives for preservation and restoration of these resources." Historic Objective 2 is: "Restoration of historic structures and sites." Historic Objective 3 is: "Encourage other governmental agencies to consider historic and architectural value when taking actions affecting such properties in Bradenton and to modify their actions as to enhance rather than detract from these resources." Historic Policies include the dissemination of information pertinent to historic preservation, allowance of exemptions from the building code for certain historic rehabilitation, and cooperation with other governmental agencies in historic preservation efforts. Miscellaneous Provisions Plan Provisions Regarding Level of Service Standard for Recreational Facilities Recreation Element (Recreation) Objective 3 is: Provision of neighborhood parks located within walking distance of population served and having adequate acreage and facilities to serve the size and type of population served. Recreation Policies under Objective 3 include: Policy 1: One acre of neighborhood park per 500 people shall be the level of service standard for recreation. Policy 2: A neighborhood park shall be defined as a parcel of land of a half-acre or more located within a half-mile of the population served and having the following minimum improvements: benches, trees, open or grassy areas and play or exercise equipment facilities geared to the type of population served. Policy 3: Land use and development regulations adopted pursuant to this plan will require new residential development to provide recreation areas which meet the needs of that development based upon the adopted level of service standard for neighborhood parks. Such recreations shall serve in lieu of public neighborhood parks for new development. Plan Provisions Regarding Scheduling of Capital Improvements Necessary to Attain Level of Service D for Roads There are no roads identified in the Traffic Circulation Element (Traffic) for which Bradenton has jurisdiction that are projected not to achieve a level of service of D or better. The Data and Analysis states that seven road segments in Bradenton will attain a level of service standard worse than D during the planning timeframe. Plan, pages 125-27. However, the Data and Analysis indicates that the federal, state, or county has jurisdiction over each of these segments. Plan, page 114. Ultimate Findings of Fact Designation of Coastal High Hazard Area Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of the Coastal High Hazard Area is inconsistent with the criterion of supporting data and analysis. The Data and Analysis fails to indicate whether the Coastal High Hazard Area encompasses at least the V-zone or the land seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. However, Petitioner has failed to prove that the Coastal High Hazard Area excludes any part of the V-zone or the land seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Testimony suggests that the Coastal High Hazard Area includes at least the V-zone. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of the Coastal High Hazard Area is inconsistent with the criterion of the use of available appropriate data concerning historic damage and scientifically predicted damage of moving or storm driven water. The record contains no substantial evidence as to qualifying damage or destruction to areas outside the V-zone or landward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Petitioner has failed to prove that the designation of the Coastal High Hazard Area is inconsistent with Plan provisions to protect coastal resources, protect the public from natural disasters, and maintain and hurricane evacuation times. Likewise, Petitioner has failed to prove that the designation of the Coastal High Hazard Area is inconsistent with provisions of the State Plan concerning housing, public safety, water resources, natural systems and recreational lands, land use, and governmental efficiency. As noted above, Petitioner failed to prove that the designation of the Coastal High Hazard Area is unsupported by data and analysis. Without proof that the designation of the Coastal High Hazard Area is incorrect, Petitioner is unable to prove the inconsistencies identified in the preceding Paragraph. Designation of Ten Units Per Acre on Western Peninsula of Perico Island Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of up 10 units per acre is inconsistent with the criterion of supporting data and analysis, including a land use suitability analysis. The density of ten units per acre is, to the exclusion of fair debate, excessive under the circumstances. The soils are very poorly drained. The land above the Coastal High Hazard Area is very low. Except for 100 feet of frontage along the road, the entire upland will be flooded with the spring tide, which occurs with some regularity if not annually, as well as by flooding associated with hurricanes and tropical storms, even if the water is not storm driven. In the absence of an entirely elevated community, the spring tide and other coastal flooding will render inaccessible any interior residences, as well as inundate interior public facilities, unless natural drainage features and the mangrove fringes of the western island are significantly altered. The low elevation and very poorly drained soils increase the difficulty of effective stormwater management. At the same time, stormwater management is more critical on the island, which is surrounded by Outstanding Florida Waters and, in the case of Palma Sola Bay, Class II waters. The Spoonbill Bay DRI Development Order, which also serves as data and analysis, does not support the designation of ten units per acre for the western peninsula of Perico Island. The Development Order does not expressly transfer development rights from the western to the eastern peninsula. However, the Development Order rejects a request to develop the western peninsula at a density approximately equal to that accorded the western peninsula by the Plan. The Development Order expressly bases the denial upon transportation considerations. In light of other evidence, including quoted portions of the Data and Analysis, the cited transportation considerations probably included concerns as to the impact of transportation, including attendant stormwater runoff, upon the island's natural resources. In any event, Bradenton chose merely to designate up to ten units per acre on the western peninsula without addressing the bases for its denial, 15 years earlier, of approval to develop any portion of the western peninsula. Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of ten units per acre is inconsistent with Coastal Goal 5, Objective 1 under Goal 5, Objective 5 under Goal 5, and Policies 1 and 4 under Objective 5. Goal 5 is to use coastal areas so as to preserve natural systems and minimize storm and flood hazards, among other things. Objective 1 is to limit development severely in low lying coastal areas. Objective 5 under Goal 5 is to keep population and investment low in areas vulnerable to coastal flooding. Policy 1 under Objective 5 is to limit residential development to low density below the eight-foot contour. Policy 4 is to discourage the location of high density residential projects in high priority hurricane evacuation zones, of which Perico Island is one. The Plan provisions set forth in the preceding paragraph preclude the designation of ten units per acre on the western peninsula. It is irrelevant whether the Plan's density designation is gross, so as to include some combination of Coastal High Hazard Area, mangrove fringe, wetlands, lakes, and Indian mounds, or net, so as to exclude all of such nonbuildable features of the land and waterscape characterizing the western peninsula. Even ten units per net acre is inconsistent with and repugnant to each of the provisions described above. 15/ Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of ten units per acre is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1; FLUE Objective 4; and Housing Policy 1 under Objective 1. Petitioner has not proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the designation of ten units per acre is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 3 or FLUE Policy 6 under Objective 1, which incorporates into the operative provisions of the plan Recommendation 6 for Neighborhood 12.04. FLUE Objective 1 is to locate new development in a manner sensitive to natural resources and natural hazards. FLUE Objective 4 is to limit population in the first priority hurricane evacuation zones. Housing Policy 1 under Objective 1 is to designate residential tracts except where unsuitable due to inappropriate elevation or drainage or other safety hazard. The designation of ten units per acre, even on a net acreage basis, is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 1 because the new development is not located in a manner sensitive to natural hazards and natural resources. The density designation is also inconsistent with FLUE Objective 4 to limit population in the first priority hurricane evacuation zones. There is no difference whatsoever between the density accorded the western peninsula, which is in Hurricane Evacuation Zone A, and the density accorded large areas of Bradenton, especially just east of Palma Sola Bay, although the latter areas are excluded on the Evacuation Map from any priority evacuation zone. The density designation is also inconsistent with Housing Policy 1 under Objective 1 due to the low elevation and poor drainage associated with the western peninsula. Policy 6 under FLUE Objective 1 incorporates the Recommendations for Neighborhood 12.04, which covers Perico Island. Recommendation 6 is to deny applications to increase the density of development in the neighborhood. FLUE Objective 3 is to manage future development through the adoption and enforcement of regulations to promote the use of land in a manner sensitive to the public health and safety and to soils and topography. Based on the Spoonbill Bay DRI Development Order, the density for the western peninsula may be viewed as zero. No evidence suggests what density the western peninsula may have arguably been accorded by a former comprehensive plan or zoning. However, it is possible to read Recommendation 6 as intending to incorporate the density given the western peninsula by the Plan, so Petitioner has not proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the density designation is inconsistent with Recommendation 6. Petitioner has failed to prove that the density designation is inconsistent with FLUE Objective 3 because of the latter's ineffectiveness. FLUE Objective 3 defers meaningful action to land development regulations and provides no upon real objective upon which an inconsistency determination could be based. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of an objective to coordinate coastal densities with the local hurricane evacuation plan. FLUE Objective 4 and Policy 1 under Objective 4 address this criterion. Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan does not coordinate with the Spoonbill Bay DRI Development Order. As noted above, the density designation is consistent with Recommendation 6 of Neighborhood 12.04 only because it is assumed that the increased densities prohibited by Recommendation 6 are measured from the point of view of a former plan or former zoning, rather than the zero density accorded the western peninsula by the Development Order. In such a case, Recommendation 6 fails to coordinate with the Development Order. As noted above, the Data and Analysis fails to discuss why the Plan designates ten units per acre for the western peninsula when the Development Order prohibited any development. In effect, the Plan ignores the Development Order, and the resulting inconsistency is material in light of the impact of such a high density upon the natural resources of the peninsula and the public safety of future residents. However, the preceding two paragraphs are relevant only to consideration of the issue whether the density designation is supported by data and analysis. For reasons set forth in Conclusions of Law Paragraph 55, Rule 9J-5.006(3)(b)6., on which Petitioner relies, does not require an objective to coordinate with an DRI. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the criteria of a policy to protect environmentally sensitive land and an objective to protect, conserve, or enhance remaining coastal wetlands, living marine resources, coastal barriers, and wildlife habitat. These criteria are addressed by Coastal Goals 2, 4, and 5 and their objectives, as well as PFE Goal 4, which is to "[p]revent. . . flood damage and improve. . . surface water quality." Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of an objective to direct population concentrations away from accurately defined coastal high hazard areas. For the reasons noted above, Petitioner has failed to prove that the Plan inaccurately defines the Coastal High Hazard Area for Bradenton, In the absence of such evidence, the Recreational/Conservation designation effectively addresses this criterion. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the criteria of an objective to encourage land uses that are consistent with the community's character and future land use and a policy to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses. The FLUE Goal, FLUE Objective 1, and Housing Policy 1 under Objective 1 address these criteria. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of an objective to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation times between the barrier island and mainland. Coastal Goal 6 and Objective 1 address this criterion, as do FLUE Objective 4 and Coastal Goals 1 and 6, although less directly. Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the provisions of the State Plan, construed as a whole. The density designation given the western peninsula of Perico Island conflicts with various provisions of the State Plan designed to protect water, coastal and marine resources, and to promote efficient land uses compatible with land and water resources. Stormwater Provisions Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the stormwater provisions of the Plan are internally inconsistent with Plan provisions concerning water quality protection and improvement. Coastal Goals 2 and 5 protect water quality. Goal 2 is to improve surface water quality. Objective 2 under Goal 2 is to reduce pollutant loads reaching waterways from urban stormwater. Goal 5 is to use coastal areas so as to preserve natural systems. The stormwater provisions are inconsistent with the above-cited provisions protecting water quality because the level of service standard contains a serious loophole. PFE Goal 4, Objective 1, Policy 2 completely undermines the drainage level of service standard by providing that its applicability to "various types and sizes of private development" shall be as set forth in land development regulations adopted by December 1, 1989. For the reasons set forth in Footnote 15 above, relegating to land development regulations substantial provisions required by law to included in a plan is ineffective for reasons involving public participation and notice, compliance review, and enforceability. In effect, the applicability of the drainage level of service standard is subject to land development regulations. The evidence is insufficient to prove to the exclusion of fair debate the inefficacy of the stormwater provisions based on stormwater projects included in the Capital Improvements Schedule. The Data and Analysis discloses that Wares Creek has suffered most extensively from untreated stormwater runoff. However, Table 4 in the Capital Improvements Element discloses that most, if not all, of the scheduled stormwater projects will affect the Wares Creek drainage basin, as defined in the map of Storm Drainage Areas on page 208 of the Plan. 16/ For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of including in the Capital Improvements Schedule projects necessary to achieve treatment of stormwater sufficient to meet relevant water quality standards. Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of a policy demonstrating how the local government will coordinate with the SWIM Plan, especially as to the latter's requirement that all stormwater discharge comply with relevant water quality standards. The Plan's drainage level of service standard, which is seriously undermined in the manner set forth above, is further hampered by the failure of the standard to include post- development water quality standards. As noted in the SWIM Plan data and analysis, the water quality of stormwater runoff is a key factor in preserving the health of the Outstanding Florida Waters that surround Perico Island and in restoring the health of other nearby waters. Due to the failure of the Plan submitted into evidence to contain as an appendix the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Study, 1981, Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the scheduled capital improvements concerning stormwater projects fail to implement the SWIM Plan. In addition, the SWIM Plan does not generally impose project deadlines for various capital improvements. Petitioner has proved to the exclusion of fair debate that the stormwater provisions of the Plan are inconsistent with the provisions of the State Plan, construed as a whole. The failure to incorporate into the Plan an effective level of service standard for post-development runoff rate for all developments and the failure to incorporate any level of service standard for post-development runoff water quality are inconsistent with the above-cited provisions of the State Plan. Historic Provisions Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Historic Element is inconsistent with the criterion of supporting data and analysis; the Historic goal is internally inconsistent with the Historic objectives and policies; or the Historic provisions are inconsistent with the criteria that objectives be measurable and policies describe how programs and activities will achieve the goals. None of the Historic provisions contradicts any of the Data and Analysis concerning historic resources. The Historic objectives and policies are in no way inconsistent with the Historic goal of preservation. The Historic objectives are measurable, and the policies describe how programs and activities will achieve the goals. Miscellaneous Provisions Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of establishing a level of service standard for recreational facilities. Recreation Objective 3 and Policy 1 establish a level of service standard for recreation by acreage. Policy 2 addresses the facilities that must be constructed for each park used to satisfy the recreational level of service standard. Petitioner has failed to prove to the exclusion of fair debate that the Plan is inconsistent with the criterion of including in the Schedule of Capital Improvements projects necessary to achieve a level of service D for roads. No roads for which Bradenton is fiscally responsible are predicted to attain a level of service standard more congested than D during the planning timeframe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs submit the Recommended Order to the Administration Commission for entry of a final order determining that Bradenton's plan is not in compliance for the reasons set forth above. ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1992.
The Issue Petitioners challenged the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) preliminary Final Order, alleging that Petitioners committed the "unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation for the purposes of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line [(CCCL)] without benefit of a permit." The ultimate issue is whether the work Petitioners performed was seaward of the CCCL, and if it was, whether there was a violation of Amended Permit FR-563 and Section 161.053(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Ben Withers, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ben Withers, is the President and owner of Ben Withers, Inc., and a resident of Panacea, Florida. (Henceforth, Ben Withers and Ben Withers, Inc., are referred to collectively as "Mr. Withers," unless otherwise noted.) Mr. Withers is a licensed general contractor. The Department is the executive agency of the State of Florida operating pursuant to, among others, Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the Department administers the CCCL program for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. Coastal Construction Control Line Program The Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources regulates construction and excavation activities seaward of the CCCL. The Department is responsible for determining and setting the CCCLs. The CCCL is a scientifically established line pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. By definition, the CCCL "defines that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a one-hundred-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Rule 62B-33.002(13), Florida Administrative Code. Construction and excavation activity seaward of the CCCL is regulated by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B- 33, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Withers admitted that he is aware of Department rules regarding beaches and coastal construction and is also aware that excavation seaward of the CCCL requires a permit unless it is otherwise exempt, and that he had this knowledge prior to the present case. Accessing the Pepper Project Site Under Amended Permit FR-563 Dog Island is a barrier island south of and about three miles off the coast of Franklin County, Florida. The island is approximately eight miles in length. There is no bridge to the island. The Pepper project site is on the far western end of the island. The Gulf of Mexico borders the island on the south and St. George Sound borders the island to the north. The most common way to access the Pepper site with any vehicle carrying equipment and materials, would be to use a boat or barge to a marina area (Tyson's Harbor) near the center of the island, or a private dock, and then traverse west down the middle of the island or down the beach itself, or a combination of the two. The Easy Street Easement is an easement area for a roadway running east and west through Dog Island. The parties agree that Easy Street and the Easy Street Easement are the same. The Easy Street Easement had been an unpaved roadway years before; part of the roadway was still visible in May 2001, and other parts had been covered with vegetation. There are portions of Easy Street and Easy Way east of the cul-de-sac which are visible roadways. See, e.g., Department Exhibit 13. Additionally, parts of Easy Street are seaward of the Department's CCCL (e.g., in the narrows area which is west of the cul-de-sac) and other parts are landward of the CCCL. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 29. Pursuant to its statutory duty, in 1996, the Department set the reference monuments R-158-R-160 for the CCCL on the west end of Dog Island. These monuments are in the narrows area of the island and run west to east. The CCCL is not visible on the ground. A surveyor is needed to locate the line. The alleged violation in this case was committed between R-158 and R-160, part of the narrows area. The Easy Street Easement on Dog Island runs both north and south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac and then runs westerly to the west end of Dog Island. The CCCL Permits On October 21, 1999, the Department issued Permit FR-563 to Leonard Pepper, the property owner, for the construction of a single–family dwelling and for structures associated with the dwelling on the west end of Dog Island. Permit FR-563 contained Standard Permit Conditions that required in part: (1)(a) all construction or activity for which the permit was granted be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications which were approved by the Department as a part of the permit; (1)(b) all construction or activity authorized under the permit shall be conducted using extreme care to prevent any adverse impacts to the beach and dune system; and (1)(g) existing beach and dune topography and vegetation shall not be disturbed except as expressly authorized in the permit. Permit FR-563 did not authorize the start of construction until a construction access plan to the Pepper project site was approved, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system. On October 16, 2000, Amended Permit FR-563 was issued with a Notice to Proceed Withheld. The Amended Permit also contained Special Condition 1.5 which required the submittal and approval of "[a] construction access plan showing the route and timing for bringing equipment and materials to the site, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system." The Department was concerned about the manner in which equipment and materials would be brought to the project site without causing further harm to the system. Amended Permit FR-563 did not expressly or implicitly authorize excavation or grading seaward of the CCCL in any area on Dog Island off of the project site and footprint of the house. In late 2000, Mr. Withers became involved with the Pepper project after Amended Permit FR-563 (with the Notice to Proceed Withheld) was issued on October 16, 2000. Part of Mr. Withers' job responsibility was to prepare and submit a construction access plan to the Department for approval. The Department does not normally require an access plan because most job sites are located in areas with established roads for ingress and egress. Here, there was no established road to and from the project site. The access plan was necessary in order to determine how Mr. Withers would transport equipment and materials to the Pepper project site on the west end of Dog Island due to the site's remote location and the absence of an established roadway to the site. Mr. Withers expected that materials and heavy equipment, including cranes, would be off-loaded at Tyson's Harbor, located approximately in the middle of Dog Island, and transported by vehicle to the project site along the access plan route. He expected to only transport pilings using the beach access route. On March 15, 2001, Mr. Withers submitted an access plan which described the route Mr. Withers would traverse by vehicle with construction equipment and materials. See Endnote 1. The Easy Street Easement starts at the east end of the island as an established roadway. Proceeding in a westerly direction, Easy Street comes to a dead-end at a cul-de-sac landward of the CCCL. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to access the job site using part the Easy Street/Easy Street Easement (starting on the east end of the island) going north from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac, then heading in a westerly direction just south of the Ausley house (west of R-158 and just landward of the CCCL) and across the narrows area and continuing in a westerly direction along the northern shoreline and in southerly direction toward R-154. The access plan then authorized Mr. Withers to proceed in a westerly direction over the middle portion of the west-end of the island, then in a southerly direction toward the project site.1 The access plan showed a route both landward and seaward of the CCCL along the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 4- orange line then blue line after the orange circle on the west-end of the island. As described by Mr. McNeal of the Department, the access route is seaward, for the most part, of the CCCL from R-157 to R- 159 (running west to east) and landward of the CCCL east of R-159. The Department described the damaged area of 5,305.6 square feet (Department Exhibit 11A, insert "B") caused by Mr. Withers as east of R-159 and seaward of the CCCL and south of the access plan route. See also Finding of Fact 35. However, it appears that a portion of Easy Street, between R-159 and R-160, is seaward of the CCCL. Compare Department Exhibit 12 with Department Exhibits 4, 11A, and 13. During a pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Withers marked in pink the route he took through a portion of the narrows area which coincides with the portion of Easy Street between the approximate locations of R-159 and R-160, depicted on Department Exhibit 12. See Finding of Fact 43. (Mr. Withers had the Easy Street Easement staked prior to doing any work on Dog Island. See Findings of Fact 33-35.) The damaged area appears to coincide with this portion of Easy Street, and seaward of the CCCL. See Department Exhibit 11A. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to drive (vehicular traffic) his equipment over the easement following the route depicted on the access plan until he arrived at the project site. See Endnote 1. The Department expected that travel along the access route would cause minimal and temporary damage or destruction to the topography, so the plan was considered acceptable. The access plan did not authorize excavation of a roadway within the route, including the narrows area, nor did it contemplate any other activity over or around a dune other than what might occur as a result of driving.2 The Department understood that Mr. Withers would be driving daily over the access plan route to the project site. The Department assumed that trucks would be used to transport equipment and materials. The Department did not differentiate among vehicles which could be used, including large trucks. On April 11, 2001, the Department issued a Notice to Proceed to Mr. Pepper to begin construction of his single-family dwelling in accordance with Amended Permit FR-563. The access plan is part of the Amended permit. Shortly after the Notice to Proceed was issued, The Nature Conservancy advised the Department of concerns it had with the access plan. As a result, on April 24, 2001, there was a meeting in Apalachicola, Florida, convened by the Department and attended by other interested governmental entities and private persons, including Mr. Withers. The purpose of the meeting was explore other possible ways and means of access by Mr. Withers to the Pepper project site.3 No resolution was reached during the meeting and the access plan previously approved by the Department remained effective. The previously issued Notice to Proceed was also in effect. The Violations Mr. Withers hired Kenneth Greenwood of Garlick Environmental Associates to perform a threatened/endangered species inspection, plant and animal, on an approximately 30-foot wide strip on the Easy Street Easement (approximately 1,800 feet) being utilized in Mr. Withers' access plan and within the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 13-yellow markings. On May 2, 2001, Mr. Greenwood performed the inspection within the easement that Mr. Withers had staked out by a land surveyor, approximately 15 feet on either side of the stakes. He found no threatened/endangered species. (The CCCL was not staked by Mr. Withers because, according to Mr. Withers, the Department did not ask him to locate the CCCL with stakes.) The access route depicted by Mr. McNeal in orange on Department Exhibit 4, which runs east of R-159, is similar to the description of the staked areas east of R-159, described by Mr. Greenwood and marked in yellow on Department Exhibit 13. See Findings of Fact 28-29. Both areas are landward of the CCCL. However, the 5,305.6 square foot damaged area is east of R-159 and is seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Greenwood described the area where he performed his investigation as being "relatively undisturbed," "relatively stable," having no vehicle tracks, and he stated that there were areas of bare sand as well as areas of "natural beach dune vegetation." He described the area as "relatively flat with some small amounts of mounding." The pictures taken by Mr. Greenwood within the staked easement on May 2, 2001, as part of his investigation, do not depict any vehicle tracks. After Mr. Greenwood completed his investigation on May 2, 2001, he observed Mr. Withers landward of the CCCL on a front-end loader and north of the cul-de-sac, proceeding west along the Easy Street Easement scraping off the top layer of soil and heading in a westward direction. Mr. Greenwood believed that the activity performed by Mr. Withers at this time was consistent with unpaved, road construction. According to Mr. Greenwood, the width of the scraped area appeared to be approximately the width of the bucket on Mr. Withers' front-end loader. Mr. Withers stated that he was doing minor grading landward of the CCCL with a John Deere 310-E front-end loader tractor when Mr. Greenwood was present on May 2, 2001. This tractor had a front bucket (approximately seven to eight feet wide) and a backhoe for excavating dirt on the back-end. Mr. Withers described the work which he performed when Mr. Greenwood was present as moving out and smoothing off the top of the sand landward of the CCCL in order for his equipment to get through. Mr. Withers also stated that he made areas in the easement seaward of the CCCL smooth by using the bottom of the bucket of his front-end loader to move sand around. Mr. Withers mentioned that he was very concerned that he needed to have the pathway he was utilizing in the access plan marked and smoothed off and fairly level. He believed the access plan authorized him to smooth off the areas on the access route. Mr. Withers stated that he had to have the access path level because he was bringing a self-propelled, 25-ton crane down the access path and they are top heavy and can get off balance, topple over, or get stuck. Mr. Withers described two types of work that he performed in the Easy Street Easement as: 1) clearing landward of the CCCL that required scooping and moving dirt, and 2) smoothing several areas seaward of the CCCL, just east of R-158 to around R- 160. An area of excavation damage seven feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning approximately 130 feet east of R-158) and an area 41 feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning at R-159, continuing east approximately 500 feet) are located within the area Mr. Withers stated he did some "smoothing off areas," again, east of R-158 and continuing east toward, but west, of R-160. Mr. Withers believed that Amended Permit FR-563 allowed him to use the Easy Street Easement in the access plan "to do . . . whatever was necessary and . . . needed to get [his] equipment, access [his] equipment down to the job site." He also admitted smoothing the areas. Mr. Withers also stated that Amended Permit FR-563 granted him permission to access the west end of Dog Island. Therefore, there was no need for him to locate the CCCL. Mr. Withers referred to the easement in the access plan as turning into a good pathway after he smoothed the areas. Mr. Withers stated that it was his "intention to gain access to the west end of Dog Island through a legal easement and an existing roadway" and that he wanted to utilize it. Mr. Withers testified "that he knew a lot of roads on Dog Island crossed seaward of the [CCCL]" in response to questioning whether he knew at the time of his performing work on the easement, whether or not the Easy Street Easement crossed seaward of the CCCL. He knew he was going to be traversing "fairly close" to the CCCL. Mr. Withers stated he did not knowingly violate the conditions of the Amended Permit. Mr. Withers was aware of the Department's permit requirements for work seaward of the CCCL when he performed his access work in the easement on Dog Island. However, Mr. Withers never had a survey done to figure out where the CCCL was located. Notice of the Alleged Violations Around May 2, 2001, the Department received a complaint that excavation was occurring seaward of the CCCL on Dog Island in the narrows area of the Easy Street Easement. On May 4, 2001, John A. Poppel, William Fokes, and Phil Sanders went to Dog Island on behalf of the Department to investigate the complaint of excavation in the narrows area seaward of the CCCL. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Poppel performed a survey of the narrows area and located the CCCL. He located monuments R-158- R-160. Department Exhibit 11. As a product of his survey, Mr. Poppel was able to depict the newly excavated roadway or pathway in relation to the CCCL. Mr. Poppel calculated that one area of damage was seven feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 503.8 square feet of damage and a second area of damage was 41 feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 5,305.6 square feet of damage. These square foot areas represent only the disturbed areas seaward of the CCCL, not the entire area between the CCCL and the Gulf of Mexico. Both areas of damage are within the area where Mr. Withers stated that he smoothed out the sand. As part of the May 4, 2001, investigation, William Fokes, an Engineer I with the Department, took photographs of the damaged areas and prepared an inspection report. Mr. Fokes' report indicates that an approximately 11-foot wide roadway or pathway had been cleared by excavation with the most seaward extent of the road being about 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. In addition, the report states that small dunes and beach vegetation had been destroyed. Mr. Fokes described the damage as excavation or grading done by some kind of machine, which cut and uprooted vegetation and pushed sand to the side as it leveled the ground. Mr. Fokes testified that the damage did not appear to be caused by merely traversing the area. Mr. Sanders, an engineer with the Department, processes CCCL permit applications and supervises Mr. Fokes, a field engineer. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Sanders observed the narrows area in question and confirmed that it looked like a "graded road" in that "[i]t appeared in the road bed that vegetation was gone and had been pushed out to the side, graded away," and that there was "excavation" seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Sanders stated that this activity did not comply with the approved access plan. On May 7, 2001, a Notice of Violation was issued to Mr. Withers for the "the unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and native vegetation for the purpose of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line." Mr. Greenwood's photographs taken May 2, 2001, when compared with Mr. Fokes' photographs taken May 4, 2001, show that no discernable roadway or pathway was present landward or seaward of the CCCL in the narrows area at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection on May 2, 2001. This is evident when comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Exhibit 15a, taken on May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibit 16g taken on May 4, 2001--the roadway or pathway present in the May 4, 2001, photo is absent in the May 2, 2001, photograph, and the vegetation has been removed from part of the area. Comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Department Exhibit 15b, taken May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibits 16c and d, taken on May 4, 2001, also shows that the roadway or pathway was not present on the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection. The previously mentioned pictures, which were used for a comparison, were taken by two different people on separate dates, and from approximately the same locations. Also, Department Exhibit 16j was taken 250 feet east of R-159 and within the narrows area, facing east which shows clearing approximately 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. On May 14, 2001, at the request of the Department, Ken Jones, a principal engineer with Post Buckey et al., performed a damage assessment of the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement which was seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Jones has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's degree in physical oceanography. Mr. Jones was familiar with the narrows area having been to Dog Island for recreation during the past 20 years and as a Dog Island property owner for the last three years. Mr. Jones described the narrows area as relatively flat and located between the St. George Sound to the north and the Gulf of Mexico beaches to the south. Between these two areas, the land is undulating sand and fairly consistent vegetation. At the time of Mr. Jones' damage assessment, he determined that a road had been cut through the vegetative portion of the dune of the narrows. Mr. Jones observed cut roots and a majority of the vegetation destroyed. Mr. Jones stated it appeared that the damage was caused by a vehicle with a blade on the front. The result was the road sat down in the sand approximately four to six inches. Mr. Jones stated that the work appeared to have been recent because distinct edges were still present. Mr. Jones took photographs and compiled an inspection report as part of his damage assessment. Mr. Jones testified that the damage "was pretty consistent from both landward and seaward of the [CCCL]." The pictures labeled Department Exhibits 18a1 and 18a2 depict a level pathway or roadway barren of vegetation seaward of the CCCL. Department Exhibit 18a4 is a photograph of a typical vegetated dune. Mr. Jones took this picture in order to have a general idea of what the vegetation coverage was in order to get an idea from a cost-estimating perspective. Mr. Jones's cost estimate for repairing the damage to the narrows area seaward of the CCCL, was approximately $7,500.00.4 Mr. Jones calculated the $7,500.00 by making an estimate of what it would cost to buy coastal vegetation, and by estimating what it would cost to employ laborers to hand rake the sand back into position and to plant the vegetation. Administrative Fine and Damages Jim Martinello, an environmental manager in charge of enforcement and compliance with the Bureau, used Mr. Jones' damage assessment estimate for informational purposes in assessing the damages amount for the narrows area. Mr. Martinello calculated the administrative fine and damages in accordance with Section 161.054, Florida Statues, and Rules 62B-54.002 and 62B-54.003, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.002, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department shall assess fines for willful violations of, or refusing to comply with, for example, Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and the fine should be sufficient to ensure immediate and continued compliance. In determining the actual fine within the range, the Department shall consider the offender's past violations, if any, and other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include prior knowledge of rules. Mitigating circumstances may be considered. Id. Mr. Withers had knowledge prior to the issuance of Amended Permit FR-563 of Department rules regarding permit requirements for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. On October 4, 1996, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. This matter was resolved by entering into a consent order. On October 29, 1997, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible permit violation seaward of the CCCL. On November 13, 1997, Mr. Withers was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. On October 27, 2000, Mr. Withers wrote a letter to Mr. McNeal indicating that he believed that the Easy Street Easement on Dog Island heading south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de- sac, then west to the west end of Dog Island, is landward of the CCCL and, therefore, no permit was necessary to reopen and use the easement, but he would have a surveyor establish the control line prior to work commencing. On November 7, 2000, Phil Sanders replied by letter to Mr. Withers' October 27, 2000 letter, in which Mr. Sanders reminded Mr. Withers of the pertinent rules and laws and suggested that Mr. Withers have the CCCL surveyed. On December 20, 2000, Mr. Martinello sent Mr. Withers an advisory letter informing him that the area he traversed (on July 2000) on the south route of the Easy Street Easement from the cul- de-sac on Dog Island was considered to be a dune as defined by Rule 62B-33.002, Florida Administrative Code. However, Mr. Martinello further advised that the Department did not take any action because "the traversing [did not] cause any substantial damage, it was minimal damage." In regard to the present case, it is more than a fair inference that Mr. Withers had specific knowledge of the CCCL and the Department's laws and rules, and that he knew excavation was not authorized seaward of the CCCL. The information in the prior Findings of Fact was used by the Department, and specifically Mr. Martinello, to determine that the harm to the beach resource or potential harm was major, and the administrative fine assessed was $7,500.00. However, part of Mr. Martinello's determination was predicated on Mr. Jones' assessment that the site one narrows violation was approximately 700 feet in length when, in fact, the area was approximately 500 feet in length, which explains in part the disparity between a 9,800 square foot area and the proven 5,305.6 square foot area. See Finding of Fact 78 and Endnote 4. Even the additional amount of damage of 503.8 square feet for the site two narrows area, when viewed in the aggregate, is significantly less than Mr. Jones' assessment of damages by square feet. (Mr. Martinello used the Jones' assessment as a guideline. Mr. Martinello says that the mistake did not alter his decision, although he was unaware of the mistake until the final hearing. He also says that Mr. Jones recommended a higher damage amount than the $5,000.00 assessed by the Department in its preliminary Final Order. He did--$7,500.00 for 9,800 square feet of damage.) Grossly negligent or knowing violations of statutes and Department rules regarding coastal construction seaward of the CCCL, which result "in harm to sovereignty lands seaward of mean high water or to beaches, shores, or coastal or beach-dune system(s), including animal, plant or aquatic life thereon," shall be considered in determining damages. Rule 62B-54.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a damage amount greater than the minimum amounts may be assessed to ensure, immediate and continued compliance and the Department may consider, e.g., the need for restoration and the damaged ecological resource. The Department determined that the violation was knowing based on the factors mentioned above. The Department also considered the need for restoration and the damage to ecological resources and whether the amount would ensure immediate and continued compliance. Id. The Department determined that there was harm to the resource and that it was major and knowing. The Department proposed to assess the minimum damage amount of $5,000.00. On January 11, 2002, the Department entered a preliminary Final Order for the unauthorized grading and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation seaward of the control line for the purpose of constructing a roadway. The amount assessed in the Final Order was $12,500.00, $7,500.00 in administrative fines and $5,000.00 in damages, as described above. As noted, there has been harm to the beach area resource seaward of the CCCL and the Department proved the need for restoration and the damage to the ecological resource. In mitigation, Mr. Withers' construction access plan was approved by the Department. The Department knew that Mr. Withers intended to use the access route, which ran seaward of the CCCL from approximately R-157 to R-159 (except for a small portion between R-158 and R-159) in the narrows area; that Mr. Withers planned to transport equipment and materials by truck using the access route and necessarily would traverse seaward of the CCCL; and that he would continuously use the access route until the project was completed. The actual damaged area is less than originally determined by Mr. Jones, thus the need for restoration reduced. Mr. Jones, without the benefit of a survey, estimated the total cost to restore the damaged area of 9,800 square feet to be approximately $7,500.00. The total square feet of damage proven in this proceeding is 5,809.4 square feet in the narrows area and the Department is requesting $12,500.00 in fines and damages. Based on an approximate ratio of square feet and dollars needed to restore, a damage assessment in the amount of $4,500.00 is appropriate. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, a fine of $3,500.00 is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: That a final order be issued adopting this Recommended Order; and Within 30 days of a final order being effective, Petitioners shall pay a fine of $3,500.00 and $4,500.00 in damages with the total amount of $8,000.00, to the Department of Environmental Protection. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 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 9th day of January, 2003.
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 The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact After DNR issued a cease and desist order to Petitioner, forbidding further construction on his Walton County lot seaward of the coastal construction control line, he applied for an after-the-fact permit authorizing work to go forward on a three-story ten-unit condominium, which would occupy some 95 percent of the width of his lot, and extend 34 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. DNR staff stated the following, in recommending denial: There presently exists over 160 feet of property located landward of the control line in which the proposed structure could be sited. The staff is concerned that the proposed encroachment is not justified, nor considered necessary for reasonable use of the property. In addition, staff is concerned about the potential cumulative effects of siting major structures seaward of the control line along this section of the coast, which contains a number of undeveloped lots, as well as redevelopable lots. The cumulative impact of such construction will result in significant disturbance and damage to well-established, mature vegetation and eventual destabilization of the coastal barrier dune ridge. Also, the proposed encroachment and shore-parallel site coverage will have an adverse impact on the natural recovery processes of the beach/dune system following the impact of a major storm event. The proposed building is not designed in accordance with the standards set forth in Subsections 16B-33.05(6) and 16B-33.07(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. File number WL-183 ATF has been assigned. . . . RECOMMENDED DENIAL, ASSESMENT OF A CIVIL FINE OF FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($5,000) AND REQUIRING REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION SEAWARD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The "reference [to] the extensive site coverage was not only the shore parallel site coverage, but also included the proposed encroachment seaward of the control line." (T. 18). DNR staff opposes construction on Mr. Hill's lot of a habitable structure seaward of the control line. (T. 19, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, pp. 12 and 13). Petitioner Hill timely instituted formal proceedings on his application, WL-183 ATF, and Case No. 85-2455 is still pending. Shore Parallel Site Coverage Since October of 1983, in processing coastal construction permit applications, DNR has taken into account "shore parallel site coverage," i.e., DNR staff have considered the relationship between lot width and the width of any structure proposed to be built fronting the water, seaward of a coastal construction control line. A succession of waterfront buildings stretching the entire width of their respective lots walls off the foreshore from more landward dunes. "[I]f you cover an extensive portion of the beach in the shore parallel direction, you tend to she[a]r off the upland area from the beach area and limit and inhibit the natural recovery processes of the dune system." (T. 15) With respect to Petitioner's proposed project and any other of this size and shape planned this far down on a similarly platted, developed and configured beach, DNR engineers put the maximum acceptable width of the structure at 50 to 60 percent of the lot's gulf frontage. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, p. 23; T. 20, 22, 32, 35. DNR has no written policy limiting the width of structures built seaward of the coastal construction control line. Although DNR endeavors to treat similar sites similarly, sites vary significantly and different widths may be allowed on similar sites when structures with different depths are planned. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, pp. 9-13. In its post-hearing memorandum in support of Petitioner's rule challenge to DNR's non-rule policy regarding side setbacks, Petitioner quotes the following: Q: Would you generally recommend this 50 to 60 percent shore-parallel site coverage for other types of similarily situated lots, either on the same beach or on other beaches in Florida? A: The reference 50 to 60 percent is something we would feel comfortable with in certain areas of the beach that have similar characteristics and existing--similar situations regarding existing development, potential for redevelopment, stability of the dune area, and things of that nature. It certainly wouldn't apply--those figures wouldn't apply to all areas of the Florida coastline. [Deposition of Brett Moore, September 10, 1985, pp. 16-17.] Q: But for, say, a similarly situated beach, maybe you would try to get people to move toward that time of width without specifically telling them that that's the width of coverage that you desire. A: For the two areas I mentioned, I feel that something in the vicinity of 60 percent site coverage would be acceptable to the staff, and that's what I would tell people if someone proposed a project in that area today. [Deposition of Brett Moore, p. 27.] A: Given that amount of encroachment on the dune, I feel that a reasonably acceptable shore-parallel coverage, given that shore- normal coverage, that would not have a significant adverse impact, would probably be between zero percent coverage and thirty percent coverage. In terms of what we would recommend, generally, in what kind of dune encroachment of a major structure, approximately a thirty-foot width, or about fifty percent coverage would probably be acceptable in terms of the impact to the dune and the recovery potential following a major storm event. Q: Okay. Did you--so fifty percent would probably be okay by your lights; is that a fair characterization of that statement you just made? A: Yeah, I could recommend a fifty percent coverage there, . . . In terms of what I would recommend for a site like that with that kind of encroachment with a major structure on the dune, I would recommend approximately fifty percent coverage. Q: What about for a similar type of beach, not one down in Charlotte County or any place like that, but let's just say a similar type of beach somewhere in the panhandle, same relative dimensions, topography and the like? A: So for the same---for the same site, I would recommend the same. [Deposition of Ralph Clark, pp. 10-11.] At 2-3. Neither this evidence nor any other adduced at hearing proved the existence of an agency statement of general, statewide application purporting in and of itself to have the direct and consistent effect of law. It is DNR's policy to treat similarly situated landowners similarly and to consider cumulative impact. The parties proposed orders contain proposed findings of fact which are addressed by number in an appendix to this final order.
Findings Of Fact The subject property Petitioners, Michael and Janice Rush, are the owners of a single family residence located at 3032 North Atlantic Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Such residence lies seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) and is therefore subject to the permitting jurisdiction of respondent, Department of Natural Resources (Department). Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. The first application In April 1991, Petitioners filed a permit application (Permit File No. BO-267) with the Department for permission to renovate their home and construct a swimming pool. That application was found to be incomplete, and by letter of April 17, 1991, the Department notified petitioners of the information required to complete their application. Following receipt and review of the requested information, the Department, by letter of July 26, 1991, advised petitioners that, as proposed, their application to construct a pool and renovate the home would have to be denied. Pertinent to the proposed pool, such letter observed that a portion of the pool would be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection which is prohibited 1/, the general construction line of major structures would be advanced further seaward, adverse impacts to the beach/dune system during a major storm event could be expected, and cumulative adverse impacts could be expected. Thereafter, by letter of August 14, 1991, the Department was advised that petitioners were submitting new house plans for the subject property, and that the request for leave to construct the pool had been removed from their application. 2/ On December 23, 1991, the Department issued a final order in Permit File No. BO-267 which authorized the petitioners to remodel their home. Such final order observed: . . . The direct and cumulative impacts to the beach and dune system that will be caused by both the seaward location and shore- parallel width of the proposed construction represent the maximum such impacts that are acceptable to the Department. Therefore, future construction on the site seaward of the coastal construction control line shall not extend further seaward of, or increase the shore- parallel coverage occupied by, the proposed structures approved pursuant to this permit. The pool, which petitioners had initially proposed to construct seaward of the home, but subsequently deleted from their plans, constituted a major structure, albeit nonhabitable. Rule 16B-33.002(54)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners were expressly advised by the Department of their right to request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, to contest the provisions of the final order. No such contest was filed. 3/ The pending application On February 20, 1992, petitioners filed a new application (Permit File NO. BO-289) with the Department for permission to construct the swimming pool on their property. As proposed, the pool would be located in the beach-dune system seaward of petitioners' home, as well as seaward of an existing retaining wall on the petitioners' property. The pool would measure 16.0' x 35.7' externally, be constructed of reinforced gunite, and be supported by ten piles. The alignment of the pool would be in the shore parallel direction, rather than the shore normal direction as proposed in the prior application, thereby placing the pool landward of the 30-year erosion projection. By letter of March 8, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their application was incomplete, and requested additional information. Petitioners submitted the final information necessary to complete their application on July 21, 1992. By letter dated October 7, 1992, received by petitioners' representative on October 13, 1992, the Department issued a public notice as follows: The referenced application for a permit pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, has been placed on the agenda of the head of the Department of Natural Resources (Governor and Cabinet). The application will be reviewed by the Cabinet Aides in the Cabinet Meeting Room on the lower level of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 14, 1992. The application will then be heard by the Governor and Cabinet in Room LL03 of the Capitol, at 9:00 a.m., October 20, 1992. You may attend these meetings if you desire. The recommendation [for denial] shown on the enclosed agenda item has been made to the head of the Department by the Executive Director. This represents an agency determination. . . . The notice, consistent with the provisions of Rule 16B-33.012(8), Florida Administrative Code, further advised that any substantially affected person had the right to request a formal hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, within 21 days of receipt of the notice, and that "If the decision of the Governor and Cabinet is different from the staff recommendation as noticed . . ., then the applicant or any substantially affected person shall have 21 days from the date of the Governor and Cabinet's announcement of their decision in which to petition the agency for a hearing." The basis for the Department's denial of petitioners' application to construct the swimming pool was stated as follows: The proposed swimming pool is not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available. For example a similar structure could be sited in a less impactive location landward of the single-family dwelling on the southwest corner of the property. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade. The proposed swimming pool is not designed and located pursuant to Rule 16B- 33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Paragraph 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area. The proposed swimming pool is inconsistent with Rule 16B-33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shore line fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion. The proposed swimming pool is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system. * * * 8. The proposed project is not designed pursuant to Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. The Department, therefore, may not authorize the construction of the pool. On October 13, 1992, petitioners requested that their application be removed from the agenda, and be rescheduled for "a later date to be determined." The rationale for petitioners' request was to afford "an opportunity for the permittee and staff to meet in Tallahassee in early to mid November and reach a design for a pool which can be recommended favorably by staff." By letter of October 14, 1992, the Department granted petitioners' request and the item was removed from the agenda for the Governor and Cabinet meeting of October 20, 1992. Such letter further provided that although the Department was willing to meet with petitioners to discuss the staff concerns about their application, that it "must caution you . . . that at this time I do not anticipate that a swimming pool, as you requested, can be satisfactory [sic] located seaward of your home." Petitioners and the Department were unable to resolve their dispute. Accordingly, petitioners filed a petition on November 2, 1992, to contest the proposed denial of their application. By letter of November 13, 1992, the Department advised petitioners that their request for formal administrative hearing was inadequate, but accorded them 14 days from receipt of such letter to submit an appropriate request. Petitioners timely submitted an appropriate request for hearing on November 30, 1992, and the matter was thereafter referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. 