The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has jurisdiction over the activities encompassed by Permit Application BA-475 (Amended) and, if so, whether issuance of the permit complies with the applicable provisions of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Undisputed Facts: The following relevant facts are established by stipulation or admission and are not disputed. The proposed project is landward of the seasonal high waterline within thirty (30) years of December 1996; The project will not interfere with public access; The project will not result in the net excavation of in situ sandy soils seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL); Any sandy soil or material excavated for the proposed project seaward of the control line will remain seaward of the control line or setback and be placed in the immediate area of construction; The proposed project complies with the structural provisions of Rule 62B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code; The proposed project complies with Rules 62B-33.007(3)(a) through (d) and (f) through (h), Florida Administrative Code. Additionally at hearing, the Petitioners and Intervenor announced that they would not present any evidence on the issue of adverse impacts on marine turtles. Accordingly, impacts on marine turtles are not at issue in this proceeding. Project Description: RHE has proposed constructing a restaurant, pool, deck and stormwater basin within the Boardwalk Beach Resort on Panama City Beach, in Bay County, Florida. The Boardwalk Beach Resort consists of four (4) multi-story hotels with six hundred (600) rooms all together, several pools, boardwalks extending the length of the property and approximately seventeen hundred (1,700) to eighteen hundred (1,800) feet of beach front property. The project site is between Thomas Drive to the north and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. On July 23, 1996, RHE applied to the Department for a CCCL permit to construct, seaward of the interim line established by the emergency Order of October 16, 1995, the restaurant, swimming pool and deck. Part of the proposed deck was located seaward of the coastal construction setback line. On December 9, 1996, the Department issued a permit to RHE to construct the restaurant building with an attached deck fifteen (15) feet landward of the location originally proposed by RHE, as well as for construction of the swimming pool. On December 16, 1996, the Department issued to RHE an Amended CCCL permit authorizing construction of a restaurant building located five (5) feet landward of the location originally proposed by RHE, as well as a deck re-designed so that it would be structurally independent of the restaurant, a swimming pool and a dune enhancement plan which would restore the sandy dune seaward of the pool and restaurant location to its pre-hurricane Opal condition and elevation. The Amended permit would require re-vegetation of the dunes at the site with native plants to secure the dunes from erosion. Both the original and the Amended permits authorized the removal of the stormwater drainage pipe that carried stormwater onto the beach that had caused erosion of the beach near the project area. On January 9, 1997, the Petitioners timely filed a Petition challenging the Department’s decision to issue the Amended permit. On February 7, 1997, the Department established a new CCCL line for Bay County that was farther landward than either the old coastal construction setback line or the interim line established in the October 1995 emergency order. The project authorized by the Amended permit would thus be located entirely seaward of the newly established CCCL for Bay County. As of February 7, 1997, the date the new line was established, RHE had not begun working on the foundation or continued construction above the foundation for any of the structures authorized by the Amended permit. The Department determined that the project did not meet the requirements of Section 161.053(9), and Rule 62B-33.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, so as to qualify for an exemption from complying with the newly established CCCL for Bay County, as the project was not “under construction” at the time the new CCCL was established. The beach and dunes system is wide and the dune system is a significant one, with elevations of fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) feet NGVD, with a wide dune crest. The dry sandy beach in front of the site, even after hurricane Opal struck, remained approximately one hundred twenty-five (125) feet wide. From 1855 to 1934 the shoreline of the site was mildly accretional. Thereafter, until 1955 accretion was less significant, but from 1955 to 1976 became significant. From February 1992 through April 1995, the project site experienced a period of mild erosion. Accordingly the long-term data shows, in essence, that the shoreline is relatively stable at the site. Hurricane Opal caused the dune to erode or retreat landward by approximately a distance of fifteen (15) feet. Hurricane Opal was a major magnitude storm with one hundred twenty-five (125) mile per hour sustained winds and one hundred forty-four (144) mile per hour measured gusts when it came ashore in the vicinity of the proposed site. The dune portion of the proposed site now essentially mimics the pre-Opal conditions. Following hurricane Opal the applicants spent approximately Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) in dune restoration along the entire shoreline of the resort property, some seventeen hundred (1,700) to eighteen hundred (1,800) feet of shoreline. That dune restoration work was permitted by the Department. There is now little native salt-tolerant vegetation on the site in its natural pre-construction condition. An existing stormwater drainage pipe and catch basin extend onto the beach seaward of the location of the proposed restaurant. The existing pipe and basin have caused erosion of the beach and the sand dune system on the project site. Under the amended permit proposal the stormwater pipe and basin would be removed. All of the proposed structures authorized by the Amended permit would be landward of the pre-Opal coastal construction control line. The proposed pool will be located landward of the dune crest and fifty-five (55) feet landward of the toe of the dune. The proposed restaurant would also be located landward of the dune crest and two hundred five (205) feet landward of the mean high waterline. The original design of the project was for a much larger, three story restaurant. The original pool design called for a one hundred twenty foot pool extending from in front of the Comfort Inn to beneath the proposed restaurant, in effect being located on the first floor of the restaurant. At DEP’s request the size of the pool was reduced by fifty percent (50%) and it was relocated into the shadow of the Comfort Inn next door so that it will no longer serve as an integral part of the restaurant. Pool depths were also reduced to three (3) feet at DEP’s request. The pool, at DEP’s request, will now be constructed of Gunnite concrete material and will be frangible, that is, it will be designed to break up in storm-surge or storm-waves. This will serve to decrease the erosion which could be caused by storm-waves flowing over and around the pool structure. The same is true of the restaurant deck, which at DEP’s request has been re-designed to be separate from the restaurant and also designed to fail in storm conditions. The frangibility of the deck, as now proposed, will retard erosion during storm conditions, as the stormwater or waves will demolish the deck and remove it rather than scouring the sand dune around it. The Department also requested that the existing stormwater drain pipe and catch basin be removed and such a removal has been made a condition of the subject permit. This will require that the applicant design and build a new stormwater system. The applicant has agreed to this condition and the others referenced above. Vegetation: Construction of the proposed project will not result in the removal or destruction of native vegetation. There is no such vegetation on the site where the construction will take place. Thus, construction of the project will not result in removal or destruction of native vegetation which will either cause de-stabilization of a "frontal, primary or significant dune" or cause a significant adverse impact to the beach and dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. A special condition of the proposed amended permit requires that the applicant submit a dune enhancement plan for restoration of the dunes seaward of the pool and restaurant to its pre-hurricane Opal condition, including re-vegetation. Such a plan was submitted by the applicant and it includes the planting of sea oats on one (1) foot centers. The planting of sea oats as part of the dune enhancement plan will constitute a significant improvement to the native vegetation situation at the site. Disturbance of Sandy Soils: The project will not result in the removal or disturbance of in situ sandy soils of the beach and dunes system to such a degree as to have an adverse impact on the system. That is, the existing ability of the system to resist erosion during a storm will not be reduced. The proposed project will not result in the removal or disturbance of in situ sandy soils of the beach and dune system to such a degree as to cause adverse impact to those systems by lowering existing levels of storm protection to upland properties and structures. All the sandy material excavated for the pool and the stormwater basin will be placed seaward of these structures on the dune in the immediate area of the construction and seaward of the CCCL. The additional sand to be placed on the dune as part of the dune enhancement plan will, in fact, enhance the ability of the system to resist erosion during the storm. The ability of the dune to resist storm erosion is primarily a function of the quantity of sand within the dune system. The additional sand to be placed on the dune as part of the dune enhancement plan will enhance the protection of upland properties and structures including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor. Excavation of the stormwater basin will not destabilize the dune on the project site. The applicant is moving the stormwater basin landward by twenty (20) feet which will minimize the potential impacts of the basin on the dune system. The preponderant evidence establishes that the structure of the pool and pool deck will not cause an increase in structure-induced scour of such a magnitude as to measurably affect shoreline change rates. Scour caused by the pool will not significantly interfere with the beach-dune system's ability to recover from a coastal storm. The frangible design of the pool decreases the likelihood that it will cause any scour. It will break up in a storm so that any scour caused by the pool would be minimal. Any scour caused by the pool would not disturb the topography or vegetation such that the coastal system would become unstable or suffer catastrophic failure. Scour would have no measurable effect. The proposed restaurant and deck will not cause an increase in structure-induced scouring during a storm of such a magnitude as to have a significant adverse impact. The restaurant and deck will be constructed on piles. Scouring around piles, in a storm situation, is very localized and insignificant. By constructing the restaurant and deck on piles at the design elevation, storm-surge and storm-waves will pass under the deck and restaurant. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune to permit natural shoreline fluctuations. The structures will be built on pilings and will be elevated above the storm-surge; thus they will not interfere with shoreline fluctuations. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune so as to preserve and protect beach and dune system stability, in terms of the lack of interference with such. Other structures in the area are seaward of the proposed restaurant and deck, including Pineapple Willies Restaurant, located eleven hundred feet to the west. Those structures have not caused instability of the beach during hurricane Opal. Typically, existing structures do not cause instability of the dune systems. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune so as to allow for natural recovery to occur following storm-induced erosion. Natural recovery commonly occurs under pile-supported elevated structures which is not the case with “slab-on-grade” structures which are not elevated. The pool and pool deck will permit natural shoreline fluctuations, will preserve and protect beach and dune stability, and will allow recovery after a storm because they are designed as frangible structures that will fail and disintegrate in a storm situation. Thus they will not appreciably affect the beach-dune system. Line of Construction: Most coastal construction in Bay County extends out to the pre-Opal CCCL while some construction extends beyond it. Throughout Bay County the line of construction is the pre-Opal CCCL. The line of construction is determined by the most seaward extent of similar existing structures in the immediate area of the proposed structure under consideration in a CCCL permit application. The proposed pool is landward of the line of construction determined by existing pools within the boardwalk beach resort. There are a number of existing multi-story structures to the east of the proposed restaurant that are located out to the pre-Opal CCCL. That pattern of construction continues to the east of the proposed restaurant. Approximately one thousand (1,000) feet to the east of the proposed restaurant is an existing multi-story major structure that is built out to the pre-Opal CCCL. The beach in the area of the project is highly developed with commercial and condominium buildings. Within eleven hundred to twelve hundred feet to the west of the proposed restaurant there is another major structure built out to the pre-Opal CCCL. Just beyond that structure are a number of additional major structures, including Pineapple Willie's Restaurant, that are constructed out to the pre-Opal CCCL. The multi-story major structures to the east and west of the proposed structure are within the immediate area of the restaurant. The proposed restaurant is located landward of the line of construction established by these major structures within its immediate area. That line of construction is the pre-Opal CCCL. DEP did not consider major structures more than one thousand (1,000) feet from the proposed restaurant when it determined the line of construction for the restaurant. It is DEP’s policy when reviewing CCCL applications not to consider structures more than one thousand (1,000) feet from a proposed structure when determining the line of construction. The one thousand (1,000) foot limit DEP uses to determine the line of construction is not embodied in a rule. There was no preponderant coastal engineering or other scientific evidence which justifies the one thousand (1,000) foot limit DEP imposes when it determines the line of construction. It was appropriate to consider the existing structures referenced above in assessing the line of construction for this amended permit application and considering those lying just beyond the one thousand (1,000) foot distance, because those existing structures dominate the coastal processees in the region and only lie just beyond one thousand (1,000) feet to the east and twelve hundred (1,200) feet to the west. If the Department had considered the above-referenced existing major structures just beyond one thousand (1,000) feet of the proposed restaurant, it would have been shown that the proposed project was landward of the thus established line of construction. No preponderant evidence was offered to explicate why the one thousand (1,000) foot limit was automatically adhered to in this situation. Moreover, the line of construction is not a prohibition in and of itself but rather is only one of several criteria that must be balanced in determining whether or not to approve a CCCL permit application. Projects have been approved seaward of the line of construction in the past. Minimization The location of the swimming pool at the most practicable landward location, the reduced size of the pool, as well as its frangible design and limited depth, has minimized its impact. The placing of the excavated material in the pool’s immediate area and the restoration of the dune in front of the pool and deck have minimized the impacts of the pool and deck. The construction of the restaurant on pilings with its design elevation above storm-surge and storm-wave elevations, together with locating it behind the dune crest and away from the active beach, has minimized the impact of the restaurant. The deck is on pilings as well, elevated above storm-surge and storm-wave levels. It will be physically separate from the restaurant and its design frangibility (so that it will fail in a storm) results in its impact being minimized. The stormwater basin is located as far landward as practicable. Its location and the placing of the materials excavated for the basin on the dune immediately adjacent to the basin has minimized the impact of the proposed stormwater basin on the beach-dune system. The restaurant, pool, deck, and stormwater system will not have a significant adverse impact to the beach-dune system. The restaurant will not adversely affect exiting shoreline change rates, will not significantly interfere with recovery following a storm, and will not disturb topography or vegetation such that the system will become unstable or suffer catastrophic failure. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project will not have an unacceptable cumulative impact. There are no other proposed similar projects to take into account and a cumulative impact assessment has shown there to be no adverse cumulative impact. No evidence was offered to show that an unacceptable adverse cumulative impact in terms of existing or other proposed projects will result. Positive Benefit The proposed project will have a net positive benefit on the beach-dune system. The removal of the slab-on-grade constructed building will have a beneficial impact because it will reduce the chance of storm erosion to the beach-dune system posed by such structures. The existing stormwater pipe and catch basin which cause erosion would be removed, resolving that erosion problem. Stormwater will now be retained in a new stormwater basin designed to serve 1.7 acres and it will not flow onto the beach for any rainfall event up to a one hundred year design storm. The new stormwater system is designed to recover quickly after a storm event and to treat stormwater. The removal of the stormwater pipe and catch basin, and the installation of the new stormwater basin will have a positive benefit to the beach-dune system. The new stormwater system complies with Special Permit Condition 7. Moreover the applicant will restore the dune seaward of the project to its pre-hurricane Opal condition and will plant sea oats, on one foot centers, throughout the restoration area in accordance with Special Permit Condition 1.8. Such restoration of the dune and vegetation will benefit the beach-dune system. The natural recovery process will take several decades without the placement of sand in the dune restoration project. The dune enhancement plan submitted by the applicant, in order to comply with Special Permit Condition 1.8, exceeds the requirements of that condition since it places more sand on the dunes than necessary to achieve pre-Opal conditions. Testimony of expert witness Michael Walhter, which is accepted, establishes that restored beaches and dunes function much like natural ones in storm events even though they can be somewhat inferior in resistance to storm-surge and waves since the sand is not as compacted at first. This dune enhancement plan, however, exceeds the permit requirements by placing more sand than necessary on the dunes to achieve pre-Opal conditions. The Interim CCCL On October 16, 1995, the DEP issued its emergency Order establishing an interim CCCL for Bay County one hundred feet landward of the pre-Opal CCCL. The Department established that interim line in order to regulate coastal development in the wake of Hurricane Opal. In 1978 the Legislature established criteria to be used by DEP in establishing or re-establishing all CCCL’s. They are thus to be established to define that portion of a beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations from a one hundred year storm event. At the time of Hurricane Opal, DEP had not re-established the Bay County CCCL using a one hundred year storm event criterion. The interim CCCL for Bay County established by the above-referenced emergency Order did not utilize nor was it based on the statutory one hundred year storm event criterion. All twenty-three (23) other CCCL’s that have been established based on the statutory one hundred year storm event criterion were established by rule. As of January 15, 1997, the applicant had received all governmental approvals necessary to begin construction of the proposed project except for that which is the subject of this proceeding. On January 22, 1997, DEP by letter advised the applicant to cease and desist construction of the project. On February 7, 1997, the Department by rule then taking effect established a new CCCL.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, DETERMINED: That the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over the proposed project and that it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered granting the Respondent, Resort Hospitality’s CCCL application consistent with the terms and conditions espoused by the Final Order of December 17, 1997, Respondent’s Exhibit 2 and the project plans depicted in Respondent’s Exhibits 3 and 4. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bram D. Canter, Esquire 103 North Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas G. Tomasello, Esquire 1315 East Lafayette Street, Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Neil H. Butler, Esquire Butler and Long, P.A. Post Office Box 839 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0839 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On September 23, 1983, Hollywood submitted a permit application to DNR for construction of the proposed project which is the subject matter of this proceeding. DNR designated that permit application as Permit Application 50-41. The proposed project is actually the first phase of a two-phase project, Phase II of which has already been permitted by DNR. Phase I, which is the subject of Permit Application 50-41, consists of an extension of existing Surf Road in the City of Hollywood, an extension of an existing asphalt boardwalk, construction of a parking area with landscaped island, swale, and associated lighting. The excavated fill removed from the site of Phase I is to be used in the construction of a dune which is encompassed within Phase II of the project. The properties on which Phase I and Phase II are to be constructed are owned by the City of Hollywood and are located seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line and landward of the Erosion Control Line. The Summit Condominium is a condominium development located west of South Surf Road in the City of Hollywood, and is directly adjacent and contiguous to the property upon which the aforementioned project is to be constructed. Petitioner is the builder and developer of the Summit Condominium and, in addition, is the fee simple owner of approximately 15 units in that development. Phase I of the proposed project, which is the permit application at issue in this proceeding, provides for the construction of a 121-space public parking area which will be approximately 62 feet wide and 605 feet long, and will extend approximately 95 feet seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. The parking lot will be constructed with a six-inch limerock base over a six-inch crushed limerock subbase, and will be surfaced with a one and one-half- inch asphalt wearing course. The parking lot is designed with a definite landward slope, so that stormwater will sheet flow across the parking lot away from the dune system. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding which would in any way justify a conclusion that stormwater runoff from the parking lot area will have any adverse effect on the dune system seaward of the lot. Stormwater runoff once it has left the parking lot surface will be collected in a swale and drainage ditch system located landward of the paved parking lot surface. The drainage ditch will be composed of sandy material presently located on the site and is designed on a 1.2 to 1 slope. In addition, Wedelia is to be planted in and around the drainage ditch system in order to stabilize the slopes of the ditch. The ditch and swale system is designed to allow most stormwater runoff to percolate into the soil, with any excess being collected in the ditch itself and transmitted in a northerly direction. A drainage calculation study prepared in conjunction with this proceeding demonstrates that the drainage capacity for the proposed ditch meets minimum standards contained in the South Florida Building Code, as applied by the City of Hollywood. As the ditch fills with stormwater, the water will flow in a northerly, shore parallel direction to Jefferson Street, which is located north of both the proposed project and the Summit Condominium. From Jefferson Street, runoff from the project site will flow westerly to Highway A-1-A where an existing stormwater sewer system is located. If for some reason that system proves insufficient to handle runoff, the runoff will then travel across A-1-A into the intracoastal waterway. There is no competent evidence of record in this proceeding to demonstrate that stormwater runoff from the project site will, under any conditions, flow onto Petitioner's property. Phase I of the project has been designed to minimize the potential for the creation of aerodynamically or hydrodynamically propelled missiles in the event of a major storm. The asphalt surface of the parking lot is designed to break into chunks which will settle into the sand or water when exposed to wind and water forces. The parking meters are set four feet into the ground which reduces their potential to act as missiles, but even should the beach recede to the point where the meters are installed, evidence of record in this proceeding establishes that they will fall to the base of the eroded dune wall and will be washed out to sea rather than be propelled shoreward either by water or air. Various storm surge computer models for pre- and post-construction conditions at various locations on the property were performed. The result of these models shows that there will be no difference in impact on the beach dine system and adjacent property between the pre- and postconstruction profiles in the event of a ten-year storm. Further, computer models actually showed that there will be less erosion for the post-construction profile than for the preconstruction profile in the event of a twenty-year storm surge. In the event of a fifty-year or greater storm event, the beach profile for both pre- and postconstruction in the project area would be inundated, so that the impact of such a storm will be the same with or without the proposed construction. Evidence of record does, however, establish that based upon postconstruction conditions as proposed in the permit application it would take a greater storm to erode material from the postconstruction profile, thereby establishing that the proposed project will afford greater protection than existing topography. It appears from the record in this proceeding that Hollywood's Permit Application 50-41 is complete, and that DNR has in its possession all information necessary and required by law for the processing of the permit application. Engineering plans submitted in support of the application for Phase T have been signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, granting the requested permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Josias, Esquire Donald J. Dooty, Esquire 3040 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Leonard Lubart, Esquire Post Office Box 2207 Hollywood, Florida 33022 Elton J Gissendanner, Director Department of Natural Resources Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
