The Issue The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether an application by Petitioner, Hancock Bridge Marina, LLC (Petitioner or Hancock), for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and sovereign submerged lands lease to expand an existing docking facility on Hancock Creek near the Caloosahatchee River in unincorporated Lee County (County), Florida, should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: Background Hancock is a limited liability corporation with two shareholders: Donald Epler and Stefen Heinke. After conducting a feasibility study, on April 26, 2004, Hancock purchased a 5.51-acre parcel of property in the County with the expectation of constructing and operating a 400-slip marina and a 5,000- square-foot building housing a restaurant, ship's store, and other sundry items needed for operation. (Hancock has subsequently revised its plan by reducing the number of slips requested from 400 to 352.) The cost of the property was around $2.5 million. The property is located in an unincorporated part of the County on the north side of the Caloosahatchee River (River), a Class III water, south of Hancock Bridge Parkway, east of the City of Cape Coral, and west of U.S. Highway 41 and the City of North Fort Myers. The property currently contains a 30-wet slip marina with 13 finger piers and a 4-slip T-dock. The remainder of the parcel is essentially vacant. The parcel borders a River tributary named Hancock Creek, which is a man- altered tidal creek branching off of the River in a northwestern direction, and the North Key Canal, which extends east from Hancock Creek for approximately one-half mile. Access to the River, which is no more than a hundred yards or so south of the parcel, is by traversing North Key Canal and Hancock Creek. The Department is the state agency with the authority under Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, to issue an ERP. In addition, the Department has authority from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to review and take final agency action on requests to authorize activities in sovereign submerged lands. See § 253.002(1), Fla. Stat. The Commission is the agency with constitutional regulatory authority over "wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life and shall also exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life." See Art. IV, § 9, Fla. Const. The Commission's authority for the regulation of manatees is derived from the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, which is codified in Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes. Under Sections 373.428 and 380.23, Florida Statutes, it also has authority to review ERP applications for federal consistency purposes pursuant to the federally approved Florida Coastal Management Program. On September 12, 2005, Petitioner filed an application for an ERP (a regulatory approval) and a lease to use sovereign submerged lands (a proprietary approval) with the Department's South District Office in Fort Myers, Florida. (For unknown reasons, the application was resubmitted to the Department on August 14, 2006.) The two requests are linked, and the Department cannot approve one without approving the other. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-343.075(2). The application seeks authority to expand in two phases the existing 30-slip facility. The first phase would generally authorize the construction of a 198-slip upland dry storage facility and reconfiguration of the existing docks. In phase 2, Hancock would add 154 dry slips and construct a 5,000-square-foot marina building. Because the docks are constructed on and over sovereign submerged lands, a proprietary authorization is necessary. Before making a decision on the application, the Department forwarded a copy to the Commission for its recommendation. After receiving the Commission's comments, which consist of 89 pages, including transmittal letters, on December 10, 2007, the Department issued its Notice of Intent to deny the ERP and proprietary authorization on the grounds the project area is sited in an area of very high level of manatee use and the project will increase local boat traffic, resulting in significant adverse effects on the manatee, which is listed by the state and federal governments as an endangered species. A more detailed description of the reasons for denial is found in the Notice of Intent. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6, pages 4 through 9; Department's Exhibit 1.b., pages 4 through 9. The Department acknowledges that its decision was based wholly upon the Commission's determination that the project, as proposed, would have an adverse impact on manatees. The DRI and Estoppel In its Petition, Hancock contends that the Department is "estopped to deny a permit for Phase 1 of the marina in light of its acquiescence to the approval of DRI 2-8990-99." By way of background, in 1990, Hancock's predecessor in interest (Waterway Group, Inc.) applied with the County for a DRI which included, among other things, 400 dry boat spaces on the property. DRI 2-8990-99 was approved by the County on July 8, 1991, and has been amended three times. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The original terms of approval contained several conditions that specifically addressed manatee protection. One separated the project into two phases of 200 spaces, the first of which was authorized without additional studies, while the second was subject to additional study and review by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (DNR). When the DRI was approved, the State's manatee protection program was under the jurisdiction of the DNR. That agency reviewed the DRI and recommended manatee protection conditions. The conditions in the final approval were consistent with the program's recommendation. On June 29, 2004, the County adopted a resolution approving a MPP for the County. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. It was not adopted as an ordinance, and individual notice was not provided to interested property owners, including Hancock's principals. After adoption, the County incorporated the MPP into its Comprehensive Plan. The MPP is a planning document that provides a comprehensive review of manatee and boating data on a county-wide basis. It is developed, reviewed, and approved by local, state, and federal governments and is used for guidance when considering appropriate levels of slip densities within a county. The County is one of thirteen counties directed to adopt a MPP. On October 20, 2004, Hancock filed with the County an application to amend its DRI. The application included requests to extend the DRI approval a third time and to revise the site plan. The site plan changes included a reduction in the total number of dry spaces from 400 to 352. On June 20, 2005, the County approved the DRI amendment. The Development Order included a finding of fact that the marina was exempt from the requirements of the MPP because Section 8.4 of the MPP "exempts existing projects with valid permits and Chapter 380 vested status for the construction of slips (wet or dry) that have not been constructed at the time the MPP was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners." See Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Third Development Order Amendment for Hancock Bridge Marina, page 4, paragraph H. Hancock then filed the instant application on September 12, 2005. To date, Hancock has expended $1,731,000.00 in its permitting efforts, including the DRI extension and ERP application. There is no evidence that during the DRI process, the Department or Commission made any representations to Hancock about its ability to obtain an ERP or sovereign submerged lands authorization. Also, neither agency was consulted during that period of time, presumably because the DRI and ERP processes are separate and independent of one another. Permitting Criteria Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, contains the standards and criteria governing the approval of an ERP. Subsection (1) requires that the applicant provide reasonable assurance that the regulated activity is "not contrary to the public interest." In determining whether this test is met, paragraph (1)(a) requires that the Department consider and balance the following criteria: 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 s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. These same factors are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302, an ERP rule adopted by the South Florida Water Management District. This rule has been adopted by reference by the Department to be used when it considers ERP applications within the geographical jurisdiction of that water management district. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-330.200(4). An additional requirement in the rule is that an applicant give reasonable assurance that the project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E- 4.302(1)(b). Besides the foregoing requirements, additional conditions for the issuance of an ERP are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301, also adopted by reference by the Department. Relevant here are requirements that the applicant give reasonable assurances that the proposed activity (a) will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters, and (b) will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-4.301(1)(d) and (f). Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that if an applicant is unable to meet the above criteria, the Department shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity. In this case, mitigation measures have been proposed by Hancock and are discussed below. Finally, Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes, requires that the Department evaluate applications for dry storage facilities for ten or more vessels in the same manner as any other ERP application, including that the applicant demonstrate that the facility will not be harmful to the water resources, provides reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and surface waters, and meets the public interest test in Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes. There are no rules or statutes which require that the Department consider the status of, or otherwise take into account, a DRI in evaluating an application for an ERP or proprietary authorization. Impacts on Manatees After reviewing the application for an ERP, the Department determined that the project, as proposed, should be denied because of direct, secondary, and cumulative effects it would have on manatees. The Department further determined that the applicant had not met the applicable requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 for authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. In making these determinations, the Department considered not only potential deaths of manatees, but also potential impacts such as harassment, disturbance, and sub-lethal boat strikes. The latter strikes may cause permanent injury and can affect reproduction and behavior. The State is a refuge and sanctuary for the manatee. See § 379.2431(2), Fla. Stat. The manatee is a marine mammal that can live as long as sixty years. It is unable to tolerate prolonged exposure to temperatures below around sixty-one degrees, which makes it susceptible to cold-related stress and death. Consequently, the manatees typically seek warm water when temperatures drop below sixty-eight degrees, migrating seasonally over extensive geographic areas. Hancock's marina is located just off the River. The River is one of the most studied and significant habitats for manatees on the west coast of Florida. The County's water bodies, including the River, provide manatees with submerged aquatic vegetation for foraging, fresh water sources, and several warm-water sites to use as refuges during colder weather. Hancock Creek, which is used to access the River from the marina, is an area used by manatees because it provides fresh water and a quiet environment. Manatees also use the River as a major travel corridor between the Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) power plant on the Orange River, a tributary of the River located around eight miles upstream from the project site, and the estuaries found downstream where foraging resources are abundant. Hundreds of manatees go up and down the River throughout the year, and those traveling to and from the warm water around the FPL plant must travel past Hancock Creek. Manatee deaths have occurred within a five mile radius of the project site. Also, the number of manatee watercraft- related deaths in the River has steadily increased over the years. According to a 1998 study of boating activity in the County, vessels use the River more as a travel corridor to the bays and estuaries outside of the River than as a destination itself, and that on weekends there is almost constant traffic with vessels leaving or entering the mouth of the River every thirty-five seconds. The majority of the boats leaving the project site are expected to travel downstream through the mouth of the River, an area with substantial vessel congestion. This travel pattern, in conjunction with the typical travel patterns of manatees, indicates that there is a great potential for boat/manatee overlap in the River, increasing the likelihood of impacts to manatees. Besides manatee deaths, there are sub-lethal effects of increased boat traffic in the area. Increased traffic in important manatee areas may create disturbances which will alter behaviors such as feeding, suckling, or resting, or it may separate mothers from their calves. Also, vessel traffic may cause them to leave preferred habitats. Finally, as noted above, vessel collisions with manatees produce non-lethal injuries as well, causing pain and extreme scarring, which can alter natural behaviors and affect reproduction. The single biggest known cause of death to manatees is impacts from boats. The project would increase the risk of watercraft collisions with manatees in this region. As the level of boat traffic increases, the probability of boat and manatee collisions is also likely to increase. Because the project is located along the travel corridor between the largest wintering aggregation of manatees on Florida's west coast and their local foraging habitat, the expected secondary impacts from increased vessel traffic associated with the project is expected to reduce the value of the functions of the River as a travel corridor. Therefore, the secondary impacts of vessel traffic from the expansion of the marina are expected to result in adverse impacts to manatees. In 1990, the DNR reviewed the proposed DRI for this site under the state manatee program. It found that during the preceding thirteen years (1976-February 1990), thirty-six manatees had died from water-related injuries in the County. Within a five-mile radius of the site, four manatees had died from watercraft-related injuries. DNR concluded that since the manatee protection speed zones for the River had just been established, they were expected to offset the impact of the additional 198 slips. From March 1990 until September 2006, however, twenty-five additional manatees have died from watercraft-related injuries within a five-mile radius of the site. Therefore, the number of deaths had increased without the additional 198 slips. The logical inference is that if the new slips are allowed, boat traffic and the associated adverse impacts on manatees will likewise increase. The fact that dry slips will be used does not