4/ The merits of the pending application As heretofore noted in the findings of fact, the Department enunciated seven reasons to support its denial of petitioner's application. The first basis for denial was the Department's assertion that the proposed swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because it has not been clearly justified by the applicant and less impactive alternatives are available." In this regard, it is observed that Rule 16B-33.005(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides: . . . Establishment of a coastal construction control line . . . does not preclude all development of or alteration of coastal property seaward of such lines. However, activities seaward of a coastal construction control line . . . shall be limited and the necessity of such development, construction or alteration shall be stated and clearly justified by the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid rule does not further explain what is contemplated by the requirement that the applicant clearly justify the "necessity" of the proposed development; however, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word can be ascertained by reference to a dictionary. 5/ In this regard, "necessity" is defined to mean "something that cannot be done without." Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary. It is also defined as "something needed for the existence, effectiveness, or success of something (a requirement)," and "the state or fact of being required or unavoidable." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Here, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct the swimming pool since it fails to credibly support the conclusion that such construction is required for the effective or reasonable use of petitioners' property or that such construction is essential for the well-being of its occupants.6/ To the contrary, the petitioners' decision to construct the pool is merely a matter of personal preference or convenience. Moreover, the proof fails to demonstrate any "necessity" to construct a pool of the size and configuration proposed (16' x 35.7' with a maximum depth of 8') or of the materials selected (reinforced gunite supported by piles). Indeed, a pool of a different configuration or size could be located elsewhere on the property and the pool could be constructed on a base slab foundation or of vinyl to alleviate the adverse effects of its current design, discussed infra. 7/ As further reasons for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the swimming pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of the beach/dune system in that the structure is to be sited on the seaward slope of the frontal dune and results in excavation remaining as a permanent feature below natural or existing grade"; Rule 16B-33.005(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, "for the protection of adjacent properties, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will cause localized scour and erosion which may affect adjacent properties"; Rule 16B- 33.007(1), Florida Administrative Code, "because the structure is not located a sufficient distance landward of the beach/dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve dune stability and natural recovery following storm-induced erosion"; and Rule 16B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, "to minimize adverse impact to the beach/dune system, because the rigid pile foundation and slabs will increase localized scour and erosion within this area as it interacts with storm waves and surge resulting in a significant adverse impact to the beach/dune system." Pertinent to the aforesaid reasons for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, the "Department Policy Statement on Permits," provides: Seaward of the coastal construction control line . . ., special siting, structural and other design considerations are required: (a) for the protection of the beach-dune system; * * * (c) for the protection of adjacent properties. And, Rule 16B-33.007, Florida Administrative Code, the "Structural and Other Requirements Necessary for Permit Approval," provides: The proposed structure or other activity shall be located a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system to permit natural shoreline fluctuations and to preserve the dune stability and natural recovery following storm induced erosion . . . . All structures shall be designed so as to minimize any expected adverse impact on the beach-dune system or adjacent properties and structures and shall be designed consistent with Section 16B-33.005, Florida Administrative Code. Relevant to such rules, the proof demonstrates that the frontal dune on the subject property appears to have been leveled at an elevation of approximately +12.0 feet NGVD, and petitioners' home is located on top of the crest of the frontal dune. The seaward slope of the frontal dune begins at the seaward face of the house and slopes down to the beach. Approximately 12 feet seaward of the house is an existing retaining wall. The proposed pool will be sited immediately seaward of such wall and therefore on the seaward slope of the frontal dune. The proposed pool is a pile supported concrete swimming pool with exterior dimensions of 16.0' shore-normal by 35.7' shore-parallel, and a maximum depth of 8.0'. The foundation is specified to be auger-cast piles, which will penetrate to an elevation of -23.0' NGVD or 3' embedment where a rock layer is encountered. The elevation of the pool is proposed at +13.0' NGVD, with a bottom elevation of +4.0' NGVD. As designed and sited, construction of the pool would destabilize the dune, hinder its function of protecting upland development during a storm event, and adversely affect natural shoreline fluctuation and recovery following storm induced erosion. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that the location of the pool seaward of the existing retaining wall would interrupt the natural continuity of dune formation because sand would accumulate seaward of the pool in a less stable location and would impede the accumulation of sand on adjacent properties. Construction of the pool, as designed and sited, would also induce scour during the course of a storm event impacting the structure. Such storm- induced scour, in addition to erosion, would cause the loss of additional sand at the vicinity of the structure, robbing the beach-dune system of additional sand necessary to protect upland structures, and would also contribute to the potential failure of the structure itself and other upland structures. In this regard, the proof demonstrates that approximately 1,000 cubic yards of sand would be lost on petitioners' section of the beach in the event of a 10-year storm. Additionally, structure-induced scour of 77.5 cubic yards from the ten piles, 120.4 cubic yards from the pool shell, and 15.8 cubic yards from the "end effects" of the pool (the amount of structure-induced scour from the ends of the structure) might reasonably be anticipated in the event of a 10-year storm. If the pool were to be impacted by a higher frequency storm, such as a 20-year or a 100-year storm, scour and erosion would increase. 8/ As an additional basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Section 161.053(5)(b), Florida Statutes, "because the structure would extend closer to the line of mean high water than a reasonably continuous and uniform construction line in the immediate contiguous or adjacent area." Here, the proof supports the Department's conclusion. As its final basis for denial, the Department concluded that construction of the pool was not consistent with Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, "because a number of similar structures sited at the same relative location on the seaward face of the dune will result in significant cumulative impact which will threaten the beach/dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event." Pertinent to the aforesaid basis for denial, Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site; however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event . . . . Here, petitioners' project is expected to have significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system as a consequence of its design and siting. Accordingly, the provisions of Rule 16B-33.005(7), Florida Administrative Code, are not relevant. Moreover, there was no proof concerning any similar structures along the coast, existing or proposed, that would contribute to or intensify the degradation of the beach-dune system occasioned by the proposed project. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that cumulative impact is a relevant issue in these proceedings. While cumulative impact is not relevant to the pending application, the other reasons advanced by the Department for denial of the application have, as heretofore found, a rational basis in fact. Under such circumstances, petitioners have failed to demonstrate their entitlement to the subject permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered denying petitioners' application to construct seaward of the CCCL. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of November 1993. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 22nd day of November 1993.
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 Charlotte County lies on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Mexico. The mainland is protected by a series of low lying barrier islands running more or less north and south. Manasota Key, Don Pedro Island and Gasparilla Island are the consolidated remnant of seven or more smaller islands. In all, Charlotte County has about 14 miles of sandy beach on the Gulf. The location of the shoreline is not static. Along the stretch of beach between Stump Pass and the Sarasota County line, for example, the shoreline moved gulfward between 1883 and 1975, while the shoreline south of the pass moved landward between 1883 and 1939, then gulfward between 1939 and 1975. In very broad geological terms, the tendency of barrier islands is to migrate toward the mainland, but accretion is also ongoing. In general, the Charlotte County islands have moved further into the Gulf during the last century. Annual variation is typical: accretion in summer and fall follows erosion in winter and early spring. Respondent DNR has placed reference monuments along the Charlotte County beaches every 1,000 feet or so, 68 in all. In May of 1974, DNR surveyed a profile of the beach at each station and also made a record of the bottom profile. Offshore profiles were done at every third range to a depth of 30 feet, and, at the other ranges, out to a wading depth (four feet below mean sea level). Using this information, DNR promulgated Rule 16B-26.06, Florida Administrative Code, which established the existing coastal construction control line (the 1977 line). STANDING By law, DNR's Division of Beaches and Shores has permitting authority over certain activities, notably building construction, in the area between the mean high water line and the coastal construction control line. The proposed rule amendment under challenge here would establish a new coastal construction control line (the proposed line) for Charlotte County that would lie landward of the 1977 line along most, but not all, of its length. Except for Lisa Noden, the petitioners and intervenors in these consolidated cases own property in Charlotte County on the Gulf of Mexico, including property lying between the 1977 line and the proposed line. Intervenor Boca Grande Club, Inc. owns Gulf frontage on Gasparilla Island including land lying between the 1977 line and the proposed line. On November 30, 1984, Boca Grande Club, Inc. had "the present intention to apply within the next six months for the necessary construction permits for a structure to be located on its real property," Intervenors' Exhibit No. 9, landward of the 1977 line and seaward of the proposed line. Respondent stipulated to the intervenors' standing. Dean L. Beckstead, president of Charlotte Harbor Land Company, has overseen the construction of 70 to 75 houses on that parcel of Don Pedro Island extending from Stump Pass 8000 feet south and from the Gulf of Mexico to Lemon Bay. With respect to some of these houses, construction is ongoing. The plan is to build additional housing, but no more than 50 residential units in all. In keeping with past practice, new construction would be well landward of the 1977 line, because of Mr. Beckstead's great respect for the ocean, but might be seaward of the proposed line. William McCrabb of Sarasota is an officer of a corporation, Nabob of Florida, Inc., that owns Gulf-front property on Manasota Key. He is also a general partner in a partnership that owns adjacent Gulf frontage. A 17-unit condominium has been completed on one parcel and plans exist for a 125-room hotel on the other. The only element of the hotel project seaward of the 1977 line is a planned dune overwalk. A larger portion of the hotel project would be seaward of the proposed line. Petitioner Charles Guy Batsel owns a house that sits on Gulf-front property in Charlotte County. Some 5,000 square feet of this parcel lie between the 1977 line and the proposed line. Even when obtaining a coastal construction permit does not result in changes in a project that have an adverse economic effect on a landowner, the costs associated