The Issue At issue is whether a moratorium, adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees), constitutes an invalid rule. If the moratorium on authorizations for use of sovereignty, submerged land in connection with development of current unbridged, undeveloped coastal islands is determined to constitute a rule, the secondary issue to be resolved is whether the rule is an invalid exercise by the Board of Trustees of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated at the final hearing to the facts set forth in paragraphs 1-10, below. Stipulated Facts The parties do not object to the standing of Petitioners and Intervenors for the limited purposes of this proceeding only and any subsequent appeal. On August 22, 1989, the Board of Trustees accepted a staff report on policy and programs affecting Florida's coastal islands. The Board of Trustees also approved a temporary moratorium on authorizations for use of sovereignty, submerged land that would facilitate development of currently unbridged, undeveloped coastal islands until such time as the Division of State Lands of the Department of Natural Resources (Division) could adopt a policy for such requests. On December 19, 1989, the Board of Trustees deferred consideration of an interim policy governing the use of sovereignty, submerged lands adjacent to unbridged coastal islands. On February 6, 1990, the Board of Trustees voted to again defer consideration of an interim policy governing the use of sovereignty, submerged lands adjacent to unbridged coastal islands until after the issue was reviewed at a Cabinet workshop. On May 8, 1990, the Board of Trustees extended the temporary moratorium announced on August 22, 1989, and directed staff to begin rule making on a rule to serve as interim policy until a comprehensive policy and rule governing coastal islands could be adopted. On June 12, 1990, the Board of Trustees approved a draft of proposed rules relating to the leasing of state-owned lands adjacent to undeveloped coastal islands and directed staff to notice the rules for adoption, hold a series of public hearings and return to the Board of Trustees for final action by September. The proposed rules (Rules 18-21.003 and 18-21.004, Florida Administrative Code) were noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 10, 1990, and public hearings were held in Tallahassee on September 4, 1990, Ft. Pierce on September 5, 1990, and Naples on September 6, 1990. In August, 1990, petitions were filed challenging the temporary moratorium as a nonrule rule, and the proposed rules, arguing that the Board of Trustees' actions constituted an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. On October 9, 1990, the Board of Trustees accepted a status report on the proposed amendments to Rules 18-21.003 and 18-21.004, Florida Administrative Code, relating to the management of unbridged coastal islands. On October 23, 1990, the Board of Trustees considered amendments to the proposed rule based on comments made at the public hearing and written comments submitted to the agency. However, prior to accepting the proposed changes the Board of Trustees approved a request by the Governor's Interagency Management Committee (IMC) for additional time to review the proposed rule amendments. The IMC considered the proposed amended rule on November 29, 1990. Public comments were taken at that meeting which resulted in the IMC recommending that further changes be made to the proposed amended rule. On December 18, 1990, the Board of Trustees approved the withdrawal of the original rule concerning development of coastal islands, authorized changes to the proposed rules and directed staff to notice for adoption the proposed rules as amended. In addition, the Board of Trustees voted to continue the temporary moratorium until the adoption of a coastal barrier island rule. Other Facts The initial moratorium applied to those coastal islands subject to direct or indirect wave, tidal and wind energies and which provide primary or secondary protection to the mainland. Further, islands were to be considered undeveloped if unbridged (not connected via bridge to another upland) and either had no docking facilities authorized by the Trustees, or overall development density consisted of less than one permanent structure per five acres of upland. On May 8, 1990, the Trustees extended and modified the prior moratorium. The effective date of the moratorium remained August 22, 1989, and the following exceptions were created: Notwithstanding the moratorium, the Board shall allow the repair or maintenance of existing utility lines that cross sovereignty submerged land, so long as such maintenance and repair do not provide for an upgrade in capacity to serve additional customers, except to maintain public safety or as ordered by the Public Service Commission. The moratorium shall not prohibit the construction of two- slip private residential docks meeting the requirements of Chapter 18-20.004(5)(b), F.A.C. Notice of the moratorium was not provided and an economic impact statement was not prepared as required by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Affected persons were not given a point of entry to challenge the moratorium before it became effective. The moratorium affects sovereignty submerged lands statewide and affects all applicants who seek use of such land to facilitate development of undeveloped, unbridged coastal islands. The moratorium is an agency policy statement of general applicability, which is applied and is intended to be applied with the force and effect of a rule of law. The moratorium continues in effect at the present time with general applicability to a statewide class of persons seeking use of state-owned submerged lands adjacent to unbridged, undeveloped coastal islands as defined in paragraphs 11. and 12., above.
The Issue Whether Petitioners' application for a permit to construct a dwelling in Walton County, Florida, should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. In January of 1984, Respondent Department of Natural Resources provisionally denied Petitioners' application for a permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct a dwelling on their property in Walton County seaward of the existing coastal construction control line. Petitioners requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), alleging that the denial of their application was unlawful on constitutional grounds and that it exceeded Respondent's discretionary powers under Chapter 161. The request for hearing was referred by Respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 84-0508. Thereafter, Respondent's motion to strike those aspects of the petition alleging the unconstitutionality of the proposed denial was denied on the basis that Petitioners properly may preserve such matters for any appellate review. Thereafter, Petitioners sought to amend their petition to allege the invalidity of certain of Respondent's rules and, although such petition was granted, Petitioners were informed that any administrative determination of the invalidity of rules must be made the subject of a separate petition filed with the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 11, 1984, Petitioners filed a petition with the Division challenging the validity of certain of Respondent's rules which were cited by Respondent as the basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application for a permit. The petition alleged that said rules were not appropriate to the ends specified in Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, that the effect of the rules was to establish a class of property owners who could be excluded from receiving permits to construct dwellings seaward of the coastal construction control line merely because their lots or parcels of land are larger than their neighbors or other adjacent owners, and that such rules are arbitrary and capricious as they relate to the petitioners because other property owners in Walton County had been permitted by Respondent to construct dwellings similar to hat proposed by the Petitioners beyond the coastal construction control line. DOAH Case No. 84-0508 and the case involving the rule challenge, DOAH Case No. 84-2053R, were consolidated for purposes of hearing. At the hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of Brett Moore, a coastal engineer employed by the DNR Division of Beaches and Shores, Dennis Evans, an architect, and Petitioner Edward S. Coley. Petitioner submitted ten exhibits in evidence Respondent presented the testimony of Brett Moore, Deborah Flack, Director of the Division of Beaches and Shores, and Ralph Clark, Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation. Respondent submitted 21 exhibits in evidence. Posthearing submissions submitted by the parties in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact.
Findings Of Fact In 1981 Petitioners Edward S. Coley and his wife, Juanita P. Coley, purchased lot 8, block A, Camp Creek Lake Subdivision, in Walton County, Florida. The lot is located on the beach at the Gulf of Mexico in a platted subdivision. Petitioners purchased the property for the purpose of building a beach house that would eventually be a retirement home. (Testimony of E. Coley, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 1). At the time Petitioners purchased the lot, there were a number of existing dwellings to the east of the lot and several to the west. The habitable portions of these dwellings for the most part were located at or near the existing coastal construction setback line that had been established by Respondent in 1975 to provide protection to the dune area of the beach. Although Petitioners planned to locate their two-story dwelling approximately on the then-existing setback line, they had not done so at the time a new coastal construction control line was established in December 1982, which resulted in moving the setback line further landward for a distance of some sixty two feet. The county coastal construction control lines are established under the authority of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and are intended to define the portion of the beach-dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge. Construction seaward of the line is prohibited unless a permit is obtained from Respondent. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, 5, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 20). On September 19, 1983, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to construct a 2000 square foot two-story house on their lot. The dwelling was designed to have upper and lower decks facing the Gulf, with a dune walkover structure seaward, and a three-car garage attached to the main house by a breezeway. As planned, the seaward extent of the habitable portion of the house would be located some eight feet landward of the old setback line and approximately 62 feet seaward of the existing construction control line. After processing the application, Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation advised Petitioners by letter dated January 5, 1984, that a staff recommendation to deny the application would be presented to the head of the Department, consisting of the Governor and Cabinet, on January 17, 1984, and advising Petitioners of their rights to a Chapter 120 hearing. By letter of January 11, 1984, Petitioners did request a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., and, on January 17, Mr. Coley appeared before the Governor and Cabinet to support approval of his application. On March 20, 1984, the Governor and Cabinet approved the minutes of its January 17th meeting wherein the apparent basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application was stated as follows: The staff is concerned that the applicant is not effectively utilizing the property landward of the control line and that the proposed encroachment is unnecessary and not justified. Prior to the preparation of the structural plans, the staff recommended a 25 foot landward relocation of the structure in order to more effectively utilize the property landward of the control line and provide an effective, protective setback from the active dune area. Presently, there exists approximately 85 feet between the landwardmost portion of the proposed garage structure and the landward property line. The recommended 25 foot landward location represents a compromise that acknowledges the line of existing construction in the immediate area. . . . * * * Dr. Gissendanner stated that this was the first building permitted in this area. All the other buildings there had been built before a permit was required. Now it was necessary to take into consideration the new coastal construction line and the accumulative effect which the new law imposed. The problem was that the Department did not want to start a precedent to allow the house to be built out there and have other people come in and want to build along the same line. By letter of September 29, 1983, Respondent had advised Petitioners that any structure of the size proposed by Petitioners located within the dune region would adversely impact and limit the extent of dune recovery following severe erosion associated with a major storm event. The letter proposed a compromise in location of Petitioners' dwelling to a point approximately 25 feet landward of the desired location, thus placing the seawardmost portion of the habitable structure approximately 35 feet seaward of the construction control line. This was stated to be a viable compromise since there existed sufficient room to locate the entire structure, including garage, landward of the control line. Petitioners however declined to accept such a compromise in the belief that to do so would eliminate any view of the Gulf over the dune line except from the upstairs deck of the proposed structure. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 1-2, 9, Respondent's Exhibits 1-8, 13-16). The height of the dune line on Petitioners' lot is approximately 27 feet high, which is the same elevation as the first floor of the proposed dwelling at the desired site. The proposed second floor would be 9 feet above the crest of the dune. However, if placement of the structure was moved landward 25 feet, it would be impossible to see over the dune area from the ground floor of the house. Additionally, the view of the beach area would be obstructed by the homes to the east and west of Petitioners' lot. The proposed dwelling is designed for the maximum allowable height of 30 feet. Under dead covenants and restrictions, a variance would have to be obtained to build a taller structure. The value of Petitioners' property would undoubtedly be diminished to come extent if the house was built substantially behind the adjacent dwellings because of the restricted view of the beach and water area. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Petitioners' Exhibits 1, 8). Although there would be no adverse impact on adjacent properties if Petitioners were permitted to build in the desired location, such proposed siting could have an adverse impact on the dune system as a result of a major storm event since the dwelling would be located on the seaward edge of existing vegetation at the landward toe of the dune. If the location were to be moved 25 feet further landward, there would be additional vegetation to facilitate recovery of the system after such a storm. Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation also believes that the existing structures in that area would be demolished as a result of a major storm, but Petitioners' house, which is designed to withstand a 100-year storm event, would remain, thus impeding full recovery of the dune system. (Testimony of Moore, Flack, Clark, Respondent's Exhibits 9-12, 19, 21). Respondent has permitted several structures in the past which were located seaward of the coastal construction control line, but these were approved because the impact on the dune system was minimized in those locations, and also because the applicants had utilized all of the upland property possible on their lots. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 3-4, 6-7, 9-10). Although conflicting evidence was received as to whether or not the existing structures east of petitioners' lot constitute a "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line," it is found that although minor variations exist in the location of individual dwellings, they do meet the quoted statutory standard set forth in Section 161.053(4)(b), Florida Statutes. The existing structures have not been affected by erosion. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Moore, Flack, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1). Petitioners' structural design meets Respondent's technical requirements subject to standard conditions of the Department. (Testimony of Moore, Evans, Flack, Petitioners' Exhibit 2). The Departmental rules cited by Respondent as the authority for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application are Rules 16B-33.05(1), (2), (6), 33.06(2), and 33.07(2), Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioners' Exhibit 4).
The Issue Whether or not the proposed amendments to Respondent's Rules 18-21.003 and 18-21.004, Florida Administrative Code, comply with Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, or is otherwise an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Specifically, the following issues are raised by the pleadings and presentation of the parties: a) Whether the proposed rule amendments exceed the Respondent's grant of authority by placing a moratorium on the issuance of requests to use sovereign submerged lands adjacent to coastal islands, as more specifically defined by the rule; b) Whether Respondent failed to materially follow rulemaking procedures as prescribed by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes in preparation of the economic impact statement; c) Whether the amendments are arbitrary and capricious because they are unnecessary and are unrelated to the administration and management of sovereign submerged lands; d) Whether the proposed amendments contained terms and definitions which are vague and ambiguous, because the terms as defined are not ascertainable; e) Whether the proposed amendments effectuate a "taking" of Petitioner's property; and f) Whether the claims of Petitioner's Andrews, Depot Key and Lost Tree that the Board of Trustees are estopped from promulgating the proposed amendments are without merit. Additionally, Respondent raised the issue of whether the Petitioners had standing to bring the subject rule challenge.