change the Department and Commission's evaluation of the project. A boat has the same risk to a manatee whether stored in a wet or dry facility. Marine industry groups suggest that an average usage rate is between ten and fifteen percent at any time, and that usage is likely to increase on the weekends. Thus, as density increases so does the risk. In addition to its own analysis, the Commission reviewed the County MPP, which indicated that nine additional slips at this location would be acceptable, for a total of thirty-nine. This number was calculated by using a slip density of three slips for every one hundred feet of shoreline owned. (The actual linear feet of shoreline owned by Hancock is unclear. The Commission concedes that Hancock "may own a total of 1,214 linear feet of shoreline.") A MPP typically allows for higher boat densities in areas that pose less risk to manatees and lower boat densities in higher risk locations. Had the MPP not been considered, the number of allowable slips would remain at thirty since the MPP provides for a countywide strategy instead of a case-by-case review. To date, the Commission has never recommended approval of a marina application in the County that would authorize more docks than the MPP would authorize. The Commission initially makes an independent assessment of the application without regard to the MPP. In this case, based upon mortality data, aerial surveys, telemetry data, rescue data, and boat studies, the Commission determined that no further slips are appropriate. Therefore, even if the County's MPP is based upon outdated data and analysis, as Hancock contends, approval of the application would not be warranted. Petitioner's expert posited that the proposed project would only result in one manatee death over the next twenty years, which would amount to no more than a de minimus impact on the overall population. Assuming this to be true, manatees are nonetheless an endangered species, and there is no minimal amount of death that is considered acceptable. The witness also opined that Hancock is entitled to an unlimited number of slips under the MPP due to flawed data and analysis underpinning that document. In formulating his recommendations, however, Hancock's expert relied on mathematical models and statistics while ignoring the principles of manatee behavior and biology. Finally, the expert agreed that the greater the number of boats in the water, the greater the likelihood that a manatee could be accidentally crushed. On the issue of impacts to manatees, the testimony of the Commission witnesses is deemed to be the most credible and persuasive. The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that the marina will be located in an area adjacent to the River, that large numbers of manatees use the River, and that the project is expected to increase boat traffic. This in turn will lead to a higher incidence of boating-related manatee casualties in the area. Therefore, the proposed activity adversely affects the conservation of wildlife and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; it adversely affects the marine productivity in the area; it is permanent in nature; and it diminishes the current condition and relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the activity. On balance, then, the project is contrary to the public interest. Based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(f). Similarly, based on the evidence presented, Hancock has not provided reasonable assurance that the project will not result in unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters, as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b). By failing to provide reasonable assurances that the facility will not be harmful to water resources, that the secondary impacts from the facility will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands and surface waters, and that the project meets the public interest test, Hancock has failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 373.4132, Florida Statutes. Mitigation If an applicant cannot meet the requirements of Section 373.414(1)(a), Florida Statutes, the Department "shall consider measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity." As noted in Finding of Fact 27, supra, the Department is willing to approve an additional nine slips that would be allowed under the County MPP, for a total of thirty- nine. According to Hancock, this number is not acceptable because more slips are needed to make the project financially feasible. Although a copy of the application is not a part of this record, the testimony suggests that in its application, Hancock proposed certain measures to mitigate the impacts on manatees. In a letter to the Department dated November 8, 2007, however, the Commission stated that "[i]f the Applicant propose[s] changes to the project to minimize fish and wildlife resource impacts that are consistent with the Lee County MPP, such a project would be consistent with Chapter 370.12(2), F.S." (The Legislature has subsequently consolidated this statute into Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes.) Despite this lack of clarity in the record, sometime during the application process, and presumably before the Notice of Intent was issued, the Commission staff discussed with Hancock whether the following mitigation measures would offset or adequately reduce the impacts: placing a size restriction on boats docking at its facility; providing boater education; installing speed zone marking and making it a requirement for all boats at the marina to be equipped with a speed zone map or a Global Positioning Satellite unit with speed zone mapping; implementing a volunteer watch program to enforce speed limits; making a cash donation to study manatee population dynamics; and installing sonar avoidance technology on vessels. The Commission established that these measures, even if implemented, would not offset the impacts from 198 slips expected with phase 1 of the project. For example, the research associated with sonar technology is not yet completed, and devices are not available for boaters. Also, given the location of the project, even with additional law enforcement and boater education, the impacts would not be offset due to the level of traffic already existing on the River at that site, and the importance of the area to manatees. The middle of the River is a high-speed corridor (with a twenty-five miles per hour speed limit) and even with one hundred percent compliance in that zone, a small boat can still hit and kill a manatee. The Proprietary Authorization Because denial of the ERP is being recommended, the proprietary authorization must likewise be denied. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-373.075(2). Even so, for the purpose of addressing all issues in this Recommended Order, a discussion of the application for proprietary authorization is set forth below. Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 18-21 contains the rules that implement the administrative and management responsibilities of the Department in authorizing activities in sovereignty submerged lands. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004 establishes the specific standards and criteria to be applied by the Department in determining whether Hancock should be allowed to use sovereign submerged lands. Paragraph (1)(a) provides that "[f]or approval, all activities on sovereignty lands must be not contrary to the public interest." The public interest is defined as "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(43). The more persuasive evidence supports a finding that, on balance, the project is contrary to the public interest based upon the standards in the rules. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(a) provides that "[a]ll sovereignty lands shall be considered single use lands and shall be managed primarily for the maintenance of essentially natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and swimming. Compatible secondary purposes and uses which will not detract from or interfere with the primary purpose may be allowed." The evidence does not show that Hancock's proposed marina expansion constitutes a secondary use not interfering with the propagation of wildlife. Therefore, the project is not consistent with this rule. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.004(2)(b) provides that "unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate mitigation is proposed," activities which result in significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources shall not be approved. As previously found, the mitigation measures proposed by Hancock are not adequate. Paragraph (2)(i) of the rule further provides that activities in submerged lands "shall be designed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on fish and wildlife habitat, and other natural or cultural resources. Special attention and consideration shall be given to endangered and threatened species habitat." Because Hancock failed to prove that the project would not result in unmitigated adverse impacts to manatees, it fails to meet this criterion. Paragraphs (7)(d) and (e) of the rule are general conditions for authorization and provide that activities "shall be constructed and used to avoid or minimize adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and resources" and "shall not adversely affect any species which is endangered, threatened, or of special concern." Here the more persuasive evidence shows that neither condition has been met.
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 ERP and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands to expand an existing marina on Hancock Creek in Lee County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD 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 15th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) has a policy of asserting that seawalls located more than 20 feet seaward of the foundation of the structure to be protected will result in a “take” of marine turtle habitat, and if so, whether the policy is an unadopted rule.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioners are the owners of a two-story duplex located on a beachfront lot in the Blue Mountain Beach area of south Walton County. FWCC is a state agency created by Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution. It has exclusive, constitutional regulatory authority over “wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life.” It also has constitutional regulatory authority over “marine life,” but its regulatory authority over marine turtles is derived from statute and is shared with DEP. Background Prior to 2005, DEP processed (and FWCC commented on) a relatively small number of coastal armoring permits each year. The number of coastal armoring permit applications increased significantly in late-2005 and early-2006 as a result of Hurricane Dennis, which made landfall in the Florida panhandle in July 2005, causing severe erosion to beaches and dunes. In some areas of Walton County, the dunes were eroded all the way back to and even underneath the upland structures.2/ DEP issued a declaration of emergency shortly after Hurricane Dennis that authorized Walton County to issue emergency permits for temporary coastal armoring structures under Section 161.085, Florida Statutes (2005). Several hundred “temporary” armoring structures were installed pursuant to the Walton County emergency permits between July 2005 and April 2006. The number of emergency armoring structures constructed in Walton County over this period exceeds the number of armoring structures in all other counties in Florida. In January 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recommended that Walton County obtain a county-wide Incidental Take Permit and prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to address the impacts on marine turtles and other listed species caused by the coastal armoring structures permitted by the county after Hurricane Dennis. The letter stated that “every temporary armoring permit issued by Walton County, depending on its type, location, and method of installation, may result in incidental take of protected species ” In June 2006, after almost all the temporary armoring structures in Walton County had already been installed, DEP published “interim guidelines” to “provide answers to important questions when a local government elects to issue emergency permits for temporary coastal armoring.” Among other things, the guidelines state that “[g]enerally the temporary armoring should be sited no farther than 20 feet from the seawardmost foundation corner of a threatened building.” (Emphasis in original). In June 2007, FWCC, DEP, and Walton County entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) to formalize the permitting relationship between the parties and to expedite the completion of a county-wide Incidental Take Permit and HCP to offset the impacts to marine turtles and other listed species from the armoring structures installed after Hurricane Dennis. The IGA effectively prohibits DEP from issuing an after-the-fact coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit for an armoring structure if FWCC has determined that the structure is “reasonably certain to cause take of marine turtles” unless the permit applicant receives an Incidental Take Permit from USFWS. Petitioners and others challenged various aspects of the IGA, including the provision requiring an Incidental Take Permit before DEP can issue after-the-fact permits for existing coastal armoring structures in Walton County. The challenges are pending as DOAH Case Nos. 07-4767RX and 08-3130RU. Coastal Armoring Permitting, Generally DEP, not FWCC, is the state agency responsible for permitting coastal armoring and other construction seaward of the CCCL. Coastal armoring is defined by DEP’s rules as a “manmade structure designed to either prevent erosion of the upland property or protect eligible structures from the effects of coastal wave and current action.” Seawalls and retaining walls are types of coastal armoring. Generally, coastal armoring is authorized only for the protection of “eligible” and “vulnerable” structures, as those terms are defined in DEP’s rules, or to close a “gap” of less than 250 feet between existing armoring structures. Local governments are authorized to issue emergency permits for temporary coastal armoring structures upon a declaration of emergency by DEP. A temporary armoring structure installed pursuant to an emergency permit issued by a local government must be removed within 60 days unless the structure receives an after-the-fact CCCL permit from DEP. Generally, in order to receive an after-the-fact permit, the armoring structure must be sited as far landward as practicable and must meet the design standards in DEP’s rules. DEP is prohibited by Section 379.2431(1)(h), Florida Statutes, from issuing a CCCL permit if the permitted activity will result in a “take”3/ of marine turtles unless such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of the permitted activity. Similarly, DEP’s rules require it to deny a CCCL permit application for an activity that will result in “significant adverse impacts,” which are defined as impacts of such a magnitude that they would, among other things, “[c]ause a take . . . unless the take is incidental ” DEP does not make an independent determination as to whether a permitted activity will result in a “take.” It defers to the “take” determination made by FWCC. FWCC makes “take” determinations pursuant to its commenting authority