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)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether a beach house petitioners plan to build in south Walton County was already under construction, within the meaning of Section 161.053(7), Florida Statutes (1981) and Rule 16B-33.04(1), Florida Administrative Code, at the time the current coastal construction control line took effect there.
Findings Of Fact In October of 1982, the petitioners acquired a lot in south Walton County, on the north shore of the Gulf of Mexico. Even before the purchase, Mr. Wiese had been in touch with respondent's personnel, who apprised him of the imminence of the adoption of the new (now current) coastal construction control line, at that time already proposed for Walton County. The former coastal construction control line was considerably seaward of the current line, which became effective on December 29, 1982. Petitioners, who have built some seven houses, drew plans for a house to be built on their Walton County lot one foot landward of the old coastal construction control line. They applied for and obtained the necessary county building permit. They contracted for grading on site, which took place on November 27, 1982. In the course of this work, the landward face of the sand dune was disturbed and petitioners realized that, if they were to build so close to the water, a wall or something like a wall would have to be erected and buttressed to keep the sand dune from migrating under or into their beach house. They determined that the plans were inadequate as drawn. Mr. Wiese nevertheless arranged for one Al Christopher to bring two poles to the site and place one of them upright in the sand. When asked at hearing how long the two poles Mr. Christopher delivered to the site were, Mr. Wiese said he did not know. After Mr. Christopher began, petitioners did not ask him to desist either with bringing pilings to the site or with placing them in the ground. Mr. Christopher evidently did what he was asked to do, before he ever began working with the poles. Before the single pile was placed, batter boards were used to locate the perimeters planned for the building. Batter boards are temporary markers which are removed once the foundation is in place. In constructing piling foundations for beach houses along the gulf coast, in this part of Florida if not elsewhere, the ordinary sequence is to bring all foundation piles to the site before bringing the equipment necessary to install all the piles at once. This makes for efficient use of expensive machinery, and is virtually always done. One of the Wieses' neighbors, fearing that the new coastal construction control line would take effect last fall arranged for a single pile to be driven, but his project was well underway by the time the new coastal construction control line did in fact take effect. As late as March of this year, Mr. Wiese checked with a Texas supplier to see if foundation piles would be available for the project. The plans drawn before the grading of November 27, 1982, called for a foundation of 37 piles, each of which was to be 45 feet long. No horizontal members nor bracing of any kind was contemplated for the foundation. The foundation piles were to be put so close together that it would have been impractical to bring heavy equipment in to do the grading after they were in place. The idea in leveling the ground was to prepare it so a concrete slab could be poured to serve as a parking surface underneath the beach house. Under both the plans originally drawn and the plans under which petitioners now hope to proceed the parking surface itself is not expected to have a structural function, Mr. Wiese's testimony to the contrary notwithstanding. Once petitioners were persuaded that the project needed "reengineering," they diligently sought out expert assistance and new foundation plans were eventually drawn to their satisfaction. Petitioners' efforts took place on a regular, if not a daily basis, but consisted in large part of finding the right people for the "reengineering" job. The plans which petitioners propose to use were stamped with the final engineer's seal on March 3, 1983, more than two months after the current coastal construction control line took effect.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioners' beach house project grandfathered status, and apply the coastal construction control line adopted for Walton County on December 29, 1982, in any agency action regarding the project. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1983, Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 ApA1Achee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph C. Jacobs, Esquire John C. Pelham, Esquire and Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire ERVIN, VARN, ODOM & KITCHEN Post Office Box 1770 Tallahassee, Florida 32322-1170 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Suite 1003 Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Director Executive Suite 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) should approve a permit for the applicant, Indian River County (County), to install a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef) off the coast of Vero Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving permits such as the one at issue. The County is a governmental entity and is the applicant which has requested a permit for an experimental project to be located in Vero Beach, Florida. The Petitioners oppose the proposed project. The project at issue is the installation of a PEP reef system to be located between approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-80 to approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-83, in Indian River County, Florida. Because of the uncertainty as to the performance of the proposed project and the potential that it may cause adverse impacts to the coastal system, the Department classified the project as experimental pursuant to Chapter 89-175, Section 27, Laws of Florida. In making its preliminary approval for the permit, the Department required special permit conditions to safeguard the coastal system and marine turtles. Additionally, the Department specified both preconstruction and post installation monitoring and testing. The term of the permit is limited to five years, including three years to monitor the project's impacts. A PEP reef is a prefabricated erosion prevention product installed as a breakwater off the shore. In this case, the product measures approximately twelve feet long and six feet high. The base of the product (which is conically shaped) is approximately 15 feet tapering to a one foot crest at the top. The PEP unit is a proprietary product of a company called American Coastal Engineering (ACE). The County proposes to contract with ACE for the manufacture and installation of the units. It is proposed that the PEP units would be installed in an alignment parallel to the beach for a total, though not continuous, length of 3000 feet. The proposed location for the PEP reef in Vero Beach is in an erosion area as identified by the Department's Beach Restoration Management Plan. Historically, the subject beach has experienced a steady and continuous erosion which has been exacerbated during storm conditions. The proposed site is suitable for the experimental nature of this project. At least one past storm event caused substantial damage to the beach front at the project site. Walkways, utilities, and other public improvements were substantially damaged. Past efforts to curb the erosion have proved unsuccessful. Such efforts included beach renourishment, and the installation of seawalls or bulkheads. Future beach renourishment is undesirable for the project site due to the lack of compatible sand, and its high cost. More important, however, are concerns over the negative environmental impacts to nearshore reefs which could result from a large scale renourishment project. For over ten years the County has sought a solution to the erosion that has plagued the project site. To that end, the County established a special committee, the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee, to review options available and to recommend long-term solutions to the County. In June, 1993, the County contracted with Petitioner Walther to prepare a map of the nearshore hardbottom reef and to evaluate alternatives for beach restoration at the project site. Such work was completed, and recommendations from Mr. Walther were not incompatible with the installation of the proposed reef. The proposed installation should not adversely affect the hardbottom reefs which are in the vicinity of the PEP units. Such hardbottom is considered environmentally sensitive; however, no PEP unit will be placed on the hardbottom or so close to it that it will disturb the organisms located within the hardbottom community. In December, 1993, the County submitted an application for an experimental coastal construction permit to install the PEP reef which is at issue. The PEP units are to be placed in seven to ten feet of water. The PEP reef is designed to reduce wave heights, particularly during a storm event, which should reduce the wave energy and currents in the lee of the structure. While it is hoped the units will deter erosion, they may also cause some accretion to the beach. Whether such accretion would be temporary or long- term is uncertain. As a result of studies performed by the University of Florida under the direction of Dr. Dean, and supported by the County's coastal engineer Mr. Donaldson, it was determined that the PEP units should be installed in shorter lengths (than originally designed) with gaps between each segment. Consequently, the installation proposed by the County is not continuous but is staggered and gapped. The installation proposed by the County is unique in that the coastal characteristics of the area and the proposed design should produce results different from past installations of reef structures in Palm Beach County, Florida. As a result, studies performed by Dr. Dean in connection with a reef installed in Palm Beach County have been discounted as dissimilar to the one proposed in this case. In reviewing the subject permit application, the Department requested additional data which the County retained Dr. Zarillo to gather. Dr. Zarillo performed numerical modeling for the proposed reef system. Based upon Dr. Zarillo's work it is expected that the PEP reef system will have a positive benefit in that wave height and energy is likely to be reduced by the installation of the units. The site for the installation is suited for the proposal and is not within an area that is considered environmentally sensitive. Moreover, the PEP reef itself will add to the development of species since it should develop into a nursery habitat for young fish and other marine organisms. The installation of PEP reefs at other locations have proven to be both successful and unsuccessful. Having considered the studies performed by Dr. Bruno, an expert in coastal engineering and in measuring/modeling coastal processes, it is likely that the proposed project will be similar enough in design to installations reviewed by Dr. Bruno to allow the proposed project to be compared. Dr. Bruno has monitored three installations at three different sites in New Jersey. Each site had different results based upon conditions of each location. One site, expected to be most like the proposed site in Vero Beach, has experienced a reduced rate of erosion. Based upon Dr. Bruno's "real life" experience it is expected that the proposed installation will result in a reduction of wave height on the order of 10 percent to 20 percent. Consequently, the proposed installation should provide a benefit to the control of erosion. The reduction of wave height leads to a reduction in the erosive power of the wave field. Therefore, it is expected to result in a reduced erosion rate behind the PEP reefs. Additionally, Dr. Bruno's assessment of Dr. Zarillo's modeling work suggests that "in theory" the proposed site should experience a reduction in wave height as a result of the proposed installation. As a result, both scientific methods support the proposed project. No scientific study can, however, assure the success of this project. In fact, success may be derived from the value of the data which will be gathered during the monitoring period. Such data may assist in the future design of structures to reduce wave energy. The County's proposed monitoring plan contains detailed and adequate performance criteria to assure that the PEP reef system will be fully evaluated. The County has provided adequate assurance that it will comply with the permit conditions, including the modification or removal of the reef system if directed by the Department. All installation and monitoring as well as removal is to be performed at the County's expense. The PEP reef system will have no appreciable adverse impact on marine turtles. Construction is prohibited during nesting season under the terms of the permit. The PEP reef system will have no adverse impact on swimmers or boaters. The units are to be clearly marked and identified under the terms of the permit. No adverse impacts to Petitioners Walther and Clemens should be incurred as a result of the installation of the proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the permit requested by the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, 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 16th day of February 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4045 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Walther: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 26, 29, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59, and 60 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation is hearsay as it relates to the record cited; however, although not stipulated, the record most likely supports the paragraph in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the factual conclusion that because another permit holder has failed to remove a reef that the County will similarly default on its obligation to do should the agency order the PEP reef removal. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant if it purports to suggest the contracting was improper; this proceeding does not consider the propriety of the contracting process. With the deletion of any emphasis and the last sentence which are rejected as argument, paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 18 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as hearsay; it is accepted that Mrs. Clemens opposed the permit and requested a hearing. Paragraph 27 is rejected as an incomplete statement and therefore not supported by the total weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 30 through 33 are rejected as law not statements of fact. Paragraph 34 is accepted in general terms but not as to the specific measurements cited. Paragraphs 35 through 38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. It is determined that the site is suitable for a non-biased, comprehensive analysis of the project. Paragraphs 39 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 45, it is accepted the reefs may settle but such is expected to be unlikely to impair the overall performance of the structure; therefore, the paragraph, as drafted, must be rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as unclear or incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 58 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 61, it is accepted that Dr. Dean envisioned a current being created that would run parallel to the shoreline as a result of the reef installation but otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 62, such statement is generally true; however, Dr. Dean did not conduct any sediment transportation test to verify that the structure in an open setting (as opposed to the experimental tank) would transport sediment as inferred. Paragraphs 63 through 67 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is accepted as accurate but the agency did not express, and the record does not establish, that there is a concern that the County may not honor its agreement to remove the PEP reef if directed to do so. Paragraph 69 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Clemens: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent Department: All proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department as listed are accepted. See comments below as to rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the County. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent County: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 through 30, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that an extensive renourishment program might damage the sensitive nearshore hardbottom community; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 16, with the deletion of the word "significantly" in the second sentence and the last sentence which are rejected as irrelevant, editorial comment, argument or not supported by the total weight of credible evidence, it is accepted. With regard to paragraph 18, the first sentence is accepted. As to the balance of the paragraph, with the deletion of the word "significantly" and the substitution of "might" for "could", the paragraph is accepted. Otherwise rejected as an inaccurate characterization of the weight of the record. With regard to paragraph 19, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as a compound statement of proposed fact some of which are accurate but which taken in whole constitute argument, unnecessary, irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 31, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence three, the paragraph is accepted. With regard to paragraph 32, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence two, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 35, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 36 through 38 are rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. The proposed PEP reef should not adversely impact the Vero Beach shoreline. Paragraph 44 is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraphs 47 through 53, it is accepted that the Petitioners did not establish that they will be substantially affected by the proposed project; however, their conduct does not rise to the level to establish participation in the administrative process was for an improper purpose. Consequently, the paragraphs are rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Lewis, Esquire John W. Forehand, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 702 Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Michael P. Walther 1725 36th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Adele Clemens 3747 Ocean Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Dana M. Wiehle Assistants General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherall Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue All Three Cases Whether the Petitioners have standing to bring their respective challenges pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes? Case No. 10-5348RU Whether either or both Original Specific Condition 1 and the Department ECL Position constitute a rule? Case Nos. 10-6205 and 10-8197 Whether Specific Condition 5 constitutes a rule? Attorney's Fees Whether an order should be entered against the Department for costs and attorney's fees under Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Draft Permit The Draft Permit (and its revisions) authorizes the County "to construct the work outlined in the activity description and activity location of this permit and shown on the approved permit drawings, plans and other documents attached hereto." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9, page 3 of 26. The "activity description" and the "activity location" are detailed on the first page of the Draft Permit. See Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9 (first page of 26). The drawings, plans and other documents attached to the Draft Permit are contained under Tab 10 of Volume III of the Joint Exhibit. The Parties Petitioner Guidry is co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust (the "Guidry Living Trust"). He has independent authority to protect, conserve, sell, lease, encumber or otherwise dispose of trust assets. Those assets include a condominium unit in the Oceania Condominium. The condominium unit owned by the Guidry Living Trust includes an undivided interest held with all other unit owners in the common property at the Oceania Condominium. The common property includes real property that fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 720 Gulf Shore Drive in the City of Destin, Florida. The real property has the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico as its southern boundary. Petitioner Oceania is a condominium association established pursuant to Florida's Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. It does not own any real property. Mr. Guidry testified that he is authorized in his capacity as president of the Association to initiate and pursue this administrative proceeding on its behalf. No documents were entered in evidence reflecting that Oceania's Board of Directors approved the filing of the petition. The owners of condominium units at the Oceania Condominium, including the Guidry Trust, comprise the membership of Oceania. The unit owners all own undivided shares in the Oceania Condominium common property including the real estate that extends at its southern boundary to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The owners did not vote on whether to file the petition in Case No. 10-05348RU. Petitioners David and Rebecca Sherry are leaseholders of real property where they reside. Located at 554 Coral Court, Number 511, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, the property is in an area in Okaloosa County on Santa Rosa Island that is known as Okaloosa Island. The property leased by the Sherrys is not within the Western Destin Project. Petitioner John Donovan is a leaseholder of real property located at 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Numbers 131-132, El Matador Condominium, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, in the same area as the Sherry's residence. Petitioner MACLA II, Ltd., is a Texas Limited Partnership. Louise Brooker is its president. It owns real property which fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 620 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. The southern boundary of the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The MACLA property is located adjacent to the shoreline that is the subject of the Western Destin Project. The Betty Price Hughes Qualified Vacation Residence Trust (the "Hughes Trust") owns real property at 612 Gulf Shore Drive. Its southern boundary is deeded the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Petitioner H. Joseph Hughes is a trustee of the Hughes Trust. Petitioner Kershaw Manufacturing Company, Inc., an Alabama corporation, is the owner of real property located at 634 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. Its southern boundary the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Royce Kershaw is the president of the Kershaw Manufacturing Company. He testified that as president of the company, he has the authority to act on behalf of the company and has the power to bind the corporate entity. 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 Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund is responsible for stewardship of its public trust properties under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. Included among those properties is the sovereignty submerged lands along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The ECL and the MHWL In the context of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, the MHWL and the ECL were discussed by the Florida Supreme Court in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 998 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2008) (the "Walton County Supreme Court Case"): Pursuant to section 161.141, when a local government applies for funding for beach restoration, a survey of the shoreline is conducted to determine the MHWL for the area. Once established, any additions to the upland property landward of the MHWL that result from the restoration project remain the property of the upland owner subject to all governmental regulations, including a public easement for traditional uses of the beach. § 161.141. After the MHWL is established, section 161.161(3) provides that the Board must determine the area to be protected by the project and locate an ECL. In locating the ECL, the Board "is guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible." § 161.161(5). Pursuant to section 161.191(1), this ECL becomes the new fixed property boundary between public lands and upland property after the ECL is recorded. And, under section 161.191(2), once the ECL has been established, the common law no longer operates "to increase or decrease the proportions of any upland property lying landward of such line, either by accretion or erosion or by any other natural or artificial process." Walton County, at 1108. The Pre-project MHWL in This Case and the ECL The Pre-project MHWL called for by Original Specific Condition 1 was never established. No evidence was introduced as to where the Pre-project MHWL would have been located had it been set and in particular, where it would have been located in relation to an ECL. Rod Maddox is a long-time surveyor with the Department's Division of State Land in the Bureau of Survey & Mapping. See P-244. Mr. Maddox testified about his experience with pre-project MHWLs and where they are located in relation to ECLs. Familiar with the term "pre-project mean high water line," Mr. Maddox defined it as the mean high water line prior to the placement of fill used in a beach restoration project. See id. at 29. He testified that pre-project MHWLs have been required in the many beach restoration cases with which he is familiar. He testified further that when it comes to location, there is no difference between a pre-project MHWL and an ECL. The denominations may be different but Mr. Maddox testified "as to how . . . established, I see them as one and the same." Id. at 30. Original Special Condition 1: the Pre-project MHWL On December 31, 2009, the Department issued the NOI. Attached to it was the Draft Permit. The Draft Permit contained the following paragraph as Special Condition 1: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Permittee must record in the official records of Okaloosa County a Certificate, approved by the Department, which describes all upland properties (including their owners of record) along the entire shoreline of the permitted project, with an attached completed survey of the pre-project Mean High Water Line ("Mean High Water Line Survey") conducted along the entire permitted project shoreline length. The Mean High Water Line Survey must have been completed in a manner complying with Chapter 177, Florida Statutes, as determined by the Department. No construction work pursuant to this joint coastal permit shall commence until the Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line Survey have been approved and archived by the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping, and the Department has received proof of recording of such documents (see Specific Condition No. 4.c.). The approved Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line survey shall be attached to, and kept as part of this joint coastal permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. If in the future the Permittee seeks reimbursement from the State for costs expended to undertake (construct) the permitted project, then, prior to, and as a condition of receipt of any authorized and approved reimbursement, the Board of Trustees will establish an ECL consistent with the provisions of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. The Permittee shall be required to record such a line in the Okaloosa County official records. Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, No. 9. The Oceania Petitioners, as landowners within the Project area, challenged the issuance of the Draft Permit on January 14, 2010. See Case No. 10-0516. Among the bases for the challenge was that the Department lacked authority to implement Original Special Condition 1 and, in particular, its requirement that the County record a completed survey of the pre-project MHWL in lieu of the establishment of an ECL. On July 26, 2010, the Department revised the Draft Permit to eliminate from the Project the common property owned by the unit owners of the Oceania Condominium. The change was supported by a letter from Michael Trudnak, P.E., of Taylor Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the County which stated: "On behalf of Okaloosa County, Taylor Engineering submits this request to modify the project area and Draft Joint Coastal Permit for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project [file nos. excluded]. The applicant has decided to remove the Oceania Condominium property from the beach fill placement area." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, Exhibit A. The revised project, as described in permit drawings enclosed with Mr. Trudnak's letter includes two reaches: Reach 1 extends from the east jetty of East Pass to approximately 600 ft east of FDEP reference monument R-22 (R22.6) and Reach 2 extends from approximately 200 ft east of R-23 (R-23.2) to R-25.5. The Oceania Condominium property is in the gap between the two beaches. Additionally, the letter requested that the Department modify Specific Condition 1 of the Draft Permit to reflect the modified project area so that the MHWL Survey requirement of Specific Condition 1 would exclude the Oceania Condominium property. In accord with the request, Special Condition 1 was amended to add the following language: "With respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc., members' common elements property, neither a pre-project Mean High Water Line survey, nor a Certificate with a description of the pre-project Mean High Water Line shall be recorded in conjunction with this coastal permit." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 5 of 26. On August 4, 2010, as the Department neared the end of its case in the third day of the hearing, it announced that the Revised Draft Permit would "be revised [again, this time] to require the establishment of an ECL under the applicable statute." Tr. 621. The draft permit, accordingly, was revised for a second time (the "Second Revised Draft Permit"). The Department carried out the second revision in a notice filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 18, 2010 (the August 18, 2010, Notice). The August 18, 2010, Notice contains two changes to the First Revised Draft Joint Permit. The first change deletes the existing language in Original Specific Condition 1 (the language challenged in Case No. 10-5348RU) in its entirety. It substitutes the following language: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Board of Trustees will establish an Erosion Control Line along the shoreline of the beach restoration project. The Erosion Control Line shall be established consistent with the provisions of ss. 161.141-161.211, Florida Statutes. An Erosion Control Line shall not be established in conjunction with this joint coastal permit with respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc. members' common elements property. In lieu of conducting a survey, the Board of Trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by Okaloosa County if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. Department of Environmental Protection's and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund's Notice of Revisions to the Proposed Joint Coastal Construction Permit, page 3 of 4. The second change is made with respect to Specific Condition No. 4(c) of the First Revised Draft Permit, one of a list of items to be submitted to the Department for approval prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the Department. The existing language is deleted in its entirety and the following language is substituted: Written documentation that the Erosion Control Line required by Special Condition Number 1 has been filed in the public records of Okaloosa County. Id. The Department ECL Position Chapter 161: Beach and Shore Preservation Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, governs "Beach and Shore Preservation." "Parts I and II of this chapter may be known and cited as the 'Beach and Shore Preservation Act.'" § 161.011, Fla. Stat. Part I governs "Regulation of Construction, Reconstruction, and Other Physical Activity." Sections 161.011 through 161.241 comprise Part I. The Department developed its position on ECLs claimed by Petitioners to be an Unadopted Rule by considering Part I, in particular Sections 161.088 (which declares the public policy to properly manage and protect Florida's beaches) through 161.211. At some point in 2009, the Department saw a distinction related to ECLs in Sections 161.088-161.211 between beach restoration projects where state funding was used for construction and projects where no state funds were used. The former seemed to require ECLs, the latter not. Several statutory provisions were viewed as particularly relevant. For example, Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, declares that it is the public policy of the state "to cause to be fixed and determined, pursuant to beach restoration . . . projects, the boundary line between sovereignty lands . . . and the upland properties adjacent thereto " The section that mainly governs ECLs is Section 161.161. It provides the procedure for approval of projects for the restoration and maintenance of critically eroded beaches, subject to a beach management plan which is funded, in part, by the state. With regard to ECLs, the statute provides: Once a project [for the restoration and maintenance of a critically eroded beach] is determined to be undertaken, a survey of all or part of the shoreline within the jurisdiction of the local government in which the beach is located shall be conducted in order to establish the area of beach to be protected by the project and locate an erosion control line. * * * Upon completion of the survey depicting the area of the beach erosion control project and the proposed location of the erosion control line, the board of trustees shall give notice of the survey and the date on which the board of trustees will hold a public hearing for purpose of receiving evidence on the merits of the proposed erosion control line and, if approval is granted, of locating and establishing such requested erosion control line in order that any persons who have an interest in the location of such requested erosion control line can be present at such hearing to submit their views concerning the precise location of the proposed erosion control line. * * * The board of trustees shall approve or disapprove the erosion control line for a beach restoration project. In locating said line, the board of trustees shall be guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which the erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible. § 161.161, Fla. Stat. Development of the Department's Position on ECLs Prior to 2009, the Department's established ECLs for beach restoration projects whether the project's construction was supported by state funding or not. There was an exception: when the property landward of the MHWL was owned by the state. In such a case, the Department saw no need to set an ECL since both the sovereignty lands and the adjacent uplands property are owned by the state. This position held at least through January 15, 2009, when the Department held a workshop and hearing pursuant to Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, in Okaloosa County to establish an ECL for the Western Destin Project. The hearing officer who conducted the ECL hearing was West Gregory, Department Assistant General Counsel. While consideration of where the ECL should be established for the Western Destin Project was underway, there were ongoing discussions by e-mail and in briefings of whether the statute required an ECL. The discussion was prompted when Mr. Gregory, as Department Assistant General Counsel, drafted a memorandum (the "Draft Memorandum") to Michael Barnett, Chief of the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (the Bureau) to be sent through Paden Woodruff, an Environmental Administrator. The memorandum related to another beach restoration project in Okaloosa County: a project involving Eglin Air Force Base. The Draft Memorandum shows a date of January "XX", 2009, and is stamped "DRAFT." P-119. It presents the question "Should . . . [the Department] require the United States Air Force (USAF) to establish an erosion control line (ECL) for the beach restoration project located on Eglin AFB?" Id. The Draft Memorandum provides a brief answer: "No, . . . because the beach . . . is not critically eroded." Id. The memorandum recognizes the public policy of the state to fix the boundary between public and private lands for beach restoration projects in Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, and a requirement that the Board of Trustees "must establish the line of mean high water prior to the commencement of a beach restoration project," id., leading to the suggestion that each and every beach restoration project must establish an ECL. The Draft Memorandum, however, construes Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, with Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, and draws support from an Attorney General Opinion and the Walton County Florida Supreme Court case to conclude that it is only when a project is undertaken with state funding that an ECL must be established. In the case of the Eglin AFB beach restoration projects, the Draft Memorandum concludes: Id. This determination not to establish an ECL on the Eglin AFB beach restoration project would not preclude the USAF from obtaining a JCP permit. Rather, it precludes the USAF from receiving state funding assistance. The Draft Memorandum was not sent to the intended recipients. It was submitted to two other lawyers in the Department. Mr. Gregory did not receive comments from them. Although no comments were made to Mr. Gregory after the draft of the memorandum was sent to other members of the legal staff, the subject remained under discussion in the Department in early 2009. Sometime in early 2009, based on a legal analysis of Department attorneys, the Department took the position that an ECL is required to be set when state funds are used for the construction of a project. The converse of this position, that an ECL is not required to be set when no state funds are involved, is the statement alleged to be an unadopted rule. Two permits were issued that did not require an ECL: one for the Eglin AFB beach restoration project in March of 2009, and another that was an emergency permit for Holiday Isle. As with Specific Condition 1 in the Western Destin Project, the determination to not require an ECL was because of the lack of state funding. As Mr. Barnett testified about the two permits, there "is no State cost share for construction . . . [and] that's the reason [the Department] didn't require establishment of an ECL." Tr. 1279. Mr. Gregory's Draft Memorandum was never finalized. The Department issued three permits or draft permits (including for the Western Destin Project) with specific conditions that required pre-project MHWLs and that did not require ECLs. Otherwise, the Department has not committed the Department ECL Position to writing. Nonetheless, the Department ECL Position was stated in a deposition taken in this case on July 26, 2010. On July 26, 2010, the deposition of Janet Llewellyn, the Director of Water Resources Management was taken by Petitioners. Director Llewellyn is "responsible ultimately for all the projects that are processed and actions taken out of [the] division." P-223 at 10. These include permits issued by the Bureau and in particular, the Draft Permit, First Revised Draft Permit and the Second Draft Permit for the Project. When asked about the Department's statement that an ECL is not required when there is not state funding, Ms. Llewellyn preferred to rephrase the Department position as to when an ECL is required rather than when it is not required. She then testified that an ECL is required when there is "state funding involved through [the Department's] funding program." Id. at 13. Ms. Llewellyn was unable to pinpoint the moment the Department reached such a position other than: [t]he question came up sometime in the last year or two -- I couldn't tell you when -- about what the statute actually required in terms of when it was proper to set an erosion control line or required. And our attorneys did a legal analysis, again, of the statute, and that was their legal opinion of what the statute required. Tr. 14. Whatever the date that such a position was precisely firmed up, Ms. Llewellyn was able to testify on July 26, 2010, "that if state funding is going to a project, than an ECL needs to be set. That's what the statute requires." Id. This statement