Findings Of Fact The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) holds state land in trust for the use and benefit of the people of the State of Florida, pursuant to Section 7, Article II, and Section 11, Article X of the State Constitution. The Division of State Lands within the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) performs all staff duties and functions related to acquisition, administration and disposition of state lands, title to which is or will be vested in the Trustees pursuant to Section 253.002, Florida Statutes. The Trustees are vested and charged with the acquisition, administration, management, control, supervision, conservation, protection and disposition of all lands owned by, or which may inure to, the State or any of its agencies, departments, boards, or commissions, except for certain exceptions contained in Section 253.03(1), Florida Statutes. Among lands vested in the Trustees are all tidal lands and all lands covered by shallow waters of the ocean or gulf or bays or lagoons thereof, and all lands owned by the state covered by freshwater (i.e., sovereign submerged lands). The Trustees are authorized to administer all state-owned lands and are responsible for creating an overall and comprehensive plan of development concerning acquisition, management, and disposition of state-owned lands so as to insure maximum benefit and use. To accomplish this mandate, the Trustees are empowered to adopt all necessary rules and regulations pursuant to Section 253.03(7)(a), Florida Statutes. Currently, the administration and management of sovereign submerged lands is governed by the provisions of Chapters 18-18, 18-20 and 18-21, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to rules contained therein, the Trustees may approve the following types of uses of sovereign submerged lands: a) Consents of use, b) Easements, c) Management Agreements, d) Use Agreements and e) Leases. On June 27, 1989, the Trustees were asked to consider approving the issuance of a 5-year sovereign submerged land lease for the construction of a 42-slip private residential docking facility located adjacent to Atsena Otie Key, an island located off the coast of Cedar Key, which would serve a proposed upland development. Approval of that lease would, if granted, preempt over 14,500 sq. ft. of sovereign submerged lands. Under pertinent rules in place when the Trustees considered the Atsena Otie Key request, Trustees' staff recommended that they approve the requested use. However, based on written public opposition to the approval of that request, the Trustees, during the subject Cabinet meeting, heard from eight persons appeared who urged denial of the requested use maintaining that the proposed project was not in the public interest. Based on public opposition and the concerns raised, the Trustees rejected staff's recommendation and unanimously deferred action on the Atsena Otie lease request. Additionally, the Trustees directed the Division of State Lands to compile a report of what types of federal and state protection of coastal islands currently existed. The Trustees thereafter commissioned its to pull together their authority and promulgate a rule enunciating common standards for application on barrier islands. Treasurer Gallagher moved to have the DNR develop rules for the trustees to follow when making decisions regarding development on coastal islands which was to be presented to the Trustees at the August 22, 1989 Cabinet meeting. Based on the Trustees desire to develop a more clearly enunciated policy of what the state would allow its lands adjacent to coastal islands to be used for in the future and to put the public on notice as to what they could expect the Trustees to permit in terms of the use of sovereign submerged lands adjacent to coastal islands and to also provide its staff with guidance as to how they would analyze requests prior to submitting them for consideration, the proposed rule here under challenge was promulgated to put in place a statewide policy regarding development of undeveloped coastal islands. In addition, the Trustees were concerned about issues being raised as to the use of sovereign submerged lands to facilitate coastal island development which was not being adequately addressed by the local governments comprehensive planning processes. The next developmental stage of the coastal island policy was agendaed at the August 22, 1989 Cabinet meeting. At that meeting, staff presented a report entitled, "Analysis Of Existing Policy And Programs Affecting Florida's Coastal Resources." That report summarized and analyzed the existing federal and state programs affecting Florida's coastal islands. It is noted that there existed no single state or federal program with sufficient standards and authority to adequately protect and manage the entire beaches, dunes, back barriers and wetland systems of Florida's coastal islands. Likewise, there was no easy accessible resource data base or model criteria to assist local and state agencies in the planning, management and regulation of coastal island development and protection. The findings in that report triggered the Trustees to approve a temporary moratorium on authorizations for the use of sovereign submerged lands that would facilitate development of currently unbridged, undeveloped coastal islands until such time as the Trustees could adopt a policy for considering such requests. At that meeting, the Trustees invited public comment before taking action on staff's recommendations. Following public discussions, the Trustees unanimously accepted the staff's report and a temporary moratorium was placed on authorizations for use of sovereign submerged lands that would facilitate development of currently unbridged, undeveloped coastal islands until DNR's Division of State Lands could propose a comprehensive policy for such requests. Following approval of the staff's report and recommendations, the Trustees reconsidered the Atsena Otie Key request for authorization to construct the 42-slip docking facility and the Trustees approved the lease request but made the approval subject to several amendments including a reduction in size from a 42-slip to a 25-slip private residential docking facility. The Trustees next addressed the developing coastal island policy at the December 19, 1989 Cabinet meeting. At that meeting, the Trustees deferred voting on staff's recommendation that they adopt an interim policy governing the use of sovereign submerged lands adjacent to unbridged coastal islands until the February 1990 Cabinet meeting. At the February 6, 1990 Cabinet meeting, following a lengthy public discussion, the Trustees again deferred action on adoption of the interim policy until they more fully reviewed the issues surrounding the emerging policy at a Cabinet workshop. During that meeting, the Trustees were advised by opponents to their policy about the potential environmental impacts that would arise if the policies were implemented and developers were forced to seek alternative means of providing sewer, water and electricity to their developments. After listing to those concerns, the Trustees considered the opponents position but retained their position of restricting the use of sovereign lands. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Trustees voted unanimously to defer action for 90 days until a Cabinet level workshop could be held to delineate the issues regarding the use of sovereign lands to facilitate upland development and to define the extent of the Trustees' jurisdiction and authorization to proceed. During the March 12, 1990 Cabinet workshop, the Trustees received input on their emerging coastal island policy from the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and both the Governor's coastal resources Interagency Management Committee (IMC) and the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC). 1/ As a result of the workshop at the May 8, 1990 Cabinet meeting, the Trustees directed the staff to develop recommendations for continuing the moratorium and to develop a plan for identifying specific islands that would be protected under the policy. Staff was also directed to work with the DCA to secure funding to complete the inventory and compile data on natural resource values, as a potential land use/development status and development potential on all unbridged coastal islands. At the May 8, 1990 meeting, several of Petitioners voiced opposition to the moratorium but spoke in support of the agency proceeding with rulemaking. Following comments from the public, the Trustees voted to approve and extend the moratorium imposed on August 22, 1989, and for staff to begin rulemaking immediately to begin development of an interim policy until a comprehensive policy and rules governing coastal islands could be adopted by the Board of Trustees. Staff was also directed to work with relevant agencies including the DCA, the coastal resources IMC, and the CAC to develop a definition of coastal islands and undeveloped coastal islands and to give reasonable consideration to development of a comprehensive plan which would be compatible with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). Also, during that meeting, staff was directed to work with the DCA, the IMC and the CAC to develop definitions of "coastal island" and "undeveloped coastal island". The Trustees reiterated the directions to staff to give reasonable consideration to the comprehensive plans of coastal communities and that the policy be compatible with CBRA. The first draft was to be presented to the Trustees in June and a final form of the proposed rule was to be presented at the Trustee's second meeting in September. The Trustees directed staff to include, at a minimum, all unbridged, undeveloped coastal islands units contained within CBRA and all unbridged undeveloped coastal islands within aquatic preserves. The rule was to also address islands which were heavily developed at one end and totally undeveloped at the other. Finally, the staff was to consider the local government's comprehensive plans for coastal communities. At the June 12, 1990 Cabinet meeting, the Trustees were asked to adopt the draft rule prepared. The Trustees after considering the draft, authorized staff to proceed with rulemaking by publishing the rule in the Florida Administrative Weekly and conducting at least three public meetings. On August 31, 1990, DNR received petitions challenging the proposed rules and the moratorium. The petitions raised several issues regarding the proposed rule which had been voiced at the public hearings. In response to those issues, DNR staff sought authority to make amendments to the proposed rule. A report outlining the status of the rule and the revisions were presented to the Trustees at the October 9, 1990 Cabinet meeting. At that meeting, the Trustees accepted the status report including the revision to the amendment to Rules 18-21.003 and 18-21.004, Florida Administrative Code, and authorization to proceed was given to revise the proposed rule. At the October 23, 1990 Cabinet meeting, staff presented the revised proposed rule to the Trustees and requested authorization to formally withdraw the originally proposed rule and to give notice of revision on the instant rule for adoption. An outline explaining the revisions were included within the report. At that meeting, the Trustees approved staff's recommendation to withdraw the original rule and allow the CAC and the IMC to be afforded an opportunity to review the revised rule. On November 11, 1990, the IMC held a public meeting on the revised rule at which time the Trustees received comments, both pro and con, to the revised rule. As a result of those comments, modifications were suggested to the revised rule. At the December 18, 1990 Cabinet meeting, the Trustees authorized staff to withdraw the original proposed amendments and to provide notice of the withdrawal in the Florida Administrative Weekly. As a result of the Trustees consideration of the modification to the rule recommended by the IMC, the following amendment was made to Section 18-21.004(1)(h)(1), Florida Administrative Code: The application is for the purpose of obtaining authorization for a use which was included in a development project which has undergone development of regional impact review and a final development order has been issued pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes as of the effective date of this rule, and is otherwise permitted by and consistent with the provisions of Rule Chapters 18-18, 18-20, and 18-21, Florida Administrative Code provided, however, that in the case of a substantial deviation to said development order, no authorization of use may be granted for any use that was not included in the original order. Additionally, staff amended the definition of "coastal island segment" to be consistent with CBRA and to provide that if an island segment had an overall density of less than one structure per 5 acres of fastland as of the effective date of the rule, that it be included within the operation of the revised rule. Prior to approval, opponents of the proposed rule engaged the Trustees in a discussion about whether the local government's comprehensive plan process adequately addressed the Trustees' concerns about the protection of natural resources. Following consideration of that discussion, the Trustees made no modification to their policy. The Trustees thereafter voted to continue the moratorium until adoption of the proposed coastal island rule. On August 2, 1991, the Trustees published notice in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 17, No. 31, of their intention to adopt the proposed rule amendments to Rules 18-21.003 and 18-21.004, Florida Administrative Code. As specific authority, Sections 253.03(7) and 258.43(1), Florida Statutes was referenced. On August 31, 1991, Petitioners herein filed challenges, with the Division of Administrative Hearings, to the proposed rule amendments. On September 12, 1991, staff presented the Trustees with a status report regarding the proposed rule in view of the pending challenges. At that meeting, the Trustees reaffirmed their desire to protect undeveloped coastal islands and their adjacent natural resources and directed staff to defend the proposed rule against challenges. In support of this position, the Trustees reaffirmed their desire to curtail development of undeveloped barrier islands as development of such islands poses threats to the natural resources and coastal marine environment and their stated desire to protect those resources. In Section 18-21.003, Florida Administrative Code entitled, "Definitions", was amended by the Trustees' adoption of its coastal island policy to include four new definitions: "Coastal Island", "Fastland", "Undeveloped Coastal Island" and "Undeveloped Coastal Island Segment." The DNR's Office of Marine and Program Planning primarily developed the definitions included in the rule. George Schmahl, an employee at DNR for approximately two years who was accepted herein as an expert in the fields of biology, coastal ecology and coastal resource management, was assigned the task of coordinating the drafting of the definitions. Mr. Schmahl received his guidance for the development of the necessary definitions from the Trustees at the May 8, 1990 staff meeting. The initial draft of the definitional section of the rule contained only the terms "coastal island" and "undeveloped coastal island." Thereafter, the draft was expanded to include definitions for the terms "fastland" and "undeveloped coastal island segment." The definitions were presented to the Trustees for consideration at the June 12, 1991 Cabinet meeting, at which time the Trustees approved staff's draft and directed them to proceed with the rulemaking process. The rule defines "coastal island" as: coastline geological feature lying above mean high water that is completely separated from the coastal mainland by marine or estuarine waters, including those parcels of land which become insular due to natural causes, and is composed of any substraint material, including spoil material. This specifically includes, in addition to exposed coastal island; All islands within aquatic preserves except for Lake Jackson, Rainbow River, Lake Weir and Wekiva River aquatic preserves; and Other islands within confined or semi-confined marine or estuarine waters with an open connection to the Atlantic Ocean or Gulf of Mexico such as bays, lagoons, or inlets. Except for coastal islands within the specified aquatic preserves, it does not include islands or portions of islands within rivers leading into marine and estuarine waters more than one mile upstream of a line drawn at the river mouth from headland to headland. The nucleus for the definition of "coastal island" was derived from the existing definition of "coastal barrier island" found at Section 161.54, Florida Statutes. Schmahl modified the definition in Chapter 161 to take into consideration the phrase as defined by CBRA, and be further modified it to encompass virtually all islands within Florida's coastline. Spoil islands were included in the definition of "coastal island" because the definition of "coastal barrier island" in Chapter 161 specifically includes islands created from spoil disposal. Schmahl opined that "an island so far as the impacts to state lands and the benefits of islands in terms of protection to landward aquatic habitats and mainland ... it didn't matter what the composition of the island ... the issues were the same." Schmahl excluded islands more than one mile upstream from the mouth of a river because the rule was not intended to include, within its operations, islands that occur in river and lake systems within the interior portion of the state. Thus, by excluding islands more than one mile upstream from the mouth of the river, the rule would primarily capture those islands located in close proximity to Florida's coastline. Schmahl explained the choice of one mile upstream as the point at which to connect a line drawn at the river mouth from headland to headland after rejecting other forms of measurements, such as the water salinity or the extent of the tidal influence in the river system, because such methods were difficult to implement and the choice provided a standardized form of measurement which could be objectively applied. A section within the definition of "coastal island" was added to insure that the rule encompassed all islands within aquatic preserves except those islands within freshwater preserves. The freshwater aquatic preserves listed in the rule were identified as islands within freshwater