with the permitting process itself may be substantial. The testimony of Randall Craig Norden, a developer, that he spent approximately $100,000, or at least 2.5 percent of the total cost of Phase Three of Colony Don Pedro, on attorney's fees, engineering fees, travel to Tallahassee and other expenses associated with obtaining a coastal construction permit, went unrebutted. REVISITING THE 1977 LINE After it came to the attention of DNR staff that erosion along parts of the Gulf shoreline in Charlotte County had resulted in the 1977 line's approaching the water's edge in several places, staff recommended that the line be reexamined. The Governor and Cabinet, in approving DNR's annual work program in 1983 and in voting to enter into a contract with Florida State University for, e.g., "Studies to Reestablish Control Lines," Petitioners' Exhibit No. 3, on July 1, 1983, ordered a comprehensive review. Even before the Governor and Cabinet took these actions, DNR staff performed a survey in Charlotte County in 1982 to determine beach and bottom profiles at the same points at which they had been measured in 1974, although in two or three instances, the monuments had washed away. On Manasota Key between ranges 1 (the northernmost in Charlotte County) and 5, the mean sea level line receded an average of 15 feet between May of 1974 and December of 1982. The mean sea level moved further toward the Gulf on average between ranges 6 and 11, but receded an average of 20 feet between ranges 12 and 18. Between ranges 16 and 24, no relocation of the coastal construction control line has been proposed. Displacement of sand when Stump Pass was dredged may have affected the shoreline south of the pass, although shorelines in the vicinity of inlets are ordinarily unstable. On Don Pedro Island, just south of Stump Pass, there has been accretion. Between ranges 27 and 39, which lie still further south of Stump Pass, the mean sea level line receded an average of 81 feet between May of 1974 and December of 1982. Between ranges 45 and 49 the line has moved an average of 32 feet landward while there has been accretion, on average, between ranges 50 and 55. At range 60, the northern end of Gasparilla Island, the mean sea line had receded 100 feet between May of 1974 and December of 1982 and another 10 feet by September 14, 1983. At range 61, the mean sea level line had moved seaward by 100 feet between May of 1974 and December of 1982, while at range 62 there was a seaward shift of 75 feet over the same period. At range 63, there was accretion between May of 1974 and December of 1982 but erosion brought the mean sea level line landward of its May 1974 location by September of 1983. Between ranges 6 and 67, the average recession of the mean sea level line was 76 feet. By one calculation, the county as a whole lost about 59,000 cubic yards of beach material between May of 1974 and December of 1982. Measurements made shortly before the "No Name" tropical storm occurred, in the summer of 1982, suggest that the storm did not significantly affect these measurements of long term trends. At no time did riparian landowners or officials of Charlotte County or any affected municipality make any written request that the coastal construction control line be moved, although Franz H. Ross, one of Charlotte County's county commissioners, testified at the hearing that the 1977 line needed replacement. He did not endorse DNR's proposed line. After the 1977 line was drawn, the enabling legislation was twice amended. The first reference to a 100-year storm surge appeared in 1978. Ch.78-257, Section 5, Laws of Florida (1978). More recently, storm waves as well as storm surge became a statutory criterion. Ch. 83-247, Section 2, Laws of Florida (1983). Not only have new laws and a new beach emerged since the 1977 line was established, but there have also been advances in scientific analysis and prediction of the behavior of storm waves, notably with reference to surf beats or "dynamic wave set up." ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT DNR prepared a 27-page economic impact statement in which it estimated the costs of the proposed line to the agency, and costs and benefits to persons directly affected by the proposed rule; and made a detailed statement of the data and method used in making these estimates. With respect to the impact of the proposed rule on competition and the open market for employment, the economic impact statement noted that construction costs would increase under the proposed rule, causing a "market adjustment period" during which "builders would have to absorb the cost increase themselves or delay construction while prices rise sufficiently . . . Postponing of construction would tend to reduce employment . . . temporar[il]y. . . . Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5, p. 13. Although portions of the economic impact statement were originally drafted for Dade and Broward County control lines, they have obvious application to Charlotte County, as well. The thrust of the cost-benefit analysis was that construction costs would increase in the area between the 1977 line and the proposed line, but that enhanced preservation of the beaches, and decreases in flood insurance premiums and storm damage potential would more than offset these increased costs. The increase in construction costs was attributed to the expense and delay of obtaining a coastal construction permit, the additional labor and materials necessary to elevate the structure above the predicted level of storm waves in a 100-year return storm, and the relatively insignificant cost of installing stronger connections (hurricane clips for the roof and bolted- metal straps over joists to secure them to supporting piles) so that the structure could withstand wind loads of 140 miles per hour. Petitioners did not disprove the reasonableness of the permitting cost assumptions in the economic impact statement, the evidence of Colony Don Pedro's experience notwithstanding. Fire escapes and access for handicapped persons were not taken into account, but the evidence did not show that differential costs for those items would affect the conclusions of the economic impact statement. The economic impact statement assumes that buildings would have to be elevated off grade even without the additional coastal construction control requirements, and that foundations would be designed by engineers, in any case. Neither assumption was proven false. The assumption that costs increase in direct proportion with elevation yields only a very rough estimate of differential costs. The differential cost analysis did not take fully into account the criterion that applies in coastal construction permitting that relates to a structure's two-dimensional "footprint." DNR permitting staff may recommend denial of a permit even though a proposed building meets all structural integrity requirements whenever, on a site-specific basis, the area to be covered by the building fails to "minimize any expected adverse impact on the beach system." Rule 16B-33.07(2), Florida Administrative Code. In such circumstances, one resolution may be to place the proposed structure at a more landward site, and the economic impact statement does address the economic consequences of removing structures landward, but other resolutions, such as scaling down the project or decreasing floor size and adding floor(s) are not considered. In this connection, there is no mention of Charlotte County's three-story (35 feet) height limitation nor, in general, does the economic impact statement identify what Charlotte County ordinances now require for coastal construction. On the benefit side, some of the flood insurance rate comparisons are inappropriate because Charlotte County will not allow floor elevations several feet below base flood elevations set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as the economic impact statement assumed for comparative purposes. The rate differentials also apparently ignore the fact that the same structure at a higher elevation will be worth more and have a greater insurable value. From Petitioners' Exhibit No. 23, moreover, it appears that federally subsidized flood insurance may no longer be available in certain parts of Charlotte County. But the Sheaffer and Roland study, Respondent's Exhibit No. 14, to which the economic impact statement refers, shows that elevating a structure to the wave crest level instead of to the storm surge level of a 100-year return storm creates additional benefits in the form of lessened storm damage potential (without regard to insurance premiums) that exceed the additional costs. With respect to benefits as well as costs, the economic impact statement suffers from a failure to explicate existing requirements of local law governing building construction. Without this base line, differential costs and benefits were not and cannot be quantified precisely for the specific case of Charlotte County. But see page 12 of Petitioners' Exhibit No. 5. The evidence adduced at hearing failed, however, to discredit the general conclusion of the economic impact statement that requiring sufficient elevation and sufficiently sturdy connections to withstand a 100-year storm event, including the wave crests it would generate, was cost effective, assuming the structure is to have an engineered foundation off grade, in any event. Precise quantification of the economic impact of the site coverage criterion DNR will extend to the area between the 1977 line and the proposed line, if the latter takes effect, may be impossible. The benefits will accrue to the beach and to adjacent landowners as much as to the owner of the structure and both costs and benefits will vary from parcel to parcel with changing topography. THE SANDS OF TIME Under conditions that have recently obtained in Charlotte County, sloping sand beaches climb from the water's edge to the toe of a more or less pronounced primary sand dune, behind which other dunes undulate in succession across the barrier islands to Lemon Bay or Gasparilla Sound, from which they are occasionally insulated by mangrove swamp. Vegetation over much of the islands, which vary from 200 to 2000 feet in width, attests to their present stability. But chances are that a hurricane will in time strike, flattening the dunes, spreading the sand well inland everywhere, all the way across the islands in some places, and leaving a wide beach face without, in many places, any discernible dunes. Such a reconfiguration will ineluctably result from the major hurricane identified as the 100-year return storm. Thereafter, under more favorable weather conditions, dunes will grow and reemerge, comprised of sand the Gulf gives back as well as the sand strewn across the island by the storm, unless surface impediments prevent. The cycle complete, dunes will again stand their erosion-damping vigil against the sea, a buffer protecting the mainland, as well as insular upland. In establishing coastal construction control lines, DNR is charged by statute with the job of "defin[ing] that portion of the beach-dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Section 161.053(1), Florida Statutes (1983). DNR naturally looks to the beach dune system in the configuration it is predicted to assume after a 100-year return storm in defining "that portion of the beach-dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100- year storm . . ." The folly of limiting consideration to the landward toe of a primary dune as it existed in a period of fair weather was well illustrated by the photograph that came in evidence, as Respondent's Exhibit No. 12, of a monument placed behind a dune in St. Johns County only recently that is now well down on the beach. DNR METHODOLOGY In drawing the proposed line, DNR followed the procedure it employed in establishing coastal construction control lines in Nassau, Franklin and perhaps other counties. The line proposed for Martin County was drawn in the same fashion. By statistical inference from historical data, five characteristics of a predicted 100-year return storm are identified: central pressure deficit, radius to maximum winds, speed of hurricane system translation, hurricane direction (track angle), and landfall location or some other geographical reference. In order to assess the likelihood of various combinations of storm attributes actually observed, cumulative probability curves are generated and predictions of storms and their characteristics over several hypothetical 500- year time periods are made. Of each 500-year suite of storms, the fifth most severe is chosen as the 100-year return storm. A date between June 1 and November 30, 1982, is chosen at random and astronomical tides on that day are assumed to coincide with the 100-year return storm. Using the average characteristics of the 100-year return