was based on the opinions of Department attorneys prior to their use in connection with the issuance of beach restoration permits in Okaloosa County. The Department has not initiated rule-making with respect to its ECL Position. Whether rule-making would be initiated was not known by the Bureau Chief on August 24, 2010, during his testimony in the final hearing. Change of Position The Department modified its position on ECLs that it appeared to have at the time of Ms. Llewellyn's deposition on August 4, 2010. As detailed above, it announced that an ECL would be required for the Western Destin Project, after all. The modification was formalized with the filing of the Second Revised Draft Permit on August 18, 2010. Specific Condition 5 Before the challenged language in Specific Condition 5 was added by the First Revised Draft Permit, the Department had relied on General Condition 6 to give notice to permittees that the permit did not allow trespass: This permit does not convey to the Permittee or create in the Permittee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the Permittee. The issuance of the permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. Joint Ex. 9. Based on the petitions in the Permit Challenge Cases, the Department proposed in the First Revised Draft Permit to add to Specific Condition 5 the language that is underscored in the following: The Permittee is advised that no work shall be performed on private upland property until and unless the required authorizations are obtained. Sufficient authorizations shall included: (1) written evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project; (2) authorization for such use from the property owner which upland of mean high-water; (3) construction and management easements from upland property owners; or (4) a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction which reflects that such authorization, in whole or in part, is not required. The Permittee is also advised to schedule the pre-construction conference at least a week prior to the intended commencement date. At least seven (7) days in advance of a pre-construction conference, the Permittee shall provide the written authorizations for the portion of the project for which construction is about to commence, as required above, written notification, advising the participants (listed above) of the agreed-upon date, time and location of the meeting, and also provide a meeting agenda and a teleconference number. Joint Exhibit, Volume III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 7 of 26. There was no evidence that the language added to Specific Condition 5 by the First Revised Draft Permit had been in any other permits or that the Department intended to use the language in any other beach restoration permits. Other than whatever might be gleaned from the Draft Permit, itself (and its revisions), there was no evidence offered that the property of any of the petitioners, in fact, would be used in the Western Destin Beach Project.
The Issue Whether a permit should be issued to Petitioner Theodore B. Meadow to construct a dwelling on the Gulf Coast of Florida as requested in his application filed with Respondent Department of Natural Resources.
Findings Of Fact Having considered the evidence and argument of counsel, the Hearing Officer finds: In July of 1979 Petitioner filed an application for a permit to build a duplex dwelling seaward of the coastal construction setback line on a parcel of land bounded by the theoretical extension seaward of the north/south boundary line of Ponce de Leon Street in Yon's Addition to Beacon Hill on St. Joe Beach, Florida. The parcel of land is 70 feet in width and approximately 175 feet in depth to the high-water line of the Gulf of Mexico and lies between State Road 30 (US Highway 98) and the Gulf of Mexico at St. Joe Beach in Gulf County, Florida. The application, Department of Natural Resources File #79-P-283, was filed pursuant to Rule 16B-25.05, Procedure to obtain variance; application, Florida Administrative Code, which had been promulgated under the authority of Sections 161.052, 161.053 and 370.021(1), Florida Statutes. Attached to the application was a copy of a deed to subject property to Albert H. Hinman dated December 12, 1977; an undated authorization from the owner of the property to Petitioner Meadow to apply for a variance and if granted to construct a building on the property; a survey of the property; a floor plan of the building with a typical wall section; and a topographical plat of the lot involved. In response to Rule 16B--25.05(1)(d): "Statements describing the proposed work or activity and specific reasons why the applicant feels the variance should be granted." Petitioner stated, in part, "...the reason that the permit should be granted is because applicant does not have sufficient space on property he is purchasing from A. H. Hinman to construct said building outside of the DNR Coastal Construction Control Line." The survey shows that 14 to 15 feet of the property lies landward of the Department of Natural Resources' setback line. At the time of the hearing no purchase had been made, but there is no dispute regarding the authorization of the owner to allow Petitioner to build if a variance is granted. After filing the application Petitioner consulted with the staff of the Department concerning the construction seaward of the setback line. The Chief Engineer of the permitting section of the Bureau of Beaches and Shores, who is responsible for accepting, evaluating and making recommendations for permits for construction, inspected the site of the proposed structure on October 11, 1979. He took a copy of the plans and specifications for the structure, a plot plan, and the engineering statement which accompanied the plans to review on the site. After the inspection he made a determination that the structure was appropriately designed for the hazard environment and located in such a position as to offer the least potential adverse impact to the beach in the area. Recent topographic changes, topographic data including that submitted by Petitioner, and other historical information was used to assess and evaluate the project. Thereafter, the engineer consulted with the Executive Director of the Respondent Department and gave a favorable recommendation in terms of minimal impact. The Executive Director determined that the structure was designed and located to have the minimum adverse impact on the beach, and that the structure was adequately designed to resist natural forces associated with a hundred-year storm surge (Transcript, pages 52-56). At the formal hearing the Executive Director stated that he based his recommendation for approval by the Executive Board on the precedence of previous action of the Executive Board and because he found that the Petitioner had his application in order. Petitioner Meadow has followed the guidelines of the administrative rules and submitted all required information. He has provided his reason for requesting a variance and believes the information furnished compels the Respondent Department to grant the waiver inasmuch as no modification was requested and he cannot build the structure he desires on the 14 to 15 feet of land he is authorized to use which lies landward of the 1975 setback line. The immediate area involved in this proceeding is relatively undeveloped beach property approximately one (1) mile in length at St. Joe Beach, Gulf County, Florida some twenty-nine (29) miles to Panama City and six (6) miles to Port St. Joe. The real property has been divided into fourteen (14) lots more or less similar to the lot on which Petitioner seeks to construct a duplex (Petitioner's Exhibit 2; Transcript, page 137). No structures except one multifamily dwelling have been constructed on any of the fourteen (14) lots. Most the construction along the nearby coastline was completed prior to March 21, 1975, the date the Respondent Department established a coastal setback line under the then applicable statutes and rules. Beacon Hill is a subdivision about a mile and a half from the subject area on the coastal western edge of Gulf County. The structures are close together, the majority of which were constructed prior to 1975 without a permit from the Respondent Department. Historically, the area would have had a similar topography and beach conditions to the subject area, but because of structures built on the beach vicinity the primary dune system has been eradicated, the beach is narrow in that vicinity, and there is virtually no vegetation (Transcript, pages 135-136). It has been found that any construction, particularly of a building, generally has an adverse impact on a beach dune system (Transcript, pages 149, 161). The "setback line" defined in the 1975 statutes and rules was established March 21, 1975 (Transcript, page 169). Thereafter, in 1978 the legislature amended Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and ordered the Respondent Department to establish a "coastal construction control line" to replace the setback line, but said line has not yet been established, although at the hearing a member of Respondent's engineering staff stated that a study was in progress. Neither Petitioner Meadow nor Mr. Hinman, the owner of subject property, requested the Respondent Department to review the setback line or establish a coastal construction control line prior to filing of the application in 1979 for a variance of the 1975 setback line (transcript, page 93). "Setback line" and "coastal construction control line" are not synonymous. The setback line set a seaward line for construction, and the coastal construction control line defines the impact of a 100-year storm surge or other predictable weather condition (Transcript, page 179). An engineer on the Respondent Department's staff who qualified as an expert was of the opinion that the coastal construction control line, when established, would be landward of the setback line established in 1975 (Transcript, page 198). There have been two (2) hurricanes which have impacted the Gulf Coast since the setback line was established, one in September of 1975 and one in September of 1979. These storms had relatively little visual impact on the subject beach area except for erosion of the fore dune, but the storms substantially impacted the accretion of the coastline (Transcript, pages 189- 195). At the final hearing Ms. Sally Malone, a resident living one block from the proposed structure of Petitioner Meadow, protested the proposed construction on the beach and in general the removal of trees. The evidence shows she has a legitimate concern for the effect through erosion the construction might have on the beach near her home. Petitioner Meadow and the Respondent Department submitted proposed findings of fact and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended by the Hearing Officer that the application of Theodore B. Meadow for a waiver or variance be denied without prejudice to his refiling an application after the coastal construction control line is established as required by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, supra. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark J. Proctor, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil G. Costin, Jr., Esquire 413 Williams Street Post Office Drawer 98 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456
Findings Of Fact On December 12, 1988, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent for a permit to construct improvements to real property seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL). Petitioners' property is located at 2400 North Atlantic Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The parcel of land owned by Petitioners measures approximately 50' in width and 140' in depth and is located in a primarily residential area of beachfront property with high property values. On this parcel is a residence that is approximately 1600 square feet in size. The residence is constructed on reinforced concrete pilings. There are many other residential and commercial structures in this area which are also constructed on reinforced concrete pilings. The improvements to this property seaward of the CCCL that Petitioners desire to make and that Respondent finds objectionable is the construction of a poured monolithic reinforced concrete slab patio supported by twenty-one reinforced concrete pilings. The patio would be approximately 27' by 50' in size. On November 17, 1987, Respondent approved an application filed by a previous owner of this property for the construction of a patio to be constructed with concrete pavers. Petitioners arranged to have the previously approved permit transferred to their name. The project contemplated by the subject application employs a different method of construction than the one permitted in 1987 because Petitioners desire to have a patio that is more attractive and is easier to maintain. Petitioners are also concerned that concrete pavers will be hazardous during a storm since they may be subject to being swept along by high winds and water. Petitioners have valid reasons for preferring the method of construction reflected by the subject application based on aesthetic and maintenance considerations. However, Petitioners did not establish that the proposed method of construction was necessary as a safety measure. To the contrary, the greater weight of the evidence was that blocks the size of the pavers to be used for the construction that has been permitted would not be propelled by either hydrodynamic or aerodynamic forces during a major storm as Petitioners contend. Instead, these blocks would likely be undermined during a major storm and, because of their weight, fall as the beach is eroded. Respondent has regulatory authority over the property in question. Respondent's regulatory authority, which includes rule making authority, is conferred by statute. Respondent's responsibilities include the preservation of the beach-dune area within its jurisdiction. There