preserves by reviewing aerial maps and excluding any islands located entirely within freshwater aquatic preserve systems. The rule defines the term "fastland" as: That portion of a coastal island above the upper limit of tidal wetland vegetation or if such vegetation is not present, that portion of the island above the mean high water line. Fastland is a common term which is defined in Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary as "high and dry land or land above the range of the tides." The term was included within the federal legislation implementing CBRA and was therefore, included within the rule to comply with the Trustees' direction that the definitions be compatible with CBRA's legislation. The term "fastland" was defined to determine whether a particular unabridged island met the definitions for "undeveloped coastal island" and "undeveloped coastal island segment." The rule defines "undeveloped coastal island" as: coastal island not directly or indirectly connected to the mainland by a bridge suitable for automobile traffic, and which has an overall density of less than one structure per five acres of fastland as of December 18, 1990. For the purpose of this definition, a structure means a wall and roofed habitable structure that is principally above ground and affixed to a permanent foundation with a projected ground area exceeding 200 square feet and constructed in conformance with all applicable legal requirements. For the purpose of determining density, facilities such as docks, groins, utility poles and pipelines are not counted as structures. The term "undeveloped coastal island" was primarily derived from definitions used by the Department of Interior Legislation implementing CBRA and is in keeping with the Trustees' instruction that the rule definitions be compatible with CBRA. Likewise, the density threshold of one man-made structure per five acres was taken directly from CBRA's implementing legislation. The term "undeveloped coastal island segment" is defined as: [A]n unbridged coastal island with an overall density of greater than or equal to one structure per five acres of fastland, a segment or portion of the island which either is at least one-quarter mile in linear shoreline length or comprises a minimum of 25% of the total fastland of the island and which consist of less than one structure per five acres of fastland as of December 18, 1990. A segment boundary shall be contiguous with a line drawn from the shore at the point of the outermost structure within a developed area to intersect each shoreline, then continue laterally along the sinuosity of each shoreline until another developed area is encountered or the end of the island is reached. See "undeveloped coastal island" for the definition of a structure. This phrase was included as a result of specific input from the IMC who convinced the Trustees of the importance of protecting large undeveloped areas of island when one or more portions of the islands were developed. In keeping with instructions received from the Trustees and relying on his professional experience, Schmahl also relied on a review of the following documents in developing the rules definitional sections: Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Public Law 97-348, 16 USC, Section 3500; and the Executive Summary of the Report of Congress on the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Section 18-21.004, Florida Administrative Code, entitled "Management Policies, Standards and Criteria," was amended by the Trustees' adoption of the coastal island policy to include four exceptions to the application of the rule. The Division of State Lands drafted language for this section under the direction of the Division's Director who viewed the rule's purpose as a means to modify the moratorium which had been opposed as the Trustees developed and refined the coastal island policy. The rule was to serve as an interim device until a multi-agency comprehensive policy could be developed to address development of and protection of coastal islands and their adjacent resources. The Trustees policy is reflected in language of Section 18-21.004(h), Florida Administrative Code, which provides: No application to use sovereignty, submerged land adjacent to or surrounding an unbridged, undeveloped coastal island or undeveloped island segment may be approved by the Board of Trustees unless it meets the following criteria... . The remaining section codify exceptions to the moratorium which had been defined over the approximate 18-month development stage that the policy underwent. Exception (1), contained in 18-21.004, states: The application is for the purpose of obtaining authorization for a use which was included in a development project that has undergone development of regional impact review and a final development order has been issued pursuant to Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, as of the effective date of this rule and is otherwise permitted by and consistent with the provisions of Rule Chapters 18-18, 18-20 or 18-21, Florida Administrative Code, as applicable, provided, however, that in the case of a substantial deviation to said development order, no authorization of use may be granted for any use that was not included in the original order. The rationale for the exception was premised on the fact that if a project had undergone DRI review, both regional and state agencies had had an opportunity to participate in review of the development. Therefore, such proposed projects had undergone a higher level of review as to the propriety and continuity with development plans than would have otherwise occurred had the review been conducted only at the local level. Thus, the exception was a way of lending credence to this state's policy of encouraging developers to use the DRI review process. The second exception to the Trustees coastal island policy states: The proposed facility is limited to a 2-slip private residential dock that complies with the standards set forth in Section 18-20.004(5)(b), Florida Administrative Code and the upland parcel to which the facility will be attached was not created by platting or subdividing after December 18, 1990. However, as an alternative to multiple private residential docks, the Board may authorize a private docking facility of more than 2-slips if it determines that such a facility would result in greater environmental protection for sovereignty submerged land resources than multiple individual docks, and provided the facility complies with all of the applicable standards. The number of slips associated with such a facility shall not exceed the number of slips which would have been authorized as individual docks. This exception recognized that under certain circumstances a person could construct a dock on their property. However, the intent was to provide notice that as to those purchasers of waterfront property on a coastal island within the definition of the rule after the December 18, 1990, date would be on notice that they would not be permitted to construct a single-family dock and will therefore have no reasonable expectation to receive one. The Trustees recognized that riparian owners have a right to access their property but that such does not extend to a statutory right to construct a dock. The third exception which addresses the provision of utility services provides: With respect to applications to use sovereignty submerged lands for the provision of public utility services, such services were in place as of December 18, 1990, and the requested usage of sovereignty, submerged land will not result in a upgrade of capacity or will not serve additional customers on a unbridged, undeveloped coastal island or undeveloped coastal island segment. Applications may be approved under this provision only to allow the maintenance or repair of existing utility lines, or as necessary to maintain public safety as ordered by the Public Service Commission. The purpose of that exception was to provide notice to the utility companies that if utility service already existed on an island, and it became necessary for the company to work on lines either to repair or maintain existing service, the rule would not prohibit such activity. The purpose was one of protecting some sovereign submerged resources and not facilitate development by use of sovereign lands, and that utility companies would be prohibited from using sovereign lands to serve additional customers or to upgrade existing service. The final exception to the Trustees' policy states: The proposed use is for the purpose of allowing access, for public purposes, to publicly owned uplands or submerged lands for recreation, research, conservation, mosquito control or restoration activities only, at the discretion of the Board, and is otherwise consistent with the provisions of Rule Chapters 18-18, 18-20, or 18-21, Florida Administrative Code. This exception was developed to allay concerns that the state had acquired a number of coastal islands pursuant to its "Save Our Coast Program" for public recreation which would be subject to the moratorium and therefore not used and the exceptions made clear that the use of coastal islands for public purposes and for the general public's enjoyment, remained in tact. Development of the Economic Impact Statement Pursuant to Section 120.54(2)(b), Florida Statutes, each agency shall provide information on its proposed action by preparing a detailed Economic Impact Statement (EIS) which shall include an estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action, including the estimated amount of paperwork; an estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; an estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for employment, if applicable; a detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; and an analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. DNR prepared an EIS which was included with the proposed rule amendments that contained estimates of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action including the estimated amount of paperwork; of the cost of the economic benefit to all persons directly affected by the proposed action; of the impact of the proposed action on competition in the open market for employment; of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates; and contained an analysis of the impact on small business as defined in the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act of 1985. The EIS was prepared for DNR by Ed Wood, a senior management analyst, with the Division of State Lands. He is coordinator for rule development at the Division and is responsible for the budget and personnel functions for the Division. He holds a master's degree in education and administration with a specialty in school finance and a bachelor's degree in business administration. He has prepared similar EIS's and received a primer from staff on the agency's rationale for proposing the subject rule. Wood read the draft EIS prepared by Dr. Bell, an economist for the Department, who was hired to assist in the preparation of the EIS. Wood consulted with DNR staff regarding information received at public hearings from citizens possibly affected by the proposed rule in order to assess public opinion about the rule prior to undertaking the paths of development of the EIS. Wood relied heavily on the Department of State's document entitled, "Guide to Rules Promulgation Under The Florida Administrative Procedures Act" dated November 1986, which included examples of EISs. Based on his familiarity with the Division's budget and personnel functions, he is infinitely familiar with cost and both paperwork and manpower necessary to implement the proposed action which would be affected by the proposed rules. At the time Wood consulted with Department staff, there were only six applications pending out of an estimated 867 coastal islands. Based on an inadequate sample of potentially affected parties, Wood did not rely on them as a basis for determination of economic impact, as such would have been speculative. Those portions of Dr. Bell's EIS which were relevant were adopted and utilized heavily by Wood in preparation of the EIS. Likewise, irrelevant portions including analysis of benefits from storm protection, hazard avoidance and shoreline protection, none of which are under the Division's jurisdiction were excluded. The Division fully considered all impacts that were capable of being considered based on the information which was furnished and which was reliable. Estimates of the impact on the action of competition and the over-market for employment were taken verbatim from Dr. Bell's draft EIS. The criteria utilized and adopted from Dr. Bell's draft EIS were sufficiently documented to be utilized and therefore was in fact utilized by Wood in the subject EIS. The information relied upon by Wood in preparation of the EIS was included in the statement of data and methods used. At the time of Wood's preparation of the EIS, there were no pending applications for marinas on affected islands and therefore any impact in that area was deleted as being mere speculation. Finally, as to those estimates of the various impacts which were indeterminate, they were stated as such and Wood failed to speculate as to such costs. Facts Relevant to Petitioner's Depot Key Joint Venture Partnership and George Rex Andrews After being deferred by the Board at its June 27, 1989 meeting, the Andrews lease application for the multi-slip docking facility was Item 22 on the Board's agenda for the August 22, 1989 meeting. Item 21 on the agenda was for recommendation for approval of a moratorium on authorizations for use of sovereignty, submerged land that would facilitate development of unbridged, undeveloped coastal islands. Based on the staff's recommendation in favor of the moratorium, the Andrews lease application was recommended for withdrawal. The Board first approved the lease after amending it to allow 25 slips and approved the moratorium. In April 1991, George Rex Andrews and Verna Andrews Woodlief transferred title to Atsena Otie to the Depot Key Joint Venture to obtain financial resources to develop Atsena Otie in accordance with the approved development plan. The development plans for Atsena Otie include an electrical transmission line to be laid between the town of Cedar Key and Atsena Otie. An easement for the utility transmission line will be required from the Board of Trustees. The proposed rule amendments will prohibit the Trustees from granting the easement necessary for the utility transmission line. Petitioners Andrews and Depot Key Joint Venture argue that the marketability of the lots at Atsena Otie will be greatly reduced if they are unable to obtain the easement required for the utility transmission line. Facts Relevant to Petitioner Lost Tree Village Corporation Lost Tree owns undeveloped islands within the Indian River in Indian River County, Florida, which are unbridged, not served by public or private utilities and which were not platted or subdivided prior to December 18, 1990. Lost Tree has preliminary development plans for a residential development and a golf course on seven of its islands. Other islands which have large areas of wetlands will not be developed but would be part of an overall environmental enhancement and preservation plan. Lost Tree's proposed plan of development will require approval for the use of sovereign, submerged lands. The proposed rule would prohibit a bridge to the island across sovereign submerged lands, the extension of utilities, and docks on the islands. Facts Relevant to Petitioners Munz, Watrous and Broderick Thomas Munz - Burgess Island Thomas Munz is the majority owner of a corporation, Burgess Island Associates, which owns an island known as Burgess of Little Bokeelia Island in Pine Island Sound, Lee County, Florida; the minority interest owners are Munz' wife and children. The island is over 100 acres in size of which about 26 acres is uplands. The applicable local zoning will limit development of the island to 27 units. Munz' development plans for the islands offer a total of 27 homes on the island including any of the four existing structures which continue to be used as residents; some of which may be converted to an office and a museum. The existing residences are served by septic tanks and obtain potable water through a combination of wells and cisterns. The island was not platted or subdivided as of December 18, 1990. Variances have been sought from some local zoning regulations relating to road widths and other development standards, which request was in process as of October 18, 1991. There are currently four docks serving the island. As no bridge will be constructed, plans are to provide a dock for each lot for access, although physical restrictions may require some lots to share a common dock. Authorization for such docks will be needed from the Trustees. Sewage treatment is to be by septic tanks. Potable water would be provided through wells and a Reverse Osmosis (RO) system--either individual RO plants or a central system. Permits necessary for water withdrawal, treatment and distribution systems had been applied for as of October 1991, including a consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD); and an industrial discharge permit from DER; and a water plant and distribution system permit from HRS. A surface water management permit from SFWMD was also being sought. Sufficient electrical facilities are in place to meet the needs of the proposed development. Electricity in the form of an overhead utility line from Pine Island which is submerged for a portion of its route to go underneath a channel. Petitioners urge that the marketability and value of the lots on Little Bokeelia Island would decrease without the availability of individual docks for prospective lot owners. Petitioners urge that a distant, central dock is impractical. Ted Watrous - Buck Key Ted Watrous is the majority owner of a parcel of property, approximately 100 acres in size, on an unbridged island known as Buck Key and Pine Island South. The island is approximately 325 acres in size, the remainder of which is owned by the federal government and the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation. The island is not connected by bridge to any other land mask, nor is the island platted, subdivided, or currently served by any utilities. Watrous plans to develop 28 to 30 single-family homes on a portion of Buck Key; current local land use regulations would allow up to 35 or 36 single-family residences. Primary plans are for 20 of those lots to be waterfront with individual docks. Buck Key is