storm, associated wind velocities and storm surge are predicted. Astronomical tides, barometric pressure, wind stress, and the Coriolis effect all contribute to the height of the still water storm surge," the water level that you could measure at a point due to a hurricane's passage if you could turn off the waves." Dean's deposition at 31. The storm surge prediction model also takes storm waves into account: Maximum wave height is 78 percent of water depth. As storm waves approaching a beach reach the break point, their height falls by five percent, but the waves attain and exceed their former height by the time they reach shore. Waves have momentum which, as they break, is transferred, at least in part, "to the water column in the form of a wave setup." Dean's deposition at 32. For many years, "static wave setup" has been observed in wave tanks where waves of the same size have been set in motion to break against a wall of the tank. For six years or so, Drs. Dean and Chiu and others have been convinced that an additional allowance should be made for surf beats or "dynamic wave setup," to reflect the fact that waves in nature do not occur in uniform sizes at regular intervals. Their magnitude oscillates, in the case of breaking storm waves, around the still water surge elevations. To allow for dynamic wave setup, the static wave setup component of the predicted surge elevation is increased by half. The 100-year storm surge height is then used to predict, taking observed beach profiles into account, the landward penetration of waves which will have degenerated to a height of three feet and, with the aid of a mathematical model, the extent to which stormwater transporting sand offshore will cause erosion. At each range, unless a three foot wave is predicted to go further landward, the point to which erosion by offshore transport is predicted to occur is chosen as the endpoint for a segment of the coastal construction control line. Where penetration of a three foot wave farther landward is predicted, the coastal construction control line is drawn on that basis, in light of topography on either side of the range involved. In predicting the landward penetration of a three foot wave, aerial photographs or surveyor's field notes are consulted and, if there is vegetation along the range involved, a coefficient of friction is applied that simulates the existence of trees a foot in diameter with centers five feet apart. At the hearing, the use of a three foot wave horizontal penetration criterion was called into question, and there is an apparent difference of opinion between two of DNR's experts, Dean and Chiu, as to the significance a three foot wave has for the beach dune system. The three foot wave is notorious. This unassuming natural phenomenon has become laden with engineering and legal significance, ever since 1962 studies the Army Corps of Engineers performed in Galveston, Texas, showed that a three foot wave had enough energy to demolish a frame structure built on grade. If it has as much energy as that, Dr. Chiu reasons convincingly, it also has enough energy to transport significant amounts of sand and to damage vegetation. With its sand-holding properties, vegetation plays a critical role in the beach- dune system. Evidence that a three-foot wave does not rearrange substantial quantities of sand, if any was adduced, has not been credited. Even Dr. Dean reported seeing three foot waves moving substantial quantities of sediment. The mathematical erosion model, known for the inventor as the modified Kriebel model, assumes relatively higher sand dunes that are eaten away by waves transporting sand offshore. The erosion model does not take into account lateral movement of sand or the effects of waves overtopping a dune and carrying overwashed sand inland. The model predicts what distance inland an assumed storm surge will move various contours. By comparing the model's predictions to the effects of actual storms, calibration has been possible. After Hurricane Eloise hit Walton County, erosion along 25 miles of shoreline was observed and compared to the model's predictions. In order to draw a line landward of 98 percent of the points to which Eloise eroded the five foot contour, it was necessary to multiply the erosion model's prediction of the landward movement of the five foot contour by 2.5. With the 2.5 factor the model overpredicts for most of the coast affected by a storm, but underpredicts erosion for the point where the storm does its worst. The most severe erosion eats two and a half times further inland than average erosion along the affected coastline. AS APPLIED Underlying both approaches to drawing the proposed line was the prediction of the water height a 100-year return storm would produce. DNR calculated three storm surges, one for the northern, one for the central, and one for the southern Charlotte County coast, and predicted maximum water heights during a 100- year storm ranging from 13.1 to 12.7 feet above NGVD at the mean sea level line. Identifying the 100-year return storm for a particular locale is an elaborate exercise in probability theory that begins with the collection and analysis of historical data. At hearing, various criticisms of this process were advanced. Among them was the way certain data were assigned to categories or "bins." On rebuttal, the data were treated as discrete points and the result was the prediction of a storm surge .8 feet higher than the "bin" prediction method had yielded. Another criticism was the number of hurricanes selected as pertinent over the 80-year period studied. To the same effect was a criticism of the length of the period chosen. Reducing the number of storms from 28 to 20 causes the predicted storm surge to fall half a foot. Respondent's Exhibit No. In their proposed recommended order, intervenors contend Had DNR used . . . correct data in its development of the predicted 100- year storm surge level for Charlotte County, it would have simulated only 137 hurricanes for a 500-year period in Charlotte County. By simulating 182 hurricanes using the storm surge computer model, DNR simulated 45, or 33 percent, more hurricanes than justified. . . . P. 13 (footnotes omitted) The 33 percent is a red herring, since, as intervenors later note, the difference between simulating 182 hurricanes and simulating 125 hurricanes produces a difference of only .7 feet (from 12.9 to 12.2 feet) in the predicted storm surge, a difference of five or six percent. Nor was DNR's approach shown to be "incorrect." A certain amount of time at hearing was devoted to the categorization of hurricanes as alongshore (or bypassing), landfalling, or exiting. Different sources of data may be a source of confusion, if compiled with reference to different points of geographical reference. A hurricane that makes landfall in Miami may exit the peninsula in Charlotte County, while a hurricane that makes landfall in Tampa may bypass Charlotte County en route. Some confusion seems to have attended the integration of data taken from a National Weather Service publication that was used jointly with data from a NOAA source. Respondent's Exhibit No. 18 demonstrates that no significant distortion resulted, however. Among the historical storms omitted by DNR's consultants was the infamous Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, which generated storm tides of 18 feet at Marathon in the Florida Keys. Using only the 1973 NOAA data for Charlotte County yields predictions of storm surges a foot higher than DNR's consultants predicted. On Manasota Key, it was the erosion model that determined placement of the proposed line. Since the probability of the 100-year return storm hitting at any particular point on the Charlotte County coastline is virtually the same as for any other point on the Charlotte County coastline, the 2.5 factor is appropriate. The average amount of erosion over the whole of the affected coastline is of theoretical interest only. Between ranges 1 and 10 on Manasota Key, the dunes are 12 to 14 feet high, as compared to an average elevation for all three islands of slightly above five feet. The high dunes on Manasota Key, where the erosion model was used to set the proposed line, resemble the walls of a wave tank more closely than the lower dunes on Don Pedro and Gasparilla Islands, where stormwater is predicted to cross the islands and keep going. Dr. Chiu also predicted overtopping of Manasota Key. Dr. Dean's testimony was to the effect net overtopping might mean a diminution in wave height attributable to diminished dynamic wave setup of .3 to .4 feet. To this should logically be added a corresponding diminution attributable to diminished static wave set up, viz., .6 to .3 feet, for a total of up to 1.2 feet. The controversial testimony was that the storm surge model ignores altogether a documented phenomenon known variously as "initial rise," "forerunner," and "presurge anomaly," that adds 1 to 3 feet to surge elevations, and that this factor would offset any diminished wave setup almost entirely. Dr. Chiu's opinion that a three foot wave would cause overwash and damage to vegetation on Don Pedro and Gasparilla Islands, severely damaging the beach dune system, has been accepted. The contention that these phenomena are immaterial since they ware characterized as "severe impact on" instead of "severe fluctuations of" the beach dune system must be dismissed as a semantic quibble. Penetration of the three foot wave was the controlling criterion from Range 25 south to the Lee County line, although the average prediction of wave height at points where ranges intersect the proposed line is between 3.3 and 3.4 feet. These wave height predictions ignore, moreover, the erosion of the profile which is bound to occur. Witnesses on all sides agreed that a 100-year return storm would submerge Don Pedro and Gasparilla Islands. Waves three feet high and higher would travel across the barrier islands and Lemon Bay onto the mainland. In Charlotte County, use of the coefficient of friction was very conservative, inasmuch as vegetation on none of the coastal barrier islands approaches the density of trees one foot in diameter, five feet apart on centers. Trees a foot in diameter 15 or 20 feet apart cause only a four percent reduction in wave height every 100 feet as compared to the 20 percent reduction every 100 feet assumed for vegetated ranges in Charlotte County. PROOF IN PUDDING The conservatism of DNR's methodology is shown by damage done landward of the coastal construction control line in Franklin County, where a road upland from the line washed out during a storm of less than 100-year return magnitude and in Martin County, where as the result of a 10-year return storm severe topographical fluctuations were seen landward of the coastal construction control line proposed there. The storm surge model has been calibrated against storms of record, which has demonstrated its reliability, whatever the merits of its theoretical underpinnings. Even assuming some problems with the categorization of storm parameters put into the model for Charlotte County, the evidence adduced in this case does not support the conclusion that stormwaters in Charlotte County will reach an elevation of less than 11 to 12 feet, in the event of a 100-year return storm. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that waves would reach at least that height. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 shows what a storm surge of 11 to 12 feet did to a beach not dissimilar too Charlotte County's when Hurricane Frederic hit Gulf Shores, Alabama. Radical changes in topography occurred well landward of the point at which the proposed line for Charlotte County has been placed. This exhibit also shows why Mr. Tackney's opinion to the effect that a modest reduction in storm surge would permit sand dunes of a certain height to block the water's progress landward must be rejected. When a hurricane hits, the dunes are so dramatically eroded that their former height is not determinative. Although DNR ignored this factor in calculating the horizontal penetration of a three foot wave, in order to make the proposed line conservative, erosion of the profiles is inevitable. The Kriebel erosion model is designed to show what amount of sand stormwater will move offshore when a dune takes the full force of stormwater. When dunes are not high enough to do that, some other criterion for a coastal construction control line is necessary to reflect the different types of erosion that hurricane Frederic and other storms have shown will occur. Overwashed sand deposits stretched 800 feet and more from the water's edge after Frederic abated. The parties proposed findings of fact have been considered and have been adopted, in substance, except where unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate.