in Section 20.331(10), Florida Statutes. That statute requires FWCC’s comments to be based upon “credible, factual scientific data.” Petitioners’ Seawall Hurricane Dennis severely eroded Petitioners’ property, leaving Petitioners’ home vulnerable to damage from subsequent storm events. Petitioners had to take immediate action to protect their home. Petitioners and five of their neighbors installed a composite steel sheet pile upland retaining wall (“the seawall”) seaward of their homes pursuant to an emergency permit issued by Walton County on July 14, 2005. The seawall is located seaward of the CCCL, approximately 35 feet seaward of Petitioners’ home, and a similar distance seaward of the neighbors’ homes. The entire seawall is approximately 460 feet long. The portion of the seawall on Petitioners’ property is 79 feet long. It cost $177,466 to install. Petitioners placed beach-compatible sand landward and seaward of the seawall and planted the area with native salt- tolerant vegetation at a cost of $192,287. The seawall is buried under this sand and vegetation, and is not visible from the surface. On September 6, 2005, Petitioners applied for an after-the-fact CCCL permit from DEP to allow them to keep the seawall as a permanent structure. DEP’s file number for the application is WL-817 AR ATF. FWCC provided comments on the application in a letter dated September 30, 2007. The letter stated in pertinent part: In evaluating coastal armoring projects, the FWC, in coordination with [USFWS], looks to minimize potential take of marine turtles by locating the armoring as close as practicable to the structure to be protected. In most cases, walls can be located within 20 feet of the structure. . . . . According to the survey for this project, the seawall is sited approximately 35 feet seaward of the houses and at or within the eroded scarp. The seawall . . . extends into areas that could reasonably be expected to provide nesting habitat for marine turtles. Turtles that emerge to nest on the beach in front of this wall will either be deterred from successful nesting at the steep slope of sand fill or the wall itself if exposed, or they will nest at a location that is further seaward and therefore at greater risk of storm or tidal inundation. Therefore, FWC staff has concluded that the referenced project is reasonably certain to result in take as defined in Florida Statutes 370.12(1)(c) for marine turtles attempting to nest in this area. DEP has not yet taken action on Petitioners’ permit application based, at least in part,4/ upon FWCC’s determination that the seawall is “reasonably certain to result in a take . . . for marine turtles attempting to nest in this area.” Whether Petitioners are entitled to a permit for their seawall is not at issue in this proceeding. If DEP denies Petitioners’ permit application -- whether based upon FWCC’s “take” determination, the IGA, or some other reason -- Petitioners will have an opportunity at that time to challenge that preliminary agency action in a proceeding under Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The Challenged Policy FWCC submitted comment letters to DEP on numerous CCCL permits in Walton County starting in September 2005. From September 2005 to early February 2006, FWCC consistently stated in its comment letters that it would not object to the project so long as DEP determined that the coastal armoring structure was located as close as practicable to the upland structure being protected. The comment letters further stated that the failure to locate the armoring as close as practicable to the upland structure could result in a “take” that would require an Incidental Take Permit from the USFWS. In an e-mail dated February 13, 2008, USFWS staff objected to the practice reflected in the comment letters. According to USFWS staff, FWCC’s practice of linking its “take” determination to DEP’s siting determination was essentially a transfer of FWCC’s responsibility to make the “take” determination to DEP, which was not authorized by the delegation agreement between USFWS and FWCC under the Endangered Species Act. In the e-mail, USFWS staff took the position that “any armoring structure that is installed more than 20 feet seaward of the structure to be protected would incidentally take sea turtle nesting habitat” even if the location of the armoring structure is as close as practicable to the structure being protected. The e-mail concluded with a statement that “any determination by [FWCC] that is inconsistent with the accepted 20-foot seaward installation of armoring (negligible effect) on sea turtle nesting habitat will be considered as inconsistent with the sec[tion] 6 agreement of the ESA between the State of FL and [USFWS].” In an e-mail dated February 14, 2006, Dr. Robbin Trindell, the FWCC biologist responsible for reviewing CCCL permit applications, offered the following justification for this 20-foot standard: The value of the sandy beach immediately under or adjacent to a habitable dwelling, such as a house, as nesting habitat is probably diminished by the proximity of the structure as well as human and feral animal activity. Therefore, coastal armoring located in this area, somewhere from 1 to 20 feet seaward of the house, would most likely not be considered to cause a significant loss of high quality marine turtle nesting habitat. Adopting 20 feet from the structure as a standard siting location for coastal armoring appears to reduce the potential for significant impacts to marine turtles and their nesting habitat while facilitating protection of the upland property.[5/] Dr. Trindell is the only person that reviews coastal armoring permit applications for FWCC. She drafted all of the FWCC comment letters on the after-the-fact coastal armoring permit applications in Walton County, even though some of the letters were signed by her supervisor, Kipp Frohlich, who is the leader of the Imperiled Species Section at FWCC. Dr. Trindell and Mr. Frolich are authorized to sign and submit the comment letters on behalf of FWCC, and as a result, the letters represent the official position of FWCC. FWCC conformed its practice to the position stated by USFWS staff almost immediately. In an e-mail dated February 21, 2006, Dr. Trindell informed the CCCL permit review staff at DEP that “FWS has determined that any wall sited more than 20-feet from the habitable structure would be considered a take of marine turtle nesting habitat.” Starting in late-February 2006, the comment letters sent by FWCC no longer linked the “take” determination to DEP’s siting determination. Instead, FWCC based its “take” determination on the distance of the armoring structure from the foundation of the structure being protected, and consistent with the position expressed by USFWS staff, if the armoring structure was located more than 20 feet from the foundation, FWCC advised DEP that the project is “reasonably certain to result in a take . . . for marine turtles attempting to nest in this area” and that it will require an Incidental Take Permit from USFWS. The numerous comment letters received into evidence show that it has been FWCC’s standard practice since late February 2006 to issue a “take” determination for armoring structures in Walton County located more than 20 feet seaward of the structure being protected and to not object to armoring structures located less than 20 feet seaward of the structure. This practice was confirmed by Mr. Frolich and Eugene Chalecki, who is an administrator in the Bureau of Beaches and Shores at DEP. On this issue, Mr. Chalecki testified that “[i]t has certainly been my impression that walls sited within 20 feet will generally be considered acceptable . . . [to FWCC] in terms of the turtle take issue”; that FWCC will issue a “take notice” if the wall is not within 20 feet; and that he did not recall any exceptions to this practice in Walton County as it relates to after-the-fact coastal armoring projects. Dr. Trindell’s testimony that the 20-foot standard is merely a “starting point” that FWCC uses in evaluating whether an armoring structure in Walton County will result in a “take” was not persuasive, nor was her testimony that each of the comment letters issued by FWCC for the after-the-fact coastal armoring projects in Walton County were based upon site- specific, case-by-case evaluations.6/ The more persuasive evidence establishes that starting in late February 2006, FWCC had a policy of using the 20-foot standard articulated by USFWS staff as the determinative factor as to whether an armoring structure in Walton County will result in a “take” of marine turtle habitat. This policy was most clearly articulated in a “briefing document” prepared for the FWCC commissioners by Dr. Trindell and Mr. Frohlich in January 2007. The document stated in pertinent part: To facilitate permit review of the unprecedented number of applications in Walton County, FWC and FWS staff in consultation agreed to consider walls that were sited twenty (20) feet or less from the foundation of the habitable structure not to constitute “take”. Temporary armoring structures sited more than twenty (20) feet from the home would be considered to cause “take” due to a reasonable certainty that such structures would interfere with female turtles attempting to nest, or the presence of the wall would result in the turtle depositing eggs closer to the water and thus would result in increased mortality of nests from high water events. FWCC has not adopted this 20-foot standard through the rulemaking process in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. FWCC’s use of the 20-foot standard is not limited to Walton County. The standard has been used in Indian River, Gulf,7/ Franklin, Volusia, and St. Johns Counties, although not as consistently as it has been used in Walton County. The reference to the 20-foot standard was removed from FWCC’s comment letters after this case was filed, and it is unclear how, if at all, FWCC is currently using that standard in its review of applications for coastal armoring permits.
The Issue The issue is whether petitioners' development is entitled to a favorable determination by respondent under Subsection 380.0651(3)(e)1.c., Florida Statutes (1989), and thus is exempt from development of regional impact review.
Findings Of Fact PETITIONERS' EXCEPTIONS In its Exception No. 1., Petitioners take exception to the Hearing Officer's determination that there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that Lee County Sheriff's Office, or any other local law enforcement officials strictly enforce Lee County Ordinance No. 90-51. Petitioners' exception is not supported by the record. Lee County Ordinance No. 90-51, requires that a vessel must proceed at idle speed, no wake, within five hundred feet of a water oriented structure, such as a seawall or dock. If enforced, the ordinance would require that boaters on the channel who venture closer than five hundred feet to the seawall which fronts a part of the island's shoreline or a dock located several hundred yards south of the collector canal, which is the site of Petitioners' proposed project, be obliged to travel no faster than idle speed, no wake in those areas. The Hearing Officer's determination that Ordinance No. 90-51 was not strictly enforced was based on the testimony of Lt. Graylish of the Florida Marine Patrol. Lt. Graylish appeared as a witness for Respondent and testified as to his opinion as a law enforcement officer on the impact of Lee County Vessel Control Ordinance No. 90-51 on vessel speeds in Estero Bay. During Lt. Graylish's direct examination when asked whether the Marine Patrol enforced the ordinance he replied: Well, we have the power to do it. The hardest problem for us is what in fact is that 500 foot distance. It's really hard on the water to come up with that, and then we've got a lot of transient traffic that goes through that area from out of state during season and part-time residents, and it's very difficult to enforce that when you don't have an actual sign placement indicating what in fact the condition is. [Tr. p. 118, Ins. 15-24] The lieutenant's testimony was uncontroverted. Petitioners produced no competent substantial evidence to refute Lt. Graylish's testimony. Likewise in its exceptions, Petitioners have failed to present competent substantial evidence to demonstrate why the Hearing Officer's determination that Ordinance No. 90-51 was not strictly enforced should be rejected. Accordingly, Petitioners' Exception No. 1. is therefore rejected as being contrary to the evidence presented. In its Exception No. 2, Petitioners object to the Hearing Officer's determination that the parties stipulated that manatees now frequent the channel (i.e., Coon Key Pass). Petitioners state that the parties only stipulated that "Estero Bay is an area that is, at least, frequented by manatees" and cites to the Transcript in support of its position. [See Petitioners' Exceptions] However, a review of the statement in the record which Petitioners rely on and which was made by Petitioners' own attorney at the hearing demonstrates that the Hearing Officer was correct in finding that the parties stipulated that manatees frequent the channel. In pertinent part the passage states: At this time I would like to stipulate to one thing that was omitted in here [i e., prehearing stipulation], is that we do stipulate that the areas are Outstanding Florida Waters and Class II waters, Estero Bay, and they are waters that are at least frequented by manatees . . . (emphasis added)[Tr. p. 8, Ins. 18-24] The Hearing Officer's finding that the parties stipulated that manatees now frequent the channel, which is part of Estero Bay, is consistent with the parties' stipulation. The exception is therefore rejected as unnecessary. In its Exception No. 3, Petitioners take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that since there was no evidence that Ordinance No. 90-51 would be strictly enforced, DNR could not reasonably determine that Petitioners' project would not have an adverse impact on manatees. The issue in this case was whether Petitioners were entitled to a favorable determination under Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, that their proposed project was located so that it would not adversely impact Outstanding Florida Waters or Class II waters an would not contribute boat traffic in a manner that would adversely impact an area known to be, or likely to be, frequented by manatees. It was Petitioners' burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that they were entitled to a favorable determination. It was therefore incumbent upon Petitioners to present competent evidence regarding the enforcement of Ordinance No. 90-51. This Petitioners did not do. Therefore, Petitioners' Exception No. 3 is rejected as either irrelevant or not being based on competent substantial evidence. In its Exception No. 4, Petitioners allege that Respondent's committed two discovery violations. These allegations are beyond the scope of what is permitted under the rules which deal with exceptions to recommended orders; however they will be addressed. Petitioners claim they were prejudiced by improper testimony from the Respondent's expert witnesses, Pat Rose and Kipp Frohlich. Petitioners state that these witnesses "allegedly re-examine Petitioners' project area on the afternoon prior to the hearing and alleged the discovery of new observations and conclusions at the hearings." [See Petitioners' Exceptions] Petitioners claim that this alleged re-examination precluded any opportunity for discovery and that therefore, "no testimony relating to this site visit should have been admitted into the record." However, Petitioners raised no such objection at the hearing and by not doing so have waived any right to do so now. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure that would preclude an expert witness from engaging in a review of information to be relied on at the hearing prior to the hearing. Additionally, for clarification only, it should be noted that there is no evidence in the record which would have led Petitioner to believe that Pat Rose visited the site prior to the hearing. In Exception No. 4, Petitioner further alleged that the Hearing Officer should have disallowed the testimony of Lt. Graylish, because his name "first appeared on the prehearing stipulation (not signed by Petitioners) approximately 48 hours before the hearing . . . ." However, Petitioners' did not object at the hearing to the testimony of Lt. Graylish and furthermore, stated on the record in reference to signing the prehearing stipulation: due to our, I guess you would say our geographic differences, the prehearing stipulation was submitted . . . without my signature; and at this time I would like to on the record confirm that I stipulate to that prehearinq stipulation that was jointly prepared and finally submitted by the Department. (emphasis added) [Tr. p. 4, Ins. 21- 25] In addition to having stipulated to Respondent's witnesses, which included Lt. Graylish, Petitioners had raised this very objection prior to the hearing and the Hearing Officer had conducted a telephonic hearing on the matter. The Hearing Officer ruled that the witness would be allowed to testify at the hearing subject to Petitioners' objections at that time. A review of the record of the hearing indicates that Petitioners made no further objections to the lieutenant's testimony. Exceptions as to alleged discovery violations are improper pursuant to the rules and in this case there is no competent substantial evidence to demonstrate the existence of any discovery violations. Exception No. 4 is therefore rejected as being improper. Finally, at Exception No. 5, Petitioners take exception to the Hearing Officer's application of law to the findings of fact to support a determination that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that their proposed project would riot "contribute boat traffic in a manner that will have an adverse impact on an area known to be, or likely to be, frequented by manatees." Petitioners allegation that this conclusion be rejected is based upon Petitioners' argument, discussed above, that the Hearing Officer erred in finding that Ordinance No. 90-51 was not strictly enforced. As stated in Paragraphs Nos. 1. and 3., any such rejection of the Hearing Officer's finding in this regard is unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Petitioners allege that the Hearing Officer's "sole conclusion of possible manatee impacts from this project was based on what he determined to be a lack of evidence that Ordinance No. 90-51 would be strictly enforced. Petitioners have narrowly construed the Hearing Officer's ruling. There is ample evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the Petitioners had not met their burden. In fact, the Recommended Order demonstrates that the ruling was also based on competent substantial evidence presented by Respondent that this proposed project demonstrated a potential for harm to manatees. In that regard, the Hearing Officer's conclusion was based on testimony from both Pat Rose and Kipp Frohlich. It was their testimony which led the Hearing Officer to conclude that a "favorable determination for Petitioners would not lie." The record is replete with evidence the Hearing Officer could have reasonably relied upon to conclude that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof. [See Tr. p. 118, Ins. 6-9; p. 156 p. 1; p. 158, Ins. 4-6; p. 158. In. 9; p. 159, In.18; p. 176, Ins. 20-23; ; p. 218, Ins. 20-24; p. 219, In. 40p. 316, Ins. 22-23; DNR Exh. 17J Accordingly, Petitioners' exceptions to Conclusion of Law No. 5., is rejected as being contrary to Florida law and the evidence presented. RESPONDENT' S EXCEPTIONS Respondent alleges that Finding of Fact No. 15., should be rejected in its entirety inasmuch as it is not supported by competent substantial evidence. At finding of fact No. 15, the Hearing Officer implies that the Petitioners were "somehow surprised" on June 7, 1991, while the parties were preparing the Prehearing Stipulation to be filed at hearing on June Il, 1991, to learn that DNR intended to take the position at hearing that the proposed project would likely contribute boat traffic in a manner that would adversely impact an area frequented by manatees. In support of this finding the Hearing Officer refers to a comment made by DNR employee David Trimble at his June 5, 1990, deposition, during which he advised Petitioners that based upon the October 17, 1990 memorandum from the Division of Marine Resources he assumed that the manatee issue was "resolved" in Petitioners' favor. However, a review of the record reveals that at no time subsequent to November 8, 1990 or the date on which the unfavorable letter of determination was issued, could Petitioners reasonably claim they believed the issue regarding manatees was resolved. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer's finding in this regard is not based on competent substantial evidence and is rejected. At his deposition Mr. Trimble was asked who was responsible for making the final determination decision, to which he replied: I evaluate them and make a staff recommendation to my superiors. (emphasis added) [Tr. 22, Ins. 24-25] Q. So you go with your feeling - from what the letters say and - A. Not from my feeling, I go with what the letters say. [Tr. p. 23, Ins. 8-11] Furthermore, Trimble's statement at the deposition that he believed the manatee issue was resolved was given only after Petitioners specifically asked Mr. Trimble his opinion on the matter. Furthermore, Trimble was qualified to give only his opinion as to whether the manatee issue was resolved, not the agency's position which was memorialized in the November 8, 1991, letter of determination. Petitioners' claim that they believed the manatee issue was resolved and the Hearing Officer's subsequent finding that Petitioners' claim was meritious can not be supported on the basis of Trimble's answer to the following question: Q. Was, in your opinion - - and this is your opinion as the reviewer of the request - - was the manatee issue resolved . . . (emphasis added) [Tr. p. 26, Ins. 8-10] Further, the letter that was issued under the Executive Director's signature did not indicate that the manatee issue was resolved, quite the contrary. In fact, the Prehearing Stipulation at page 17, stipulated to by both parties after, the deposition of Trimble listed the following disputed issue for determination at the hearing: 2. Whether the DNR correctly determined that the proposed 132 wetslips in conjunction with the existing 161 slips, will contribute boat traffic in a manner that will have an adverse impact on an area known to be, or likely to be, frequented by manatees. In order to find that Petitioners were somehow surprised by this "newly discovered revelation" (i.e., that manatees were going to be an issue at hearing) the Hearing Officer improperly attributed more weight to the deposition testimony of Trimble thanit was due. Trimble was merely the conduit through which information on the manatee issue from the Division of Marine Resources passed. As he himself stated, he was the reviewer of the information - - he was not the final decisionmaker. Once having reviewed the material sent to him from the other divisions, he merely drafted the unfavorable letter of determination for the Executive Director's consideration. The Executive Director then reviewed the material and issued the letter of determination under his signature.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent enter a final order confirming its earlier determination of November 8, 1990, under Subsection 380.0651(3)(e)1.c., Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of August 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1991.
Conclusions The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FWC” or ‘““Commission’) hereby enters the following Final Order. ISSUE AND SUMMARY The Commission issued a permit to Chris Johnson to conduct leatherback turtle research through the Loggerhead Marinelife Center, Inc. (hereinafter “LMC’”) in 2001 and has continuously reissued this permit. However, Chris Johnson’s employment with LMC was recently terminated. On January 22, 2014, the Commission issued Marine Turtle Permit #14-157A to Chris Johnson, Filed October 2, 2014 3:57 PM Division of Administrative Hearings authorizing him to conduct leatherback turtle research on Palm Beach County beaches, effective January 1, 2014. On December 20, 2013, the Commission issued a permit to Sarah Hirsch, Data Manager for LMC, to conduct marine turtle research on Palm Beach County beaches, effective January 1, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the Commission issued Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Charles Manire, who works for LCM, to conduct a subset of the same activities that Chris Johnson’s permit authorizes Chris Johnson to perform with leatherback turtles. On February 12, 2014, LMC filed a Request for Enlargement of Time to File Petition. On February 28, 2014, LMC filed a Petition for a Formal Administrative Hearing, and on April 25, 2014, LMC filed an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (hereinafter “LMC Petition”), challenging the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-157A to Chris Johnson. The LMC Petition states that the activities Chris Johnson proposes to conduct under his permit are not in the public interest as his activities would interfere with the research LMC conducts under contract with Palm Beach County, and would duplicate research that LMC employees have conducted for more than 20 years on the same beaches. The LMC Petition states that Chris Johnson has demonstrated no need for his research. The LMC Petition disputes that Chris Johnson has the necessary permits or concurrence from the appropriate park management units to conduct the research and claims that Chris Johnson submitted materially false information in his application for a permit. The LMC Petition states that following his termination by LMC, Chris Johnson misappropriated LMC’s leatherback sea turtle data set to start his own organization, and that Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes, Chapter 68E-1, and Rule 68-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, require denial of the permit. LMC has filed a separate civil action against Chris Johnson alleging, among other things, the misappropriation of turtle data from LMC. The Commission transferred the case to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on April 17, 2014, which was assigned DOAH Case No. 14-001651. The permittee, Chris Johnson, filed a Motion to Intervene in the case on April 29, 2014, and was granted party status on April 30, 2014. On June 3, 2014, Chris Johnson filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (hereinafter “Johnson Petition’’) challenging the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Manire at LMC, The Johnson Petition primarily states that the application for this permit was an attempt to keep Chris Johnson from being able to conduct his research, that Dr. Manire’s permit interferes with Chris Johnson’s permit, that Dr. Manire does not have the requisite knowledge and skill to conduct the permitted activities, that the public’s interest is best served by having Chris Johnson conduct the research and that Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes, and Rules 68E- 1002(2), 68E-1.004(6) and (17), and Rule 68-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, require denial of the permit. On June 12, 2014, the permittees, Dr. Charles Manire and LMC, filed a Petition to Intervene, and were granted party status on June 19, 2014. This case was transferred to DOAH and assigned DOAH Case No. 14-002806. On June 23, 2014, this case was consolidated with LMC v. Chris Johnson and FWC, DOAH Case No. 14-001651, which was pending before DOAH. On July 22, 2014, Christopher Johnson filed a motion seeking sanctions, including attorney’s fees, On September 8, 2014, LMC, stating that the administrative action is negatively impacting LMC’s civil action and the turtle nesting season has passed, voluntarily dismissed its petition without prejudice, thereby withdrawing its challenge to the issuance of the permit to Chris Johnson. On September 8, 2014, Dr. Manire withdrew his application for a permit. As the substantive issues in the case were rendered moot by LMC’s dismissal of its petition and Dr. Manire’s withdrawal of his application, on September 11, 2014, DOAH relinquished jurisdiction over the permitting issues back to the Commission. However, DOAH retained jurisdiction over the issue of attorney’s fees. WHEREFORE, as LMC has voluntarily dismissed its Petition, thereby withdrawing its challenge to the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-157 to Chris Johnson, the permit is hereby GRANTED. As LMC and Dr. Charles Manire have voluntarily withdrawn their application for the permit, the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Charles Manire at LMC is hereby DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida this 30 day of September, 2014. t= Eric Sutton Assistant Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Filed with The Agency Clerk MULL, This 2 day of-September, 2014 LIFE Oe Sbtobe 7 enrol ATTEST: yy % ono Agency Clerk Cyriteeesanst CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above FINAL ORDER has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Rachael M. Bruce, 515 N. Flagler Dr Ste 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4327; Alfred Malefatto, Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr Ste 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4327; Edwin A. Steinmeyer, Lewis Longman & Walker, 315 S. Calhoun St Ste 830, Tallahassee, FL 32301-1872; Frank Rainer, Broad and Cassel, PO Box 11300, Tallahassee, FL 32302-3300; and David ge Broad and Cassel, 2 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 21, Miami, FL 33131-1800, on this day “ane Copies furnished to: Ryan Smith Osborne (via email) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Legal Office 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL. 32399 Michael Yaun (via email) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Legal Office 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL. 32399 Florida Bar No. 956953 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (850) 487-1764 NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS The foregoing constitutes final agency action in this matter. Any party adversely affected has the right to seek judicial review of this Final Order pursuant to section 120.68 Florida Statutes, and rule 9.030(b)(1)(c) and 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. To initiate an appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Office of the General Counsel, and the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of that this Final Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. The Notice filed with the District Court of Appeal must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee required by law.