is a relationship between the siting of a structure, in terms of its proximity to the shoreline, and the likelihood that the structure will have an impact on the beach and dune systems. The subject patio is to be located within the beach-dune system. The patio Petitioners propose to construct on concrete pilings would have more of an adverse impact on the beach-dune system than a patio constructed of concrete pavers. During a major storm, greater erosion on the site around the pilings will occur as a result of scour. Following a major storm, the ability of a dune to re-form will be more inhibited if the patio is supported by pilings. Considering the hundreds of thousands of pilings that are already in place along the beach, the effect of the twenty-one pilings proposed by Petitioners, whether considered individually or cumulatively, will be insignificant. A patio is usually considered by Respondent to be a "minor structure". "Minor structures" are non-habitable structures that are generally designed to be expendable during a major storm event. Dune walkovers, viewing platforms, and decks are examples of minor structures. A patio constructed of concrete pavers would be another example. The nature of their construction permits minor structures to be placed more closely to the shoreline than major structures. The patio as proposed Petitioners has been properly categorized by Respondent as being a "major structure" since it is designed to withstand a major storm event. Respondent has not to date permitted any major structure as far east of the CCCL in this area of Broward County as Petitioner's proposed project. All major structures constructed on pilings that are that far east of the CCCL were built before permits were required. Respondent is concerned that the granting of the subject permit will set a precedent that will require the issuance of permits for the construction of other major structures as far seaward of the CCCL as the Petitioners' proposed project, and that such construction would result in a cumulative adverse impact on the beach-dune system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order which denies the subject permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioners. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-6 and 8-10 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are rejected as being argument. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in the second sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in the third sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 12 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 13 are rejected as being conclusions of law that are unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 14 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. While Petitioners' application included as a proposed condition to the issuance of the permit, a covenant running with the land that would require the property owner to reconstruct the beach-dune system in the event of destruction by a major storm, the evidence did not establish, as Petitioners proposed, that the covenant would "... protect the interests of DNR and its long term end of protecting the dunes and beaches". The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-2, 5-6, 10-16, 24-27, 30-31, and 33 are adopted in material part by paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 3 and 4 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 21 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 7-9 and 28-29 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached or as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 17-20, 23, and 32 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. These proposed findings are incorporated in part as conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 22 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, and are rejected in part as being subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Stevens 412 Northeast Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Room 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ken Plante General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Charlotte County should be issued a permit to dredge Stump Pass and Deposit the spoil therefrom on the beach south of the pass.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Lemon Bay Conservancy, Inc., was a nonprofit corporation in the State of Florida whose membership is made up of individuals affected by the health of Lemon Bay. The Department of Natural Resources is the state agency responsible for the regulation and issuance of coastal construction permits pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and Charlotte County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and the applicant for the permit to dredge Stump Pass which is located within its geographical boundaries. Stump Pass is a maintained coastal inlet located on the west coast of Florida between Manasota Key to the North and Knight Island to the South. It has been in approximately the same location since 1925. It is a wave dominated pass, which means the wave energy, which comes predominantly from the west/northwest, is greater than the tidal energy in the pass, and this wave action has caused the Pass channel to migrate to the south since 1974. The Pass was last dredged in 1980. For various reasons, in November, 1986, the County applied to DNR for a coastal construction permit to "maintenance dredge" a portion of the Pass and utilize the dredged material for renourishment of adjacent beaches on Knight Island. A permit for this type of work is required by the provision of Section 161.041, Florida Statutes. As the application was being reviewed by the Department, several areas were identified for modification. Among these were a reduction in the amount of material to be dredged to 136,000 cubic yards; more specific identification of the beach area to be renourished, (3,000 feet along the west side of Knight Island); and the development and submittal of a Sea Turtle Protection Plan. These modifications were made and submitted by the County in November, 1989, and the application was deemed complete on August 27, 1990. On October 11, 1990, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to Issue the permit. In doing so, it recommended the inclusion of 10 specific conditions. Since the proposed project was determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the sandy beaches, no mitigation plan was required. Since the placement of the sand from the dredging would be on the beach at Knight Island, which is downdrift of the water flow, it was consistent with the requirements of Section 161.142, Florida Statutes. Stump Pass, at its most restrictive point, is less than 100 feet wide. It is an unmarked channel. The existing channel is approximately one mile in length. The channel proposed by Charlotte County, as approved by the Department, would be approximately one half mile in length. In preparing its application for submittal to the Department, the County retained Dr. Michael S. Stephen, a consultant with Coastal Engineering, Inc., and an expert in coastal geology and engineering geology, to evaluate the proposed dredging project, one purpose of which is to provide a safe, navigable channel between the Gulf of Mexico and Lemon Bay and the west coast of Florida waterway system. In the course of his evaluation, Dr. Stephen took bathometric measurements at Stump Pass which were used to define and create a map of the water depths in the area. According to his proposal, the fill from the dredging would be placed on the shore south of the pass in an area which is accompanied by a 10 foot wide public easement which parallels the shoreline and runs north and south along the beach. In light of this, the proposed project would not interfere with the public's right to access to the area except during the construction period. This project is significantly similar to a prior dredging in 1980 and the channel will be essentially the same as on that occasion. A significant difference, however, is that the spoil will, in this case, be placed south of the pass whereas in the previous dredging it was placed on the state park to the north. One of the factors considered by the County in its decision to apply for the permit for this project was the determination that the existing channel is not safe for boats to navigate other than during calm weather in a single file. Dr. Stephen believes that the proposed channel would be safer to navigate because it is shorter than the existing channel; provides a more direct access from the inland waters to the Gulf; and avoids the cross-wave and cross-wind impacts experienced by the use of the current pass. There is substantial evidence by experienced boaters who are commercial fishermen as well as recreational boaters who contend that the safety of the pass at the present time is not an issue. Most of these opponents indicate they have had little if any difficulty in traversing the pass under all but the most extreme conditions, and that preparation plus good judgement will, in most cases, result in a safe transit. A more comprehensive discussion of this subject will be found in several paragraphs below. Historical documentation considered by Dr. Stephen in his analysis of information dating back to between 1895 to 1975, shows that the inlet has been in much the same location since 1925. In 1895, however the pass was north of its present location. Another concern of the Department when determining the appropriateness of a coastal construction application is engineering data relating to inlet stability. This concept considers the inlet as a whole and directs examination of three areas. One is lateral movement; a second is cross sectional stability, (the ability of the inlet to remain open); and a third is hydraulic stability. As was noted above in the discussion concerning the location of the inlet back to 1895, the fact that it has remained in its same location since 1925 indicates that from a migratory standpoint, it is considered stable. In addition, the throat of the pass, the actual area where the water comes through from Lemon Bay out to the Gulf, is also stable in terms of cross sectional stability or "closure parameters." Only the continuation of the channel out into the Gulf has moved to a significant degree. It is this outer portion, the outer channel of the inlet, where the proposed dredging is to take place. It is presently in a north/south configuration, having migrated from the predominantly east/west direction in which it was dredged in 1980. Expert testimony indicates that this migration has been the result of the west/northwest dominant wave action. Evidence also indicates that if this outer channel were not maintained once dredged as proposed, it would return to the location it currently occupies. As a result, Charlotte County seeks to include a maintenance dredging plan at 3 to 5 year intervals as part of its proposed management scenario. Petitioners claim that the current inlet and channel are in their natural locations, and that the channel which will result from the proposed dredging will be unstable and immediately begin to migrate back to the location of the "natural" channel which it presently occupies. In response, the County asserts that while the current channel may indicate stability in the short run, given the historic hydraulic instability of the channel, its current location and alignment are likely to change in the future. As the channel has moved toward the south, it has tended to lengthen and as a channel lengthens, the less hydraulically stable it is as a result of the frictional drag of the water flow through the channel. The longer the channel, the greater the drag, and the greater the drag, the greater the potential for flow interruption. When the channel becomes hydraulically unstable, therefore, hydraulic pressures cause a tendency to cut through the shoals lining the channel and it is the County and Department position that a shortening of the channel, as the proposed project would do, would improve the hydraulic stability of the new channel. Nothing was presented by Petitioners to dispute this and it is so found. The statute also requires the Department to take into consideration shoreline stability when considering an application for a coastal construction permit. While there has been little erosion or accretion to the shoreline north of the pass where the spoil from the 1980 dredging was placed, the area south of the pass has experienced significant erosion due, in part, it would appear, to the southerly migration of the outer channel. Immediately to the south of Monument 23, over a stretch approximately 3,000 feet long, sand has been accreting to the extend of approximately 50 to 60 feet per year. However, south of that area, for approximately 5,000 to 11,000 feet south of the inlet, the shoreline has eroded at approximately 10 feet per year. It is in this eroding area that the sand dredged from the channel would be placed. There are varying theories as to the cause of the shoreline instability the area has experienced. Some place the blame on the 1980 dredging project; others on the current location of the outer channel. Other factors may play a part, however, including major storms, and there is insufficient evidence available to justify the establishment of a causal relationship. Nonetheless, as a condition of the permit, the Department has indicated a requirement for the County to conduct detailed monitoring of the area to determine whether any adverse impacts are being caused by the project, so as to allow the taking of immediate mitigative action through its inlet management plan to moderate the impacts. Ordinarily, the Department, by its standing policy, requires applicants for permits to conduct inlet maintenance activities to submit an inlet management plan prior to approving the application. This plan is required to address various impacts that the activity would have on adjacent