separated from Captiva Island by a channel approximately 500 ft. wide and which gradually slopes to a depth of approximately 8 ft. Access to Buck Key would be by boat from Captiva Island, which is bridged to the mainland through Sanibel Island. Watrous' plans for the Buck Key development include electric utility lines and telephone cable from Captiva Island. The alternative energy source available is diesel generators. Sewage treatment would be handled on-site via septic tanks. The proposed rule would allow Watrous a single two-slip dock for his parcel which he contends would be impractical and would lower his selling price for the lots due to the limited access which would be occasioned by the two-slip dock for the development. Roger Broderick - Chino Island Roger Broderick is the owner of Chino Island, a 55 acre island located in Pine Island Sound. The island is unbridged or proposed to be bridged to another island and is not currently served by utilities. Broderick plans to develop up to 15 single-family residences on the southernmost 15 acres of the island in two phases, the first phase consisting of 10 homes. The northern portion of the island will be maintained in its natural state except that as a condition of a DER permit for the installation of a subaqueous utility line to the island. An existing man-made berm around the perimeter of the northern portion of the island would be removed to improve the flushing in the area and promote reestablishment of mangroves and other native vegetation. Exotic or nuisance vegetation species such as Brazilian pepper and Australian pine would also be removed as a condition of that permit. Broderick desires to live on the island in addition to developing homesites for sale. A majority of the island including wetlands is proposed to be placed under a conservation easement in perpetuity. Of the southern portion of the island where homes are proposed to be located, a man-made canal exist in the interior of the island with direct deep- water access to Pine Island Sound. It is anticipated that individual docks to serve the residential lots will be constructed in the canal on privately owned submerged lands so no Trustee authorization would be needed to construct docking facilities. Broderick has received authorization for many aspects of his development specifically SFWMD has approved a surface water management permit for control of stormwater runoff. Broderick proposes to provide water to residences with a well and a distribution system; SFWMD has issued a withdrawal permit for the water and HRS has issued a permit for the distribution system. Broderick proposes to provide electricity to the island with a submerged utility cable. The cable would be installed by supersaturating the bottoms with water to create a trench then immediately laying the cable in the trench and allowing settlements to settle in over the cable. Both DER and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have issued dredge and fill permits for the installation of the subaqueous line. DER investigated the alignment of the submerged utility line and determined that its impacts would be insignificant. A portion of the submerged utility line is co-located in the maintenance channel of an existing easement for an overhead utility line issued by the Trustees to the Lee County Rural Electric Cooperative for an electric utility line running from Pine Island to Sanibel Island. An application has been submitted to the Trustees for the submerged line covering both the co- located portion of the line and the spur necessary to run to Chino from the existing corridor. As of the final hearing, that application was not complete. Broderick urges that he has explored the possibility of alternative means of providing electricity and determined that the cost would be prohibitive and the alternatives would be inconvenient, unreliable, adversely affecting the marketability of the lots. Lee County has issued a final development order for the project, authorizing commencement of construction of the infrastructure and housepads. Lee County has found the development consistent with its comprehensive plan. Sewage treatment will be provided by individual treatment systems that will disinfect the effluent prior to discharge to a drainfield; the septic tank system is not the typical design and was specifically designed to avoid impacting shellfish harvesting areas.
The Issue Petitioners challenged the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) preliminary Final Order, alleging that Petitioners committed the "unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation for the purposes of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line [(CCCL)] without benefit of a permit." The ultimate issue is whether the work Petitioners performed was seaward of the CCCL, and if it was, whether there was a violation of Amended Permit FR-563 and Section 161.053(2), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner, Ben Withers, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ben Withers, is the President and owner of Ben Withers, Inc., and a resident of Panacea, Florida. (Henceforth, Ben Withers and Ben Withers, Inc., are referred to collectively as "Mr. Withers," unless otherwise noted.) Mr. Withers is a licensed general contractor. The Department is the executive agency of the State of Florida operating pursuant to, among others, Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, the Department administers the CCCL program for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. Coastal Construction Control Line Program The Department's Bureau of Beaches and Wetland Resources regulates construction and excavation activities seaward of the CCCL. The Department is responsible for determining and setting the CCCLs. The CCCL is a scientifically established line pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes. By definition, the CCCL "defines that portion of the beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations based on a one-hundred-year storm surge, storm waves, or other predictable weather conditions." Rule 62B-33.002(13), Florida Administrative Code. Construction and excavation activity seaward of the CCCL is regulated by Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 62B- 33, Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Withers admitted that he is aware of Department rules regarding beaches and coastal construction and is also aware that excavation seaward of the CCCL requires a permit unless it is otherwise exempt, and that he had this knowledge prior to the present case. Accessing the Pepper Project Site Under Amended Permit FR-563 Dog Island is a barrier island south of and about three miles off the coast of Franklin County, Florida. The island is approximately eight miles in length. There is no bridge to the island. The Pepper project site is on the far western end of the island. The Gulf of Mexico borders the island on the south and St. George Sound borders the island to the north. The most common way to access the Pepper site with any vehicle carrying equipment and materials, would be to use a boat or barge to a marina area (Tyson's Harbor) near the center of the island, or a private dock, and then traverse west down the middle of the island or down the beach itself, or a combination of the two. The Easy Street Easement is an easement area for a roadway running east and west through Dog Island. The parties agree that Easy Street and the Easy Street Easement are the same. The Easy Street Easement had been an unpaved roadway years before; part of the roadway was still visible in May 2001, and other parts had been covered with vegetation. There are portions of Easy Street and Easy Way east of the cul-de-sac which are visible roadways. See, e.g., Department Exhibit 13. Additionally, parts of Easy Street are seaward of the Department's CCCL (e.g., in the narrows area which is west of the cul-de-sac) and other parts are landward of the CCCL. See, e.g., Finding of Fact 29. Pursuant to its statutory duty, in 1996, the Department set the reference monuments R-158-R-160 for the CCCL on the west end of Dog Island. These monuments are in the narrows area of the island and run west to east. The CCCL is not visible on the ground. A surveyor is needed to locate the line. The alleged violation in this case was committed between R-158 and R-160, part of the narrows area. The Easy Street Easement on Dog Island runs both north and south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac and then runs westerly to the west end of Dog Island. The CCCL Permits On October 21, 1999, the Department issued Permit FR-563 to Leonard Pepper, the property owner, for the construction of a single–family dwelling and for structures associated with the dwelling on the west end of Dog Island. Permit FR-563 contained Standard Permit Conditions that required in part: (1)(a) all construction or activity for which the permit was granted be carried out in accordance with the plans and specifications which were approved by the Department as a part of the permit; (1)(b) all construction or activity authorized under the permit shall be conducted using extreme care to prevent any adverse impacts to the beach and dune system; and (1)(g) existing beach and dune topography and vegetation shall not be disturbed except as expressly authorized in the permit. Permit FR-563 did not authorize the start of construction until a construction access plan to the Pepper project site was approved, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system. On October 16, 2000, Amended Permit FR-563 was issued with a Notice to Proceed Withheld. The Amended Permit also contained Special Condition 1.5 which required the submittal and approval of "[a] construction access plan showing the route and timing for bringing equipment and materials to the site, in order to minimize impacts to the beach and dune system." The Department was concerned about the manner in which equipment and materials would be brought to the project site without causing further harm to the system. Amended Permit FR-563 did not expressly or implicitly authorize excavation or grading seaward of the CCCL in any area on Dog Island off of the project site and footprint of the house. In late 2000, Mr. Withers became involved with the Pepper project after Amended Permit FR-563 (with the Notice to Proceed Withheld) was issued on October 16, 2000. Part of Mr. Withers' job responsibility was to prepare and submit a construction access plan to the Department for approval. The Department does not normally require an access plan because most job sites are located in areas with established roads for ingress and egress. Here, there was no established road to and from the project site. The access plan was necessary in order to determine how Mr. Withers would transport equipment and materials to the Pepper project site on the west end of Dog Island due to the site's remote location and the absence of an established roadway to the site. Mr. Withers expected that materials and heavy equipment, including cranes, would be off-loaded at Tyson's Harbor, located approximately in the middle of Dog Island, and transported by vehicle to the project site along the access plan route. He expected to only transport pilings using the beach access route. On March 15, 2001, Mr. Withers submitted an access plan which described the route Mr. Withers would traverse by vehicle with construction equipment and materials. See Endnote 1. The Easy Street Easement starts at the east end of the island as an established roadway. Proceeding in a westerly direction, Easy Street comes to a dead-end at a cul-de-sac landward of the CCCL. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to access the job site using part the Easy Street/Easy Street Easement (starting on the east end of the island) going north from The Nature Conservancy cul-de-sac, then heading in a westerly direction just south of the Ausley house (west of R-158 and just landward of the CCCL) and across the narrows area and continuing in a westerly direction along the northern shoreline and in southerly direction toward R-154. The access plan then authorized Mr. Withers to proceed in a westerly direction over the middle portion of the west-end of the island, then in a southerly direction toward the project site.1 The access plan showed a route both landward and seaward of the CCCL along the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 4- orange line then blue line after the orange circle on the west-end of the island. As described by Mr. McNeal of the Department, the access route is seaward, for the most part, of the CCCL from R-157 to R- 159 (running west to east) and landward of the CCCL east of R-159. The Department described the damaged area of 5,305.6 square feet (Department Exhibit 11A, insert "B") caused by Mr. Withers as east of R-159 and seaward of the CCCL and south of the access plan route. See also Finding of Fact 35. However, it appears that a portion of Easy Street, between R-159 and R-160, is seaward of the CCCL. Compare Department Exhibit 12 with Department Exhibits 4, 11A, and 13. During a pre-hearing deposition, Mr. Withers marked in pink the route he took through a portion of the narrows area which coincides with the portion of Easy Street between the approximate locations of R-159 and R-160, depicted on Department Exhibit 12. See Finding of Fact 43. (Mr. Withers had the Easy Street Easement staked prior to doing any work on Dog Island. See Findings of Fact 33-35.) The damaged area appears to coincide with this portion of Easy Street, and seaward of the CCCL. See Department Exhibit 11A. The access plan authorized Mr. Withers to drive (vehicular traffic) his equipment over the easement following the route depicted on the access plan until he arrived at the project site. See Endnote 1. The Department expected that travel along the access route would cause minimal and temporary damage or destruction to the topography, so the plan was considered acceptable. The access plan did not authorize excavation of a roadway within the route, including the narrows area, nor did it contemplate any other activity over or around a dune other than what might occur as a result of driving.2 The Department understood that Mr. Withers would be driving daily over the access plan route to the project site. The Department assumed that trucks would be used to transport equipment and materials. The Department did not differentiate among vehicles which could be used, including large trucks. On April 11, 2001, the Department issued a Notice to Proceed to Mr. Pepper to begin construction of his single-family dwelling in accordance with Amended Permit FR-563. The access plan is part of the Amended permit. Shortly after the Notice to Proceed was issued, The Nature Conservancy advised the Department of concerns it had with the access plan. As a result, on April 24, 2001, there was a meeting in Apalachicola, Florida, convened by the Department and attended by other interested governmental entities and private persons, including Mr. Withers. The purpose of the meeting was explore other possible ways and means of access by Mr. Withers to the Pepper project site.3 No resolution was reached during the meeting and the access plan previously approved by the Department remained effective. The previously issued Notice to Proceed was also in effect. The Violations Mr. Withers hired Kenneth Greenwood of Garlick Environmental Associates to perform a threatened/endangered species inspection, plant and animal, on an approximately 30-foot wide strip on the Easy Street Easement (approximately 1,800 feet) being utilized in Mr. Withers' access plan and within the narrows area. See Department Exhibit 13-yellow markings. On May 2, 2001, Mr. Greenwood performed the inspection within the easement that Mr. Withers had staked out by a land surveyor, approximately 15 feet on either side of the stakes. He found no threatened/endangered species. (The CCCL was not staked by Mr. Withers because, according to Mr. Withers, the Department did not ask him to locate the CCCL with stakes.) The access route depicted by Mr. McNeal in orange on Department Exhibit 4, which runs east of R-159, is similar to the description of the staked areas east of R-159, described by Mr. Greenwood and marked in yellow on Department Exhibit 13. See Findings of Fact 28-29. Both areas are landward of the CCCL. However, the 5,305.6 square foot damaged area is east of R-159 and is seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Greenwood described the area where he performed his investigation as being "relatively undisturbed," "relatively stable," having no vehicle tracks, and he stated that there were areas of bare sand as well as areas of "natural beach dune vegetation." He described the area as "relatively flat with some small amounts of mounding." The pictures taken by Mr. Greenwood within the staked easement on May 2, 2001, as part of his investigation, do not depict any vehicle tracks. After Mr. Greenwood completed his investigation on May 2, 2001, he observed Mr. Withers landward of the CCCL on a front-end loader and north of the cul-de-sac, proceeding west along the Easy Street Easement scraping off the top layer of soil and heading in a westward direction. Mr. Greenwood believed that the activity performed by Mr. Withers at this time was consistent with unpaved, road construction. According to Mr. Greenwood, the width of the scraped area appeared to be approximately the width of the bucket on Mr. Withers' front-end loader. Mr. Withers stated that he was doing minor grading landward of the CCCL with a John Deere 310-E front-end loader tractor when Mr. Greenwood was present on May 2, 2001. This tractor had a front bucket (approximately seven to eight feet wide) and a backhoe for excavating dirt on the back-end. Mr. Withers described the work which he performed when Mr. Greenwood was present as moving out and smoothing off the top of the sand landward of the CCCL in order for his equipment to get through. Mr. Withers also stated that he made areas in the easement seaward of the CCCL smooth by using the bottom of the bucket of his front-end loader to move sand around. Mr. Withers mentioned that he was very concerned that he needed to have the pathway he was utilizing in the access plan marked and smoothed off and fairly level. He believed the access plan authorized him to smooth off the areas on the access route. Mr. Withers stated that he had to have the access path level because he was bringing a self-propelled, 25-ton crane down the access path and they are top heavy and can get off balance, topple over, or get stuck. Mr. Withers described two types of work that he performed in the Easy Street Easement as: 1) clearing landward of the CCCL that required scooping and moving dirt, and 2) smoothing several areas seaward of the CCCL, just east of R-158 to around R- 160. An area of excavation damage seven feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning approximately 130 feet east of R-158) and an area 41 feet seaward of the CCCL (beginning at R-159, continuing east approximately 500 feet) are located within the area Mr. Withers stated he did some "smoothing off areas," again, east of R-158 and continuing east toward, but west, of R-160. Mr. Withers believed that Amended Permit FR-563 allowed him to use the Easy Street Easement in the access plan "to do . . . whatever was necessary and . . . needed to get [his] equipment, access [his] equipment down to the job site." He also admitted smoothing the areas. Mr. Withers also stated that Amended Permit FR-563 granted him permission to access the west end of Dog Island. Therefore, there was no need for him to locate the CCCL. Mr. Withers referred to the easement in the access plan as turning into a good pathway after he smoothed the areas. Mr. Withers stated that it was his "intention to gain access to the west end of Dog Island through a legal easement and an existing roadway" and that he wanted to utilize it. Mr. Withers testified "that he knew a lot of roads on Dog Island crossed seaward of the [CCCL]" in response to questioning whether he knew at the time of his performing work on the easement, whether or not the Easy Street Easement crossed seaward of the CCCL. He knew he was going to be traversing "fairly close" to the CCCL. Mr. Withers stated he did not knowingly violate the conditions of the Amended Permit. Mr. Withers was aware of the Department's permit requirements for work seaward of the CCCL when he performed his access work in the easement on Dog Island. However, Mr. Withers never had a survey done to figure out where the CCCL was located. Notice of the Alleged Violations Around May 2, 2001, the Department received a complaint that excavation was occurring seaward of the CCCL on Dog Island in the narrows area of the Easy Street Easement. On May 4, 2001, John A. Poppel, William Fokes, and Phil Sanders went to Dog Island on behalf of the Department to investigate the complaint of excavation in the narrows area seaward of the CCCL. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Poppel performed a survey of the narrows area and located the CCCL. He located monuments R-158- R-160. Department Exhibit 11. As a product of his survey, Mr. Poppel was able to depict the newly excavated roadway or pathway in relation to the CCCL. Mr. Poppel calculated that one area of damage was seven feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 503.8 square feet of damage and a second area of damage was 41 feet seaward of the CCCL and consisted of 5,305.6 square feet of damage. These square foot areas represent only the disturbed areas seaward of the CCCL, not the entire area between the CCCL and the Gulf of Mexico. Both areas of damage are within the area where Mr. Withers stated that he smoothed out the sand. As part of the May 4, 2001, investigation, William Fokes, an Engineer I with the Department, took photographs of the damaged areas and prepared an inspection report. Mr. Fokes' report indicates that an approximately 11-foot wide roadway or pathway had been cleared by excavation with the most seaward extent of the road being about 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. In addition, the report states that small dunes and beach vegetation had been destroyed. Mr. Fokes described the damage as excavation or grading done by some kind of machine, which cut and uprooted vegetation and pushed sand to the side as it leveled the ground. Mr. Fokes testified that the damage did not appear to be caused by merely traversing the area. Mr. Sanders, an engineer with the Department, processes CCCL permit applications and supervises Mr. Fokes, a field engineer. On May 4, 2001, Mr. Sanders observed the narrows area in question and confirmed that it looked like a "graded road" in that "[i]t appeared in the road bed that vegetation was gone and had been pushed out to the side, graded away," and that there was "excavation" seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Sanders stated that this activity did not comply with the approved access plan. On May 7, 2001, a Notice of Violation was issued to Mr. Withers for the "the unauthorized clearing and destruction of dunes and native vegetation for the purpose of constructing a roadway seaward of the coastal construction control line." Mr. Greenwood's photographs taken May 2, 2001, when compared with Mr. Fokes' photographs taken May 4, 2001, show that no discernable roadway or pathway was present landward or seaward of the CCCL in the narrows area at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection on May 2, 2001. This is evident when comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Exhibit 15a, taken on May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibit 16g taken on May 4, 2001--the roadway or pathway present in the May 4, 2001, photo is absent in the May 2, 2001, photograph, and the vegetation has been removed from part of the area. Comparing Mr. Greenwood's photograph, Department Exhibit 15b, taken May 2, 2001, with Department Exhibits 16c and d, taken on May 4, 2001, also shows that the roadway or pathway was not present on the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement at the time of Mr. Greenwood's inspection. The previously mentioned pictures, which were used for a comparison, were taken by two different people on separate dates, and from approximately the same locations. Also, Department Exhibit 16j was taken 250 feet east of R-159 and within the narrows area, facing east which shows clearing approximately 40 feet seaward of the CCCL. On May 14, 2001, at the request of the Department, Ken Jones, a principal engineer with Post Buckey et al., performed a damage assessment of the narrows portion of the Easy Street Easement which was seaward of the CCCL. Mr. Jones has a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's degree in physical oceanography. Mr. Jones was familiar with the narrows area having been to Dog Island for recreation during the past 20 years and as a Dog Island property owner for the last three years. Mr. Jones described the narrows area as relatively flat and located between the St. George Sound to the north and the Gulf of Mexico beaches to the south. Between these two areas, the land is undulating sand and fairly consistent vegetation. At the time of Mr. Jones' damage assessment, he determined that a road had been cut through the vegetative portion of the dune of the narrows. Mr. Jones observed cut roots and a majority of the vegetation destroyed. Mr. Jones stated it appeared that the damage was caused by a vehicle with a blade on the front. The result was the road sat down in the sand approximately four to six inches. Mr. Jones stated that the work appeared to have been recent because distinct edges were still present. Mr. Jones took photographs and compiled an inspection report as part of his damage assessment. Mr. Jones testified that the damage "was pretty consistent from both landward and seaward of the [CCCL]." The pictures labeled Department Exhibits 18a1 and 18a2 depict a level pathway or roadway barren of vegetation seaward of the CCCL. Department Exhibit 18a4 is a photograph of a typical vegetated dune. Mr. Jones took this picture in order to have a general idea of what the vegetation coverage was in order to get an idea from a cost-estimating perspective. Mr. Jones's cost estimate for repairing the damage to the narrows area seaward of the CCCL, was approximately $7,500.00.4 Mr. Jones calculated the $7,500.00 by making an estimate of what it would cost to buy coastal vegetation, and by estimating what it would cost to employ laborers to hand rake the sand back into position and to plant the vegetation. Administrative Fine and Damages Jim Martinello, an environmental manager in charge of enforcement and compliance with the Bureau, used Mr. Jones' damage assessment estimate for informational purposes in assessing the damages amount for the narrows area. Mr. Martinello calculated the administrative fine and damages in accordance with Section 161.054, Florida Statues, and Rules 62B-54.002 and 62B-54.003, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.002, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department shall assess fines for willful violations of, or refusing to comply with, for example, Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and the fine should be sufficient to ensure immediate and continued compliance. In determining the actual fine within the range, the Department shall consider the offender's past violations, if any, and other aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Aggravating circumstances include prior knowledge of rules. Mitigating circumstances may be considered. Id. Mr. Withers had knowledge prior to the issuance of Amended Permit FR-563 of Department rules regarding permit requirements for construction activities seaward of the CCCL. On October 4, 1996, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. This matter was resolved by entering into a consent order. On October 29, 1997, Mr. Withers, on behalf of Ben Withers Construction Company, was issued a warning letter for possible permit violation seaward of the CCCL. On November 13, 1997, Mr. Withers was issued a warning letter for possible unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. On October 27, 2000, Mr. Withers wrote a letter to Mr. McNeal indicating that he believed that the Easy Street Easement on Dog Island heading south from The Nature Conservancy cul-de- sac, then west to the west end of Dog Island, is landward of the CCCL and, therefore, no permit was necessary to reopen and use the easement, but he would have a surveyor establish the control line prior to work commencing. On November 7, 2000, Phil Sanders replied by letter to Mr. Withers' October 27, 2000 letter, in which Mr. Sanders reminded Mr. Withers of the pertinent rules and laws and suggested that Mr. Withers have the CCCL surveyed. On December 20, 2000, Mr. Martinello sent Mr. Withers an advisory letter informing him that the area he traversed (on July 2000) on the south route of the Easy Street Easement from the cul- de-sac on Dog Island was considered to be a dune as defined by Rule 62B-33.002, Florida Administrative Code. However, Mr. Martinello further advised that the Department did not take any action because "the traversing [did not] cause any substantial damage, it was minimal damage." In regard to the present case, it is more than a fair inference that Mr. Withers had specific knowledge of the CCCL and the Department's laws and rules, and that he knew excavation was not authorized seaward of the CCCL. The information in the prior Findings of Fact was used by the Department, and specifically Mr. Martinello, to determine that the harm to the beach resource or potential harm was major, and the administrative fine assessed was $7,500.00. However, part of Mr. Martinello's determination was predicated on Mr. Jones' assessment that the site one narrows violation was approximately 700 feet in length when, in fact, the area was approximately 500 feet in length, which explains in part the disparity between a 9,800 square foot area and the proven 5,305.6 square foot area. See Finding of Fact 78 and Endnote 4. Even the additional amount of damage of 503.8 square feet for the site two narrows area, when viewed in the aggregate, is significantly less than Mr. Jones' assessment of damages by square feet. (Mr. Martinello used the Jones' assessment as a guideline. Mr. Martinello says that the mistake did not alter his decision, although he was unaware of the mistake until the final hearing. He also says that Mr. Jones recommended a higher damage amount than the $5,000.00 assessed by the Department in its preliminary Final Order. He did--$7,500.00 for 9,800 square feet of damage.) Grossly negligent or knowing violations of statutes and Department rules regarding coastal construction seaward of the CCCL, which result "in harm to sovereignty lands seaward of mean high water or to beaches, shores, or coastal or beach-dune system(s), including animal, plant or aquatic life thereon," shall be considered in determining damages. Rule 62B-54.003(1), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-54.003(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a damage amount greater than the minimum amounts may be assessed to ensure, immediate and continued compliance and the Department may consider, e.g., the need for restoration and the damaged ecological resource. The Department determined that the violation was knowing based on the factors mentioned above. The Department also considered the need for restoration and the damage to ecological resources and whether the amount would ensure immediate and continued compliance. Id. The Department determined that there was harm to the resource and that it was major and knowing. The Department proposed to assess the minimum damage amount of $5,000.00. On January 11, 2002, the Department entered a preliminary Final Order for the unauthorized grading and destruction of dunes and dune vegetation seaward of the control line for the purpose of constructing a roadway. The amount assessed in the Final Order was $12,500.00, $7,500.00 in administrative fines and $5,000.00 in damages, as described above. As noted, there has been harm to the beach area resource seaward of the CCCL and the Department proved the need for restoration and the damage to the ecological resource. In mitigation, Mr. Withers' construction access plan was approved by the Department. The Department knew that Mr. Withers intended to use the access route, which ran seaward of the CCCL from approximately R-157 to R-159 (except for a small portion between R-158 and R-159) in the narrows area; that Mr. Withers planned to transport equipment and materials by truck using the access route and necessarily would traverse seaward of the CCCL; and that he would continuously use the access route until the project was completed. The actual damaged area is less than originally determined by Mr. Jones, thus the need for restoration reduced. Mr. Jones, without the benefit of a survey, estimated the total cost to restore the damaged area of 9,800 square feet to be approximately $7,500.00. The total square feet of damage proven in this proceeding is 5,809.4 square feet in the narrows area and the Department is requesting $12,500.00 in fines and damages. Based on an approximate ratio of square feet and dollars needed to restore, a damage assessment in the amount of $4,500.00 is appropriate. Balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, a fine of $3,500.00 is appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: That a final order be issued adopting this Recommended Order; and Within 30 days of a final order being effective, Petitioners shall pay a fine of $3,500.00 and $4,500.00 in damages with the total amount of $8,000.00, to the Department of Environmental Protection. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 2003.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioners are eligible for a permit, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, for construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line in Broward County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1993, Vander Ploeg and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Paul Leto, Richard Meyer, and Berta Anderes (Petitioners) submitted an application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent) for a permit to perform construction on their property seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line. Respondent deemed their application complete on April 18, 1994. Petitioners proposed construction will be seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. The proposed construction will occur on two adjacent lots in Broward County. Petitioner Leto is the owner of one of the lots described as Lot 19, Block 196, Hollywood Central Beach, Plat Book 4, Page 20, Public Records of Broward County. Petitioners Meyer and Anderes are the owners of the other lot described as Lot 20, Block 196, Hollywood Central Beach, Plat Book 4, Page 20, Public Records of Broward County. Petitioner Leto purchased his lot in September 1992 and Petitioners Meyer and Anderes purchased their lot in March 1993. The lots were platted in or around the 1920's. Both lots are seaward of the seasonal high water line, on a sandy beach with no frontal dune structure. They are bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern most side and by a roadway (Surf Road) which is immediately adjacent to the lots on the western most side and landward of the lots. Approximately 200 feet north of the lots is an existing structure and approximately 800 feet south of this first existing structure is another existing structure. Petitioners topographical survey, which was submitted to Respondent in December 1993, showed that Lots 19 and 20, each measured 40 feet in a shore parallel direction and 80 feet in a shore normal direction, i.e., perpendicular to the shoreline. The proposed structure will be located directly on the sandy beach. The City of Hollywood, Florida has granted Petitioners a variance. Further, the proposed construction complies with the rules, zoning regulations, and ordinances of the City of Hollywood. Petitioners' application requests a permit for the construction of a single-family residence on the lots, which will house two families. However, the proposed construction is for a duplex, not a single-family residence. Petitioners are willing, and agreeable, to changing the design of the proposed structure to comply with Respondent's specifications for a single- family residence. Additionally, the proposed construction includes a riprap which will also be located on the sandy beach. A riprap is typically used for protective armoring. No structure presently exists for the riprap to protect. Furthermore, the riprap proposed by Petitioners is not adequately designed as a coastal protection structure, and if the proposed single-family residence is modified in accordance with Respondent's specifications, the proposed modified single-family residence would not be eligible for coastal armoring. The riprap structure is not an integral part of the structural design. Petitioners are willing, and agreeable, to