The Issue Whether STOP and the County have standing to challenge the issuance of the Modification? Whether the Department should issue the Modification as authorized in Permit No. BO-612 M1?
Findings Of Fact The Sand Mound The Sand Mound is located entirely on the property of the Applicants in the City of Fort Lauderdale on the southern portion of the city's beach. Oval shaped, it is approximately 176 feet long in a north-south direction parallel to the shore (shore-parallel direction) and 140 feet wide in an east-west direction perpendicular to the shore (shore-normal direction). The Sand Mound's peak at 13 feet NAVD rises between five-to-six feet above the surface of the beach. Gradually sloped, it supports approximately 12,000 square feet of mixed vegetation of varying density. The Sand Mound is an oddity. The width of the beach on the property of The Mayan Beach Club seaward (to the east) of the Sand Mound is approximately 300 feet. The width of the beach lying upland of the Sand Mound (to the west and landward) is approximately 400 feet, a distance of a third or so greater than the beach seaward of the Sand Mound. Unlike a dune, therefore, the Sand Mound lies seaward of an extensive expanse of upland beach. There are no dunes, moreover, in the immediate vicinity of the Sand Mound. The closest dune is several hundred feet to the south. North of the Sand Mound, the closest dune is approximately 800 feet away. Over-sized, recycled tractor tires had been deposited offshore of The Mayan Beach Club property years ago in an unsuccessful government attempt to create an offshore reef. Although not proven, the suggestion was made by the Applicants that the Sand Mound formed as the result of the tires that had washed ashore or ended up on the beach through the beach's advancement due to sand accretion. The suggestion was not disputed by the other parties. It is the only explanation offered by any of the parties for the Sand Mound's isolation from other dunes and its peculiar location seaward of an extensive expanse of upland beach. The Sand Mound's lack of "alongshore continuity" means it is not a "primary dune." It is not a "frontal dune" because there is no "interdunal trough" between it and a primary dune. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(b). The Sand Mound is not a "significant dune" because it does not have "sufficient height and configuration or vegetation to offer protective value." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(a). In a major storm event, the Sand Mound would be unable to hold back storm surge. Water would flow over the Sand Mound or flank it so as to move around it. Despite the Department's reference to it as a "dune" in the Permit, the Modification and elsewhere, the Sand Mound is not a dune. It bears similarity to a dune in that is a mound of loose, sand-sized sediment deposited by natural or artificial mechanism which is bare or covered with vegetation and is subject to fluctuations in configuration and location. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17). Unlike a dune, however, it is seaward of an extensive expanse of beach. It is not "lying upland of the beach," see id., a characteristic of a dune, and, therefore, it is not a dune.3/ See id. The Permit and the Modification In December 2007, The Mayan Beach Club applied for a permit to reduce the Sand Mound (which it called a "berm") to existing beach level. In the application cover letter, The Mayan Beach Club's manager expressed "the opinion that a large tractor tire was washed onto shore, and never removed, thus causing the berm to evolve." Respondents' Ex. 4, Cover Letter. The cover letter also expressed a simple purpose: "to have the berm leveled to match up with all of the surrounding beaches." In mid-2008, Ocean Lane Villas, Inc., put in writing its support of the efforts to remove the Sand Mound and gave its permission to arrange for removal of the portion of it on Ocean Land Villas, Inc.'s property. The Department issued the Permit on October 2, 2009. But it did not authorize a leveling of the Sand Mound, as requested. The Permit contains a "Project Description" that opens with the caption "Dune Restoration." See Respondents' Ex. 27. The permitted activity is both excavation and restoration between approximately 395 feet and 535 feet seaward of the control line: A +13.0-foot (NAVD) dune feature is to be reduced to +10.0 feet (NAVD), with up to 1,442 cubic yards of excavated material to be spread adjacent to the feature and to construct a second dune feature (approximately 440 cubic yards) located to the north. Excavation and placement areas are to be planted with native salt-tolerant beach and dune vegetation. Id. The Permit authorization of a three-foot reduction in the Sand Mound allows about half of the Sand Mound's five to six-foot elevation above the beach surface to be reduced so that it would have a two to three feet elevation above grade. In January 2011, Coastal Systems International, Inc., submitted an application for a modification of the Permit. The application was received by the Department's Bureau of Beaches and Shores on January 18, 2011. The application proposed that the Sand Mound be removed in its entirety "restoring grade to match the typical conditions of the beach in the area." Respondents' Ex. 33, p. 2. The application's cover letter described the Sand Mound as "an anomaly, uniquely located more than 400 feet east of the landward edge of the beach." Id. The Modification application provided more compelling reasons for the need to remove the Sand Mound beyond the desire of The Mayan Beach Club as expressed in the Permit application to have its beach match the beach in the area. In addition to the contention that the Sand Mound had negative impacts to sea turtles, the cover letter asserted that it "obstructs resident views of the ocean . . . and is an 'attractive nuisance' encouraging trespass onto private property and trash accumulation, and resulting in negative impacts to the Permittee's property values and security." Id. On September 14, 2011, the Department issued the Modification. Its Project Description is markedly different from the Permit's. Rather than "Dune Restoration," the Project Description in the Modification is "Dune Redistribution." Instead of excavation and restoration, the Modified Project, as applied for, is one for "Removal": Dune Redistribution: Removal: Removal of the existing vegetated sand mound[4/] located approximately 514 feet seaward of the control line and redistribute approximately 1,730 cubic yards of the sand across the property. The mound is approximately 140 feet in the general shore- normal direction by 176 feet in the general shore-parallel direction. The removed sand is to be distributed between the Seasonal High Water Line and the western edge of the existing sandy beach to a maximum distance of 536 feet seaward of the control line. Id. at p. 2. Since all of the excavated sand will remain on the beach seaward of the CCCL, there will be no net excavation of in- situ sand or soil seaward of the CCCL. In sum, the primary effect of the Modification is to change the Permit from one that allows the Sand Mound's elevation to be reduced by three feet, to one that removes the Sand Mound in its entirety. The Modification calls for distribution of the excavated sand on the beach, but the Modification, unlike the Permit, calls for no restoration activity that would create a new sand feature. The Parties The Mayan Beach Club is a condominium association that operates and manages a 22-unit low-rise oceanfront residential condominium located along the southern part of Fort Lauderdale's beach. Shortly after its incorporation in 1953, The Mayan Beach Club assumed management of the condominium and its newly- constructed units. The Mayan Beach Club's condominium property is roughly 1/4 of a mile north of the ocean inlet to Port Everglades, a major seaport. Due primarily to a jetty that extends into the ocean along the edge of the inlet, beach sand has accreted in front of its property over a period of several decades. The Mayan Beach Club's property is bounded "on the East by the waters of the Atlantic Ocean." See Respondents' Ex. 11, Schedule A to Title Opinion and Guarantee, Fund Serial No. 18344. Its fee title ownership includes nearly 700 linear feet of beach between the CCCL (seaward of the condominium residential improvements) and the mean high water line ("MHWL") of the Atlantic Ocean. Ocean Lane Villas, Inc., is an association that owns adjacent property to the south of The Mayan Beach Club property. It notified the Department that it supported the Permit and granted permission for the authorized activity to be conducted on its property. It joined The Mayan Beach Club in seeking the Modification. The Department is the state agency with the authority to establish CCCLs and to issue permits for construction activities seaward of a CCCL when an applicant has shown the permit "to be clearly justified by demonstrating that all standards, guidelines, and other requirements set forth in the applicable provisions of Part I, Chapter 161, F.S., and [Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62B-33] are met . . . ." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005(4). Also see §§ 161.052 and 161.053. Incorporated in the State of Florida on August 31, 2010, STOP is a not-for-profit corporation. Its mission is to protect sea turtles, reduce hatchling mortality due to disorientation from artificial light sources, educate the public about marine turtle habitat and assist the State of Florida with its sea turtle conservation program. Broward County is a political subdivision of the state that has existed for more than one year prior to the date of the filing of the application at issue. Official recognition is taken that the population of Broward County is in excess of 25. The Charter of Broward County addresses its interests in natural resources and environmental protection. It has authority, for example, to adopt environmental rules and regulations that prevail over municipal ordinances with which they conflict. Standing STOP's Standing STOP was incorporated less than one year prior to the date of the filing of the application for the Modification. STOP has 120 permanent staff members. "Almost all of them" (Hearing Tr. vol. 2, 231, Feb. 16, 2012), live in Broward County. All of STOP's permanent staff members are permitted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FWC") to monitor Broward County's beaches nightly during sea turtle nesting season. The members' work in the field is in shifts of a minimum of four hours between sunset and sunrise. Members work many shifts of more than four hours, some as long as ten hours. The activity of STOP includes recovering disoriented turtle hatchlings and documenting disorientations. To rescue sea turtles, FWC permittees must complete a written test and field training that requires 40 hours on the beach. STOP's program is unusual. It is one of the few organizations in Florida that recovers hatchlings at all hours of the night instead of in early morning daylight after hours of disorientation. According to STOP activity logs, at least 20 different members have patrolled the beach in the area of the Sand Mound. STOP has a website for public use and another accessible only to its members. It posts photos, videos, commentary associated with its activities and materials for public education to serve the conservation of sea turtles. Prior to filing its petition, STOP filed public comments with DEP that the Modification "is likely to cause harm to protected nesting adult sea turtles, and could prove deadly to numerous sea turtle hatchlings, in addition to harming other protected species." STOP Ex. 11. Broward County's Standing Broward County has established a Natural Resource Protection Code in Chapter 27 of the Broward County Code of Ordinances (the "BCC"). The Natural Resource Protection Code was adopted by the County to promote the preservation, protection, and enhancement of natural resources. These resources include coastal and marine animal and plant life. The County also relies on the Florida Statutes5/ and the Florida Administrative Code, including section 161.053 and chapter 62B-33, to protect the interests of the County and its residents in natural resources, plants, and wildlife that are present in the beach and dune system in Broward County. The County's eastern boundary is three miles east of the MHWL of the Atlantic Ocean. The beach area affected by the Modification is in the County. The County has an interest in protection of the area's natural resources, plant, and wildlife. The Sand Mound's Vegetation The Sand Mound's vegetation, in varying density, is spread over approximately 12,000 square feet of the Sand Mound. The vegetation is not as robust as typical dune vegetation. Vegetation on half of the Sand Mound is sparse. If the Sand Mound were part of a dune restoration project, it would require the planting of additional vegetation. In a 2011 Site Inspection Report, the Sand Mound was determined to support "Sea Oats, Panic Grass, Seashore Saltgrass, Beach Elder, Chamaesyce, Ambrosia, Railroad Vine, Dune Sunflower and Beach Star." Of the species growing on the Sand Mound only