coasts and shorelines, and is primarily a means of providing protection of the inlet and coastal system from the harmful effects of construction activities. Here, at the time the County's application was filed, that policy had not been adopted. As a result, no management plan was filed. However, the filing of a management plan within 6 months of the dredging done under the permit has been made a condition of the permit, and any plan filed will require approval by the Governor and Cabinet. It is, generally, the policy of the Department to not allow coastal construction activities in natural inlets. A natural inlet is one that has developed by the natural coastal formulation process, and which has not been modified by man. The Department contends that Stump Pass is not a natural inlet but instead, a "maintained" inlet because portions of the original 1980 dredging are still in place and only the outer channel is subject to the present application. Though the channel dredged in 1980 may have cut through the natural point of entry and exit of water from the Gulf to Lemon Bay and return, the fact is that the depth of the channel is the result of that 1980 dredging and the channel has maintained itself naturally thereafter. It cannot be said, however, that Stump Pass is a natural pass since it includes more than just the outer channel and that additional area, the throat, is still under the influence of the 1980 dredging. Petitioners claim that the Department's program directive 950, which prohibits the alteration or maintenance of any inlet or pass unless a management plan is submitted along with the permit application has not been complied with here and, therefore, approval of the instant application is prohibited. Further, Petitioners urge that the maintenance plan being prepared by the county is not an inlet management plan, which is called for by the program directive. The Department asserts, however, that though the directive was signed by the Executive Director of the Department, it was intended as an internal policy directive only to be used as a tool for coordination between the Department's separate divisions, and because of concerns expressed by various division within the Department, it has never been implemented. It is currently still under revision and the Department has elected not to apply its provisions to this case. In fact, in a previous application, the Department allowed the applicant to proceed with its project without a management plan. The management plan was required, subsequent to accomplishment of the work, as a condition of the permit. Another factor for consideration is the impact of the proposed project on the beach dune system and its effect on the habitat of the sea turtle. The expert testimony of record establishes that the project, rather than having an adverse effect on the turtle population, would have a more beneficial effect by providing a more suitable location for nesting. The site established for the deposition of the dredged spoil is an area of beach currently suffering severe erosion problems, and the placement of sand at that location would provide beach profiles similar to those currently existing on the County's natural beaches. In addition, to protect the existing nesting habitat of the turtle, the Department has required and approved a sea turtle protection plan which, it contends, will guarantee that the project will not have an impact on nesting populations of sea turtles. The testimony of Mr. LeBuff, clearly an expert in the management of the sea turtle population, establishes that the beach area provided to the turtles as a result of this project will consist of a sandy, natural, compatible beach material that is not going to be harmful, and the final slope of the reconstructed beach will be compatible with the natural slope of the beaches within the County. As a result, he is satisfied, and it is found, that there will be no detrimental effect to the turtle population. In its application in support of the permit, the County, and the Department in defense thereof, both contend that the primary purpose for the dredging of Stump Pass is to provide a safe, navigable channel between the Gulf and the waters of Lemon Bay. In support of its claim, the County presented the testimony of several charter boat captains, professional fishermen who have lived in the area for a number of years and who are totally familiar with the pass, having traversed it on numerous occasions under just about every condition. Captain Collette contends that the current maximum depth of the pass is between 4.5 and 5 feet. In the winter tide, it is much shallower with a depth often under 3 feet. Captain Collette refuses to run night charters through the pass because, he contends, it is too dangerous. During foggy weather and thunderstorms, because of the lack of visibility and a paucity of proper markers on the channel, he will not use it. The closest other pass to his anchorage is 13 miles away which, at normal running time, takes between 45 to 60 minutes. Stump Pass is only 3 miles, or 15 minutes, from his anchorage. He has experienced trouble with the channel, especially when the wind is from the west, and he believes that the proposed channel, with its more east/west orientation, will be safer than the current channel. In his opinion, additional markers in the channel would help, but not much. In order to be safer, the channel would have to be a non-moving channel, and he believes that since the proposed channel will be maintenance dredged, it would qualify as such. Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the channel is safe and is used by numerous boaters safely on a regular basis. The current depth of the channel at the throat of the pass is between 13 to 15 feet at mean low tide. At waypoint 2, in the outer channel, it is 9 to 10 feet, and at waypoint 4, at the southern end of the outer channel, it is 7 feet at mean low tide. The normal tide range at Stump Pass is 1.5 feet, with the exception that during winter and summer, the tides may be as much as 3.5 feet. Petitioner urges, and it is found, that the current channel at Stump Pass has been, since 1985, safely navigated by loaded commercial fishing boats as large as 39 feet in length and which draw in excess of 5 feet of water. Many of these commercial fishermen use the pass at night and in periods of low visibility, though Captain Collette may choose not to. If a boater can read the seas and the breaker bar, Captain Davids, testifying on behalf of the Petitioner, contends that local knowledge of the pass is not necessary. Unfortunately, however, many recreational boaters who make up by far the greatest percentage of users of the pass, may not have the requisite skills to the degree Captain Davids does. Nonetheless, under most conditions, Stump Pass can be safely navigated by recreational boaters who use common sense and who traverse it in a careful, cautions manner. Mr. Atwater, President of the Lemon Bay Conservancy, and himself an experienced boater, opined that the average recreational boater who uses the pass as access to the Gulf has a boat equipped with a compass, depth sounder, VHF radio, and LORAN radio signal navigation device. This may be a more optimistic than factual appraisal of the average boater's equipment, however. In sum, and considering the evidence, it is found that as it currently exists, Stump Pass is less than optimum in its navigability to many average boat owners a good portion of the time, but there has been no evidence presented to conclusively establish that it constitutes a serious safety hazard to the average recreational boater who utilizes common sense in traversing it. The County's application, along with the supporting information accompanying it, was received initially by the Department in December, 1986. It was an application for a maintenance dredging of Stump Pass back to its 1980 condition, and the Department views the project as primarily a maintenance dredging of the outer channel through the ebb tidal shoal. The application was assessed by the Department staff, along with engineering information submitted, and the Department then prepared an agenda item for the Governor and Cabinet recommending approval with special permit conditions. These include, among other things: the standard conditions required for approval of developments seaward of the coastal construction line; the submittal of plans and surveys for the project prior to the start of work; written authority for subsequent maintenance dredging prior to their accomplishment and the placing of future spoil; no additional maintenance dredging without the approval of the Governor and Cabinet of a management plan, (the purpose for this is to allow the Department to monitor the performance and evaluate and provide for mitigation of adverse impacts); the submittal of a sea turtle protection plan before issuance of a notice to proceed, (the subject plan has been received and approved); review of the permit at the five year point; and a proper placement of the spoil. A majority of those conditions have been treated in the findings previously made. The standards used to review the application are found in the provisions of Chapter 161.041, Florida Statutes, and Rule 16B-24, F.A.C.. In its analyses, the Department considered those factors required by the statute and as to the engineering, found it to be adequate. As to the design and effect on the inlet and adjacent beaches, those factors were found to justify approval of the project. Design features were found to be acceptable, and any adverse impact potential to the beach and dunes system were found to be minimal to the point there was none anticipated. Taken together, the Department concluded that the project was consistent with the requirements of both the statute and the rule. On cross examination, Mr. Leadon, the Department's expert, admitted that the proposed channel has the potential to, and a likelihood of, migrating to the south. Department policy is to let natural passes and systems take their natural course. However, this inlet has moved to the point where, in the Department's opinion, it is creating erosional stress to Knight Island. Should the pass continue to move in its current direction, it might create additional erosion of that island. The inlet has been left to take its course since its last dredging in 1980. As a result, it is much like a natural channel at this time, but for the purposes of this application, the Department considers the proposal to be a maintenance dredging of a previously dredged channel, though there has been no other maintenance dredging since 1980. Usually, a maintained channel is dredged every 2 to 3 years, but while the outer channel has migrated, the throat, which was dredged in 1980, has maintained the width and depth of that dredging. This position is found to be reasonable and sustainable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting to Charlotte County a coastal construction permit to maintenance dredge Stump Pass and place the dredged material on the Knight Island shorelines consistent with the conditions imposed thereon by the Department. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 14th day of August, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO 91-0471 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER LEMON BAY CONSERVANCY, INC. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not proven. - 10. Accepted. Accepted. & 13. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Not a proper Finding of Fact. Rejected. Accepted. Not a proper Finding of Fact. Accepted. First sentence accepted. Balance not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Accepted in part and rejected in part. The shoreline described has moved little during the time described, but as the channel moved south in later years, the shoreline to the south on Knight Island has eroded. & 27. Accepted as comment on the evidence. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Not a Finding of Fact but argument. & 34. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the sufficiency of the evidence. Accepted. Accepted. - 40. Accepted and incorporated herein. 41. - 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. - 46. Accepted. Rejected as not supported by the evidence or record. Not a Finding of Fact but speculation. Accepted. - 53. Accepted. 54. & 55. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but legal argument. & 58. Accepted. Legal Argument. & 61. Irrelevant legal argument. Rejected. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. Irrelevant and exhibit not admitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT, CHARLOTTE COUNTY 1 - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. Accepted. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein, 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 25. Accepted. Accepted. No such proposed Finding of Fact. & 29. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. FOR RESPONDENT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. & 8. More a citation of authority that a Finding of Fact, but accepted. Accepted. & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Accepted. 16. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein in substance. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on evidence and background. Accepted. & 24. Accepted. 25. & 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. - 29. Accepted. 30. & 31. Accepted but not controlling. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 123 Eighth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Philip E. Perry, Esquire Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire Dye & Scott, P.A. P.O. Drawer 9480 Bradenton, Florida 34206 Tom Gardner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Mail Station 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ken Plante General Counsel DNR 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Mail Station 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