eliminating the riprap structure. No other issues exist as to the structural integrity of the design of the proposed project. The lots on which the proposed structure will be located are a part of the beach-dune system. The natural function of the beach provides protection to upland property. The lots on which the proposed structure will be located are subject to normal storm-induced erosion. Tide and wave forces will impact the proposed structure during storms of minor intensity, including five-year storms. The proposed structure will induce greater erosion on the lots as a result of scour due to the interaction of the storm waves and currents with the proposed structure. During the storm, the normal storm-induced erosion combined with the scour erosion will form a breach or depression in the subject property. In turn, the upland property will be exposed to greater tide and wave forces, increasing the risk of erosion and damage to the upland property. The subject lots and surrounding properties have been subjected to unnatural forces which have added to the erosion. The Port Everglades inlet has inhibited the natural downdrift of sand. The City of Hollywood's beach maintenance division has been regularly pushing sand seaward and in the process, breaking down natural forming cliffs. Even though these unnatural forces are capable of being eliminated, the normal storm-induced erosion and the scour erosion would still exists. The existing developed structures to the north and south of the subject lots appear to create a reasonably uniform line of construction. However, the developed structures have been unduly affected by erosion. The proposed structure will be located within this line of construction. During a major storm along the shoreline, waves remove sand from the beach and dune area and deposit the sand in an offshore bar. After the major storm, a recovery of the beach and dunes takes place. Normal wave activity carries the sand from the offshore bar back to the beach, and the sand is then carried landward by winds and is caught and trapped by dune vegetation; thereby reforming a dune. Constructing the structure as proposed will not locate the structure a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system. As a result, the proposed structure will interrupt natural fluctuation in the shoreline and not preserve the natural recovery following the storm-induced erosion. The cumulative impact on the beach-dune system by the proposed structure would be severe, i.e., the effects on the beach-dune system by repeating this same proposed structure along the subject shoreline would be severe. There would be structure-induced scour and general degradation of the beach-dune system. Additionally, the recovery potential of the subject area following a major storm event would be threatened. Over the years, the beach of the subject property has been subjected to a re-nourishment project consisting of pumping sand from offshore. This method of re-nourishment may have negatively impacted the sand bar system immediately offshore affecting the hindrance of erosion. A sand bar system immediately offshore softens wave action on the shore and aids in inhibiting erosion. The proposed structure will hinder lateral public beach access. Currently, lateral beach access exists along the beach between the existing northern developed property and the existing southern developed property. The proposed structure will be located on the sandy beach, and the seaward face of the proposed structure will be within approximately one foot of the wet sand beach. At times, the proposed structure will be surrounded by water on at least three sides. No alternative beach access would be available. The proposed riprap will also be located on the sandy beach and will further hinder lateral public beach access. 2/ Loggerhead turtles, which are nesting marine turtles, engage in nesting activities along the stretch of beach where the subject property is located. They are a threatened species, i. e., close to extension. Although they do not nest every year, the turtles usually provide several nests in a single year. Typically, one hundred eggs comprise a turtle nest. In 1992, approximately 2,221 loggerhead turtle nests were in Broward County, with 22 of these nests located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Turtle nesting efforts have been observed in the beach area of the subject property. One nest was found within the subject property. Structures located on the sandy beach interfere with marine turtle nesting habits. If female turtles make contact with the structures, they often abort nesting attempts, which results in false crawls. Repetitive false crawls harms successful nesting, which may cause malformed egg chambers, impacting the successful incubation of the nest. Also, interaction with a structure can cause injury or death to a female turtle attempting to nest. Additionally, urbanization activity and lighting on the beach deter nesting. A loss of marine turtle nesting habitat will result if the proposed structure is constructed. Also, armoring, such as the proposed riprap, can result in nests being placed more seaward. 3/ Consequently, the nests would be threatened with tidal inundation, which would affect the mortality of the nest itself. As one nest has been located within the subject property, at least one nest or crawl per year would be affected by the proposed structure. Within 30 years, the proposed structure will be seaward of the seasonal high water line. The location of the proposed structure is seaward of the 30-year erosion projection for the subject property. Beach Defense Fund, Inc. (Intervenor) presented no evidence to show that its interest is different than the public at large and that it has substantial interest separate and apart from the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application of Paul Leto, Richard Meyer, and Berta Anderes for a permit, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, for construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line in Broward County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 31st day of May, 1996.
The Issue The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: By application dated March 9, 1981, and received by the DNR's Bureau of Beaches and Shores on March 13, 1981, respondent sought a permit to construct five single-family dwellings on five 64-foot-wide parcels of land located seaward of the established coastal construction control line (CCCL) on Grayton Beach. Attached to the application were site plans, an affidavit of ownership and a warranty deed showing respondent Roberts to be the owner of the subject property. (DNR Exhibit 1) Question number 5 on the permit application required the "specific reasons the applicant feels that the permit should be approved and why construction seaward of the control line . . . is considered necessary for reasonable use of the property." The answer provided by the applicant to this question was "the landward property line is located 150 feet seaward of the control line. Therefore, no upland property is available on the site for development." (DNR Exhibit 1) By form letter dated March 16, 1981, DNR notified respondent Roberts that his application for a permit was incomplete and that two further items of information were necessary before his application could be considered. One item was written evidence that the proposed project would not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. The other item was detailed site, grading, drainage and structural plans and specifications for the proposed structure. These plans were to be certified by a registered Florida engineer or architect. (DNR Exhibit 2) On or about March 31, 1981, the DNR received the certified architectural plans from the project architect, who is registered in the State of Florida. These plans, as well as the site plans submitted by the engineer, contained the signature and seal of the architect and the engineer. They each intended their signature and seal to constitute a certification that, in their opinion, the drawings or plans were in compliance with all statutes, rules, local ordinances and/or other regulations which govern the project. A certification of documents by the placement of signature and seal of an engineer or architect is the commonly accepted practice and usage in those professions. It is not the policy of DNR to require an itemized certification reciting every requirement of the DNR rules. By form letter dated April 6, 1981, the DNR notified the applicant that written evidence of compliance with local government regulations was still lacking. (DNR Exhibit 4) On April 13, 1981, DNR received a letter dated April 9, 1981 from the Walton County Attorney advising that "The Board of County Commissioners of Walton County has no local setback requirements or zoning or building requirements which would prohibit the proposed activity as submitted to the Bureau." (DNR Exhibit 5) This letter satisfied the requirement of Rule 16B-33.08(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, that the proposed project would not contravene local setback requirements or zoning or building codes. Full scale copies of topographic and site plans were received by the Bureau of Beaches and Shores on April 15, 1981. The application for a permit was deemed complete as of April 15, 1981, (DNR Exhibit 7), and respondent Roberts' agent was notified by letter dated June 23, 1981 that the DNR Executive Director had recommended to the Governor and Cabinet (the agency head of the DNR) approval of the application. (DNR Exhibit 10) The completed application reflects that the five single-family dwellings are to be supported by treated timber pilings with an underside minimum elevation of +14 feet (NGVD). The Federal Base Flooding Elevation for Grayton Beach is +9 feet (NGVD). The architect has certified that the proposed dwelling units are designed to withstand 140 mile per hour winds. The seaward- most dwelling of the five is a maximum of 263 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line, and the applicant's entire parcel of land is located over 150 feet seaward of the control line. The project is located approximately 230 feet from the mean high water line. The project also includes the construction of a private road, septic tanks and drainfields. The dune system in front of the proposed structure will offer substantial protection to the structure against storm and wave action. The excavation proposed includes that necessary for the placement of the pilings, the septic tanks and the drainfields, and the construction of the proposed driveway. The proposed drainfields will extend partially above existing grade and fill material i11 be placed over them. The driveway consists of a 16-foot asphalt paved road located landward of the proposed dwellings. The dunes will be reduced in height where the driveway is to be constructed. It is not clear from the testimony or the documentary evidence adduced at the hearing where the parking of vehicles belonging to residents or guests of the five units is to occur. While there was testimony from Mr. Truitt to the effect that no net loss of sand will occur and that the project will involve more of a balancing of grade as opposed to excavation, the engineering plans submitted with the application illustrate at least nine rather large areas of cut and fill associated with the driveway, septic tanks and drainfields. The project engineer had considered no studies on the topography or littoral trends of this specific site, had no knowledge of engineering data regarding adjacent properties and had not reviewed any data regarding major storms on the subject project site. The engineering plans submitted as a part of the application contain a diagram illustrating five separate 750 gallon septic tank systems, one for each dwelling unit, with the "drainfield [for each unit] to be constructed in accordance with Chapter 10D-6, F.A.C." (DNR Exhibit 1) The larger scale engineer's drawing submitted to DNR on April 15, 1981, gives more specific information regarding the location and depth of the below grade drainfields on the seaward side of the structures. A DNR interoffice memorandum dated June 1, 1981, reflects that the applicant's agent agreed in a telephone conversation that, "if possible, he would move the septic tank (750 gal) and related drainfields to the landward side of the buildings." (Joint Exhibit 1) The Cabinet agenda item dated later in time, however, notes that the "septic tanks (750 gallon) and drainfields will extend an additional 50 feet seaward of each dwelling." (DNR Exhibit 8) The exact proposed location of the septic tanks and drainfields was not clarified at the final hearing, nor was sufficient evidence adduced concerning the justification for the proposed discharge system. Evidence concerning the availability of any existing alternatives to the system proposed by the applicant was not adduced, nor was evidence presented concerning storm water discharge. As of the time of the hearing in this matter, the applicant had no plans for heating or cooling the five dwelling units. When asked at the hearing what "justification" the Bureau of Beaches and Shores received for the proposed waste water discharge system, Mr. Clifford Truitt, the Bureau's chief engineer and the person responsible for review of this application, replied in two ways. First, he stated that the fact that the property was located entirely seaward of the CCCL was justification for the discharge system. However, he admitted that a "dry sanitary system" would be a better alternative. Later, Mr. Truitt stated that "justification" for the domestic waste system is only required when there is a beach level discharge. Mr. Truitt was accepted as an expert witness in the area of coastal engineering. His opinions regarding the proposed project were based upon his review of aerial photography of the Grayton Beach area and comparison of topographic profiles of the area, his review of the engineering and topographic information submitted with the application itself and his familiarity with the project location. No evidence was adduced that engineering data concerning storm tides related to shoreline topography was considered by Mr. Truitt or anyone else. No specific studies exist regarding the stability, littoral trends or the erosional history of the proposed site and surrounding area. The project site has been the subject of other permit applications considered by the DNR, and Mr. Truitt was of the opinion that a mitigating feature of the present application was that "the present proposal has the lowest density and least extension seaward of the control line of any proposal to date." (DNR Exhibit 8) It was Mr. Truitt's opinion that the dwelling unit structures were adequately elevated and designed to adequately resist the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event and would not increase the threat of damage or danger to nearby structures. Factual evidence concerning the 100-year storm event was not presented at the hearing. Mr. Truitt further opined, without the aid of engineering data or the studies mentioned above, that the proposed construction would not affect the natural shoreline fluctuations or the stability of the dunes in the area. Such an opinion contains no factual basis in the record of this proceeding, and thus is not sufficient evidence upon which to make a similar finding of fact. On various sporadic occasions, a waterway or pass connecting Western Lake to the Gulf of Mexico runs in a westerly direction in the vicinity of the applicant's property. At times, this watercourse has been wide and deep enough to allow swimming, diving and the passage of small boats. The witnesses who testified about this watercourse were not qualified as surveyors or experts in estimating or calculating the exact location of that watercourse relative to the proposed site, and there was no testimony that such an event had occurred within the past twenty years. At least two witnesses testified that the last time they could recall the watercourse or pass traversing or abutting the applicant's property was in the late 1950s. The proposed project site has been covered with storm waters on at least two occasions in the past seven years. No evidence was adduced at the hearing concerning the substantial interests in this permit application of named petitioners Colonel G. A. P. Haynes, Mr. and Mrs. Roy Cawthon, Mrs. Kate Florence, Mrs. Burton Murray, Colonel and Mrs. Lee Fry, Mrs. Laney Ellis and Mrs. Randall Jones. Mrs. G. A. P. Haynes, one of the petitioners in this proceeding, owns and resides on property immediately adjacent to the project site, and presently entertains an unbroken view of the beachfront. She is concerned with potential sewage problems and damage to her residence from flying debris caused by wind or storm should the proposed construction be approved. Mrs. Haynes was also concerned about the potential adverse effect of the proposed construction on the value of her adjacent property. Petitioner Burton Murray lives to the north of the project site, at least several hundred feet away. His prime concern was that no structure could survive at that location and that the project would therefore be a waste of money. Petitioner Elizabeth Hayes Jones (named as Ms. Lisbeth Haas in the petition) lives across the street and to the east of the project site. Her residence was completely destroyed by hurricane and has since been rebuilt at the same site. She feels that the applicant's project site is not safe for construction, and fears storm damage to her home from the buildings if constructed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein it is RECOMMENDED that the application for a coastal construction control line permit to construct five single-family dwellings on Grayton Beach be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of May, 1982. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry W. Gerde, Esquire Davenport, Johnston, Harris, Gerde & Harrison, P. A. 406 Magnolia Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 W. Paul Thompson, Esquire Thompson and Adkinson P. O. Drawer 608 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Douglas Building, Suite 1003 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition to Establish the Coastal Lake Community Development District should be granted pursuant to Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 42-1. The local public hearing was conducted for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of rulemaking by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Commission).