the beach star is endangered. After interaction with the Department of Agriculture, DEP, and the City of Fort Lauderdale, the Applicants agreed to plant several endangered species in another location as mitigation for the destruction on site of the beach star vegetation. The City of Fort Lauderdale agreed to partner with the Applicants as part of a dune restoration project at The Palms Condominium, north of the Applicants' property. The mitigation plan included removal of invasive exotic plants, and replanting the mitigation area with native plants, including several endangered species. The mitigation planting area is approximately 14,000 square feet, which is roughly 2,000 square feet more than the area of vegetation that will be lost through the removal of the Sand Mound. Minimization of Impacts The Applicants minimize impacts by not proposing activity beyond that which is necessary to remove the Sand Mound and distribute the excavated sand on the beach. Adverse Impacts "Adverse impacts" are defined by rule 62B-33.002(33)(a) as those "to the coastal system that may cause a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system." The "coastal system" is defined by rule 62B-33.002(13) as "the beach and adjacent upland dune system and vegetation seaward of the coastal construction control line; swash zone; surf zone; breaker zone; offshore and longshore shoals; reefs and bars; tidal, wind, and wave driven currents; longshore and onshore/offshore drift of sediment materials; inlets and their ebb and flood tide shoals and zones of primary tidal influence; and all other associated natural and manmade topographic features and coastal construction." Removal of the vegetation on the Sand Mound, which is seaward of the CCCL, will, of course, have an impact on the vegetation which is part of the coastal system. But it will not cause measurable interference with the natural function of the coastal system. Removal of the Sand Mound, itself, will not cause adverse impacts to the coastal system. Mitigation The Department must deny an application for an activity seaward of the CCCL if it does not provide for mitigation of adverse impacts. If a project causes no adverse impact, mitigation is not required. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.005(3)(b). Mitigation is not required for the removal of the Sand Mound. Furthermore, no mitigation is required by the Modification since the vegetation will be removed if the Permit is implemented without the modification. Nonetheless, the Applicants entered into the mitigation described above with regard to the planting of endangered species. As part of the effort to mitigate off-site, the Applicants made a one-time payment of $7,500 to the City of Fort Lauderdale. The mitigation plan was successfully implemented prior to hearing. Other General Criteria The proposed project will not cause any anticipated short-term or long-term direct or indirect effects on the coastal system and will not cause cumulative impacts to the coastal system. The proposed project is not inconsistent with siting and design criteria. It will not result in damage to existing structures and property or lower existing levels of protection. It will not destabilize a frontal, primary, or significant dune nor will it cause significant adverse impacts to the beach and dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. The proposed project will not reduce the existing ability of the coastal system to resist erosion during a storm. It will not significantly interfere with the coastal system's ability to recover from a coastal storm. The proposed project will not affect the hydrology of the water flowing across the land and will not direct discharges of water or other fluids in a seaward direction. The proposed project will not result in the net excavation of the in situ sandy soils seaward of the CCCL. The proposed project will not cause an increase in structure induced scouring. The proposed project will not interfere with public access and will not interfere with lateral beach access. Marine Turtles Each night during late summer months, thousands of marine turtle hatchlings emerge from nests located on Broward County's beaches. If not all, nearly all of the nests belong to two of the five species of marine turtles protected by the Marine Turtle Protection Act, section 379.2431, Florida Statutes: the Atlantic loggerhead turtle and the Atlantic green turtle. Of these two species, the green turtle is more likely to be affected by removal of the Sand Mound. A significant number of the turtle nests in Broward County are green turtle nests, and a significant number of the hatchlings on Broward County's beaches and in the area of the Sand Mound are green turtle hatchlings. Marine turtles nest on a wide variety of beaches, but they tend to prefer steeply sloped beaches with prominent vegetated dunes. Dunes are a particular attraction for green turtles in search of a nest because green turtles prefer to nest at higher beach elevations than do loggerheads. The Sand Mound is a marine turtle nesting habitat. Removal of the mound poses the threat of three impacts to marine turtles: 1) promoting abandonment of nesting attempts by female turtles; 2) negatively affecting the survivorship of nests that would have been in the Sand Mound; and 3) disorientation of hatchlings emerging from nests where the Sand Mound would have been when the Sand Mound would have provided silhouette and shape cues that correctly orient hatchlings toward the sea. Sea turtle hatchlings orient toward the ocean and hatchling disorientation frequently results in death. The Sand Mound offers a visual cue to a female marine turtle that indicates the turtle has crawled far enough out of the water and can stop. Turtles that emerge and find no dune or other cover tend to wander longitudinally along the beach. They may return to the sea in what is known as a "false crawl." See Hearing Tr. vol. 2, 201-202, Mar. 9, 2012. False crawls have a cost to the female turtle's energy requirement for nesting. Dune elevation increases nest survivorship because it protects the eggs from storm events. Nests at higher elevations have a better chance of survival than nests at lower elevations because they are less likely to suffer effects from erosion and inundation, two of the main factors that determine nest survivorship. A dune also offers to hatchlings the benefit of a silhouette which blocks out artificial light from the low landward horizon that causes hatchling disorientation. Prominent vegetated dunes are especially helpful in assisting hatchling orientation. Dune vegetation also provides shade, which increases the nest survivability over nests in bare sand. Artificial lighting can disrupt the ability of hatchlings to find the sea from their nests. Hatchlings benefit from the silhouette of a dune that blocks out some of the disorienting lights that exist in an urban environment. Dune vegetation assists in scattering light, and the downward slope of a dune is a cue that orients hatchlings towards the water. Both Dr. Witherington and Dr. Rusenko testified that in their opinion, the removal of the Sand Mound would constitute a "take" as defined in section 379.2431. Isolating the impact of the removal of the Sand Mound is difficult, however, because there are so many factors that have a bearing on turtle nesting and hatchling disorientation along the southern stretch of Fort Lauderdale's beach. These factors include "night glow," predation, erosion form high-wave storms, weather, inundation, and direct artificial lighting. Dr. Witherington was more equivocal as to whether the Modification would be a take if the Permit had been implemented. See Hearing Tr. vol. 2, 252-255, Mar. 9, 2012. In contrast to the opinions of Drs. Witherington and Rusenko which were based on knowledge of marine turtle behavior in general, the Applicants' biological consultant, John James Goldasich, used Broward County data about turtle nesting and hatchling disorientation in the area of the Sand Mound to form his opinions. Mr. Goldasich also based his opinion on light measurements taken on site which indicated no distinction between the lux values of light on the east side of the Sand Mound and on the west side. Furthermore, night glow, which tends to disorient marine turtles, is significant near the Sand Mound and on the southern stretch of Fort Lauderdale's beach. The accuracy of the Broward County data used by Mr. Goldasich was verified by Lewis Edward Fisher, Jr., the County's lead employee for turtle management. Some of the data included turtle nests that were relocated onto The Mayan Beach Club property, but of the exhibits used by Mr. Goldasich, only Respondents' Exhibit 161 showed relocated nests. The inclusion is insignificant. Exhibit 161 depicts only two relocated nests. Mr. Goldasich offered opinions with regard to two issues: 1) whether the Sand Mound affects the location and pattern of turtle nesting; and, 2) whether the Sand Mound has an effect on hatchling disorientation. Three nest plotting maps used by Mr. Goldasich illustrate that the Sand Mound has had little, if any, impact on the location and pattern of turtle nesting: 1) Applicants' Exhibit 99, which plots nesting data of loggerhead and green marine turtles in the vicinity of the Sand Mound from 2002 to 2011; 2) Applicants' Exhibit 128, which plots nesting data in a broader area than Applicants' Exhibit 99 from 2001 through 2011; and 3) Applicants' Exhibit 133, which plots nesting data of loggerhead and green turtles along southern Fort Lauderdale beach for the year 2011. The three exhibits show no concentration or pattern of loggerhead nesting in the vicinity of the Sand Mound. The absence of effect on loggerhead nesting is expected because they do not exhibit the preference for nesting in dunes that green turtles exhibit. Of approximately 34 green marine turtle nests plotted on Applicants' Exhibit 99, only six have nested in the immediate vicinity of the Sand Mound. The locations of the other 28 nests demonstrate the preference of green marine turtles to nest at higher elevations in the upland beach. Respondents' Exhibit 133, that contains FWC data, supports the finding that the Sand Mound has been a negligible factor for the nesting of green turtles. Of the 15 green turtle nests depicted in Respondents' Exhibit 133, two are located in the vicinity of the Sand Mound. Four are concentrated in a small contained beach area next to tall buildings near the mouth of Port Everglades in an area of greater light disturbance, but with no dune influence. The remaining nine are spread over the hundreds of meters to the north and south of the Sand Mound. They do not depict any concentration of green turtle nesting close to the Sand Mound. Applicant Exhibits 99, 128, and 133 establish that the Sand Mound has had little, if any, bearing on marine turtle nesting. To evaluate whether the Sand Mound had any discernible effect on hatchling disorientation, Mr. Goldasich analyzed FWC Marine Turtle Disorientation Reports provided by the County. If the Sand Mound protects hatchlings from disorientation, then hatchlings from nests on or near the dune should exhibit less disorientation. In comparing disorientation from two dozen nests, there is no correlation between nest proximity to the Sand Mound and hatchling disorientation. Analysis of hatchling disorientation data from the four 2011 green turtle nests in the immediate vicinity of the Sand Mound also yields a finding of no correlation between nest proximity to the Sand Mound and hatchling disorientation. There is insufficient evidence as to why so many hatchlings in the proximity of the Sand Mound have not benefited from its presence. It may be because of night glow, weather, or other relevant factors. Whatever the cause, Respondents have presented empirical data and analysis that reveals no orientation benefit to hatchlings from the Sand Mound, a sand feature that is not a dune on a stretch of beach that is without dunes. The Applicants' data and analysis is more persuasive than Petitioners' prediction based on general knowledge of marine turtle behavior in coastal systems that include dunes. No Take Letter When the Department believes a proposed project justifies an inquiry into whether the project would constitute a Marine Turtle Take, it asks FWC to investigate the issue and, if appropriate, to issue a "take letter." See Hearing Tr. vol. 1, 24, Mar. 9, 2012. In the initial stages of the review of the application for the Permit, the Department did not request FWC to determine if a take letter should be issued. The proposed activity seemed to Department personnel not to constitute a "take." Furthermore, the activity was restricted to a time outside of the marine turtle nesting season. Later in the process when the "take" issue had been raised by others, DEP requested that FWC determine whether or not to issue a take letter. The Department contacted FWC repeatedly about the matter. FWC did not issue a take letter. The Department: No Position on the "Take" Issue At hearing, the Department described its position on the Marine Turtle Take issue as neutral. It continued to have no position on whether the evidence demonstrated a "take" or not in its proposed recommended order.