The Issue The issue is whether to approve the City of Gulf Breeze's (City's) application for a Consolidated Wetland Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization to conduct a restoration project in Pensacola Bay.
Findings Of Fact Background This dispute involves a challenge by Petitioners to the third phase of a restoration project by the City designed to preserve the Island and protect its historical resources. The project site is located in sovereign submerged lands adjacent to the Island on the southwest side of the Highway 98 Bay Bridge which traverses Pensacola Bay connecting the Cities of Gulf Breeze and Pensacola. The Island is not a true island, but has always been connected to the mainland by a strip of land referred to as an isthmus, which meets the shoreline at Lot 36 of an older subdivision known as the First Addition to Casablanca Parcel No. 1 and platted almost sixty years ago. The isthmus juts out from Lot 36 into Pensacola Bay in a northwesterly direction for several hundred feet before making a 90-degree turn to the southwest where the Island then runs roughly parallel to the shoreline for around a half mile. See Joint Ex. 5-7, 14, and The Island, isthmus, and shoreline form the boundary around a small body of water known as Gilmore Bayou, an ecologically important and pristine salt marsh area. According to aerial photographs, at its widest point, the Island appears to be no more than a few hundred feet wide. Petitioners reside at Lot 37, which is just northeast of the isthmus on the shoreline. The rear part of Lot 37 faces Pensacola Bay and the City of Pensacola to the northwest. Lots 36, 35, and 34 (running to the southwest along the shoreline and facing Gilmore Bayou), are owned by Patricia Moreland, Robert Ozburn, and Intervenor Paul Tamburro, respectively, all of whom testified at the final hearing. Except for Petitioners, the project is supported by virtually all of the residents of the area as well as numerous civic organizations. See Joint Ex. 33. On July 14, 2008, the City filed with the Department its Joint Application for Works in the Waters of Florida, which would allow the City to complete the third phase of the project by (a) planting native submerged vegetation over approximately three acres of sovereign submerged lands, and (b) placing approximately 16,000 cubic yards of fill material and planting native emergent vegetation to stabilize the fill material on sovereign submerged lands at the north end of the Island. See Joint Ex. 3. The Department has authority under chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code chapter 18-21 to approve the application. After an extensive review of the application, on August 9, 2010, the Department issued a Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Wetland Resource Permit and Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands, which authorized the proposed project. See Joint Ex. 4. The proprietary authorization (letter of consent) was issued under the authority of rule 18- 21.005(1)(c), which identifies a number of activities that qualify for a letter of consent. In this case, because of the range of proposed activities, the project could qualify for a letter of consent under subparagraphs 8., 15., and 16. of the rule. On September 1, 2010, Petitioners filed their petition challenging the proposed agency action. While their initial pleading raised a number of issues, and cited two rules as a basis for reversing the agency action, these allegations have been substantially narrowed over the course of the proceeding and are now limited to the following: whether the project constitutes management activities associated with the protection of a historic site, thus qualifying for a letter of consent under rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16.; and whether the project unreasonably restricts or infringes upon their riparian rights of navigation, boating, swimming, and view, as proscribed by rule 18-21.004(3)(c). They also question whether Intervenor has standing to participate, but that issue is not dispositive of the primary issues in this case. Petitioners do not contest the issuance of a Wetland Resource Permit. Finally, Respondents and Intervenor question whether Petitioners have standing to initiate this action. The Project Site The project is located on sovereign submerged lands adjacent to the Island, a "naturally occurring sandy beach," as that term is contemplated in rule 18-21.005(1)(c)8. This is true even though portions of the "sandy beach" have eroded over time. The City owns the entirety of the Island. See Joint Ex. 14 and 15. This was not disputed by Petitioners. The Island is a public park, natural preserve, and historic site that is owned and maintained by the City exclusively for public use. Deeds by which the property was conveyed to the City require that it be forever used as a natural preserve and maintained in its natural state. See Joint Ex. 14 and 15. The Island and the area immediately adjacent thereto have a long and significant history dating back to the 1700's. Throughout the 1700's and 1800's, various portions of the Island were used as a careening facility for the repair and maintenance of large vessels. A marine railway was also built. In the late 1800's, a quarantine station was constructed on the Island where people who had contracted yellow fever were isolated. A cemetery exists upon the Island containing the remains of many who perished from the yellow fever epidemic. Also, there were many shipwrecks at the Island, of which some of the remains still exist. Accordingly, there are historic resources and artifacts such as shipwrecks and human remains on and around the Island. The Island has sustained significant erosion over the past 70 years. The northeast shoreline has eroded some 450 to 500 feet during that period of time. There has been a significant loss of vegetation and land mass. Without protection, the Island is in a perilous condition and subject to a permanent breach. The peat bog underlying the Island is vital to the stability of the Island and has been greatly damaged. It requires protective measures, such as those contemplated by the proposed project in order to assure its preservation. Due to the effects of hurricanes and storms, the erosion has substantially increased during the past decade. The erosion has caused the unearthing of and damage to historic artifacts and the salt marsh in Gilmore Bayou. There are clearly visible remnants of the former marine railway on the Island, which are being weakened by current weather events and require protection in order to preserve them. Caskets from the cemetery as well as human bone remains have been unearthed and additional damage will occur without protective restoration efforts. If the erosion continues, there will be more damage to the historic artifacts and the salt marsh will be destroyed. The Project To prevent further erosion and to protect the Island and Gilmore Bayou, the City has applied to the Department for three separate phases of a project to stabilize the shoreline. The first two phases of the project involved the construction of an artificial reef breakwater and the planting of shoreline vegetation. See Joint Exhibit 7a. They have already been approved by the Department and are no longer in issue. The first and second phases were challenged by Petitioners but the cases were eventually settled. See Case No. 09-4870, which involved the second phase. The third phase of the project is being conducted primarily for the maintenance of essentially natural conditions and for the propagation of fish and wildlife. This phase can be described as follows: restoration or nourishment of a naturally occurring sandy beach as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)8.; habitat restoration or enhancement as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)15.; management activity associated with protection of a park as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16.; management activity associated with protection of a preserve as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16.; management activity associated with protection of a historic site as contemplated by rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16.; and management activity associated with protection of habitat restoration or enhancement as contemplated by rule 18- 21.005(1)(c)16. While the project implicates each of the above provisions, the application and proposed agency action indicate that the letter of consent is granted on the theory that the project is associated with protection of historic sites. See Joint Ex. 4. The third phase is also designed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitats and other naturally occurring resources. The project consists of the placement of 16,000 cubic yards of fill material in the area between the existing artificial oyster reef and the shoreline to restore and replace conditions that previously existed. The fill will consist of beach compatible sand that will be approximately six inches to a foot above mean high water. This phase also involves the planting of appropriate native wetland vegetation in the fill area, which will help stabilize the fill. The planting of vegetation in the third phase is separate and distinct from the plantings authorized in the second phase of the project. The project is needed in order to prevent further damage to a public park; public preserve; threatened, endangered, or special concern species of vegetation/habitat; and historic artifacts. These protection efforts were requested and recommended by the Florida Department of State. Petitioners contest only the propriety of the fill materials and the planting of the emergent stabilizing grasses on the fill. The fill portion of the project is located a significant distance from Petitioners' property. The closest portion of the project is estimated to be at least 550 feet from Petitioners' property, while the bulk of the project will take place between some 750 to 1,200 feet from their property. The Proposed Vegetation Planting In the third phase of the project, the City proposes to plant and establish emergent grasses (those that grow in water but partially pierce the surface) and sea grasses, all of which are appropriate native wetland vegetation on the Island. The proposed emergent grasses are Spartina alterniflora (also known as smooth cordgrass) and Juncus roemerianus (also known as black needle rush), which will be used for stabilization of wetlands. The proposed submerged seagrasses are Halodule wrightii (a type of shoal grass) and Ruppia maritime (a type of widgeon grass), which will help stabilize the fill. The smooth cordgrass is native to the Island. It will be planted in the fill area to prevent the fill from eroding. It is expected that once they mature, the height of the plants will not exceed two and one-half feet. Due to the water depth in the area, the shoreline slope, the sediment supply, and the wave action, the smooth cordgrass will not spread outside the proposed project area. Also, it will not interfere with navigation, boating, swimming, fishing, or view. The vegetation will, however, help fishing in the area. The black needle rush is also native to the Island. It will only grow to approximately two and one-half feet in height due to stressful conditions caused by the salt content in the water and wave action. It will not spread beyond the proposed project area and will not interfere with navigation, boating, swimming, fishing, or view. Like the smooth cordgrass, it will enhance fishing in the area. Both Halodule wrightii and Ruppia maritime are native to the Island. Both have slow growth rates, which when coupled with the "high energetics of the system," will hinder their ability to spread outside the project area. Neither seagrass will hinder navigation, boating, swimming, fishing, or view. They will afford a greater opportunity for snorkeling, recreation, and fishing; they will serve as a nursery habitat for finfish and shellfish; they will increase the habitat value of the area; and they will improve water quality. Petitioners submitted no evidence to contradict these findings. They also failed to submit any evidence that the fill material or grasses would spread into any riparian area that might be appurtenant to their Lot 37. The above findings are reinforced by the results of a separate project known as Project Greenshores located across Pensacola Bay from the Island. Project Greenshores involved the restoration of wetlands using dredge material to restore islands that are then protected by the construction of a breakwater and are stabilized by the planting of the same grasses that are proposed for the Island project. The two projects are in relatively close proximity to each other and have essentially the same environment. One difference, however, is that Project Greenshores receives a small source of sediment from stormwater outfalls, which means that it has a higher chance of grasses growing than does the Island. Even with the increased sediment, the grasses at that project have not spread beyond the project area, they have not interfered with navigation, boating, swimming, view, or fishing, and they have enhanced fishing in the area. Historical Artifacts Petitioners contend that the project does not qualify for a letter of consent under rule 18-21.005(1)(c)16. That provision authorizes the Department, acting on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, to issue a letter of consent for "management activities associated with . . . historical sites . . . provided there is no permanent preemption by structures or exclusion of the general public." As noted above, the Island has a long and significant history dating back to the early 1700's and there are historic resources and artifacts on the Island. See Finding of Fact 10, supra. When there is an archeological site issue in a permit, the Department typically relies on information from the Division of Historical Resources of the Department of State. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(2)(c)("reports by other agencies with related statutory, management, or regulatory authority may be considered in evaluating specific requests to use sovereignty lands"). Here, the Department relied on information from that agency, which indicates that there are archeological resources at the project site. The Department of State also recommended placing fill over the artifacts to protect them, which will be accomplished by the proposed fill. In addition, the Department relied upon information contained in a survey conducted by Mr. Empie, a registered professional surveyor, to generally show where those artifacts are located. See Joint Exhibit 5, also referred to as the Empie survey. The evidence supports a finding that the project is for management activities associated with historical sites. The record shows that there is strong public support for the project. See Joint Ex. 33. Although many of the artifacts will be covered by the fill, the fill will actually protect them from damage, destruction, theft, and removal. By protecting them, future generations will be able to enjoy the artifacts. No "structures," as that term is defined in rule 18- 21.005(1)(c)16., are part of the project. Therefore, the project will not cause permanent preemption by structures. Contrary to Petitioners' assertion, the project will not exclude the general public from the fill area. The City contemplates that other activities, such as underwater snorkeling, will encourage the public to utilize the project site. The evidence supports a finding that the project qualifies for a letter of consent under this rule. Riparian Lines The Empie survey provides a reasonable depiction of the various riparian lines in the areas adjacent to the proposed project. See Joint Ex. 5. A professional surveyor with the Division of State Lands, Mr. Maddox, agreed that it was a reasonable depiction of the angle of the riparian lines and a "fair distribution of riparian areas," including that of Lot 37. The only property owner adjacent to the Island is Patricia Moreland, who owns Lot 36 and has resided on that parcel since 1956. As noted above, the isthmus meets the northwest boundary line of Lot 36. By executing a Letter of Concurrence, Ms. Moreland conferred upon the City all rights, both proprietary and riparian, that she has with respect to Lot See Joint Ex. 16. Petitioners contend that they own riparian rights appurtenant to their Lot 37, which is to the east of Lot 36. The City and Intervenor dispute this claim and contend that Lot 37 does not adjoin any navigable water and thus there are no riparian rights appurtenant to Lot 37. Assuming arguendo that Lot 37 adjoins Pensacola Bay, it is still separated from the project site by riparian areas appurtenant to the Moreland property (Lot 36) as well as the riparian areas appurtenant to the City property, i.e., the Island and isthmus. The Empie survey, which reasonably depicts the riparian lines in the project area, shows the project site as being approximately 300 feet inside the existing breakwater, which is shown as being no closer than 48.9 feet away from the westernmost riparian line appurtenant to Lot 37. See Joint Ex. The primary portion of the fill site is located around 370 feet from the closest point of the western riparian line appurtenant to Lot 37. Id. No portion of the project is located within 25 feet of the Lot 37 riparian line. Id. Petitioners presented no evidence disputing the riparian areas identified on the Empie survey or otherwise identifying the areas of riparian rights appurtenant to their property. While they engaged the services of Mr. Barrett, a professional land surveyor to prepare a boundary survey, the purpose of the survey was to show that Lot 37 adjoins Pensacola Bay, rather than depicting the riparian areas appurtenant to that lot. See Petitioners' Ex. 1. Infringement on Riparian Rights Rule 18-21.004(3)(c) requires that "activities [in submerged lands] must be designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland property owners." (emphasis added) Petitioners contend that, even though they do not routinely use their riparian rights, the project will restrict or infringe upon their riparian rights of boating, swimming, navigation, and view. To make this determination, they assert that the appropriate test under the rule is mere infringement, and not "unreasonable" infringement; however, this interpretation is contrary to the plain wording in the rule. The main living floor of Petitioners' residence is approximately 50 feet above sea level. The emergent grasses will be located no closer than 500 feet from the edge of Lot 37 and 600 feet from their residence and are expected to grow only to a height of no more than two and one-half feet. The concern that the grasses will impair Petitioners' view is without merit. Although Dr. Cope initially believed that fill or grass would be placed or planted "all the way up to and abutting our lot 37," this interpretation of the City's plans was incorrect. A photograph taken from his back yard indicated that he could view the northeastern corner of the Island where new vegetation or fill might be placed, but the photograph depicted an area outside of the Lot 37 riparian area. See Petitioners' Ex. 18. While Dr. Cope initially stated that the new emergent grass would "clearly degrade the view from both the house and the shoreline," he later acknowledged that the project would not have any effect upon his view of Lot 37's riparian areas. There are a boathouse and dock in the waters behind Petitioners' house. However, Petitioners submitted no evidence to support their suggestion that the project might cause the water behind Lot 37 to become more shallow and adversely affect boating and navigation. Contrary evidence by the Department and City was unrefuted. Finally, Dr. Cope stated at hearing that he has never been swimming in Gilmore Bayou or Pensacola Bay and has no intention of doing so. His wife offered no evidence that she ever intends to swim in those waters. In summary, the activities undertaken in the project area will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon Petitioners' riparian rights of swimming, boating, navigation, or view within the meaning of rule 18-21.004(3)(c). Petitioners' Standing Respondents and Intervenor contend that Petitioners lack standing to bring this action for two reasons: that they do not own Lot 37 individually but rather as trustees, and the petition was not filed in that capacity; and that Lot 37 does not adjoin navigable waters. See § 253.141(1), Fla. Stat. ("[r]iparian rights are those incident to land bordering upon navigable waters"). As described by the City's real estate expert, in June 2010, or before the instant petition in this case was filed, the Copes executed two deeds for estate planning purposes, which resulted in "legal title [being] owned part by Dr. and Ms. Cope as to one-half life estate and for Ms. Cope as to one-half for her life estate [and] then the remainder interest is vested in the trustees [of the D. Nathan Cope or Cynthia Russell Cope revocable trust agreements] for the remainder interests." Put in plainer language, this meant that the ownership of Lot 37 is now divided as follows: an undivided 50 percent is owned by the wife as to a life estate and by the wife's revocable trust as to the remainder interest, and the other undivided 50 percent is owned by the wife and husband as to a life estate for the husband's lifetime and by the husband's revocable trust as to the remainder interest. Therefore, there are four entities or persons with an ownership interest in the property: Dr. Cope, Mrs. Cope, Dr. Cope's trust, and Mrs. Cope's trust. The City presented expert testimony regarding the chain of title of Lot 37, beginning in June 1952 when the subdivision was first platted, and running through June 2010, when Petitioners conveyed the property to themselves as trustees of two revocable trusts. According to the expert, the subdivision plat in 1952 reflects a narrow strip of property (described as a hiatus strip) separating the entire subdivision, including Lot 37, from the waters of Gilmore Bayou, Pensacola Bay, and Woodland Lake, a nearby body of water. The strip was a park that was dedicated to the public. See Joint Ex. 1. In 1962, the developer conveyed by quit claim deed the entire strip to the record title holder of each lot in the subdivision. At that time, Lot 37 was owned by the Blaylocks. The expert found that each conveyance of Lot 37 that occurred after 1962, up to and including the Copes' purchase of the property in February 2008, did not include the hiatus parcel. Therefore, he opined that title in the strip property continues to remain with the Blaylocks. Besides his title search, the expert further corroborated this opinion by referring to a topographic survey of Lot 37 prepared in June 2005, see Joint Ex. 2a; a title insurance policy on Lot 37 issued in 2008 when the Copes purchased the property that specifically excludes title insurance for the hiatus parcel; and a recent Santa Rosa County tax bill describing the property without the hiatus parcel. In response, Petitioners contend that the hiatus strip never existed or the 1952 plat is invalid because it failed to comply with section 177.08, Florida Statutes (1951), which required that "all land within the boundaries of the plat must be accounted for either by blocks, out lots, parks, streets, alleys or excepted parcels." Because a dispute over the exact boundary lines of Lot 37 exists, this issue must be resolved in the appropriate circuit court. See § 26.012(2)(g). For purposes of deciding the merits of this case, however, it is unnecessary that this determination be made. Intervenor's Standing Dr. Tamburro currently resides on Lot 34, which faces Gilmore Bayou, and jointly owns the property with his wife. He uses the Bayou to boat and for other recreational purposes. He also uses the Island to swim, walk, and boat. The preservation of the Island is important to him since it serves as a barrier island in protecting his home during storm events. Although Dr. Tamburro's wife did not join in his petition to intervene (but appeared as his counsel), he still has a recognized ownership interest in the property.1
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the City's application for a Wetland Resource Permit and Letter of Consent to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 20th day of April, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's after-the-fact modification application for construction activities seaward of the coastal construction control line in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In 1984, Petitioner, Thomas R. Sweeney, purchased a home at 5917 South Atlantic Drive, New Smyrna Beach, Florida. At that time, the home was approximately 3,000 square feet in size. The home sits seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL) and thus any construction activities on the premises require the issuance of a CCCL permit from Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In 1987, Petitioner constructed a first floor porch, second story addition, and wooden deck at the site without first applying for and obtaining a CCCL permit from the Department of Natural Resources, which was subsequently merged with DEP. After the construction was completed, Petitioner submitted an after-the-fact application for a CCCL permit for those structures. Before being issued Permit Number VO-423, Petitioner was required to pay an administrative fine. Among other things, Permit VO-423 approved an already constructed wooden deck on the eastern side of the home which approximated 840 square feet in size. Petitioner was also given approval for a wooden walkway with stairs that provided access to the beach. On June 1, 1995, Petitioner filed a second CCCL application with DEP to add a 20-foot first and second story addition with a deck to the south side of the home. After reviewing the application, on November 9, 1995, DEP issued CCCL Permit Number VO-627 authorizing the scope of work identified in the permit application documents. Notwithstanding the limited amount of work authorized by the permit, Petitioner constructed a third story addition to his home. He also removed the original wooden deck on the eastern side of the home, and he constructed spread footers and a foundation on top of the rock revetment for a new and much larger deck. The new deck is approximately 2,100 square feet, or more than 1,200 square feet larger than the original permitted deck. In its present state, the home is approximately 5,600 square feet, and the existing eastern deck is larger than any permitted deck on any other single-family home in Volusia County. On September 9, 1996, DEP discovered the third story addition and the much larger wooden deck with appurtenant structures. Presumedly at the behest of DEP, on November 22, 1996, Petitioner submitted an application for an after-the-fact modification of CCCL Permit Number VO-627 to authorize the previously completed, unauthorized work. On April 23, 1997, DEP issued CCCL Permit Number VO-627 After-the-Fact. The permit approved the third-story addition to the home together with a 10-foot wide wooden deck on the seaward side of the entire third story and a 12-foot wide wooden deck on the landward side of the third story. DEP denied, however, authorization for Petitioner's new wooden deck on the first floor with a tiki hut and sundeck on the ground those structures violated Rule 62B-33.005(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code. That rule requires that any new construction seaward of the CCCL "minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm." The issuance of the proposed agency action prompted Petitioner to initiate this proceeding. On November 3, 1997, DEP entered a Final Order directing Petitioner to pay a fine because he illegally constructed structures seaward of the CCCL. The order was never appealed, and thus the time to challenge the order has elapsed. As of the date of hearing, Petitioner had not paid the fine, and a statutory lien has been placed on the property. The Storm Surge Elevation at this site for a 100-year storm event is 10.7 feet N.G.V.D. The Breaking Wave Crest- Elevation for a 100-year storm event at this site is 14.9 feet N.G.V.D. Part of the new eastern deck is located below an elevation of 14.9 feet N.G.V.D. The builder who constructed the additions, Edward Robinson, characterized them as "above average to superior" in quality. To minimize the possibility of the deck washing away during a storm event, he used the "best" nails, bolts, and concrete available. In addition, the new decking was rested upon concrete footers for support. The footers, however, are on top of a rock revetment, and Robinson conceded that such footers are not as stable as a pile foundation. Petitioner used coquina rock (with a low unit weight) for his revetment. It was established that the rocks on which the footers rest are not permanent, and they can shift during a large storm event. In fact, shifting can occur even during a ten-year storm, and there will be a total failure of the revetment during a thirty-year storm event. Once the stones move, an erosion process begins, and the deck will fail. The accompanying high winds will then lift the wooden debris in an airborne fashion. Depending on the strength of the storm, the airborne debris will be a threat not only to Petitioner, but also to his neighbors. Therefore, it is found that the existing construction for the eastern deck does not minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm, and it thus violates Rule 62B-33.005(4)(e), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the proposed agency action denying in part the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for an after-the-fact amended CCCL permit to construct an expanded eastern deck with a tiki hut and sun deck on his property at 5917 South Atlantic Avenue, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, and approving the application for the structures previously authorized by the Department in its Final Order issued on April 24, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas H. Dale, Esquire Post Office Box 14 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas I. Mayton, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