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 that issues the Modification as reflected in Permit No. BO-612 M1 filed by the Department with its Clerk on September 14, 2011. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY 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 22nd day of August, 2012.
The Issue By this action Petitioner seeks to recover costs, expenses and damages associated with state response to an oil spill incident occurring February 26, 1987, within three miles of the Florida shoreline. Respondent's vessel was responsible for that spill. In particular the costs, expenses and damages claimed are related to salaries, per diem allowances, Federal Express charges, beach sand replacement, equipment, use of a cellular phone, and consulting work at the shore and off site. Petitioner also seeks damages for bird mortality resulting from the spill. See Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 16N- 16, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On the evening of February 26, 1987, the motor vessel Fernpassat struck the south jetty at the entrance to the St. Johns River at a location within three miles of the Florida shoreline. In doing so it ruptured the hull and spilled a substantial amount of heavy fuel oil. The type of the oil was No. 5 or 6 Bunker C. A preliminary estimate placed the amount of oil in excess of 100,000 gallons. While the true amount may have been somewhat less, it was a significant spill in that it substantially threatened the public's welfare and the environment and generated wide public interest. Petitioner's exhibit 3 is a map which depicts the basic location where the vessel collided with the jetty with an "X" mark. The area impacted by the discharge ran from roughly Atlantic Beach, Florida, to Guana State Park in St. Augustine, Florida. This is approximately 25 miles of beach front. Beach property over which Petitioner has regulatory and proprietary responsibility had oil deposited upon it. The oil spill killed or injured a number of birds. The event was responded to by the "Federal Region IV Regional Response Team" (RRT). The federal on-scene coordinator (OSC) was Captain Matthew Woods, U.S. Coast Guard. The RRT, through management and control provided by the OSC, took necessary steps to combat the effects of the spill. Respondent immediately accepted responsibility for the cleanup through the use of a consultant and cleanup contractor. Under this arrangement the OSC monitored the contractor's cleanup efforts to make certain that the job was done satisfactorily. Florida officials were part of the RRT. Rule 16N-16.009(21), Florida Administrative Code, calls for personnel from Petitioner; the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER); and the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to represent state interests as members of the RRT. Each of these agencies participated as members of the RRT. This furthered the legislative intent expressed at Section 376.021(6), Florida Statutes, to support the RRT through implementation of the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act," which is also known as the "Clean Water Act," 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251-1376. By its efforts the RRT promoted the removal of the oil in accordance with a national contingency plan. Pursuant to Section 376.021(6), Florida Statutes, the state is expected to complement applicable provisions within the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act" as well as render the support previously described. Both the support and complementary functions of the state are part of Florida's "Pollutant Spill and Prevention Control Act," Sections 376.011-376.17, 376.19-376.21, Florida Statutes. Chapters 16N-16, Florida Administrative Code, more completely identifies the role played by the state agencies in this instance. This chapter was adopted pursuant to authority set out in Section 376.07, Florida Statutes, which, among other things, empowered Petitioner to make rules which developed and implemented criteria and plans to respond to spills such as the one at issue. In its complementary role the state has established a "State Response Team" (SRT). This organization in defined at Rule 16N-16.009(13), Florida Administrative Code. It is constituted of predesignated state agencies available continually to respond to a major spill. This incident was a major spill or discharge as defined in Rule 16N-16.009(18), Florida Administrative Code. The predesignated state agencies, pursuant to the rule defining the SRT and Section 376.07(2)(e), Florida Statutes, act independently of the federal authorities, although they are expected to cooperate with the federal authorities in the efforts at cleanup. What that meant here is that notwithstanding the concerns which Captain Woods had and the state participation in the RRT through Petitioner, DER and DCA, there was a parallel function by the SRT which had its own mandate. This allowed the SRT to pursue an independent agenda in the spirit of cooperation with the OSC in an attempt to protect the resources over which the state has jurisdiction, including the beach front and birds. Both Captain Woods and the consultant to the spiller, James L. O'Brien, who is a man of considerable credentials in giving advice about oil spill problems, expressed their understanding of the interests which the state might have in carrying out its functions and did not find that reality a hindrance in performing their duties. As a result, even though state employees and equipment and consultants to the state had limited utility for the OSC and the consultant to the spiller in carrying out their duties, it does not follow that claims by the state for reimbursement in categories set out in the statement of issues must fail unless found to support the OSC or spiller's choice in attempts at cleanup. The question is whether the costs, expenses and damages are reasonably related to support for the RRT or complementary of that function through the SRT and owed or expended from the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund (Fund) for recoverable items. See Section 376.11, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's exhibit 15 is a copy of the state contingency plan. See Section 376.07(2)(e), Florida Statutes. It identifies the membership of Petitioner, DER and DCA. Other claimants for costs, expenses, and damages who were involved in the response to this incident as predesignated agencies are the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (Commission), the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Attorney General. The state contingency plan explains the operational responsibilities of state agencies when responding to the incident. This is a more specific reference to those responsibilities as envisioned by the general guidelines announced in the "Pollution Spill Prevention and Control Act." Having considered the testimony and exhibits in the context of the state support and complementary role in responding to the spill contemplated by the aforementioned laws, regulations and contingency plans, the costs, expenses and damages sought by the Petitioner are reasonably related to those purposes. Those costs, expenses and damages are detailed in Petitioner's exhibit 16 and summarized in Petitioner's exhibits 8 and 9. With the exception of $15,654.37 in costs and expenses for Petitioner's Executive Office and Division of Law Enforcement and $3,336.16 for salaries for the Commission, DOT and DCA, all claims for expenses and costs have been paid from the Fund. Petitioner wishes to impose the costs, expenses and damages in the state response whether or not claims were disbursed from the Fund. The damage claim associated with future beach re-nourishment by replacement of sand that had been befouled by oil and needed to be removed is a reasonable claim in the amount of $10,222.50. It has been paid from the Fund and is held in the Erosion Control Trust Fund until needed. The on-scene consulting fee of $3,525.00 and the oil spill assessment study fee of $9,880.00 commissioned by Petitioner through Jacksonville University are reasonably related to the Department's role in response to the spill. As Petitioner's exhibit 8 depicts, $30,312.53 has been disbursed from the Fund in costs, expenses and damages reasonably related to the response to the spill. There remains unpaid from the Fund the aforementioned costs and expenses in the amount of $18,990.53 which are reasonably related to the response to the spill. Those latter amounts, although presented for payment from the Fund by the agencies in question, were not paid, based upon some fiscal anomaly. By inference, it does not appear from this record that the Fund owes the agencies for these claims. According to Section 376.13, Florida Statutes, on February 27, 1987, Governor Martinez declared a state of emergency in response to the oil spill. That proclamation was withdrawn on March 25, 1987. The activities for which claims for costs and expenses are advanced transpired in the time frame of the state of emergency declaration. The amount which Respondent has expended in the cleanup effort is $700,000 plus or minus $200,000. None of this money has been paid to satisfy claims for costs, expenses and damages previously described. While it has been found that costs, expenses, and damages are reasonably related to the state's purposes in responding to the spill, not all items are recoverable. They are only recoverable if recognized for recovery by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 16N-16, Florida Administrative Code, and owed or expended from the Fund. Petitioner's claims in its exhibit 8 in the amount of $12,901.30 and DOT claims for $675.19 in that exhibit qualify for recovery as well as the on-scene consulting fee of $3,525.00. Other claims do not qualify with the exception of a limited recovery for bird mortality. Reasons for this fact finding are set forth in the conclusions of law. Petitioner has disbursed $176,058.00 to the Commission for damages related to alleged bird mortality. This money was disbursed from the Fund. Petitioner now concedes that the amount should be reduced by half. This recognizes that the cost estimate for damages dealt with pairs of birds not single birds. Petitioner now asks for $88,075.00. Two hundred fourteen (214) birds are said to have died as a result of the spill, according to Petitioner. Petitioner seeks damages for each of these birds. The number proven to have been killed by the event and the theory upon which the damage claim is predicated leads to a result which diminishes the claim for reasons to be explained. As with other claims, Section 376.021.(4)(c), Florida Statutes, anticipates the payment of damages from the Fund. Section 376.11(1), Florida Statutes, is in aid of recovery of damages, as is Section 376.11(4)(d), Florida Statutes. However, these claims must be susceptible to proof that readily identifies and explains valuation methods of the birds and recognizes the predicate of establishing the actual number lost in this episode. For the most part, Petitioner has failed in the endeavor. Mark Damian Duda is a wildlife biologist with the Commission. He earned a bachelor of science degree from West Virginia University and received his master's degree in natural resource policy and planning from Yale University, both with honors. He was assigned the task of trying to arrive at an acceptable method for valuing birds that had been killed. His assessment is generally set forth in a report, a copy of which is Respondent's exhibit 3. Having considered a number of options, he reached the decision to employ what he describes as the replacement value method. Quoting from his report concerning this method, he has this to say: Replacement Value Method We believe the replacement value method is the most useful and logical method to determine the value of wildlife lost in the February 27 Jacksonville oil spill. A replacement cost approach can avoid many of the problems involved in attempting to estimate the use of value of biological resources. Under the replacement cost approach, the resource is valued at what it would cost to replace it. If the resource is replaced, the problems of identifying all its uses, the monetary value of these uses, and the users affected by the resource loss are eliminated, except for the period between the initial loss and the replacement. Four Florida institutions were asked to estimate the cost of obtaining specimens of the birds killed in the Jacksonville oil spill, or the price at which they would be willing to sell members of each species. Their estimates are shown in Table 4. One problem with most of these estimates is that they are not true replacements costs; but rather the cost of collecting already existing specimens from the wild and redistributing them to the Jacksonville Area. This does not represent true replacement, since true replacement requires a complete recovery of the species population. This can be most clearly assured by using only captive breeding programs for replacement. However, many of the species in this list probably cannot be bred in captivity. Therefore, true replacement of these species through captive breeding is probably impossible. It is absurd to value them at zero since they cannot be replaced. Therefore, this section presents some calculations on the assumption that they could be redistributed or replaced. Table 1 presents the replacement costs for the birds. The numbers were derived by multiplying the number of dead birds times the average replacement costs given in Table 4. Using this approach, the total replacement costs for the birds estimated to have been killed in the Jacksonville oil spill is $176,058.00. It should be noted that we use a deliberately conservative approach, using body counts only, and thereby underestimating the total mortality. There is an increasing amount of scientific literature indicating that actual body counts appear to significantly underestimate the total mortality resulting from a spill. For example, there have been a variety of experiments that show only 5 percent to 25 percent of the birds that die at sea, wash in or beach themselves on shore. The percent of loons found is probably even lower because of their low buoyancy and wide-ranging distribution. An alternative approach to estimating replacement costs is to estimate the cost of creating new habitat or enhancing existing habitat to support enough nesting pairs of each species to replenish the population. Again, to represent true replacement costs, this should be new or enhances habitat, not just the cost of acquiring already existing habitat. Tables 1 and 4 within Respondent's exhibit 3 are replicated here for convenience as Appendix 2 and Appendix 3, respectively. The numbers of birds shown in Duda's table are not numbers about which he has direct knowledge. They are numbers purportedly obtained from Tim O'Meara and Peter Southall, biologists who work for the Commission who got their information from the Central Region and Northeast Region, respectively. In particular, they allegedly received their information from rehabilitators working in the two regions. Neither biologist testified at hearing, and the exhibits do not satisfactorily establish what involvement the biologists had in a direct inventory of birds, if any, or the other sources of their information which was then given to Duda in preparing his report. The rehabilitators in the Central Region did not testify nor were any exhibits presented which spoke to records kept by those individuals that set out bird deaths in that area. The only person who presented any reliable information concerning bird mortality was Cindy Mosling, rehabilitator in the Northeast Region. Any records which she maintained were not produced at hearing. Nonetheless, she did remember some details concerning bird mortality, and from this testimony 56 common loons, 3 gannets, 1 black skimmer and 2 hooded mergansers are found to have died as a result of the oil spill. The replacement value method by Duda speaks to the fact that his method does not constitute a complete recovery of the species population. Instead, what is shown in Respondent's exhibit 3 is averaging of estimates from Table 4 on costs for collecting existing specimens from the wild and releasing them back to the Jacksonville area after a period as opposed to a captive breeding program. That explanation is not correct, either, because there is no intention to release birds to the wild after raising them or rehabilitating them in captivity in one of the Florida institutions mentioned in Table 4. Moreover, only one of those programs has been relied upon by Petitioner in arriving at a cost estimate. That program is Sea World. As a consequence, the cost analysis in Table 1 related to hooded mergansers is incorrect in that it reflects an average of $150 and not the $200 quoted by Sea world. Again, the prices reflect pairs and not single birds. Robin Friday is the curator from Sea World who supplied cost estimates for pairs in Table 4 to Respondent's exhibit 3. He arrived at his price estimates in a 15 to 20 minute telephone conversation with Duda. To the extent he had no actual experience with price lists reflecting cost of a specie, he assumed that theoretical permits would be issued to collect live birds or eggs in the wild and that he would keep them in a captive environment, hoping they would breed while in captivity. In the latter category, the costs to promote the outcome of breeding in captivity formed his estimate. It can be seen that this departs from Duda's method for valuation. Notwithstanding this fact, Duda relied upon the price quotation by Friday. The main species of birds which Friday has had experience with are waterfowl. Of the species which have been verified as lost in this incident, he had had experience with common loons and hooded mergansers. The hooded merganser is a waterfowl with which he has close experience in breeding, acquisition and disposition. The common loon is a shore bird. In his career he has worked to rehabilitate two or three of those birds. He has had no experience with gannets and black skimmers, which are shore birds. As Friday identified, waterfowl may be sold, shore birds may not. Sale of the shore birds is prohibited by law. His price quotes for the hooded mergansers are from actual experience in sales. His quotations on the other species are matters of conjecture in collecting, housing, feeding and establishing a breeding program for them based upon limited experience in rehabilitating common loons and no experience with gannets and the black skimmer. The price estimate on the hooded merganser of $100 per bird is accepted. The price estimates for common loons, gannets and black skimmers are not. They are too speculative. Jean Benchinol is a curator in Gulf Breeze, Florida, who works for Animal Park, Inc. She testified at hearing. She was presented as a witness who could corroborate the Friday opinion on bird valuation. Her cost estimates may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 14, quotes for single birds. She has had direct involvement with hooded mergansers. She has sold those birds and quoted the price at hearing as being $100. This coincides with the price per bird quoted by Friday. For other birds in her price estimates that cannot be bought and sold and that remain at issue here, that is, common loons, gannets and the black skimmer, she categorized them as capable of surviving in captivity or not. The black skimmers can live in captivity and the common loon and gannet cannot, according to the witness. She had had a common loon in captivity before and noted that it did not do well, being more receptive to northern climes. At hearing her opinion about birds that could not survive in the Florida environment was rejected. In this final analysis, that refers to the common loons and gannets. Likewise, having considered her explanation concerning her valuation for the black skimmer, that opinion is rejected. In rejecting this method, the cross examination at hearing concerning valuation for the royal tern was significant in that it pointed out the inexact and unreliable nature of the method. This method contemplated receiving a live bird in her facility and the costs for medication, housing, feeding and staff time for approximately 60 days. In summary, on the subject of bird mortality, there is no inherent prohibition against valuation; birds do have a value that can be measured in monetary terms. Here the effort to arrive at that understanding fails in the inventory of casualties and method of valuation, with a limited exception. It is also observed that the Respondent had paid the rehabilitators to house, feed and nurse birds back to health that were injured, a similar activity to the theoretical exercise envisioned by Duda, Friday and Benchinol.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which requires the Respondent to reimburse the Fund in the amount of $17,301.58 and dismisses all other charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX 1 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1 and 2 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 3 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are subordinate to facts found. The first two sentences of Paragraph 6 are subordinate to facts found. The last two sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 7 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. The first two sentences of Paragraph 9 are subordinate to facts found. While it is agreed that the correspondence from Petitioner to Respondent did not indicate that claims for costs and expenses were only subject to collection if paid from the Florida Coastal Protection Trust Fund, in the administrative forum recoupment of costs, expenses and damages may only be permitted for monies owed or expended from the fund. Paragraphs 10-13 are subordinate to facts found. It is acknowledged as set forth in Paragraph 14 that money was transferred from Coastal Protection Trust Fund to the Erosion Control Trust Fund for future beach renourishment. The more relevant fact is whether the claim for damages of value under the renourishment is legitimate and that determination has been made favoring the Petitioner. The concept of using the funds that are being held for purposes of future renourishment is in keeping with a reasonable disposition of the damage claim. Paragraphs 15-24 are subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 25 is contrary to facts found. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found. The third sentence is an accurate statement of what Table 1 contributes but the findings in that table are rejected in part. The first sentence to Paragraph 26 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is accepted in the sense of recognizing that a list was maintained; however, that list was not produced at hearing as an aide in determining the number of birds that were killed. The third sentence is rejected. The fourth and fifth sentences are knowledged and those underlying facts were taken into account in accepting the representations by the witness Mosling concerning the number of birds that died as a result of the oil spill which she could recall. Paragraph 27 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 28 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 29 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The first sentence to Paragraph 30 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The first sentence to Paragraph 31 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is accepted with the exception that certain categories of water fowl are bought and sold in the free market. Concerning the third sentence, while it is acknowledged that curators are the better persons to attempt valuation, they must have sufficient understanding of the varieties on which they are commenting to have their opinions accepted and their methods of analysis of costs must stand scrutiny. This was not achieved in this instance. The last sentence in Paragraph 31 is not accepted in that the replacement value method was not adequately explained and does not allow a ranking of whether it is inexpensive, or cheaper or some where in the middle. Paragraph 32 is subordinate to facts found. The first sentence to Paragraph 33 is subordinate to facts found. The second sentence is subordinate to facts found as it references hooded mergansers. The other references are to species which have not been found to have been lost to the spill. The last sentence is accepted in the sense that the remaining species have limitations placed upon their use by state and federal law which prohibits the buying and selling. Paragraph 34 in its reference to the cost of hooded mergansers is accepted. The balance of the information was not utilized in that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that other species had been lost to the spill. In Paragraph 35 of the species that testimony was presented about, only the common loon, gannets and black skimmer pertain. While it is acknowledged that the method that the witness Friday used to estimate the value of those species is an accurate portrayal of his efforts, those efforts were rejected as were those of Ms. Benchinol described in Paragraph 36. In Paragraph 36 the explanation of her methods is correct. The methods were not accepted either in support of the testimony by Friday or in her own right. There is no significance to the discussion concerning the brown pelican and inadequate proof was made that the brown pelicans were lost. Respondent's Facts The first sentence to Paragraphs 1 is subordinate to facts found. The last two sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. As to Paragraph 2, it is acknowledged that Mr. Healey served as the liaison to the RRT and OSC. In the second sentence to that paragraph it is accepted that the state supports the RRT. It also has the function to compliment the RRT and to act independent of the federal response. The first sentence to Paragraph 3 is subordinate to facts found. The second and third sentences are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The fourth and fifth sentences are subordinate to facts found. While Paragraph 4 accurately describes the circumstance, this did not deter the state from pursuing its independent function in responding to the spill event. Paragraph 5 accurately portrays the OCS's idea of who was necessary to support the federal response. It does not preclude the activities of other state employees in carrying out their functions. Paragraph 6 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 7 is a correct statement but does not preclude the state's efforts in its own right at responding to the spill. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 9 while an accurate portrayal does not preclude the state in its efforts. The same pertains to Paragraph 10. Paragraph 11 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 12 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 13 is contrary to facts found as is Paragraph 14. Paragraph 15 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 16 is not relevant. Paragraph 17 is an accurate portrayal of the federal use of the state helicopter but does not preclude request for reimbursement for uses which the state had of that helicopter. Paragraph 18 is subordinate to facts found. The first two sentences within Paragraph 19 are subordinate to facts found. The third and fourth sentences are not relevant to the issue of whether the state was entitled to seek the assistance or Jacksonville University for its own purposes distinct from those of the federal response. The latter sentence is a correct portrayal of the outcome but for reasons different than contemplated by the Respondent. Paragraph 20 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 21 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 22 is subordinate to facts found in its first two sentences. The third sentence is not accepted beyond the fact that the Department of Interior using a nonconsumptive use technique, whether other federal agencies use that method was not subject to determination from the record. The first three sentences to Paragraph 23 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. The fourth sentence is not accepted. The fifth and sixth sentences are subordinate to facts found. As to the seventh sentence, it is not clear that there was the intention of redistributing to the Jacksonville area. The eighth sentence is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 24 is subordinate to facts found as are Paragraphs 25 and 26. The suggestion of the price for hooded mergansers as set out in Paragraph 27 is not accepted. The lesser scaup was not found to have been lost to the spill. The state price of $100.00 per bird for hooded mergansers is accepted. Paragraphs 28-31 are subordinate to facts found as it pertains to the species that were proven to have been lost. Paragraph 32 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 33 and 34 are subordinate to facts found, with the exception that it has been determined that the number of dead birds which Ms. Mosling can recall involvement with is accepted. Paragraphs 35 through 37 are subordinate to facts found in the species determined to have been lost, with the exception that the actual price for hooded mergansers was $100. COPIES FURNISHED: Tom Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 Kenneth J. Plante, General Counsel Lynn M. Finnegan, Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 Robert B. Parrish, Esquire James F. Moody, Jr., Esquire Taylor, Moseley & Joyner 501 West Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202
